Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Harris and Trump Spar Over Debate Rules; Justice Department seeks to revive classified documents case against Trump; New Backlash Over Texas-Led Voter Fraud Raids; McMaster on Trump White House: "Exercises in Competitive Sycophancy"; Telegram CEO was Arrested. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 26, 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]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: -- Diermeier, who showed up and told all the new students, here's all the things we're not going to tolerate at Vanderbilt. We will not divest from Israel, we will not have provocative speakers, and we are not going to have support or condemnation of Israelis. So, he took a strong hand at Vanderbilt to say, no more of this nonsense and every university president in the country ought to look to Vanderbilt for an example this fall.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hmm, that is very interesting. No provocative speakers. Tall order there. Everyone, thank you very much for being here, and thank you for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, tonight, check your mute or don't, what the rigmarole over the debate is revealing about both candidates. Also, tonight, Jack Smith throws a punch in one Trump case and might be pulling another in a different case. I'll explain in a moment. And voter fraud election raids? The group who says it's happening to them in Texas, tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, if anyone tells you that baseball is America's favorite pastime, don't believe them. To paraphrase "Deadpool," yeah, of course, saw the movie, they're not lying, they're making an educated wish. Turns out, arguing actually is the real favorite for Americans, and you know who is in full uniform? Team Harris and Team Trump.

They are arguing about the specifics of how they're going to argue. I mean, how they're going to debate. That sounds much more professional, doesn't it? How they're going to debate. And get this, they are debating about a microphone. Tap, tap, specifically, whether to mute them when they're not speaking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We agreed to the same rules. I don't know, doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably young (ph), but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Worked out fine? Well, that is true. I mean, Joe Biden did, in fact, drop out. But the time before last, eh --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You do want me to ban --

CHRIS WALLACE, BROADCAST JOURNALIST (voice-over): All right, gentlemen --

(CROSSTALK)

-- no, Mr. President --

TRUMP: You would have been much later, Joe.

WALLACE (voice-over): Mr. President --

TRUMP: Much later.

WALLACE: Mr. President --

TRUMP: You're talking about two million people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, spare your ears, the supercut. But seeing that clip reinforces why the Harris campaign is insisting on the mics being open. They want Trump to say every single thing that comes to his mind. In other words, their senior advisor, Ian Sams -- quote -- "Cause that's what we're going to get if he becomes president" -- end quote. And, you know, if history is any guide, it may allow Harris to do this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He said, because the president wanted people to remain calm.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Well, let's get to the point --

HARRIS: No, but Susan, this is important.

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Susan, I have to weigh in here.

HARRIS: And I want to add that if -- Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking.

PENCE: I have to weigh in.

HARRIS: I'm speaking. Let's talk about packing the court then. Let's talk about the pack.

PENCE: Please.

HARRIS: Yeah, I'm about to. Four hundred thousand dollars a year.

PENCE: You said he's going to repeal the Trump tax cuts.

HARRIS: Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking.

PENCE: Well, wait --

HARRIS: I'm speaking.

PENCE: It would be important if --

HARRIS: If you don't mind letting me finish. We can then have a conversation. Okay?

PENCE: Please.

HARRIS: Okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Okay. So, where are we? Well, the Trump team is now using the word "if" when discussing the debate, talking about the September 10th showdown. Then it may not even actually happen. And that's the only one on the books, mind you. And the Harris campaign is resorting to adding schoolyard sound effects to videos to taunt the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Why not debate her?

TRUMP: No way. But because they already know everything. They say, oh, Trump's, you know, not doing the debate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Okay. Chicken sounds. I can't -- I really can't make this up. With me now, Alex Thompson, CNN political analyst and Axios national political correspondent, Rachel Palermo, former deputy communications director and counsel to Vice President Harris, and Shermichael Singleton, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist.

Okay, I'm just going to say it, I have not heard the bop-bop chicken thing --

(LAUGHTER)

-- in so long because I was probably in elementary school. Don't anyone guess when that was. But you got to be -- that's where we are right now. I got to ask you, why do you think it might benefit the Harris team, for him to not have his microphone muted? ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR AXIOS: Well, I think you showed it right there, is that when he is not muted, he sometimes has trouble controlling himself. The ironic thing about all of this, though, is that the decision to have him have a muted microphone, that was Joe Biden's campaign's decision earlier this year. They were the ones that set the rule for the June debate.

This is also another instance that Kamala Harris has strategic differences with Joe Biden's team. And also, it's partly because of her different strengths and weaknesses, right?

[23:05:04]

Like if she's going to go on the debate stage, she wants to make sure everyone can hear it. She also wants to make sure that she can interrupt him, as you saw with the Mike Pence debate.

And so, it is, you know, interesting. You've seen all these other subtle shifts, the fact that she's emphasizing freedom over the democracy in January 6th rhetoric, the fact that she is really tacking to the center on things like immigration. There are -- this is just the latest instance of her making her own imprint on this campaign.

COATES: This is also baiting, right? I mean --

(LAUGHTER)

-- you can't do a bop-bop chicken sound unless you're trying to tell someone, like, here, ducky-ducky, and trying to give them enough rope to hang themselves with. I mean, this is baiting at its finest.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, it is, and hopefully the former president doesn't fall for it. Republicans agree to every single thing that President Biden asked for. I didn't think they should have agreed to everything that they did. But look, the debates worked out --

COATES: Like what?

SINGLETON: -- in former President Trump's favor. I thought they should have had an audience there. I thought that was something that plays into his strengths. They agreed to it anyway, and it worked out in his favor.

I don't think the rules should be changed. I get Alex's point, Trump interrupting her, the vice president interrupting Trump, but I think the American people, Laura, benefit when they're able to hear cogent, uh, remarks from each candidate on how they would tackle some of the most critical issues of the country, and that's what I think these debates should be about, less of the partisan stuff and more about, I guess, substantive answers to very complicated problems.

COATES: How beautifully substantive and maybe naive to think that everyone wants to have -- I wonder, Rachel, what the American public has an appetite for. I mean, Shermichael is a hell of a strategist, but I do wonder if the American appetite is more for that substantive, granular detail or more for, you know, the back and forth -- I'm using -- I'm making fist --

(LAUGHTER)

-- hands without any physical altercation, of course. I mean, verbally, verbally about this. What is, do you think, is the -- is the more rational approach if you're the strategist here to think about what you want from the Harris team?

RACHEL PALERMO, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR AND ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I think that for this debate, what's really important is the American people deserve to see Donald Trump and Vice President Harris on the stage together talking about their visions for this country. I think there has been a lot of hype about it. I think we are making fun of this joke of the video that's been baiting Trump.

But he has been running scared. He has been going back and forth for a month saying, I'll debate, now I won't debate. Then he insults the network. Then now he says that he disagrees with this campaign, about whether or not the mic should be muted or unmuted.

And so, I think that it's important that he needs to be put into a corner here to actually debate because people need to see the contrast between Harris and between Trump here.

SINGLETON: I don't -- I don't --

COATES: How about the woman aspect of it? Go ahead, Shermichael.

SINGLETON: Yeah, I don't think he's running scared. Donald Trump always does this. Am I going to debate? Am I not going to debate? I don't like this particular network. I like this network over that network. I mean, that's just sort of a normal thing --

COATES: But what's the goal when he does that, Shermichael?

SINGLETON: I mean, I don't know. I mean, if I had that question, maybe I'd be a multimillionaire by now, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

I don't know. But it was a part of his personality.

COATES: Oh wait, he wants to be a millionaire. Who wants to be a millionaire? Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: If I may, there's one quote from Donald Trump in 2015 that always stands out to me that was made on this network, which is that he says, I am a whiner, and I whine and I whine and I whine until I win.

(LAUGHTER)

And Donald Trump, the whole point of this is he's trying to play the refs. He's trying to work the refs, he's trying to gain leverage, and so he complains.

PALERMO: But I also will say here, to Alex's point earlier, about the fact that Kamala Harris is a different candidate than Joe Biden. There's something about Kamala Harris that's getting under Donald Trump's skin. She's a powerful Black woman. She's a career prosecutor. She -- everyone has talked about how she gathers the evidence. She's going to build the case and prosecute it against him on that debate stage. And so, I think the fact that she's a different candidate here is getting under his skin.

COATES: But when she was a candidate previously running for president, look back at 2019 when she had one with Tulsi Gabbard, who was then running against her. Remember, that was that bigger stage and had all the -- this was a pre-COVID debate, remember? Watch this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, FORMER HAWAII REPRESENTATIVE: She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.

(APPLAUSE)

She blocked evidence -- she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.

HARRIS: I did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of a state of 40 million people, which became a national model for the work that needs to be done. And I am proud of that work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Some praised that answer, others panned that answer. But at the end of the day, with little time for course correction between now and the election, talking about what, 72 days, Rachel, every single moment, every answer becomes that much more impactful, which is maybe why there's only one debate. But if there's only one, think of how important that answer is now.

PALERMO: Right. And the vice president has said that after this debate, she's open to other debates. And so, it might not be the only one, the only time where people see them on a stage together. But --

COATES: Open to it, but hasn't scheduled one.

PALERMO: Correct.

COATES: Right.

[23:10:00] PALERMO: But these moments are incredibly important. And I think Donald Trump hasn't laid out concrete policies here. He's being graded on a complete curve as he has throughout any campaign, whether it's this one, 2020 or 2016. And people really need to be able to hold him accountable, because what they've been seeing from him on the trail is him slinging insults at people without actually saying anything substantive.

COATES: Let's talk about that. You call it a different scale. I call it a total double standard. I mean, there's going to be -- obviously, when one has been a part of an incumbent administration as Harris has been and, of course, Trump is a former president, both have records to run on and administration to talk about. But how people are going to judge Harris versus Trump is based on personality.

On the one hand, you expect Harris to give, you know, substantive answers, to have to dot the Is, cross the Ts, talk about her record, her -- with Biden as well. With Trump, you expect a visual reaction and a reactive tone. Is that fair for the electorate to have that imbalance?

THOMPSON: Well, some of this is just because Trump is so well known at this point. I would say like 99% or maybe 98% of Americans already have an opinion about Donald Trump. And so, when he says these things, some people dismiss them and some people hate him even more.

The fact is that this highlights actually why this debate is high risk, high reward for Kamala Harris. It's very clear that she could end up coming across as, I'm the candidate of the future, let's turn the page on this guy, let's turn the page in the chaos, everything else. There's also a case in which people who don't know her that well see her and are unimpressed. And actually, were like, well, my life was okay in 2019, pre-COVID, by the way, and are just like, we'll go to the guy that we know.

And that's why this -- this debate is maybe in some ways not as a huge deal for Donald Trump because people have a set opinion about him, but it is a bigger deal for Kamala Harris, a great opportunity but also a great risk.

COATES: It's the same for the interviews because, obviously, the debate is one thing. You're going to have that toe-to-toe climate. But then you talk about an interview, and this has become such an important conversation. I don't know that the voters are as in tune with wondering whether they'll have an interview as the media is about this, but say they are, and say that Quentin Tarantino thinks so, too. Listen to this.

(LAUGHTER)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUENTIN TARANTINO, DIRECTOR: This is about (bleep) winning. What -- what most people don't give the Democrats enough credit for, all right, but we give the Republicans credit for, is like -- no, sometimes, it's just about (bleep) winning. And it doesn't matter how we look at this moment.

BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: Right.

TARANTINO: It's about (bleep) winning. I'm going to vote for (bleep) anyway, no matter what she says in a stupid (bleep) interview.

MAHER: Exactly.

TARANTINO: So, don't (bleep).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The funny thing is, it wasn't actually -- that was actually his voice with the beat. That was actually his voice, talking about the beat.

(LAUGHTER)

Shermichael, seriously, when you think about the high risk, high reward aspect of it, you're a Shaggy (ph), you're a Republican, but the idea of having her do an interview, should she do it, should she wait this long, and does it matter who she interviews with?

SINGLETON: I mean, it definitely matters. I would not have waited this long. The vice president has pivoted on quite a few issues, consequential issues. I think sitting down with a journalist, particularly one that could be a little bit antagonistic against her, I would argue would have helped prepare her against someone like a Donald Trump who's probably going to hit her really hard on immigration. He's probably going to hit her hard on the economy. He's probably going to hit her hard on the issues with Iran and Israel and the Middle East.

And so, being able to sit down for 45 minutes, 30 minutes, with a journalist that's asking her those tough questions, what is your plan to tackle cost, why haven't you guys done anything on immigration, how do you placate to some of your progressive base while also coming to Israel's aid, would allow the vice president to sort of pivot, to dance around some issues if she has to, maybe get some of her answers and talking points right before this upcoming debate.

It's just sorts of like a practice in real time, if you will, which she could have had, what, 28 days, I would argue, if she did an interview a week to get prepared for this upcoming debate. So, I would have utilized that as like you're in the boxing match ring practice before the big showdown. And for whatever odd reason, her campaign has decided not to do that. So, the stakes are so high. If she fails in this first interview, whenever it comes, everyone is going to pay attention to it.

COATES: You know, Rachel, you've done congressional investigations and interviews. There is something about what you can prep for behind the scenes and then what happens when a camera is in front of you and you're performing for the electorate. Not a lobotomy that happens, but something akin to it can often take place. Can you prep yourself to have cogent questions from Trump? PALERMO: Well, what I will say is in terms of this interview in particular, the vice president said she's going to do one by the end of the month. We're getting close to the end of the month. So, I'm sure in the coming days --

COATES: So, schedule one by the end of the month.

PALERMO: I'm sure in the coming days, we'll hear when that interview will be. But her campaign said today she has done 80 interviews this year alone. When I worked for her, she did hundreds of interviews, everywhere she traveled, from the White House. It was something that's really important to her. So, I don't think it's necessary to be something that prepares her for the debate stage. She's doing her own debate prep, she's very prepared, she has her process.

[23:15:00]

And what I think is really important here is that, over the last month, she has been hitting the trail, she galvanized the entire Democratic Party around her candidacy, she picked a vice presidential running mate, she crushed the Democratic National Convention, and the polls are moving in the right direction for her.

SINGLETON: And yet, despite 30-plus days of incredible coverage, this race is still tied. That should not be a good sign for Democrats. I would be worried. Get your candidate out there and allow her to sit down with journalists to ask those antagonistic questions to prove to the people who aren't quite sure about her candidacy that, yes, she can lead the country for four years.

COATES: Something tells me that a former attorney general has had her share of antagonistic moments, but --

(LAUGHTER)

-- well taken. Thank you so much, everyone. Look, Jack Smith enters the conversation once more. The new push he's making in one Trump case and his retreat of sorts in another, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Remember that time a former president had more than four trials pending? There was the state trial in Georgia over election interference. Another one in New York that was the hush money trial. There was a federal trial in D.C. about the attack at the Capitol.

[23:20:02]

And, of course, the classified docs case in Florida. Remember, only one criminal case went forward and we all know, of course, how that turned out, 34 felony convictions.

But there's still a sentencing that will happen soon, right? Well, the original sentencing date for the 34 convictions was actually July 11th. Now, he has not even supposed to be scheduled till next month, September, but Trump's lawyers have already asked for a delay. Now, the rest of the cases, none are going to go in the 72 days before the election, between the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, the possibility that Fani Willis will not actually oversee the Georgia case, and Judge Aileen Cannon, her choice to dismiss the classified docs. It might be that none of the cases go at all.

Well, now, Jack Smith, he is trying to change that. He appealed Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss his case and what many originally believed to be one of the most open and shut cases against Trump. Either Trump knew he had the classified documents or he didn't.

Turns out not only hasn't the rubber actually met the road, the car hasn't left the garage, because Smith is still trying to convince an appellate court that his appointment was legal and he has the right to prosecute, writing -- quote -- "Precedent and history confirm those authorities, as do the long tradition of special counsel appointments by attorneys general and Congress's endorsement of that practice through appropriations and other legislation. The district court's contrary view conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions. This court should reverse."

With me now, Devlin Barrett, national security reporter at "The Washington Post," and Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney and author of the new book, "Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works and Why."

Devlin, I'll begin with you here because this appellate court has reversed past rulings by Judge Cannon. By the way, in this very case, Kim, how likely is it that they might rule in Smith's favor this time around?

DEVLIN BARRETT, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: So, I'm no fortune teller, but I do think the odds are good for Smith here. I do think she's going up against a long history of courts accepting special counsels as legitimate. And to say they're now suddenly not, I think is going to be a hard thing to convince an appeals court.

COATES: Why -- why choose not to ask her to be removed? That was part of the -- he could have asked for that. He didn't.

KIM WEHLE, AUTHOR, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, he could have done that at several stages going forward, since this started, right, with the special master ruling, which the 11th Circuit slapped down. I think this is such a fringe argument. I think it's highly likely the 11th Circuit will reverse her. And now that we're so close to the election, he probably is not worried about timing like he was before. And really, stepping that --

COATES: Why is that? Why is that?

WEHLE: Because it's not -- it's not -- it's not going to have any impact on the election one way or the other, whether he's -- it won't go to trial, of course, and this could stretch post-immunity ruling months, if not years, to sort out in all of these cases which parts are legitimately going to be before a jury and not.

And ultimately, the Supreme Court gave itself, as I think Justice Sotomayor said, pre-clearance power to decide as the ultimate prosecutor what kind of evidence is going to go before any of these juries, and that could take months if not years.

So, I think he's just sitting back and saying, whoa, we have to take a brand-new look at all of this. But this decision can't stand. It's on so many levels. It's really off the rails, this special counsel unconstitutionality decision.

COATES: It's not just what affects this particular case. But, you know, you were a former counsel in the Whitewater probe, you've written about this as well, the idea this could have far reaching implications for other special counsels or those who are in a temporary position who need to have confirmation from a Senate and they're waiting for that to actually happen, could this have that implication?

BARRETT: So, she throws one line. It's a 60 -- sorry. She has a very long ruling. And she throws one line. Jack Smith's appeal is 60 pages. He could have done it in three words, which is she is wrong on -- she is wrong. But he chose to do it in 60 pages. I -- she throws one sentence in saying this shouldn't really apply to anyone else. But if you follow her logic, it could very well apply to anyone else.

And I think it's a little glib to just assume there aren't significant implications of what she's saying here, that unless you're confirmed by the Senate, you can indict people. I mean, think about the consequences, the potential consequences of that.

That could have very far-reaching implications not just for the Justice Department which, obviously, they care about a lot, but also for the Defense Department and other agencies who have acting officials making important decisions. So, you have to be able to run the government. And typically, the courts are pretty respectful of executive power --

WEHLE: Yeah.

BARRETT: -- and this is a form of executive power.

[23:25:00]

COATES: This is just one of the cases that he's focused on. You have the Florida case. You also have what's going on in the immunity, a decision in election interference case in Washington, D.C. He could have had a kind of mini trial, so to speak, to try to flesh out the parameters of the immunity issue. He could have gone and said, you know, I want to figure out what's going to fit and what's going to not, and had this all happening relatively quickly. It seems like the judge was amenable, at least to having a calendar. Why does he not want to do that now, Kim?

WEHLE: Well, I think the -- I think the filing is in a couple days, so we're not entirely sure what he's going to ask for, but it sounds like from reporting that he's not going to ask for a mini-evidentiary hearing. I don't know how to get around that, ultimately, because the court's decision was so vague.

What's official? What's unofficial power? And the official power has to be manifestly and palpably not outside the scope of the president's power. And then if they satisfy that hurdle, then the question is, can you overcome the presumption by showing somehow that using this evidence would interfere with the president's ability to do his job, which I think --

COATES: Devlin is laughing.

(LAUGHTER)

WEHLE: One of the dissenting justices said, will this make the president anxious if this could produce a criminal indictment? Oh, of course, it will. Anything that could produce a criminal indictment is going to make presidents anxious. I mean, this is really crystal ball stuff, but I think it's the flip side.

To have a mini evidentiary hearing close to the election, that's going to be a sideshow, that's going to get a lot of political -- could get a lot of political heat because the same evidence that would go before the jury would presumably go public in that context, and they also don't want to probably show their hand on the merits.

And the last thing I would say, he could be deciding to issue a superseding indictment. You know, there are some major charges, including incitement of an insurrection that weren't in that indictment. It was a clean short one, probably, you know, one and done, get in there, get out. Now, that -- now, you have the time. I don't know. I don't know what he's going to do.

COATES: Well, I got to make a t-shirt that says, this is crystal ball stuff. That's pretty much -- that sums it up. Devlin Barrett, Kim Wehle, thank you both so much.

Up next, a Latino civil rights group is calling out the Texas attorney general, accusing Ken Paxton of carrying out illegal searches against several Latino Democrats. They say it is voter intimidation. One of those Democrats joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Homes raided, phones seized, allegations of voter suppression. That's what's going on in Texas as we speak. A Latino civil rights group calling for a federal investigation after its volunteer said they were targeted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

That's the rights organization. LULAC says officers broke down a door. They say an 80-year-old's medicine was taken. They say an 87-year- old's home was raided at 6:00 in the morning. "The New York Times" is saying they searched everywhere. "My underwear, my nightgown, everything. They went through everything."

And a Democrat running for state House representative says her home was also raided. Cecilia Castellano says -- quote -- "This is all political." Here is a state director of LULAC speaking out today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GABRIEL ROSALES, LULAC TEXAS STATE DIRECTOR: We're asking the Department of Justice to step in, because justice and equality, that pathway to justice and equality in our community is at the ballot box. So, if they think that they're going to stop our community from coming out, they've got another thing coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, no charges have been filed, but the Republican A.G. had previously said that his office clicked in searches after a local prosecutor referred -- quote -- "allegations of election fraud and vote harvesting" -- unquote -- during the 2022 election to his office.

And we've reached out to Paxton's office for comment, but have yet to hear back. Now, I want to bring in Cecilia Castellano, along with Texas state senator and Democrat Roland Gutierrez. Thank you both so much for being here. When I first read about this account, it was just shocking to say the least. But Cecilia, can you tell us what happened when officers arrived at your home?

CECILIA CASTELLANO, DEMOCRATIC TEXAS STATE HOUSE CANDIDATE: Yes, ma'am, it was about six in the morning on August 20th. You know, as a strong Latina of faith and owner of a construction company, this -- I could have never been prepared for what I experienced now, although I didn't experience in depth, my actual home being raided.

But office of the attorney general did come to my home that morning at 6:00 a.m., ringing my doorbell, knocking on my door. When I peeked out, there was flashlight flashing into my home. And they asked me if I was Cecilia Castellano. I said, yes, I am. They told me that, uh, that they needed to talk to me and if they could -- if I could open my door. I did. I said, well, are you guys like the real -- like attorney general because I'm not sure why you all are here. And they said, ma'am, can we come in? I said, well, can you please hold on so I could get my husband? When I went to go get my husband, they were already standing by my dinner table.

And it was kind of disturbing to me because my son's door is just a few feet away where he was sleeping. My son did hear everything. And what gets me mad as a mother is that, number one, this came in on a school day. And number two, okay, I understand that they came to do their job, to take my phone, but I believe that it could have been done in a different manner if they were so concerned about what is on my phone.

[23:34:57] However, when I asked them what, you know, if I could see the search warrant, what is it saying, why are you here, they had no knowledge. They said they had nothing except to come and take my phone.

COATES: They had no paper to show you?

CASTELLANO: I'm sorry?

COATES: They had no paperwork to show you or anything like that?

CASTELLANO: They provided a search warrant, a one-page search warrant, but there were no specifics on it as far as why did they want my phone.

COATES: Hmm.

CASTELLANO: And so that's what disturbed me. I do -- they did take my phone, which I use for business and personal. And I do have a campaign phone, which I do not carry with me, so it's not located here at my home. And so, there was no specification. It just stated the phone that was located at my home address. And so, I gave it to them. They thanked me for not giving them a hard time.

And so, I haven't looked at a height (ph). I mean, I'm not sure again why you're here. And they said, Miss Castellano, I'm really sorry that I've had to meet you under these circumstances, you don't look like the type of person that should be going through this, and I hope to meet you again in a different circumstance.

They were here for about maybe 45 minutes. They gave me a sheet of paper of my phone that they took, the identification of the phone, and they left. And thereafter, my husband and I sat down and talked, and I was shocked.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CASTELLANO: I'm still shocked.

COATES: Yeah.

CASTELLANO: I'm mad. I'm more mad because my son was a few feet away. I'm mad because my son calls me at work asking me, mama, is everything okay? Mama, what happened? And I couldn't talk much while I was at work. And as a matter of fact, since that day, as I walk into my home, I feel no peace in my home. I can look towards my dinner table and see those men standing there.

My son comes and lays with me every night, and hugs me tight. That's how our nights have been before he goes to sleep. He's 14 years old. I mean, seriously, what 14-year-old does that?

COATES: Yeah.

CASTELLANO: And today, as we were getting ready for the press conference, he made sure that dad was going to be there and that dad was going to be able to be there to protect mom. And I told him yesterday after church, I said, son, sometimes when we're led to do something for the right reasons and to fight for the right things, we got to go through the valley, we got to go through the storm.

But this is why people, like those before us, whether it's Martin Luther King, whether it's any other activists that have gone before us and have died for us, we have the rights we have today. But today and past on August 20th was the day that they violated my home. And they broke and took away my rights. My rights, my freedom, and my own home.

COATES: Oh, my goodness. Senator Gutierrez, I'm going to bring you in. Just hearing Cecilia describe this, and as a mother, just hearing what it must have been like to try to explain this to her son, to relive this moment here today, what these allegations by the attorney general? Where are they coming from? This was not the only person who was home, was entered in this way or things even taken. What is the basis?

SEN. ROLAND GUTIERREZ (D-TX): No, it doesn't appear that there is any, Laura. I mean, the fact is that this guy, this attorney general who has been indicted, as you know, in the state of Texas and on seemingly some kind of probation for security fraud, this is the umpteenth time that he has done this. Every election cycle, he picks a race or two that is contentious like Cecilia's and goes out and makes these allegations.

And here, you have these allegations of vote harvesting, if you will. Three, from an affidavit of an election two years ago, the pieces of the affidavit that I've seen have no real specificity which, as you know, criminal court doesn't really hold up. This man has gotten what he has tried to do, which is basically have a narrative for an election so that they can try and beat Cecilia in November.

This is, unfortunately, what's happening. It would be comical if it weren't so tragic because you had an 87-year-old great grandmother who seemingly -- the cops came into her house for a couple of hours at a time. She was in her bathrobe. They didn't allow her to change clothes. You had another 82-year-old woman and an 84- year-old woman.

[23:40:00]

This is what's happening in my district, and this is the Republican narrative that they're trying to frame throughout the country. Sadly, it's not a narrative of positivity of how are they're going to change things for the good in America, but rather it's a narrative that is simply stated to try and scare people and keep them away from voting in November. That's in essence what they've done in the Latino community in South Texas here. It's voter suppression, it's voter intimidation, and the net effect is that people -- less people will be voting because of it.

COATES: This was so important to hear, what your experience has been. Cecilia Castellano, Senator Roland Gutierrez, thank you so much, both of you, for sharing what has happened. Truly unbelievable.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you. Thank you, Laura.

CASTELLANO: Thank you.

COATES: Ahead, General H.R. McMaster stayed silent for years about his time as Trump's national security advisor. That is until now. His strong words against his former boss and the response from another National Security Council official, Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The problem is when you fire somebody, they always end up writing a book about you, you know? I've had more books written about me. I fire a lot of people when they don't do a good job. I get a book written about me by all these losers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Trump said it himself earlier today, the list of his former White House staffers that have turned their experiences into best-selling tell-alls. I mean, it's quite long. Well, now you can add one more.

Trump's former National Security advisor, H.R. McMaster, is coming out with a new book titled "At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House." Now, in his, sometimes, blistering account of the Trump White House, McMaster described how easily Trump could be manipulated by flattery, calling meetings in the Oval Office, exercises in competitive sycophancy. Yikes.

While McMaster is unlikely to be in former president's good graces anytime soon, he did have some positive words as well, writing this somewhat backhanded compliment -- quote -- "Despite what could sometimes be described as chaos within the White House, Trump administered long-overdue correctives to a number of unwise policies." McMaster was on CNN earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

H.R. MCMASTER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE UNITED STATES: The president is quite often very offensive, brash, says things that are outlandish. I relate a lot of those in the book. But, you know, he's an extremely disruptive person. I saw it as my job, you know, not to try to constrain him, but to help him disrupt what needed to be disrupted.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Would you work for the Trump White House again?

MCMASTER: No. I think, Anderson, I will work in any administration where I feel like I can make a difference, but I'm kind of used up with Donald Trump. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman joins us now. He was former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. He also testified against Trump during his first impeachment and just endorsed Vice President Harris for president earlier tonight. Lieutenant Colonel, thank you so much for joining us this evening.

Let me begin where McMaster just ended with Anderson. I mean, in the book, he mentions, what do you say, outlandish things that when it may have been said by Trump. And here's an example. Why don't we just bomb the drugs in Mexico or why don't we take out the whole North Korean army during one of their parades? By the way, McMaster is so optimistic that Trump could actually evolve. Can you possibly understand that evolution that McMaster speaks about?

ALEXANDER VINDMAN, RETIRED U.S. ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Laura, thanks for having me on. I think maybe I'll take liberty and start where you had that clip of Donald Trump saying he fires people. Well, I'd like to point out the fact that the American people fired Donald Trump and we're not going back.

But the fact is I agree with much of what H.R. McMaster said. I would almost couch it a little bit different. I would say that Trump, if he was successful, it was in spite of himself.

It's because at one point in time in his administration, he had competent folks in his inner circle, H.R. McMaster, James Mattis, you know, various --various -- John Bolton after H.R., a number of folks that actually were steady hands, practiced national security experts, that made some recommendations, couched them in a way that was reasonable to Donald Trump. And Donald Trump signed off on them. He did that with the national security strategy, with the Russia strategy, which I helped author.

So, that doesn't exist anymore. The people that would be in a second Trump administration would be sycophants, would be folks that were entirely loyal and would be engaging in flattery and a game of one-up (INAUDIBLE). So, we really can't compare the previous Trump administration, especially in the early years, with what a second Trump administration would be. It would be one in which he's catering to Putin, inviting him to attack NATO members.

COATES: Well, talk to me about the timing of this book, because as you've described, I mean, we often would refer to it as the -- quote, unquote -- "yes men" and have opined about what it might look like if there are not the so-called adults in the room, if he is driven by flattery, if he's driven by, as you put it, the way to couch language in a way that he would sign off on.

What do you make of McMaster's timing in publishing this book now? I mean, we are 72 or so days away from a presidential election. Obviously, has not been in office for several years. Do you take issue with the now? VINDMAN: Look, I'll take anybody that wants to join the big tent and

the big tent of defeating Donald Trump, preventing him from coming into power. I think there are a number of folks that I would welcome their voices.

[23:50:00]

John Kelly, Jim Mattis, that would come out. They saw firsthand the disaster that was Donald Trump, the threats to new, you know, hurricanes. We don't have to speculate about how dangerous the second Trump administration is. It'd be one rife with Project 2025 ideas, eliminating civil servants.

It's one in which he's happy to put veterans and fallen soldiers as props like he did today, going out to Arlington National Cemetery, desecrating that site, damn him, and basically, demeaning the sacrifice of those soldiers that died in Afghanistan on the way out, a decision that he was involved in, that he drove. This is the kind of second Trump administration, extremely dangerous one.

COATES: Lieutenant Colonel, I am curious on one more point. You mentioned the desecration at Arlington National Cemetery. Obviously, today is the anniversary of a deadly Afghanistan bombing that killed 13 Americans and wounded many others. And Trump did campaign in part on and talking about this issue and also his criticism of the Biden- Harris administration for the withdrawal.

But what is it specifically that you took issue with? Was it his presence? Was it the idea of making a political statement with respect to it or something more?

VINDMAN: I take issue with so much of what Donald Trump does. The fact is he called in front of John Kelly, who was made clear statements supporting and making sure that the American public knew what Donald Trump was referring to, he called the fallen soldiers suckers and losers. He's consistently -- he demeaned the Medal of Honor just recently.

It is an endless parade of attacks on military and military service, mainly because he just simply doesn't understand selfless service and sacrifice and the army values, loyalty, duty, respect, selfless honor, service, honor, integrity, personal courage. These are foreign concepts to him.

So, he doesn't know how to behave when he goes to the cemetery, Arlington Cemetery, and with a dopey grin, giving a thumbs up in front of gravestones, or the fact that he's using laying a wreath as a prop to demonstrate that he's a friend of the military.

We know better. We know better because we've heard him say this. We've heard him say suckers and losers. We've heard him demean the Medal of Honor. The veterans and veteran families, there are a lot of them, about 28 million. We are -- by and large, we are furious with Donald Trump, and we are going to be siding with Harris and Walz, a competent team, to take us into a prosperous future. COATES: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, we will see how the rest of the electorate feels. Thank you for joining us this evening.

VINDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Ahead, the CEO of one of the world's most popular messaging apps, Telegram, arrested in France. Prosecutors allege his platform is complicit in helping drug traffickers and money launderers. Others say he's being politically targeted. Let's get what is at stake next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in France over the weekend has thrust the popular messaging service back into the spotlight, and it's renewing the ongoing debate over free speech on social media.

French authorities say that his platform, which is known for its unfiltered content, was complicit in aiding fraudsters, money launderers, drug traffickers, and people spreading child sexual exploitation content. As of tonight, Durov has not been charged.

Sara Fischer joins us now. She is senior media reporter for Axios and a CNN media analyst. So, tell me, Sarah, why is he being targeted and why him over other social media CEOs?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER FOR AXIOS: Oh, it's a good question. So, for one, he's a French citizen. And so, when he landed on French grounds from his private jet, I think the French authorities have more authority to go after him for not upholding what they'd say are their laws versus somebody who is not a French citizen.

Two, they're arguing that this is part of a criminal investigation, something that was already ongoing, and that he's being charged or he's being questioned in relation to charges around the app not being sort of complicit with the French government's investigations.

So, if the French government wasn't investigating other apps, they wouldn't necessarily be bringing in their CEOs for questioning. But you might ask, Laura, why aren't they questioning and investigating other apps? Variety of reasons, but I think what it mostly comes down to is the fact that Telegram is really committed to free speech over privacy, and so they are less likely to monitor things, they're less likely to pull stuff down, and that's why it has become a hotbed for a lot of, you know, terrorist organizations, criminals, et cetera.

At the same time, though, Laura, and this is what the CEO would argue, even though it does host some of that stuff, it is so widely available to so many different viewpoints. You think about it, it's the app that people use in war zones. You know, it's used by Ukrainians, it's used by Russians. And so, it's this really interesting case study of the tension between free speech and privacy online.

COATES: And yet I wonder if people will look at this and say, this must be the end of social media and free speech, as opposed to perhaps the end of impunity with not being able to be accountable for what you have on your actual platforms.

FISCHER: Yeah, I think the end of free speech is probably taking it a little too far. But what you touch on is really important because I think a lot of tech executives have always believed and thought and operated as though they are not personally liable for the things that happen on their platforms. And here in the United States, I should mention, we have a law that shields tech companies explicitly for things that happen on its platform.

COATES: Section 230, we're talking about.

FISCHER: Exactly, exactly. But there's two things to note there, Laura. One is when you're talking about encrypted versus not encrypted materials.

[00:00:02]

So, encrypted apps mean that it's virtually impossible for anyone to have a back door into those communications, including the government. Telegram is not encrypted. You can have some encrypted chats, but it's not an encrypted app. And the reason that matters is, the French government is essentially saying you're complicit because this is widely known and out there on your platform. And so, I think that's going to have a huge impact on this case.

COATES: That's really fascinating. Well, if it falls, what's going on here? Again, he has not yet been charged, if you will, at all. Sara Fischer, thank you so much. And hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" starts right now.