Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Father of Teen Suspect Charged In Georgia School Shooting; Never-Before-Seen Trump Evidence Could be Public Before Election; Presidential Predictor Reveals 2024 Pick. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 05, 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]

BRIAN STELTER, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: It's been amazing to be back this week as chief media analyst. The truth is I just -- I found myself appreciating CNN even more from the outside, you know, as a viewer. I get it, every network is flawed, CNN is flawed, viewers should push to make us better every day, but this place is amazing. The news muscles of this place are like nothing else. They're like nowhere else. So, I just wanted to say it's good to be home.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right --

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: That was good.

PHILLIP: Who says you can't come home?

STELTER: I hope I hit the time right.

UNKNOWN: Yeah!

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: You know what, Brian? I neglected to say this at the beginning of the show, but we are happy to call you a colleague again.

STELTER: Thank you.

PHILLIP: Welcome back to CNN.

STELTER: Thank you.

PHILLIP: We look forward to everything you've got coming, all the scoops. Everyone, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." "Laura Coates Live" starts now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a clear message is being sent to parents all across this country. If you supply your child with a gun, and that child uses it to shoot up a school, for God's sakes, prosecutors will go after you. We saw it once in Michigan with the parents of Ethan Crumbley, both of whom were convicted. It was considered rare then but not anymore because, tonight, we're now seeing it in a place like Georgia. Officials have now charged the father of the 14-year-old, who shot his school and killing classmates and teachers outside of Atlanta just over 24 hours ago.

Police say the teen admitted to killing two students and two teachers. The gun he used, but police say that it was an AR-15 style rifle. And here is the stunning part that leads to the dad's arrest. Police say the father, Colin Gray, gifted, gifted that weapon to his son.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: He is charged with the following: Four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder, and eight counts of cruelty to children. Mr. Gray, these charges stemmed from Mr. Gray knowingly allowing his son, Colt, to possess a weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the son has been charged with four counts of felony murder, which could mean a life sentence. But the father, as you just heard, has been charged with 14 charges coming from knowingly allowing his son to possess the weapon.

I want to break these charges down for you. First, I'll start with the four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the four victims that were killed. One of the ways to prove this kind of charge is to show that someone was killed while they were doing something illegal. The shooter, that is, or the person who is responsible for the shooting. Now, the likely illegal act was allowing a minor to own a gun in violation of Georgia law. You don't have to actually prove that you intended for the person to die, but each count could be as much as 10 years.

He also faces two counts of second-degree murder, and those two counts are tied specifically to the two students who were killed. They will have to prove that he caused the death of these two children while engaging in an act that constitutes cruelty to children. Now, in this charge, you also have to prove something called malice, meaning deliberately intending for the person to die. Now, each of those counts could be 30 years. And some murder charges, make no mistake, depending on the facts that we learned in this investigation, could mean life.

And then it's the eight counts of cruelty to children. Eight because there were eight students in all who were also wounded. Now, while there are multiple ways to prove this type of charge, it generally means that you either intentionally or negligently cause a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or even mental pain. And in some instances, each of those counts could be up to 20 years.

Now, it's important to note, the suspect's father gifted the weapon just months after authorities looked into a 2023 tip about online threats that were linked to his son. Now, law enforcement at the time could not substantiate those, and they ended up closing that investigation.

We're also now learning more about the troubled history of the suspect himself. Authorities found writings in his home that referenced past shootings, including Parkland. And his family life appeared to have been anything but stable. His parents went through a bitter separation. We're told they were evicted from at least one home. And relatives say that Gray's father was verbally abusive for years.

Now, the facts and the investigation are fluid. The exact details the prosecutors will use to prove these allegations are unknown. But one thing seems to be clear. Prosecutors are done with just thoughts and prayers.

I want to bring in CNN chief law enforcement intelligence analyst John Miller. John, thank you so much for being here as we are learning more information, and tonight, the father now in custody just a day after the shooting.

[23:05:04]

What do we know about how authorities made this decision to charge him?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, that question was asked at the news briefing where they announced his arrest, and they were very circumspect. But I think you as a former federal prosecutor and myself with my background would surmise it comes from three key places.

Number one, we learned today from the sheriff that the suspect, the 14-year-old boy, began talking when police took him into custody. They advised him of his Miranda rights and kept talking, and they said he's still talking. So, you could get from that the questions that they had about where weapons were stored, what his access to those weapons were, what his access to ammunition would be came from him.

The second thing is the search warrant at the house they conducted, which would have given them a first-hand look about how weapons were stored, where they were stored. There are reportedly additional weapons beyond the one that the suspect used in this case. And third, their interview with the father himself, where they asked those questions. And we get a hint about how secure or not secure those guns were in a piece of audio coming up.

COATES: You know, before we get to that, I just want to highlight a point you raised, so the audience doesn't miss it. This -- this 14- year-old suspect, the shooter, allegedly, although he says -- apparently, he has said that he has done this. He was Mirandized first. So, he was talking in spite of having been given the warnings that he could, you know, be silent.

And oftentimes, if you say you want a lawyer and you invoke that, they have to stop talking to you. If you reengage in some way, then, you know, they're able to use some of your statements at that point in time. But he kept talking even after being Mirandized. That's a really important point that you've raised. I want to play that audio that you referenced, though, from that interview with law enforcement back in 2023 after the tips of the online threats. Here's what Gray's father told investigators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you have weapons in the house?

COLIN GRAY, FATHER OF 14-YEAR-OLD SHOOTER COLT GRAY (voice-over): I do.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are they accessible to him?

GRAY: They are. I mean, there's nothing -- nothing loaded. But they are down (ph).

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Okay.

GRAY (voice-over): We actually -- we do a lot of shooting. We do a lot of deer hunting. He shot his first deer this year.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yeah.

GRAY (voice-over): You know, so, like I'm pretty much in shock, to be honest with you.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Well --

GRAY (voice-over): I'm a little pissed off, to be even really honest with you, in fact, if that is what was said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But then, John, just months later, he gifted his son the weapon that was ultimately, apparently, used in the shooting. And it brings to mind the case of the Michigan school shooter, Ethan Crumbley. Remember, his parents sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison after being convicted of manslaughter. And again, the idea of the provision of a weapon part of that trial as well. What are the parallels that you're seeing here?

MILLER: You know, the parallels are striking. I mean, number one, the Crumbleys had a child who they understood was in some kind of crisis and some kind of despair, and yet they gifted him this weapon.

In this case, uh, this weapon was a gift to this boy, uh, between when he was 13 and 14 years old. He is also a kid who had been through, uh, the difficulties in that household, the contentious divorce, the screaming and yelling that relatives said went on around that. And, you know, he was a kid who relatives say was crying for help.

So, you know, the parallels are going to circle back to what a reasonable parent have understood that giving him a firearm was probably a dangerous thing to do in a dangerous time.

COATES: And it is just a very poignant notion. I mean, the idea of this collision course, right? That children can be on different people. On the one hand, children going to school trying to, you know, learn and be a part of the community, and then the collision course of somebody else with the issues that we've raised. And to see what happened and the results, unbelievable.

And we were learning today that the sheriff -- that Wednesday, John, Wednesday was only graze second day in that school, when it raises all sorts of questions, including how would he have developed the kind of plan or there I say hatred against his fellow students, his teachers we barely knew.

MILLER: You know, that struck me, too, Laura. And I spoke to Mary Ellen O'Toole, among others, and she is a former FBI profiler, but also the FBI agent who wrote the definitive early products on school shooters and what makes them tick and what makes them kill. And she said, you know, this is a matter of the adolescent brain. This is a 14-year-old. It's not an 18-year-old.

And those people can be very impulsive. We all know that if we have teenagers. They can plan something that they want to do and want to do in a hurry without planning the back end or considering the results very much and go right to the action itself.

[23:10:01]

And the other part of that answer was, you know, these were not personal attacks against personal victims because of things they necessarily said or did. They barely knew each other in two days. But these were victims of opportunity. This was his -- this was his way to possibly strike out at all the kids and all the schools that he had felt either ostracized by, shut out by or hateful towards.

COATES: Well, we will learn a lot more. And he may be 14, but two -- the two students he killed, also 14 years old with their whole lives ahead of them, including the teachers as well, as we learn more about this. Thank you so much. We will continue to rely on you.

MILLER: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: My next guest is someone who has experience in litigation against the parents of a school shooter. His name is Clint McGuire. He actually presented the families of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, the 2018 attack on Santa Fe High School in Texas. Remember, a 17-year-old suspect killed 10 people, eight students and two teachers.

And the attack, it is deeply personal for Clint because his two children were at the school. Now, they, thank God, were safe. He took it upon himself to become an attorney for the victims, and they ended up suing the parents of that suspect.

In civil court, Clint argued the parents did not secure the family's guns nor did they get their son proper mental health treatment. Now, a jury ultimately decided the case, the civil matter, that the parents were not responsible. But the suspect and an online story that sold him ammunition, they were found liable. The families were awarded $330 million, but will likely never collect. And the accused gunman has been charged with capital murder, but then was found incompetent to stand trial.

Clint McGuire joins me now. Clint, thank you for being here. I really want to lean in on your experience of having tried a case involving the parents of a shooter and get your reaction first to the arrest of the father in this Georgia case. I mean, these were charges brought very, very quickly. What does it tell you about the evidence that they may have against him?

CLINT MCGUIRE, REPRESENTED FAMILIES OF SANTA FE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING: Well, I think the evidence is strong. The fact that it appears, based on what we're hearing thus far, that the father actually gifted the -- an AR-15 to a son for Christmas, who's 13 or 14 years old, is very strong evidence. I can't see any circumstance where any reasonable or prudent parent would do such a thing.

COATES: And again, the idea of a minor having it, owning it, and it being illegal for a minor to purchase these weapons as well. And Georgia has its own set of laws. But in this case, in the case you brought in Texas, actually, there was a dispute over where that suspect got the guns. When you look at the comparisons here and knowing that there's the gifting, is that enough for you? Would it have been enough for you to cross the finish line in terms of a responsible and liable verdict there?

MCGUIRE: It would have made our case much easier. What the parents in the Santa Fe High School shooting case argued was that they had locked their guns in a container, in a gun cabinet in their living room, one in their garage, and then they hid the keys. And what we argued in the case was that the 17-year-old shooter obtained the keys because they left them in an easily locatable place, on top of the actual gun cabinet itself --

COATES: Hmm.

MCGUIRE: -- and we asserted that was negligence on their part. The difficult thing that we had to overcome is under Texas law and many other states laws, you're required to prove that parents who don't safely store their guns could foresee that this act or some substantially similar act would occur. What would have made the case easier is if we could have demonstrated that the parents had actually given the gun to their son or to their child. In this case, the parents at our trial claimed that their child stole the guns from them.

COATES: So that was a civil matter. So, there's a different burden of proof or standard. You're talking about preponderance of evidence more likely than not in a criminal context. As we're seeing in place like Georgia, you've got the beyond reasonable doubt. And in either a civil or criminal case, it is not an easy task to hold parents accountable for school shootings. In the Ethan Crumbley case in Michigan, a lot of evidence, there was text messages, indicated for that jury the culpability.

[23:15:00] And the prosecutor of that case, Karen McDonald, has had this to say to Anderson Cooper tonight. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN MCDONALD, PROSECUTOR: My reaction is rage --

(LAUGHTER)

-- because, you know, the prosecution of the Crumbleys was never, ever meant to be a floodgate of charges against parents because it was such an egregious set of facts. And so, I -- I think I share the emotions of the entire country that even after that well-publicized case, we're still here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We are still here. And I wonder, from your perspective, how important will it be for prosecutors now based on the lessons of the Crumbley trial, your own civil case as well, to show what Gray's father knew and when he knew it?

MCGUIRE: It's critically important. And one of the things that we've learned, beginning back on April 20th of 1999 in Columbine, is that we can no longer stick our head in the sand and not believe that this type of thing can happen. It has happened and, unfortunately, it is going to continue to happen because legislators are doing absolutely nothing.

It's prosecutors like you just showed and lawyers such as myself that are getting out there and trying to make a difference because the first line of defense in these cases needs to be at home. By the time -- I heard earlier there was a reference to schools are soft targets. The problem with hardening the target, and we need to do everything that we can, but the problem with focusing on the target is we are reacting and not being pro-act.

COATES: Hmm.

MCGUIRE: And so, what we should do is look at the first line of defense, and that is parents should be responsible when they have children. Gun owners should be responsible. And I'm a gun owner myself. We should be responsible and make sure that those who shouldn't have guns, whether they're mentally ill or whether they're not old enough to possess them, should not get them because if they do and they go and do something like this, you cannot only have civil responsibility, but you can also be held criminally liable.

COATES: Clint McGuire, very important points you're raising. Thank you so much.

MCGUIRE: Thank you.

COATES: Authorities speaking tonight of the heartbreak within the community in Winder, Georgia after yesterday's mass shooting, saying on top of the deaths of four people, the physical injuries of eight others, there's also the mental injuries that the community is now reeling from.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: We call them teachers, but I call them heroes. We met with them today. Emotions are very high, obviously. But we told them that we love them, we love our teachers and what they do, and we're very happy at the fact that they stood in the gap between evil to protect their children, and we want to include them in the lives that were saved as well yesterday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, those heroes, they include math teacher and football coach Richard Aspinwall, who students have described him as -- quote -- "really sweet and a good guy," and math teacher Christina Irimie. One of her students remembering her as a -- quote -- "really nice teacher who liked to tell corny jokes." A friend of the family telling CNN that she had a belated birthday celebration with her students before the shooting yesterday. She baked a cake, she brought them pizza. The friend says that she was dedicated to her students, loving them as if they were her own children.

Well, joining me now is Nicolae Clempus. He was good friends with Christina Irimie, and he joins us now. Nikolai, thank you so much for being with us. I am so sorry for your loss. You just heard authorities calling Christina a hero, and the way that the students and her friends have described her as loving and caring. Nikolai, how would you describe her?

NICOLAE CLEMPUS, FRIEND OF SHOOTING VICTIM CHRISTINA IRIMIE: Yes, I couldn't agree more. I think Christina is a -- is a hero for our community, is a -- is a role model. She was a role model, and she basically goes into the history as a great person, great teacher, and very good educator that was caring for her students, and eventually, you know, caring so much that she gave her life in front of them and probably trying to protect them and to save them from, you know, from this tragedy.

COATES: I mean, it's unspeakable, what has happened, and hearing the students tell CNN that she prioritized instilling confidence in them.

[23:20:04]

Can you tell me how she viewed her job as a teacher?

CLEMPUS: She took her job very seriously because she worked very hard to get her degree and to do what she actually dreamed to do. And that was her goal when she came here in Stace, to be a great teacher and to be, like I said, a whole educator of the child, take the child the way they are and meet them -- and meet their needs.

COATES: I understand how incredibly active she was in the Romanian community, and I do wonder more broadly, you mentioned her as a volunteer. How is your community taking this loss and what will you miss most about your friend? CLEMPUS: Well, I will tell you, this was a very long day. Also, it was a very long day yesterday. So, our community is in shock, of course, and we are coping with all the news and everything that happened. And we're trying to, you know, to find resources and to rely on our faith and our community to go through it.

We are going to miss -- we already miss Christina's energies, her smile, her dedication, her love for children. She was also a dancer. She was an instructor in dancing. She liked to dance in traditional Romanian dancing. So, we are going to miss her a lot.

COATES: Nicolae, very important words. I thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, your memories of Christina with all of us. And we are just so sorry for the loss of her life and the greater community as well. Thank you.

CLEMPUS: Thank you. I appreciate you all.

COATES: Up next -- quote -- "The court is not concerned with the electoral schedule." The judge at the center of Trump's January 6th case says prosecutors could release never-before-seen evidence against Trump before the November election. And who will win that election? Well, the man who has predicted nine of the last 10 elections will give us his pick for Trump vs. Harris. That's all ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Now you've all heard, of course, of the October surprise, right? But could we be in store for a September stunner? Well, earlier today, Judge Tanya Chutkan set a schedule in the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump that could allow prosecutors to release never-before-seen evidence such as grand jury transcripts, maybe, all before the November election.

Chutkan set a September 26 deadline for an initial filing from prosecutors and an October 29th deadline for the final round of briefs on the matter. She has not -- has not scheduled additional hearings or even a trial date at this time.

That updated schedule largely sided to what Special Counsel Jack Smith proposed at a D.C. hearing today. Now, Trump's defense team has sought to delay the public release of evidence in this matter until after the November election. Now, Chutkan, she seemed unamused, saying, "This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule."

With us now, Tiffany R. Wright, former law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and CNN legal commentator and former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatore. Good to see you both. Here we are, the first hearing in this case before her in 11 months. Time has really flown. But what evidence do you anticipate that we would actually see? Because to provide grand jury testimony really runs counter to the secrecy of it and, of course, it's not a trial. TIFFANY R. WRIGHT, FORMER LAW CLERK FOR JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: Obviously, I don't think we're going to see grand jury testimony. I think that Jack Smith, though, will understand that this is probably his last chance to speak to the public. Not that that's something that prosecutors are typically concerned with, but I've always thought that the most important thing is not that we have a verdict before the election, but that the public have some idea of what the actual evidence is outside of the four corners of the indictment.

So, I don't think we'll get grand jury testimony. I think that we will get some insight, though, into what exactly is behind the four counts in the indictment.

COATES: It's really important to think about, Tim, that the reason we're even here is because they're trying to essentially give the parameters on what is immunized and what would not be. The Supreme Court earlier talking about an official act, a constitutional duty or an act cannot be prosecuted for the president of the United States or former president. So, trying to figure out if his actions were outside of that constitutional duty, which were not. That's why we're here.

Does the order of how it will be presented matter to you as a defense attorney if the prosecution would go first, essentially, to say, your honor, here's what we got, decide this first?

TIM PARLATORE, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: It is kind of flipping the script because ordinarily, you know, the defense makes the motion, prosecution responds, defense gets the last word. And that was really the argument during the hearing, who is going to go first but who also gets to go last? And so, the judge ultimately sided with Jack Smith as letting them go first. And, you know, really, what they're proposing is that they want to try to defend their indictment by trying to put out -- you know, before the defense tries to tear it apart, they could put out their filing to try and say why everything is okay.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PARLATORE: It's very different from how things would normally be done. Obviously, I do understand why they ask for things that way. It gives them more of an advantage. They get two briefs instead of one. And ultimately, all of the briefs, you know, get put out before the election given this particular schedule.

COATES: There is an irony. You know, on the one hand, the Trump defense team has been saying, this is a weaponized system, you should never take in to account the politics of this, this is all about political, you know, manipulation, et cetera. And then they're saying, Your Honor, consider the politics here and, of course, the election.

[23:30:02]

So, she's obviously hip to that particular aspect. But there's the issue of Mike Pence's testimony potentially. Before, in the first indictment, it was all about him as the vice president. Now, it's about him as the president of the Senate. Why is that so important? WRIGHT: It's important because the Supreme Court said that they believe that the communications between the president and the vice president are immune or at least presumptively immune, right? So what Jack Smith did is he went back. He took a scalpel to the original indictment and got very particular.

So now it's about the vice president not in his capacity as the vice president because that would be an executive communication that could be presumptively immune. It's about his actions as a legislator, the president of the Senate, which would take it outside of that realm of presumptively immune things for which the president might have some immunity.

COATES: Really important to make that distinction. Thank you, Tiffany. And on the idea of what they're arguing in the defense, Tim, is that, look, if any of the grand jurors heard testimony that would have been in line with what Tiffany just described, executive communications as a vice president, that means the whole thing has to be thrown out. Is that going to be convincing enough for this judge?

PARLATORE: Well, so what they're going to say is that the grand jury proceedings were tainted by that type of material. And so, yes, I do think that that's the kind of thing where a judge would say to Jack Smith, go back and do it again. You know, it's not going to cause the case to go away, but it is something that he can represent and just bring a second superseding indictment.

It is interesting, this whole idea of shifting him from being the vice president to the president of the Senate, because during the grand jury phase of this, they were taking the exact opposite position when Mike Pence was trying to invoke, you know, privileges and immunities based on him being president of the Senate. And so there, Jack Smith was arguing, oh, no, no, no, he's there as the vice president. And so, I do think that this kind of shift -- you know, will then raise all sorts of other litigations. So, you know, ultimately, it's a mess.

COATES: She did say this is going to get appealed no matter what. They're very aware it's going back. And, of course, there was a part of an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas that entered the equation about even making arguments about whether Jack Smith should even be where he is. She again did not seem amused by this.

But then there's the other case in Manhattan. Tomorrow is Friday, and we're told that Judge Merchan is saying that he will decide tomorrow whether to delay sentencing in that hush money conviction, 34 accounts. What is the likely outcome of his decision on that schedule?

WRIGHT: I think it's likely that he does delay it until after the election. I'm not sure how that works out for President Trump, whether that's better for him or worse for him, because I think at least right now, he can say there's that threat that I will be the president of the United States. And so, he might get some leniency for that whereas after the election, if he loses, it goes away. I just think this is another instance of a lot is writing on this election for president.

COATES: And it is a state -- it is a state case. It is not one that's federal. That makes the difference.

PARLATORE: It does because the president has no control over it. He has no, you know, pardon authority. He has no control over the D.A.'s office. And I do think that that's absolutely accurate with what Tiffany just said. If he sends before the election -- and I know Judge Merchan, I've tried a case in front of him, I don't think he's going to want to put him in because he's not going to want to be seen as interfering in the election by putting him into Rikers Island before the election.

By delaying it, you know, then I think that increases the likelihood of jail time if he is, you know, not the winner of the election. And I do think the likelihood of him delaying it is very high because the district attorney is not opposing the application.

COATES: It is an important point, whether it's the election or if he were to be successful in inauguration. It's going to factor in until the question of, will he really go to jail, is still looming very large. Thank you both for being here so much, Tiffany and Tim.

Well, they call him the Nostradamus of presidential elections. So, who does Allan Lichtman think will actually win in November? He's going to tell us after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Sixty days until election day, and the first batch of absentee ballots are scheduled to be mailed out as early as tomorrow. My next guest, known as the Nostradamus of U.S. elections for correctly predicting nine of the last 10 presidential races using his own 13 keys to the White House criteria candidate must win in order to achieve victory, well, he now says that he's ready to call the race. American University history professor Alan Lichtman joins me now. Professor, all right, here it is. Who will win the next president of the United States?

ALLAN LICHTMAN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: According to the keys to the White House, which has been right for 40 years, we are going to have a precedent breaking victory.

COATES: Hmm.

LICHTMAN: Kamala Harris will be president of the United States.

COATES: Now, I'm looking at the true keys, the false keys, and you have some TBDs on the screen as well. Under your criteria, Harris obtains eight keys, the minimum, by the way, to win, according to you. But can any of these keys potentially flip before the election? I mean, you got social unrest. If that breaks out, have you ever changed your prediction?

LICHTMAN: I have never changed my prediction once I've made a final call. The notion of an October surprise is a myth. All my predictions have been before the October surprise, and they have all held. Social unrest doesn't suddenly emerge. It takes a long time for there to be enough social unrest to turn the key, which requires massive, sustained social unrest. With a maximum of five keys down and likely four, Harris is well short of what's needed to predict her defeat and give Donald Trump the White House again.

[23:40:01]

COATES: Your method is unconventional. I mean, you've got your battleground states and those polls show a much tighter race in what you're describing. And even "The Bulwark" Jonathan Last calls your approach, I'm quoting here, "nothing more than parlor tricks and folkways, the political equivalent of wearing garlic to protect yourself from vampires." So, he's not pulling any punches. What do you say to that? And how are you so sure?

LICHTMAN: Sour grapes. Whenever you're unconventional, and I go against the pundits and the pollsters as I did when I called Donald Trump in 2016, you are going to get those sour grapes critics. You cannot predict nine of 10, and I would say 10 of 10, because I think I was right about 2000 because based on the intention of voters, Al Gore should have won that election, going away as I proved in my report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

But you can't with parlor tricks pick nine out of 10 or 10 out of 10. Winners plus (ph). My system is based on the structure of how American presidential elections really work, not on ephemeral polls or off the top of the head punditry. They work as votes up or down on the strength and performance of the White House party, and that's what the keys gauge.

And retrospectively, the keys go all the way back to 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln, when we had no automobiles, no planes, no polls, women didn't vote, no radio, no television. So, they have endured through enormous changes in our society, our demography, our politics, our economy.

COATES: Hmm.

LICHTMAN: You know, let those critics show what their track record is on prediction. Otherwise, I think they should be quiet.

COATES: Wow! There you have it. Allan Lichtman, I know the Harris-Walz campaign must be thrilled. Thank you so much.

LICHTMAN: My pleasure.

COATES: Well, got a group of political experts here and do they have sour grapes or not? I don't know. Do you think Allan will get this election right? Do they think so? Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: In the sprint to November, fundraising is going gangbusters. A source telling CNN tonight that Harris more than doubled Trump's $130 million fundraising haul in the month of August. That would be at least $260 million for the Harris-Walz campaign.

I want to bring in national political correspondent for Politico, Meredith McGraw, former deputy communications director for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, Bryan Lanza, and CNN political commentator Karen Finney. Glad to have you all here today.

First of all, this fundraising and, of course, you saw the prediction from Professor Lichtman, what did you make of this? It sets a Harris victory. I think I know your response, but I want to hear it.

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN: Yeah, listen, it's -- it's -- yeah, I appreciate him. He -- he's trying to put signs, some type of political science behind it. But, to me, it just feels like the roulette table, black or red. You know, it's the final two candidates. It is how hard is it to really choose. And he has been right. You know, apparently, 10 times out of 10 times or nine out of 10 times.

I don't know. I don't buy it. You know, we will see. I mean, polling is polling. Human nature is human nature. It's hard to sort of make a prediction two months out has been my experience.

COATES: I mean, there has been a lot of tumult, shall we say, and a lot of back and forth over this summer.

LANZA: What else changes, right? (ph)

COATES: I mean, there is something -- a lot of things happening. But this fundraising, if effort, Karen -- I mean, Harris more than doubling $130 million in just August alone, it seems.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Uh-hmm.

COATES: When you look at this, I mean, what kind of advantage might that give a campaign in these last 60 days?

FINNEY: It's critical. I mean, think about the fact that they were able to announce earlier this week that they were giving money to the campaign committees for down ballot races, governor's races, state legislative races, the House, the Senate, all of which are important. If you win the White House and you don't have Congress, it can really -- it obviously stalls your agenda.

So, the fact that they have enough resources to comfortably give those dollars, I've heard that there will be more going out also to support some of the outside, the groups that they work in collaboration with to mobilize Latino voters, African-American voters. They have a very solid ground game.

And in all seriousness, she does not have to use any money towards legal bills. That makes a difference. That means every dollar you're raising, you can be thinking about how much am I putting on into T.V.? How much am I putting on into digital? How much am I putting that into a ground game or mail? All the things that we know you need to do, particularly for her, this is important, given the short time frame to make sure voters are getting the information that they need.

You want the voters who need to hear certain messages, hearing those messages and the channels where they're going to be looking for that information in the way that they are going to be most interested to hear it.

COATES: And, of course, the battleground states and also throughout to get that road to 270. You can't just focus all that effort in one or six different states.

Meredith, there were remarks that were made to the Economic Club of New York by Donald Trump. He was talking about tariffs. He wanted to cut capital gains taxes. He wanted to impose tariffs on, I think, imports. But then he was asked about what he would do to make child care more affordable. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Child care is child care. It's couldn't -- you know, there's something -- you have to have it. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth.

[23:49:57]

But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just -- that I just told you about. We're going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I've had two children in child care. It is not just relatively expensive, it is expensive. What did he mean by that? Did you get a sense of how he intends to make child care more affordable?

MEREDITH MCGRAW, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, Donald Trump said that child care is important, but his answer really gave zero specifics on how exactly he would address it. And a big part of his speech today at the Economic Club was talking about tariffs. You know, Trump has been a big fan of tariffs. His team says that it will spur domestic production. But there's a lot of criticism from economists who say this would actually fall on consumers.

And he was trying to say, it seems like in his answer, that these tariffs, the money that's raised from it, could somehow go towards offsetting the cost for child care. But the woman who asked that question said she was disappointed in his answer because it was so meandering and there wasn't a real clear answer to what she wanted.

COATES: But you've got to have that answer, Bryan, on issues like this.

LANZA: Yeah, listen, he needs to work on that answer. I mean, it's not the first time he has heard that question. We've dealt with that question back even in 2016, child care, as a major component of the 2016 campaign and part of his administration. He clearly needs to work on that answer.

But I would point out, you know, he's having this economic speech, talking about what he's going to do to improve the economy, talking about what he's going to do to bring inflation down. Single-handedly, the best thing he can do to help with child care is drive down the cost of everything, whether it's -- please, let me finish -- whether it's child care which has driven up --

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

-- interrupting from everybody, sorry.

FINNEY: I understand that can be offensive (ph).

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: You can breathe, and you can keep going.

LANZA: I'm used to everybody interrupting. But, you know, it's what he can do, by driving down these costs on everyday products by, you know, by dealing with inflation. That's ultimately going to drive down the cost of child care. I think that's what he was trying to say. He clearly didn't articulate it. He needs to work on it. But I think we can all agree, if we deal with inflation, that will drive down the cost of child care, but there's other components he needs to do as he did in 2016 and 2017.

COATES: Before you breathe, hold on. Sorry. Before you breathe, I want to play for you a second because --

FINNEY: Yeah.

COATES: -- speaking of ANTRA, I know you'll have a response to this. Senator J.D. Vance also spoke about the idea of child care. And one of the things he said was, have grandma and grandpa help a little bit more. Look at some of the social media posts and responses to this. I mean, one tweet says, you are aware that many grandparents can't afford to retire. What episode of "Leave It to Beaver" are you living in?

Another one said, need healthcare? Call in the grandparents. Problem solved. My parents, when I sent a text on a Friday, meme of Obi-Wan Kenobi, of course, the text, it's a trick, send no reply. This can't be the reaction?

FINNEY: Well, it was the reaction.

COATES: From Senator Vance and Trump. FINNEY: Well, and the other part of what he also said was that, oh, maybe we need to be looking at some of the regulations about, you know, the people who are providing the child care. Go and sell that to parents. Maybe -- certainly, you probably don't need a master's degree, but I don't think parents are going to buy the idea that you want someone with lower qualifications taking care of your children.

And to Bryan's credit, they need a better answer. Here's the other reason, though. It's part of the modern post-COVID economy. So much of what Donald Trump talks about is not only devoid from reality, it is devoid from the reality of the American economy now. Even people who do stay home need child care. We learned that in dramatic ways during COVID when we saw kids walking through, you know, Zoom calls.

So, it's not just a care economy issue. It is actually an economic issue where you have some families, where one person is working just to pay for child care.

LANZA: Yeah.

FINNEY: So, yeah, it's got -- they've got to show they're more in touch with how people are living.

LANZA: I would say all policy policymakers have to do something with respect to child care. I mean, you know, when my parents, you know, when I was growing, my mom stayed at home. My dad had the full-time job. My mom stayed at home. She was able to raise us being involved. That doesn't exist for the vast majority of families anymore.

You know, here in D.C., you know, we're lucky enough to make a decent living. I still needed to get child care. And it's expensive. And let me tell you something, the most important thing about child care is finding that right person that when you leave the house, you don't have to stress. The vast majority of people can't find qualified people for child care. We've had unfortunate luck over the years. We've had bad child care and we've had great child care. It's a huge burden when you don't have good child care.

COATES: Yeah.

LANZA: And it is even bigger burden when you can't afford it. And these are real stresses to families that we need to resolve. And it's not just the Republican Party, it's all parties need to figure out how to drive down the costs that didn't exist -- the high cost of everything that didn't exist 40 years ago.

COATES: Meredith, we're talking a lot of -- I mean, we hear about the term economy, and I think people mostly think about things like tariffs or thinking about, you know, our global economy and beyond.

[23:55:01]

Most Americans thinking about their personal budget and pocketbooks. And yes, I still say pocketbook as opposed to purse.

(LAUGHTER) And a pocketbook. And I'm wondering, Meredith, when you think about how both campaigns are addressing the personal economy versus the more global and Federal Reserve aspects of it, how do you bridge the gap?

MCGRAW: Well, I think what voters want to hear is these candidates coming to them and being personable and understanding where they're coming at, and understanding the stresses that Americans are facing every day. And while we've seen improvements in the economy, when people are going to the grocery store, they're still feeling the stress when they're in the checkout line, their budgets are crunched.

And so, when they hear candidates talk about, you know, Trump talking about tariffs or, you know, Harris talking about her tax plan or whatever, they really need to bring it home and remember that for these people, they want to understand how this is going to help them win at the checkout line.

COATES: That's the fundamental question. Everyone, thank you so much. And hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)