Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Tensions Between Iran and Israel Continue to Intensify Amid New Wave of Strikes; MAGA Divide Over Trump's Handling of Iran; DHS Disputes Claim Detained Afghan Man was U.S. Army Interpreter; Karen Read Found Not Guilty of Murder in Sensational Retrial. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Just in tonight, Minnesota police are investigating an apparent break-in where a state lawmaker was murdered in cold blood just days before.
Police say that someone appears to have broken in and searched through the home of State Representative Melissa Hortman. She and her husband, Mark Hortman, were shot and killed there on Saturday by a suspect apparently targeting Democrats.
We're told that all evidence related to the shooting has been removed from the house.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is CNN Breaking News.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening, I'm Laura Coates, and we begin with breaking news. The world is watching and waiting as President Trump weighs his next move in the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Tonight, we're learning he has reviewed attack plans for Iran. He's holding off at the moment. Why? To see if Iran steps back from its nuclear program. Now Trump was pressed earlier on what exactly he's thinking and when he might decide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final -- I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war. Things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other. War is -- war is very bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Indeed. We're told the president has seen multiple options from his team. And we know what Israel's preference is. That's using bunker buster bombs to destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear site. It's buried deep inside that mountain. The risks, significant. Sources tell us the White House is discussing how it can strike Iran's nuclear sites without getting dragged into a full-scale war.
But Iran is vowing to retaliate if the United States goes on the offensive. The country's supreme leader is rejecting Trump's call for that unconditional surrender. He's warning that the U.S. will suffer irreparable harm if it gets involved. And the Iranian deputy foreign minister backed up that threat directly to CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, is there a chance for a last-minute deal? Well, Trump says Iran wants to talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate. And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Have Iranians reached out to you?
TRUMP: Yes.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And what did they say?
TRUMP: I said, it's very late. You know? I said, it's very late to be talking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, Trump claimed the Iranians even asked to come to the White House. Iran's deputy foreign minister denies that.
I want to bring in the former NATO supreme allied commander and the founder of Renew America Together, General Wesley Clark. General, Axios is reporting tonight that President Trump is repeatedly pressing officials on whether these bunker buster bombs can really destroy the Fordow nuclear site. I want to ask you, how confident are you that these bombs can do that, and how many strikes would it take to accomplish it?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: You know, Laura, that -- those are legit questions I just can't answer. We've obviously done testing on what the bomb is, but unless we've got the exact plans and know the composition of the earth, that's over that -- that bunker, you can't be positive of anything.
You hear stories that it's 200 feet underground. Other stories, it's 300 feet underground, that it has got reinforced concrete. You don't know what's actually in it. You don't have -- you don't -- you can't have any confidence, really. Will one do it? Maybe. Will five make it better Probably. But do you still need to go in on the ground afterwards? Probably you do.
And I think this is the thing that, if you really want to get rid of this Iran nuclear program, you got to understand, you got to clean up these sites. It's not just this site, but it's -- it's the Natanz site, and there's probably a dozen or two dozen other sites where material centrifuges have been made, bomb parts have been fabricated. Plans are there. There may be unenriched uranium.
All that stuff got to be policed up. Some of it, very carefully handled. It's got to be extricated. And that's after the bombing --
COATES: Hmm.
CLARK: -- because, otherwise, another regime can -- if it stays in power, go back and reconstitute.
COATES: General, it sounds like the precision necessary to execute this would take an enormous amount of intelligence and data that may or may not be present in this context, which really makes this sound all the more foreboding for people to think about.
[23:05:08]
But short of striking Fordow, is there any other alternative, a military alternative at that, that might make sense to you?
CLARK: I think you could go in on the ground with special forces. You could go into the entrances. You can go as far as you could in the entrances. You can dynamite your way in and drill your way in and blow your way in with demolitions to -- to get inside the bunker if you can secure the area.
And you're going to be wearing radiation suits. You don't know what's really happened in there. But, yeah, there are other ways to get at this on the ground. And if you wanted to do some initial bombing and try to bomb the entrances, you could do that, too.
But, ultimately, if you really want to do this, you're going to have to put in special forces, a Ranger battalion or two to secure the area, put the -- the SEALs or Delta Force in there, and -- and -- and be ready to go in and eliminate it.
COATES: So, American military involvement for the special forces. I mean, first of all, general, as you know, there have been a lot of questions around this, a lot of questions about the timeline. And there seems to be such a sense of urgency around making this decision to strike Fordow. But you have said that there is actually no rush. Can you explain why?
CLARK: There's no rush because with each passing day, the Iranians get weaker and the effectiveness of the Israeli Air Force increases. So, the Israelis are striking various targets. They've got 40%, they say, of the launchers eliminated now. Give them another two days, get more.
Go after the short-range missiles and their launchers that could retaliate against Americans and other neighbors in the region. Go after the naval assets that could mine the Straits of Hormuz. Wait and wait and wait.
And during this time, the pressure on the leaders in Iran increases because they see the hammer of the United States there. It's building, it's raised, it's there, it's coming. It's coming, and so the leverage that the president has for the negotiations increases. Now, that leverage doesn't stop when the bombing begins.
The ayatollah, though, got to make decision. Are they going to martyr themselves and their regime? Because that's where this is going to end up if they don't cut a deal.
I think the president has been very clear on this. He's got to do whatever it takes. I think as long -- I think if we wait longer, it's better. But, you know, there's also a certain urgency that the military will convey.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CLARK: The military will say, look, what if the Iranians use our short-range missiles on our air bases --
COATES: Yeah.
CLARK: -- in the region right now where we launch? So, there's a tension there.
COATES: General Wesley Clark, thank you.
CLARK: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Former State Department spokesman Ned Price is joining me now to carry on this conversation and an important one. He was also senior adviser to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
Ned, you've been critical of how this has been handled so far, but you --but are you encouraged at all by the signals that suggest that Trump seems to be keeping the door open to diplomacy? I mean, is that even still possible here?
NED PRICE, FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT CIA, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT, FORMER DEPUTY U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Well, Laura, we don't know which way President Trump is going to go, and I think that's the way he wants it. I think he's reveling in the attention. He's reveling in the fact that the world is hanging on his every word. He likes that attention and that spotlight shining on him.
Look, I want to be as clear and as straightforward on the underlying issue as I can. America should always be wary of engaging in foreign wars. And if we've learned anything over the course of the past 25 years, it's that we should be especially wary of engaging in military adventurism in the Middle East. And absolutely, importantly, we should never engage in a needless war.
My concern, Laura, is that right now, this is a needless war. And I say that for three reasons. Number one, I've been especially critical because diplomacy was not exhausted last Thursday when this Israeli operation started. And I -- this is more arguable, but I think it is also true that diplomacy has not been exhausted just yet, as you alluded to.
Number two, there is no permanent military solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge. Even if the operation is successful and, of course, that is always an if, a bunker buster of this sort, the MOP, may be able to set back Iran's nuclear ambition --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PRICE: -- by months, perhaps longer.
[23:10:00]
But you can bet that if we try to take this out solely militarily, the Iranians will have every incentive in the world to turbocharge their efforts to reconstitute, and what they will do will be more covert and more clandestine than what we've seen with Fordow and with their other covert and clandestine enrichment facilities around Iran.
And number three, and this is incredibly important, by entering this war that we did not start and at least in the first hours the United States distanced itself from quite explicitly, we would be putting a target on our back.
COATES: Hmm.
PRICE: Now, it is absolutely true that Iran today is weakened, Iran today is not the Iran that was there a year ago, its proxies are weakened. Hezbollah has been, in many ways, decapitated. Hamas has been decimated. The Assad regime is gone. The IRGC has suffered losses. The Shia militias are weakened, but they're not gone.
COATES: Hmm.
PRICE: And, Laura, there are 40,000 U.S. service members in the region. There are hundreds of thousands of American -- private American citizens in the region.
COATES: Yeah.
PRICE: There are U.S. embassies and diplomats in the region, thousands of them. All of them would have a target on their back, not only in the days and weeks ahead but, unfortunately, Laura, for years to come.
COATES: So --
PRICE: This would be a needless effort on our part.
COATES: So, Ned, given what you've said and what we have seen so far, have you seen any signs that would suggest the United States has some plan in place if the Iranian regime were somehow toppled? What is the long-term plan?
PRICE: Well, quite the contrary. What gives me such concern is that there are incredibly eerie echoes to what we were seeing in 2002 and 2003. A rush to war, potentially hyped up, if not entirely fabricated intelligence that we're hearing from Prime Minister Netanyahu and, importantly, a complete and abject failure to plan for what's next.
And you don't have to take my word for it by listening to what I am projecting out into the future. Look at what has happened over the past week. It was June 11, Laura, one day, 24 hours, before this Israeli operation began, when the U.S. embassy in Baghdad started to -- started to draw down its forces, when we started to reposition U.S. Military assets to try to bring these American citizens to safer places.
Now, Laura, the U.S. government, by many accounts, had known for weeks, if not months, that the Israelis were planning to launch this operation and --
COATES: Hmm.
PRICE: -- would have known that conflict would have been inevitable and that our forces would be in harm's way, and yet they waited until 24 hours before this began to start that process.
Similarly, we're seeing the same thing when it comes to the evacuation of private American citizens in Israel and in Iran as well, the assistance that we're able to provide. It was today, nearly a week after bombs and drones started to rain down on Israel, when our ambassador in Israel said the embassy in Israel is going to start planning --
COATES: Hmm.
PRICE: -- for evacuation operations of American citizens.
COATES: Wow.
PRICE: None of this was put in place. None of this seems to have been considered. And we shouldn't have any confidence that they're doing the long-term planning for the day after.
COATES: It's pretty stunning to think about the delay in beginning to plan. I wonder if there's some alternate explanation. Ned Price, thank you so much for joining.
PRICE: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: So, what if the United States doesn't strike? Could Israel destroy the facility on its own? I'm going to ask the country's former national security adviser next.
And later, President Trump's new response tonight on those who say he is betraying his 'America First' promise. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We are following the breaking news out of the Middle East. Israeli forces continuing in conducting strikes in Tehran. Still, no final word from President Trump by whether he will decide to intervene in this conflict. A key unknown this evening, can Israel complete its mission in Iran without the United States?
With me now, former Israeli national security adviser Eyal Hulata. Eyal, thank you for being here. This is the looming question for so many people. And, in fact, a former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush wrote in a new op-ed, "Without U.S. help, Israel could damage, if not destroy, Fordow." So, can Israel do this without the United States Military?
EYAL HULATA, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO ISRAEL: Well, you know, Israel embarked on this attack on June 12. And, of course, the premise must have been -- you know, I was not there in this discussion, but I know how this would usually work. Israel must have realized that nothing is certain about U.S. involvement. Israel decided to go at it because our analysis, which was shared with the Americans, was that Iran was creeping towards a nuclear weapon, which changes the entire paradigm.
And I reject the statement that was said before that there was a fabricated or fake intelligence in it. I think I know the picture very, very well. From an Israeli perspective, if Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapon, not just the enrichment, things have fundamentally changed, and we had to act.
And when Israel embarked on this, there was nothing certain about the Americans. And, in fact, at this point, I don't know if President Trump will decide to attack or not.
COATES: He said as much, yeah.
HULATA: Exactly. And he will need to decide on this, according to national security -- American national security interest and nothing more. And I say that because when Israel embarked on this, Israel went after a few components of the nuclear program that are very significant. We went after -- people are not talking about this enough, in my mind.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
[23:19:54]
HULATA: We went after the scientists and the facilities --
COATES: Yeah.
HULATA: -- of the weaponization group itself, to the point where even if Iran decided or was able to enrich to 90% enriched uranium, if they don't have the people in the facilities to turn this into a bomb, they are delayed quite substantially.
This is a new element in this attack compared to other plans that Israel has had before. Israel took care of the Natanz facility very well. Israel took care of enrichment of centrifuges production plants very well, of conversions facilities very well. And eventually, I'm sure that we will not finish this campaign --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HULATA: -- without damaging Fordow to the best extent that we can --
COATES: Yeah.
HULATA: Will that be as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator? No, but it will be the best it is all can do.
COATES: Well, given the success that you've talked about, why is there an urgency to strike now then? If that has been accomplished and the institutional knowledge, gone. Those who could create this in a quick way, gone. The revamping of it, far delayed. Why continue to strike?
HULATA: You mean in Fordow at the moment or -- or in general? You know, once we've started this campaign, we better finish it in the best way we can. No one has an appetite to go after this again and again and again.
We have now a window of opportunity. Again, I'm talking from an Israeli perspective. If the United States decides the situation in Iran justifies a U.S. action, there is, again, a window of opportunity.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HULATA: Iran defenses are very weak. Iran is weak in general.
COATES: Well, let me ask you on that point, of the Iran being weak. Do you have any concerns that -- we've obviously seen less and less missiles going into Israel and it being successfully averted if they do. But are you concerned that they are withholding certain supplies or missiles in the anticipation the United States might be coming involved?
HULATA: Well, I'm sure Iran is calculating their number of missiles --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HULATA: -- and planning ahead. They have been degraded by their capabilities. Missiles have been fired. Israel was able to destroy a massive number of missiles and of launchers and other facilities.
But Iran is still firing missiles at our -- at our -- you know, my families live in places very close to where missiles have fallen before, including this night. It's true that the numbers are going down. But Iran must understand that this can take longer, and I'm sure that they are planning their missiles to the future.
And in a certain point in time, this will need to end. From an Israeli perspective, Iran is 2,000 kilometers away. This is not like an ongoing war with Gaza or Hezbollah. So, I think in a matter of days, maybe a week, either we can achieve more substantial gains in Iran and this should continue or we will need to wrap it up.
How -- it is better to do this when we have created the most amount of damage that we can to their nuclear program, do the most amount of damage that we can to their missile program so that they cannot ramp up their capabilities later and pose another threat, and definitely not be able to dash to a bomb after this attack has ended.
COATES: I know we have to go, but I want you -- I want you to listen for a moment to what the head of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said to my colleague, Christiane Amanpour, challenging what Prime Minister -- excuse me -- what Prime Minister Netanyahu had said for decades, that Iran is racing towards capability in the world. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAFAEL GROSSI, HEAD, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon. The material is there. There have been in the past some activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, but we did not have at this point this element.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, what is different now than what Netanyahu has said for decades?
HULATA: So, what I understand is that in recent months, Israel was able to find activities done by the Iranian scientists, allegedly approved by the supreme leader, to start creeping toward a nuclear weapon.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, is probably right. We do not see the full weaponization program falling in full force, dashing to a bomb and racing to it.
But from an Israeli perspective, we shouldn't wait until that time. If we understand that the supreme leader made a decision that having a bomb is something that he wants in his possession and move towards it, after just in recent weeks and months, he continuously said, we never wanted a nuclear bomb, we never have had a problem to a nuclear bomb, of course, they did. We know this from the archive, and we know that they lied.
And if we did have intel, and I think we did have intel, that they were starting moving towards that direction, Israel can't wait for that long. Maybe the United States can wait and act closer to it, but I'm not sure that the United States is willing to engage militarily in Iran.
In any case, from an Israeli perspective, we cannot wait till the last moment. We have to act when we have a chance, and this was the time.
And just to make it clear, this is getting support for the entire political spectrum in Israel. This is not a Benjamin Netanyahu as a prime minister decision. Former Prime Minister Bennett is approving it, Lapid, and all the rest.
COATES: Well, there's a lot more questions to answer, of course, and we'll have to see what the timeline will be here in the United States on their decision making as well. Eyal Hulata, thank you so much for joining us.
HULATA: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, a Democratic congressman blasting his party, showing them now is the time to reclaim the anti-war mantle or risk losing even more elections. Is he right?
[23:24:58]
Plus, MAGA's moment of choosing. The split in the party on full display as Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz go for it and go at it. Is it starting to weigh on President Trump? We'll discuss that next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: If you're calling for toppling a government, it's incumbent on you to know something about the country and to think through the consequences of that, and you haven't and you don't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: We should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don't help us when our country is dying.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): When -- when you say don't help us --
CARLSON: And our country is dying.
CRUZ: Look, yes, focus on our country. I'm all for it. But -- but the -- the naivete --
CARLSON: You don't even know how much money this cost.
[23:30:00]
You don't know anything about the country's government you want to overthrow. And you're calling me reckless!
(LAUGHTER)
CRUZ: I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons --
CARLSON: Fair.
CRUZ: -- that could kill millions of Americans.
CARLSON: Fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That interview between Carlson and Cruz revealing this schism opening up in MAGA world as President Trump weighs weather to strike Iran. The Republicans are splintering into opposing camps, those who support intervention and those who support isolation. And it raises this question, is Trump betraying his campaign 'America First' promise?
Here to talk about it, former New Jersey Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Let's get right to it. Do you think that Trump is betraying it?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No. I think that the noise on the far-right isolation wing, if you will, and I don't think it's a wing of the Republican House, I think it's a shed in the far back corner of the yard.
You know, currently, CNN polling says that 69% of Republicans favor strikes on Iran, like, all the way to action. I don't think they want to send in the 10th Mountain Division for, like, five years to camp out, but they do favor strikes and they do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's actually one of the few things Democrats agree with Republicans on in the country as Iran can have a nuclear weapon.
COATES: Well, Trump was actually asked about it, if he -- if intervening in the conflict would actually betray this philosophy he has spoken about. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: No, my supporters are for me. My supporters are 'America First.' They make America great again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, his supporters are one thing. American voters are more broad.
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Well, I'm not the Republican at this table, but I think my comment on the schism in the Republican Party is that it's not between people who have different opinions about what to do.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MALINOWSKI: It's between people who have opinions and people who say you're not allowed to have opinions, you're just supposed to do whatever support -- whatever Trump ultimately decides.
COATES: Does this instance feel different, though, given the gravitas, given the idea of the United States Military possibly getting involved?
MALINOWSKI: Well, I -- I think that's why we almost should not talk about the politics of it because it's so serious. But I -- I just -- I've been struck by the number of people on -- on the right who are just saying he has a plan, trust the plan, we don't know what it is. If he strikes, then he's the strongest leader in history. If he doesn't, then he's the wisest leader in history. But let's not comment until he decides. And -- and there's this sort of fear --
TODD: He should weigh carefully.
MALINOWSKI: -- getting on the wrong side of -- of -- of an unpredictable president who wants to be --
COATES: I think his point, though, is that there is a concern that people are giving so much grace as to have sort of a head in the sand approach.
TODD: I think they're trying to give him room to make his decision with information. This is a national security matter, first off. You know, the president has access to information about how likely we think we could take it out with American ordinance, how likely this -- this mission would be successful, what do we think Iran's capability to react is. The president has that kind of information.
I think most Republican House and Senate members are willing to give the president room to make that decision. But I also think they're pretty convinced Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And Tucker Carlson was, too. If you look back in 2012, he said, we should annihilate Iran. That was nine years after Iraq.
COATES: Hmm.
TODD: And so, I -- I kind of questioned why Tucker is where he is today when he said that we should not be tolerant of Iran having a nuclear weapon forever.
COATES: Well, by the way, Republicans perhaps are being talked about, but Democrats are also being criticized. And, in fact, Congressman Ro Khanna out of California, he was torching his fellow Democrats, frankly, for not speaking out more forcefully against joining the conflict. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): The American people are sick of this. It's one of the reasons Donald Trump won. This is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to be the anti-war party again. None of the ordinary Americans want this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How do you think Democrats are doing in terms of their response, and should they be listening and supporting this?
MALINOWSKI: I -- I think Democrats on the Hill are asking the right questions about this. And, by the way, I agree with you. There's broad agreement Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MALINOWSKI: But the questions are, well, do we need to use force right now given how much Israel has already degraded the weaponization program? The conversation you just had with the national security advisor of Israel, I think, brought that forth.
What is Israel's ultimate objective here? Is it actually to degrade the nuclear program or something much bigger that we don't want to get involved in, the regime change operation? What are the risks? What happens if we actually join in by destroying this underground facility with American troops, with American ordnance? What can Iran do to us?
What happens when, if the war goes on and on and our allies in the Persian Gulf, Israel get into trouble, then they come to us for help which, of course, they will also --
COATES: Are these questions --
MALINOWSKI: So, those are the right questions.
COATES: Yes, but are they -- are they being answered?
[23:35:02]
I mean, Congress, obviously, should be the one asking these questions, obviously, on behalf of the American people, and also getting those answers to the point of satisfaction. Are they doing enough across the aisle to actually take on their role as legislators?
MALINOWSKI: Well, I don't think they're getting the answers to those questions, which is why a lot of Democrats, even Democrats who would be philosophically inclined --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MALINOWSKI: -- to support Israel to -- to take a tough stand on Iran's nuclear program -- there's not a lot of confidence in a Defense Department led by Pete Hegseth, for example, to have the planning in place, to have a strategy for dealing with all the different possible permutations.
But I think where -- where I do differ a little bit with Ro Khanna is I don't think this should be about getting on one side or another side of a political debate. The stakes here for our national security are too great for that to be the prism through which we see this. TODD: I -- I -- I agree. I think only seven Democrats or so have gotten on a resolution to try to block military action. Most of the rest of them are holding their powder and trying to, I think, ask some of these questions about what's the likelihood of success, what can happen afterwards.
But we don't need to ask whether Iran is a terrible threat to the United States. I mean, they threaten shipping for the whole world in the Strait of Hormuz. They indiscriminately send missiles to our enemies. They -- they call us the great state. Iran is run by a bunch of crazy radicals who would love to obliterate the United States. We should have no doubt about that.
And whether we get rid of their ability to make a nuclear weapon is good. And whether this regime was to not govern Iran, that's good. We -- this is -- these are not questions we need answers to.
COATES: Tom, Brad, there are still many questions we need answers to, including whether the United States will become involved in any conflict. Thank you both.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
TODD: Thank you.
COATES: Much more on the tensions in Iran ahead. But first, he says he was an Afghan interpreter who helped American troops overseas. Now, he's in ICE detention, is at risk of getting kicked out of the country that he helped This story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, an immigration arrest is sparking outrage. This video shows the moment that ICE detained a man, who says he was an Afghan interpreter, who spent years helping the U.S. Military.
His attorney says he was granted lawful parole into the United States back in 2024 through the CBP One app. He was taken into custody during what his attorney says was supposed to be a scheduled court hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAYED NASER, DETAINED BY ICE: I worked with the U.S. Military. I was interpreter. I worked with the U.S. Military.
UNKNOWN: Do you have a warrant for his arrest?
UNKNOWN: Yes, we do.
UNKNOWN: Provide the warrant. Provide the warrant.
NASER: I worked with the U.S. Military. Just -- UNKNOWN: You could come with us, sir. You could --
UNKNOWN: Provide the warrant.
UNKNOWN: You could come with us.
NASER: For more than three years, I worked with the U.S. Military back in my home country. I came here --
UNKNOWN: Thank you for your service.
NASER: -- to make a -- to make a better life. I didn't know this was going to happen like this for me. I -- I never -- I never thought about this. I have all the evidence that I worked with the U.S. Military. Everything. I'm an interpreter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The man says the Taliban has been searching for him back home and claims a terror group already killed his brother at a family wedding.
Tonight, the Department of Homeland Security says the man was unvetted when he was allowed into the United States via the CBP One app, adding -- quote -- "There is nothing in his immigration records indicating that he assisted the U.S. government in any capacity. All of his claims will be heard by a judge. Any Afghan who fears persecution is able to request asylum."
Joining me now is this man's attorney, Brian McGoldrick, and the founder of the organization Afghan Evac, Shawn VanDiver. Thank you both. Brian, let me begin with you here. What is your response to DHS saying that there is no evidence that your client was ever an army interpreter?
BRIAN MCGOLDRICK, ATTORNEY FOR AFGHAN MAN DETAINED BY ICE: That's just not true. There's plenty of evidence that was submitted long before that hearing. We have letters of recommendation from the -- his employers that he was an interpreter at the Kabul Military Training Institute. This -- this is all really just a ruse.
COATES: Hmm.
MCGOLDRICK: You know? The -- he -- he -- he got CBP One appointment. He came to the port of entry in San Ysidro, and he said -- he asked, can I come in the United States and claim asylum? And CBP said, sure. And they gave him parole for two years. They gave him this notice to appear so that he could make his claim in court. And he was going about his business for almost a year.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MCGOLDRICK: And we had filed everything we needed. And then we come to this hearing. And suddenly, the government makes this motion to dismiss, saying, oh, no, this was an improvidently issued notice to appear. COATES: Well, you've been in touch with him since he was taken into custody. I mean, what is he experiencing tonight? What is he saying?
MCGOLDRICK: Well, he's -- he -- he's dismayed that -- that he's in custody at all. He can't believe that this is how he's being treated after he spent years supporting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan at -- per -- at great personal risk to him and to his family. So, he's just really dismayed and disappointed that this is what's happening to him.
COATES: And what is it?
MCGOLDRICK: And being in detention is -- you know, it's pretty awful having to live in these cramped quarters. You know, one of the things he said to me was, I never thought I would come to America and be put in a room where I have to sleep in the same room I go to the bathroom.
[23:45:03]
He's -- he's just totally disgusted by what has happened.
COATES: Shawn, your organization advocates for Afghans whose lives are at risk for helping U.S. forces. What was your reaction when you learned about this arrest?
SHAWN VANDIVER, FOUNDER, AFGHAN EVAC: Sure. Thank you for having us on tonight, Laura. Look, we're really upset. We're pissed off that folks who are following the rules after serving our country for so many years had to get themselves to the southern border, follow the legal process, to follow -- to get in through CBP One.
And the thanks that we give them when they get here is the Trump administration indiscriminately sending ICE out to do 3,000 arrests a day, and they're getting swept up in this.
It's absolute nonsense. It shouldn't be happening. That is not what -- what veterans in this country want. That's not what Sayed deserves. He followed every single thing that we asked him to do.
COATES: And is -- I would assume also, just from -- just from what we've learned about his background and the fear, there's a -- a different level of fear of him being returned to his home country.
VANDIVER: Well, yeah. I mean, look --
MCGOLDRICK: Sure.
VANDIVER: -- on one hand, DHS --
MCGOLDRICK: Go ahead.
VANDIVER: On one hand, DHS is saying that it's safe to go back to Afghanistan. On the other hand, the State Department is issuing visa bans, and they're issuing travel -- level four travel warnings.
COATES: Hmm. VANDIVER: They're saying there's no way that we should be doing anything in Afghanistan. The administration needs to get its story straight, and they need to know where to look for this stuff.
Clearly, if they looked into his background, they looked in the wrong place because we see the paperwork for ourselves. We know that -- we know what he has turned in. We've -- we've read his asylum application. We know all of those things.
And this is not how it's supposed to work. That's not the promise that we made them. President Trump talked a lot about these issues on the campaign trail. He brought out the 13 families from Abbey Gate onto the stage at the RNC.
COATES: Hmm.
VANDIVER: And this is the thanks that our wartime allies get. It's absolutely unconscionable. And what happens if they go back is they're hunted down and killed. His brother was killed. That's why he fled in the first place.
COATES: Shawn VanDiver, Brian McGoldrick, thank you so much for telling us and giving us the information here. It's so important for us to understand. Thank you both.
MCGOLDRICK: Thank you.
VANDIVER: Thank you so much for having me.
COATES: Up next tonight, massive crowds cheering on Karen Read after she was found not guilty of murdering her boyfriend. So, what was it about this sensational retrial that struck a nerve for so many people? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHEERING)
COATES: These are not fans celebrating a championship victory. They're not crowds who are cheering at a concert. What we're looking at is outside of a courthouse near Boston where Karen Read was acquitted of murdering her police officer boyfriend. Her pink clads of supporters are celebrating the moment the verdict came down.
And it marks the end of a long, winding saga that (INAUDIBLE) Massachusetts since 2022. That's when Read was first accused of killing John O'Keefe. Prosecutors claimed that she drunkenly struck him with her car after an argument and left him for dead on a snowy winter night. But her lawyers argued that she was actually framed in elaborate police cover-up. Read first went on trial last year. But that one ended in a mistrial because of a hung jury. This time, the jury reached a consensus after four days of deliberation. Read was convicted of drunk driving, but she wasn't sentenced to any jail time.
She gave this message to her supporters when she walked out of the courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAREN READ, ACQUITTED OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER: I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters, who have supported me and my team financially, and more importantly, emotionally, for almost four years. And the second thing I want to say is no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have. Than I have, and my team.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: CNN's Jean Casarez has been covering every aspect of this case, and she joins me now outside the courthouse. Jean, it has been a wild scene outside the courthouse. Frankly, most of this trial. Why were so many people so emotionally invested in Read's case?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You know, Laura, we're talking hundreds of people. And those -- there are so many more than who were at the courthouse today. This started as a grassroots movement, truly, with just maybe five, six people. And they bound together and decided, we want to support Karen Read. And so, they asked Karen Read, what is your favorite color?
COATES: Hmm.
CASAREZ: She said, pink. And so, then they started to just wear pink, and they ordered pink pom-poms, and then they ordered pink flags, and they had American flags out there today along with some pink flags, but that's how it grew.
And I think also, there's an aspect here because we are outside of Boston, Canton, Massachusetts.
COATES: Hmm.
CASAREZ: They believe there was corruption in their government. They believed and still believe that there's corruption with the police, there's corruption with potentially the prosecutors. And they wanted to clear that up.
And I think that Karen Read became that figurehead for them, the one that they could grow and multiply with their support toward her, showing what Canton was doing. And they believed that she was framed. There was -- there was strong evidence for the prosecution. There truly was.
[23:55:00] But the defense kept hammering home reasonable doubt. That was really their focus at this point. But I also think there was that overall large picture of ridding their community of what they believe is corruption.
COATES: Jean Casarez, thank you so much.
CASAREZ: Thank you.
COATES: My next guest is one of Karen Read's attorneys, and she joined the defense after previously serving as an alternate juror in Read's first trial. Victoria Brophey George joins me now. Victoria, welcome. I mean, how are you feeling after today's verdict knowing that you were an alternate in that first one, and then became a part of that defense team?
VICTORIA BROPHEY GEORGE, ALTERNATE JUROR IN KAREN READ'S FIRST TRIAL: So, I mean, as an alternate juror in the first trial, I -- I just felt like there was a huge injustice happening. I mean, not only, like, at the end of our trial, but sort of everything that happened after. And I just continued to feel compelled to try to do something about it, especially as an attorney.
COATES: Hmm.
BROPHEY GEORGE: And so, I just -- I tried to get involved in whatever way I could. And so, I, you know, tried to balance what I wanted to do, which was help with our very busy home life with our four kids under five and just -- just did what I could. And I think that where I was able to help the most was jury selection, and then jury-related tasks.
And I -- I'm just thrilled for Karen. I mean, this never should have happened in the first place. But today, it's just proof that the system can work, and I -- I'm just thrilled.
COATES: I mean, I'm -- it -- it's so stunning to think about this journey, the legal journey, the personal journey, all that has transpired, the way that it has captivated this community. How is Karen Read doing tonight? We heard her on those steps of that courthouse, but how much she'd be feeling? She walked out free.
BROPHEY GEORGE: I mean, I -- I can only imagine. I -- I feel -- I feel like Karen's case has really just taken this -- the state by storm. I mean, I hope the people in charge of Massachusetts really learned something from this because it should never happen again.
As a person who has been born and raised here, and I love this state, I'm just frankly embarrassed at the corruption that has unfolded here for the past three years, and I just hope that things change, that this doesn't happen to someone else in the future.
COATES: Corruption was certainly the theme of the defense and sowing those reasonable doubt seeds. But let me ask you. I can't underscore enough. It's a very unique position that you find yourself in. I mean, you are now a part of the defense team, but you were -- I have to say this again. You were an -- an alternate juror on that first trial. You talked a little bit about why you felt so compelled to get involved. But -- but what was it about that first trial that made you say, I can't stop thinking about it, but I want to be a part of the defense team?
BROPHEY GEORGE: I mean, for me, it was -- I -- I heard all the evidence, you know, as a fair-minded juror, like, not knowing anything coming in, and it was so overwhelmingly. I did not believe the prosecution met their burden.
And then to kind of hear from jurors afterwards that they didn't really fully understand the legal standard and the whole process didn't really make sense to them, it was just a combination of a lot of factors that led to me just feeling like I had to do something.
COATES: Well, you were the ultimate jury consultant at that point. I'm sure everyone would love to have your insight about what and how they were receiving the first information. Did you see some significant changes from the first trial to the retrial that you thought possibly the defense could -- could really seize upon?
BROPHEY GEORGE: I mean, obviously, I'm somewhat bound by, you know, privilege in terms of the specifics of strategy. But I think, you know, each trial is a different strategy than outside of just this case. I think the jurors you would like and the kind of the strategy you use will always shift. And I think it is just kind of being nimble with that and making sure that you are, you know, serving your client the best way possible.
COATES: You told Vanity Fair -- quote -- "I waited for nearly a year after the mistrial, hoping the court system would work as intended to remedy some of the wrongs in this case." Does this outcome, in many ways, restore your faith in the system?
BROPHEY GEORGE: I think it is a step in the right direction. I think that this country has a long way to go in terms of criminal justice reform. But this is certainly a good step.
COATES: We saw a massive crowd of supporters. They were cheering for Read after she left the courtroom today. Many of them were women wearing pink. Why do you think so many people have become so invested in this trial? And Karen Read, specifically, is she symbolic of something greater?
BROPHEY GEORGE: I -- I think that she's certainly a symbol here. And she's also a very strong person. I think all of those things combined kind of have led to this -- this effect. And I think that, you know, unique -- there was, like, a unique way in terms of, you know, how much exposure I got, but this situation of somebody facing unjust charges is not unique in this country, unfortunately.
[00:00:07]
And, you know, I hope that it just sheds a light on these kinds of injustices.
COATES: David versus Goliath in many ways. Victoria Brophey George, thank you.
BROPHEY GEORGE: Thank you.
COATES: I want to thank all of you for watching. Erica Hill picks up breaking news coverage on the Middle East next.
