Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Defiant Amid Mixed Signals Over Iran Strike Intel; Mamdani's Shock Upset Sparks Debate; Trump Lawyer Faces Scrutiny Over Whistleblower Claims; Prosecution Drops Some Allegations in Case Against Diddy. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 25, 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)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a flurry of new intelligence assessments on the strikes in Iran as the search for answers turns political, with the administration declaring war on leakers.
Also, is Democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani a political asset or a political liability? We'll debate the national fallout from the shock upset in New York City's mayoral race.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Did you suggest telling the courts (bleep) you in any manner?
EMIL BOVE, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't recall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: One of Trump's most loyal lawyers pressed on some shock claims as he vies to become a judge. Can Democrats stop him? Tonight, on "Laura Coates Live."
So, if you wanted to know the current status of Iran's nuclear program, it might be hard to find a straight answer. Is it setback years, setback months? Is it destroyed? Is it not? Well, President Trump and his team are still insisting on one specific term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We've also spoken to people who have seen the site. And the site is -- the site is obliterated. And we think everything nuclear is down there. They didn't take it out.
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: All of the evidence of what was just bombed by 12, 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spent much of the day pushing back against a preliminary intel assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.
Sources tell CNN, it says Iran's nuclear program was set back by only a few months. Now, President Trump is acknowledging the report exists, but he's lashing out at the media and saying the analysts who put it together were just taking a guess.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They said it could be limited or it could be very severe. They really didn't know. The report said what it said, and it was fine. It was severe, they think. But they had no idea. They shouldn't have issued a report until they did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Cue the fallout. We're learning from the administration that is -- they're moving to limit the classified information it shares with Congress, and his team is promising to go after leakers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: If it was a member of Congress himself or herself who leaked this, are they immune from criminal liability for putting the safety of the United States of America at risk? I've -- I've -- no -- nowhere that I read.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Trump's intel chiefs are backing up the president with their own assessments. The director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, says this: New intelligence confirms what POTUS stated numerous times: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe says, CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran's nuclear program has been severely damaged by the recent targeted strikes.
The White House also put out a statement from the Israel Atomic Energy Commission even before the Israel prime minister's office released it. It reads, the devastating U.S. strike on Fordo destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable.
Now, those statements all say it would take years for Iran to rebuild its nuclear program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is trying to spell out exactly why. Now, he says the damage to one of the three sites targeted was so extensive that it wiped out Iran's ability to turn enriched uranium into fuel for a bomb. And he says he knows this because that facility is actually above ground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: So, in Isfahan, there was this conversion site, which is how you turn this metal into something that's useful. That's wiped out. Can you -- you can rebuild anything that's destroyed. You could if you wanted to. But it's completely wiped out. And so, they can't do that today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Some of the biggest questions over the Fordow site, that's one buried deep under a mountain, which is why it's hard to know the full length of the damage, but CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid says Israeli intelligence is largely aligned with how Trump is describing it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARAK RAVID, CNN FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: There is intelligence that shows that there has been internal collapse, underground collapse inside the facility, which is something that shows us that it was badly damaged, because if you have centrifuges in this facility and there was a penetration of a bomb inside and there was collapse inside, then those centrifuges are gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:04:57]
COATES: Now the problem is there's enough conflicting information out there that it -- frankly, it's hard to know exactly what to believe. And the top Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee says that, of course, can lead to some serious trust issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): If you start trying to cook intelligence or try to manipulate it in political fashion, that -- you know, I have a good history with that. This is how you destroy trust with your friends and also with your foes. If people are misrepresenting or lying about the effects of this attack, who's going to trust us going forward?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My team of military and intelligence experts are standing by to unpack all of the dynamics at play tonight. But first to Marc Caputo, senior politics reporter who covers the Trump White House for Axios.
Marc, look, President Trump isn't just sending out angry social media posts, as you know. It appears he's also taking some action to limit the sharing of classified intel even with lawmakers. What are you learning today?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: According to the White House, this damage assessment report that has caused so much of a stir, that CNN first reported, was put by the administration on this internal sort of messaging board called CAPNET, where intelligence classified information is shared with members of Congress, select members of Congress.
And shortly thereafter, according to the administration, the information about this assessment leaked. And in the eyes of the Trump White House, this probably means that someone in Congress either leaked it or going forward would leak such information. They don't want that to happen, so there are talks about limiting the sharing of this information in that way with Congress.
COATES: Well, we know that tomorrow, Hegseth is going to give a briefing, which is -- it was supposed to happen yesterday. There's a lot of anger why it did not happen. What can you tell us about the briefing Is it going to be about explaining the different intel assessments or are you expecting to hear grievances?
CAPUTO: How about both?
COATES: Okay.
(LAUGHTER)
CAPUTO: You -- you -- you saw today at -- you saw today at the press conference at NATO that Hegseth is eager to make this a story of unpatriotic media and sort of how dare you. Obviously, he has an opportunity to answer these other questions, just which sort of attack they're going to take. I guess this is what makes the Trump White House sometimes like a T.V. show. We're all just going to have to tune in and see.
COATES: Well, this seems like a bit of a rerun, to extend your analogy, in the sense that Trump has had a long history with the Intel Community. They were at odds for some time --
CAPUTO: Yeah.
COATES: -- during his first term. How much is that experience coloring this season of the administration?
CAPUTO: A big part. Unlike in his first term when he was investigated and accused by a number of people of being a Russian asset, even some claimed a Russian agent, Trump was deeply and has been deeply embittered by the Intelligence Community or members of it. He does want to not just rein it in, but he'd like to scale it back.
So far, those plans haven't happened. And, obviously, now we see, with the entire conflict with Iran, the ability for Donald Trump to sort of juggle all of these balls. Iran, he's got -- he's dealing, wants to strike in Ukraine.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CAPUTO: He has his -- quote -- "one, big, beautiful bill" in Congress. It's going to make it difficult for him to do all of these things. But Donald Trump is sort of deeply paranoid about members of the Intelligence Community or some members of the Intelligence Community, which they call the deep state, and this recent leak only sort of heightens that concern.
But as Nixon had famously said, and yes, Nixon is one of the presidents that Donald Trump admires, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us. At least, that's the view of the Trump White House.
COATES: God, not a week goes by that someone is not quoting Nixon. Marc Caputo, thank you so much. Nice to see you, my friend.
I want to bring in CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Mark Dubowitz, also retired Army brigadier general, Steve Anderson, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen, senior fellow for the Soufan Center, Kenneth Katzman. Glad to have you all here.
Let me begin with you, Peter, because we often talk about the fog of war. A lot, sadly. But what about the fog of explaining the aftermath of what's going on? Do these competing intel reports now make it harder to know exactly who to trust?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think the shorter answer is no, because it's actually very common for different parts of the -- Intelligence Community have different views. Think about the Chinese lab leak question in COVID.
[23:10:02]
FBI has a slightly different view than other parts of the Intelligence Community. So, the fact that you're seeing different -- by the way, they're called assessments.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BERGEN: And they're also called estimates. So, they're not -- you know, they're not -- this is not like a mathematical equation or truth that is being delivered. They, you know, eventually -- and by the way, I have a suggestion, which is we should have -- there's something called a National Intelligence Estimate. That's a formal declaration by these 18 intelligence agencies.
President Trump could order one. It would take a bit of time, but it would largely settle this question because that's a formal assessment by the intel -- by the entire community.
COATES: But the -- the distinction you're trying to make is for the audience.
BERGEN: Yeah.
COATES: By calling it assessment, you're implying that this is supposed to be an ongoing -- not a -- not finality. Is that your assumption? BERGEN: This is not Moses coming down from the mountain with, you know, the -- the truth. This is -- this is -- it's -- it's -- it's a -- of course, we're so early into it. And, you know -- so, you know, we're only three days later. It's just -- you know, six months from now, we may have a better sense of what really happened.
COATES: Well, Kenneth, I mean, tomorrow, the top Senate intel Democrat, as you know, Mark Warner, is warning the administration against any sort of manipulation ahead of tomorrow's briefing. Whether that's heated or whether that's offensive to them, who knows? But he says that's how we got into Iraq in the first place. So, could these intel disputes be leading us down a bad path with Iran?
KENNETH KATZMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, THE SOUFAN CENTER: It could. But, yeah, I worked for the Congress for 30 years, and --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KATZMAN: -- what they should be talking about is what do we do if the ayatollah supreme leader decides to rebuild the program, because if he does, I can assure you, he's going to put the Iranian people through continued war -- warfare. Israel is going to keep striking. We're in a new normal. We're in a new normal. Israel is going to keep striking if Iran even touches any nuclear material from now on.
COATES: So, what does that mean for U.S. involvement?
KATZMAN: We are in a complete new normal. The -- Mr. Trump will, if he needs to, get involved again. He may strike again. He said that. He said he might strike again.
COATES: Well, that's the question then when you think about it. So, if that would -- would lead us into that, then the fact that Congress has not had a particular role in deciding where we go, if this is going to be the predictive nature, then what does that mean in terms of what Trump should have done with Congress?
MARK DUBOWITZ, CEO, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, again, I -- I -- I think the, you know, debate between the executive branch and Congress has been longstanding. I mean, commanders- in- chief have made this decision without notifying Congress, I think, 99% of the time since the end of World War II. I think he's resting on his constitutional authority.
But what's more interesting to me is, and we haven't really talked about it except in reference, is the agencies that I trust the most on those, on this intelligence assessment, are those who have the incentive not to exaggerate, and that's the Israeli intelligence agencies. They had --
COATES: Why do you think them, above, say, the U.S. Intelligence, would have no incentive to exaggerate?
DUBOWITZ: Because the Israelis want to go back in. They want to go back in tomorrow. And if they think that the Fordow facility has not been destroyed, they want to go back immediately. They think there's still 20% to 60% enriched uranium. They want to go back in.
And they've had a sober, apolitical, analytical assessment of what has happened. And they've said that Fordow has been severely disabled. They think it set the program back by years, that Isfahan has been destroyed by -- by key facilities, like this metal facility that Secretary Rubio was talking about, and the tons has been destroyed. And they also think the 20% to 60% is buried under Fordow.
So, when I look at the assessment of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission by Amman military intelligence, by Mossad, again, their incentive is to be sober and analytical and to understate, not overstate. I think that's important intelligence that --
COATES: Oh.
DUBOWITZ: -- that the U.S. Congress also should be aware of.
COATES: What I find interesting about that is, for me, that could play the other way. If there is some notion that one has to walk on a bit of diplomatic eggshells of the United States, asking for the help of having these buster bombers and, of course, these unbelievably heroic, you know, military who went and executed this mission, unbelievable.
But if the thought is you might offend Trump, who was saying that it was obliterated, I wonder if that factors in to their willingness to come out today and say that they have a complete assessment. What do you think?
BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON, FORMER BRIGADIER GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Absolutely. I mean, it's -- it's -- what we're seeing is the politicization of the Intelligence Community. It's just so shameful and so wrong.
COATES: What's the risk of that?
ANDERSON: The risk is that we're not going to get the analysis and the intelligence that we need. If our enemy is 10 feet tall and bulletproof, our soldiers in the voxels need to know that.
Now, Donald Trump says that it was obliterated. Everybody knows that's pretty much laughable. Okay? Was it severely damaged? Absolutely. But -- but obliterated? We need to assess exactly what -- you know, what -- what happened.
There's 400 milli -- 400 kilograms of missing highly-enriched uranium. That's out there somewhere. There are supposedly two secret or maybe three or four secret facilities that they've got in the mountains.
[23:15:03]
Remember, Iran is two and a half times the size of Texas, so there's a lot of places they could hide this stuff. And we know that the -- the -- the 400 kilograms could be hidden in one band. So, it could be out there. COATES: General, is there some reason it may -- I mean, obliterated means something. It's actually a defined word. So, when I hear it, I'm thinking about the dictionary definition of it. Is there some military response or thought in the background where they might look at this and say, you're calling this semantics? The point is Iran is on notice that there's a problem.
ANDERSON: Yes. Absolutely. I mean, that -- obliterated is not a term that you'll find in any intelligence.
COATES: Yeah.
ANDERSON: You won't find that. But you will find terms like significantly damaged or even destroyed in there. And if -- if that proves to be the case, then we're going to find that out.
COATES: What do you think?
BERGEN: I mean, I'm not an intelligence analyst.
COATES: But you are intelligent.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Tell me your interpretation.
BERGEN: Let me -- let me -- let me -- I mean, obliterate -- I mean, there is a sort of somatic quality to this. I mean, what's the difference between obliterate, severely damaged, setback many years? I mean, we basically, I think, are in an agreement that something really bad has happened to their program. The Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of knocking it back a few months came out early. It -- you know, we're now a few days later.
I will say something about DIA, which is, you know, Pete Hegseth is -- has been part of this -- the Pentagon. You know, bomb damage assessment, and the general would probably know more about this than I do, surely, the Defense Intelligence Agency bomb damage assessment is something that they do fairly routinely.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BERGEN: And so, you -- you can't say that this is -- this is a laughable assessment.
COATES: What about his point that he trusts more than of Israelis?
BERGEN: Well, I mean, I agree with what you're saying, which is, like, you know, the Israelis also -- I mean, they know how to deal with Donald Trump, which is you basically agree with him.
KATZMAN: Well, I mean, Mossad is -- Iran is crawling with Mossad agents right now. I mean, let's -- let's -- Israel will find out. They probably already know what happened because there are Iranians who are against the government that don't like the government that are reporting to them. That's how they were able to assassinate all these Iranian revolutionary guard commanders. They know where they live because they have confederates who are Iranian nationals, who are reporting to them. They will find out exactly what is left in this facility.
Now, the issue is, have we deterred Iran from rebuilding? Is it too much -- is Iran going to face too much punishment to keep the nuclear program going? And I think right now, if I were the supreme leader, I would say, I'm not going to put my people through this for years more, I'm -- I'm out of this.
COATES: I'm eager to see what Hegseth says to members of Congress tomorrow who, frankly, are between all of us. Probably needs to know it first. Thank you, everyone.
Up next, Senator Fetterman is calling it Christmas in July for Republicans. Zohran Mamdami's mayoral primary win in New York City shaking up the party from coast to coast. Democrats appearing divided tonight as Republicans get ready to make him their new boogeyman. Is it going to backfire? I'll ask former New York Governor David Paterson next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New York and the country are feeling the aftershocks of the, well, frankly, seismic political shakeup in the city's mayoral race. Zohran Mamdani, the upstart long shot Democratic socialist, pulling off a historic upset to defeat former Governor Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination.
Now, the reactions are running the gamut, from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez embracing Mamdani last night to hedge fund manager Dan Loeb, posting on X -- quote -- "It's officially hot commie summer."
Well, Wall Street is worried about Mamdani's policy positions, like freezing rents and opening city-run grocery stores.
But Mamdani says his laser focus on making New York affordable helped him win and could be replicated nationwide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR NYC MAYOR: I think, ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality. And you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality because it's a national issue. And what Americans coast to coast are looking for are people who will fight for them, not just believe in the things that resonate with their lives, but actually fight and deliver on those very things.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, my next guest knows a thing or two about New York politics, former New York Governor David Paterson, who endorsed Cuomo for mayor. Governor, welcome back. I mean, Cuomo, like yourself, is a former governor and has been in New York politics for decades. Can you tell me why you think he lost?
DAVID PATERSON, FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: I think he lost because his campaign was kind of old-fashioned. They rode around on big trucks in the street. Nobody could even see they were campaigning. He didn't go to many debates. It was like the Rose Garden strategy.
And while he was doing that, Mr. Mamdani, who I have a lot of problems with, but just on campaign 101, he was everywhere. He went to every neighborhood. He went to neighborhoods and places where he'd be perceived to be not liked, and he probably didn't do well there, but he just overwhelmed the -- the situation.
COATES: Well, governor, Democrats all across the country are looking at his win, and they're looking for a message. You say that you have problems with assuming his platform. Tell me about those issues that you take with it, and what do you take away from his victory?
PATERSON: Well, when you say that people should ride the subways free, that's easy for you to say. But he doesn't run the MTA in the city. The governor does. If you say that there should be a minimum wage of $30 an hour, then you have to figure out where that money is going to come from. He has never explained these things.
[23:25:01]
And I think where his opponents made a big mistake is they attacked him about his antisemitic remarks, which was right, and they attacked him about how he has offended so many people in the city, which is also right, but they didn't call him out and make him explain, either by writing a paper or making a statement, other than a 30-second moment where he would explain how he's actually going to do these things because he can't do them. Not because he wouldn't try, but because the way -- what he described he wants to do is impossible.
COATES: I'm glad you raised those points. And also, of course, he has tried to explain that he does not have those antisemitic views. But certainly, there are those who believe that, in fact, he does. The voters seem to think that he is the qualified person for the Democratic primary.
But President Trump says that Democrats -- quote -- "crossed the line" by nominating Mamdani. Republicans are turning him into the new boogeyman which, frankly, is probably expected with a major city like New York.
Are you worried that they'll be effective in using this -- again, he hasn't won the race yet, but he has the Democratic primary. Do you worry that they'll be affected in using him to define the national Democratic Party?
PATERSON: Those who have attacked it, the Republicans and President Trump and whoever, they've been doing that -- they didn't start after the primary. They've been doing that for the last couple of months. It didn't stop him. Neither did it stop him when the Democrats did it.
As I said before, what's going to stop him is when the public sees that he has drawn up a beautiful -- you know, like President Trump's beautiful bill. He's got a beautiful plan, but the plan can't work because he doesn't have the money for it, and he's not really being honest about exactly how it would actually work.
COATES: Given the powers the governors have versus the limited powers that a mayor would have, former Governor Cuomo could realistically perhaps decide to run as an independent and try to tout those differences and his expertise. Should he run as an independent now?
PATERSON: Well, George Bernard Shaw once wrote that hell is to drift, heaven is to steer. Governor Cuomo appeared to be drifting last night. It kind of seemed like maybe he'd had enough. But he came back today with an analysis of the data that shows that the primary vote really doesn't relate well to the general election vote. So, there is a lot of room for him to come back, retool, and win in November.
COATES: I wonder if he will. Well, the ex-vice chair of the DNC, David Hogg, he posted that Cuomo is cooked, and he also added so is the -- quote -- "establishment that brought us here."
So, governor, what do you say to people who think this is an example of why the party needs generational change if it's going to win?
PATERSON: To a certain extent, he's kind of right. The -- a number of people -- the number of 18-year-olds that voted in this primary is unprecedented. The number of young people getting involved as they did in in the late 60s is similar.
But what they're going to have to do, in addition to demonstrate anger or saying they're getting rid of the old guard, is replace it with workable and sensible and achievable solutions to problems, which I don't think they've researched enough to come to that conclusion.
COATES: We'll see about the actual general. Governor Paterson, thanks for joining.
PATERSON: Thanks for having me.
COATES: I want to talk about the national political implications with two CNN political commentators, Brad Todd and Karen Finney. All right, so, Karen, one of Mamdani's biggest endorsements came from Senator Bernie Sanders, as you know, who told Politico, Democrats need younger leadership, and added this: Quote -- "I think that the Democratic leadership is way out of touch." Is this a kind of tea party moment for Democrats?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know if I'd say that. I think we have to be careful how much we draw from this because it -- first of all, it was a primary.
COATES: Uh-hmm. FINNEY: But second of all, I think what's interesting -- two things. One, actually, Bernie Sanders changed the electorate in New York City with his own campaign. So, it's not surprising that that would have helped Mamdani. What I think is interesting is how Mamdani won and how Cuomo lost.
COATES: How do you analyze it?
FINNEY: So, couple of things. Number one is former Governor Paterson said Cuomo didn't really get out and talk to people. He did a lot of closed-door meetings and touted a lot, put a lot of money on television, hasn't lived in the city for 20 years. And I think there was a sense of, like, you can't just walk in here and assume we're going to get -- take our votes.
Mamdani, I mean, they had thousands of volunteers knocking on good old-fashioned campaigning, knocking on doors, talking to people.
[23:29:58]
He seemed very willing to go all over the city and talk to people and take tough questions on. And -- I mean, that, to me, I hope my party is paying attention to the fact that part of what he did was to put together a broad-based, multiracial, multi, you know, age coalition. He won an area called Oakland Gardens, which is in Queens. Trump actually won it in 2024.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
FINNEY: Lee Zeldin won it in 2022. He flipped it. So, I mean, he -- it was interesting to see how he won.
COATES: Sure.
FINNEY: And it's -- again, the other thing -- what was he talking about? Cost. The number one thing, and we're seeing this nationally, people are still frustrated and anxious about cost, cost of childcare, cost of transportation, cost of food --
COATES: Right.
FINNEY: -- cost of housing. So, I mean, that, I hope, is the blaring red light that everybody focuses on, that people are anxious about the economy.
COATES: Well, you know who -- who was focused, and that's President Trump, Brad, because this might not speak to the whole nation. However, President Trump is looking at this, and he said, he wasted no time, attacking Mamdani, posted on Truth Social, saying, Mamdani -- quote -- "is a 100% communist lunatic." Is this the -- the kind of foil the Republicans want?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It -- it certainly doesn't hurt Republicans when you have a 33-year-old socialist, who has never run anything as a new poster perk -- poster child for the Democratic Party. COATES: And how does it help Republicans?
TODD: Well, because I think we know that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they -- they sort of animate the Washington Democratic Party. They are the furthest left people. That is not something swing voters are going to accept.
And I -- I looked last night at the results, and I saw that, you know, he -- Zohran did lost by 20 points with Black voters, with Hispanic voters. He lost with the working class. Where he won was --
FINNEY: He won with working class. Did very well with working class.
TODD: No. He -- he actually lost Black and brown voters. He won -- he won upper, middle income white voters, very educated voters. That's where his margins came from. He lost --
FINNEY: -- part of --
TODD: That -- look at -- look at the breakdown.
FINNEY: I did.
TODD: Stats are stats. He -- that's what's happening in the Democratic Party today, though, is Democrats are struggling with the working class because they're overly animated by hypereducated liberals, particularly liberal women. It's costing them elections, and it's -- it really is helping Republicans form a new coalition.
COATES: I have to say -- I wonder -- I want to address this, too, because, one would assume that by virtue of being a part of the working class, cost would be an issue for you. It would animate the reason you show up. So, he seemed to be successful in that -- in that area because -- is that the area? Is that the connective tissue across the nation?
FINNEY: I mean, look, sure. I mean, some of the numbers that I looked at, he actually did pretty well with working class voters. But this is part of the challenge that the Republican Party is having right now with the big, beautiful bill. When the working class is part of your base, you can't just cut their healthcare with Medicaid. You can't just take away things like, you know, food for kids. You can't just increase cost --
TODD: You can't raise their taxes either, Karen, which what Democrats would do. If the bill doesn't pass, taxes go up on everybody who works.
FINNEY: Not -- not actually on everybody.
TODD: Sure, it will do.
FINNEY: Just on the very top.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Hold on. I want to --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: I want to correct you because the child tax credit is going to get cut in half. The standard deduction is going to get cut in half.
FINNEY: That's one of the taxes. But let's talk about things.
TODD: The rates --
FINNEY: Let's talk about the taxes.
TODD: Yeah.
FINNEY: If you're the wealthiest, 1%.
TODD: If you pay 10% rate, you're going to pay 12. That's -- that's the working class.
COATES: But -- let -- wait. Let's go back, though. That's an important part for Congress to talk about.
FINNEY: Yes.
COATES: But in New York, I want to focus on this, because this might be a bellwether.
FINNEY: Yeah.
COATES: And I think everyone is looking, including the president of the United States, on this very issue to figure out whether this is representative of where Democrats' future is and whether that's a good thing for Democrats or not.
FINNEY: Yeah. Two things. One, important to stay connected to the voters, talk about the issues they care about. The economy clearly still a big issue. It's a big problem for Republicans going.
I mean, when you have, you know, Mitch McConnell saying they'll get over it, you have Joni Ernst saying everybody dies someday, that's not a good look when we're talking about these kinds of issues.
I don't know if we can say New York is a bellwether, but I think there's a lot to be learned from the way he campaigned by going everywhere, by talking to people, and by being online and in person.
TODD: I think you're right about that.
COATES: What can we learn about the fact that he's being attacked online as a result of having one based on financial-based campaign? I mean, they're talking about his religion. They're attacking him for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his actual politics.
TODD: The reason he has been attacked --
COATES: Is that destructive? TODD: No. He has been attacked because he refuses to renounce the phrase globalize the intifada. He -- he still refused to do it today. It's -- it's an antisemitic phrase that calls for the extinction of the state of Israel, an extinction of Jews worldwide. That's what he's being attacked for besides his socialism and his crazy ideas that he can't pay for.
FINNEY: Can I make one really quick point on this? Interesting column in the forward today, which talked about this. This is, I think, an opportunity for him. What he needs to do is take this issue somewhat off the table in the context of New York City because Republicans are going to hit Democrats with this. It's a stupid issue.
[23:35:00]
They're going to hit us with this.
TODD: Why didn't you say I was wrong?
FINNEY: Hold -- no. But what I think he can do -- I think he -- he has tried to explain, which is always a challenge in politics.
The conversation is about how do you keep Jewish community in New York City safe? Talk about antisemitism. Talk about Islamophobia. Talk about homophobia.
TODD: If you tolerate people saying globalize the intifada --
COATES: Let me hear her point.
FINNEY: But I think if you make it -- but the question -- the point is -- the issue is, how do you keep people safe? Because the problem with antisemitism is the danger that it -- that it causes to Jewish people in New York City. That's what we're really worried about.
He needs to acknowledge that, deal with the politics of that, but have that conversation with people that acknowledges -- I understand why you're afraid. That is not my position. And explain his position but, again, make it a broader conversation.
COATES: It's quite striking that this is -- that that would need to be explained after having won the primary.
TODD: How about (INAUDIBLE).
COATES: Well, I'd like to hear from him, and I'll invite him on the show any time.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you very much. Brad, Karen, I appreciate it.
Up next, the F-bombs fly in a Senate confirmation hearing as one of the Trump's most loyal lawyers faces questions in his bid to become a federal judge. My next guest once refused to take orders from Emil Bove, and he says it's not about his credentials, it's about his character. He'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A Trump judicial nominee feeling the pressure today on Capitol Hill during a heated Senate confirmation hearing. Things became so tense that at one point, he declared -- quote -- "I am not anybody's henchman."
That man is Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove. Now, you might remember him as one of the defense lawyers in Trump's hush money trial. Well, he's now up for a seat on the third circuit Court of Appeals. The federal court just one step away, of course, from the Supreme Court. Bove also served briefly as acting-deputy attorney general where, mostly notably, he dropped the charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Now, a new whistleblower report obtained by CNN alleges that Bove intended to ignore court orders regarding deportations, allegedly saying the DOJ should tell the courts, F-you, choice words that Bove now denies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: You frequently suggested that they say (bleep) you and ignore court orders. Is that also something you frequently do such you might not remember doing it in this occasion?
BOVE: No. And, as I explained, I've never --
SCHIFF: So, did you or did you not make those comments during that meeting?
BOVE: Which comments, senator?
SCHIFF: You really need me to repeat it? Did you suggest, as Mr. Reuveni wrote, that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts (bleep) you and ignore any such court order?
BOVE: I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.
SCHIFF: Well, did you suggest telling the courts (bleep) you in any manner?
BOVE: I don't recall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now is Ryan Crosswell. He's a former federal prosecutor who resigned after Bove directed him and his colleagues to dismiss the Adams case. Ryan, what do you want people to know about Bove based on your experience specifically?
RYAN CROSSWELL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO RESIGNED OVER ERIC ADAMS DEAL: You know, Laura, today, Mr. Bove said something along the lines of I'm not a henchman, I'm not an enforcer --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROSSWELL: -- I'm not lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in this arena. That makes two of us. I never expected him to be in this arena either. I am because Mr. Bove did order that that case be dismissed. It wasn't based on the facts. It wasn't based on law. He did threaten those who refused to do it. Good public servants lost their jobs.
He had the opportunity to exercise the right character in February, and he didn't do it. And he had the opportunity to clear the air today, and he didn't do it. He's unfit to be on the third circuit.
COATES: Well, let me ask you. You -- you heard him deny those claims from whistleblower report. Allegedly, he told the DOJ to ignore court orders, also to stop deporting migrants to El Salvador. Do you believe that?
CROSSWELL: Well, I think we watched this play out in -- in -- in Judge Boasberg's court. He was repeatedly stonewalled. And so, I -- I do believe the whistleblower. I think they watched it happen, and this just confirmed that. And he also denied that there was ever a threat issued to my colleagues and I, and I can say firsthand that there was.
And I think that the senators know this. I think they know that -- what was that? Eight attorneys didn't resign for no reason. They resigned because of what he did. It's obvious. I hope that these senators will do the right thing and reject his nomination.
COATES: What's your message to them as they prepare to vote and evaluate what he has testified to?
CROSSWELL: Well, aside from the fact I don't think he was truthful about what happened, I would also say, particularly to the Republican senators who I do believe probably care about law enforcement, how much he has weakened the Department of Justice.
He has weakened the morale. I talked to agents and prosecutors that are still in the department, that are sickened by this. Morale is down. I think a lot of them will probably resign.
And when you think about the important mission the department does, protecting our citizens from drug traffickers, violent criminals, child predators, fraudsters, it's so unfortunate.
And aside from that, I think he has also weakened the credibility of the department when he goes in the court.
[23:45:01]
He built up that credibility with judges. And when they believe that attorneys will be fired with the exercise candor, our credibility is hurt and our ability to convict bad guys is hurt.
COATES: As a former prosecutor myself, I understand the sanctity of that credibility when you're in that courtroom and who comes behind you as well. Ryan Crosswell, thank you so much.
CROSSWELL: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, more coverage on the intelligence dispute over the strikes in Iran as the Pentagon gets ready to hold what the White House is calling a major briefing tomorrow morning.
But first, prosecutors in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs making some sudden changes to the allegations that they want the jury to consider. I'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We're just hours away from closing arguments in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs.
[23:50:00]
And while the jury was not in court today, the defense and the prosecution did meet to discuss how they will eventually instruct the jury to consider the charges.
Now, as part of that, we learned something rather interesting. The prosecution is deciding to streamline their case. They no longer want jurors to consider their theory that Combs allegedly engaged in attempted kidnapping or attempted arson or aiding and abetting sex trafficking.
Now, to be clear, the prosecution is still holding on to the arson and kidnapping theory of their case. Arson and kidnapping being just two of the many predicate crimes that could be used to prove their RICO charge.
And to remind you, the arson claim revolves around the alleged firebombing of Kid Cudi's car. The kidnapping claim comes presumably from the testimony of one of Diddy's former employees, Capricorn Clark, who testified that Diddy forced her to accompany him to Diddy's house.
That all sets up what we're told will be a four-hour closing argument from the prosecution that will happen tomorrow, followed by the defense's arguments on Friday.
With me now, trial attorney Monique Pressley and former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi. She is also the host of "Make It Make Sense with Monique Pressley" on YouTube. Well, I'm going to ask you to make it make sense in a second on that.
But Gene, let me go to you first on this. What does it signal to you, that they are no longer pursuing the attempted arson and attempted kidnapping in relation to RICO? And keep in mind, we don't have the final verdict form that the jurors will actually see. When I have that, I think we'll have a better sense of exactly what they plan to say in closing, what they argue. But knowing what we know now, what strikes you?
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Okay. What strikes me about the proposed jury instructions is a couple of things. When you start a case, when you're preparing your opening --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROSSI: -- you have to submit jury instructions to the judge.
COATES: Yes.
ROSSI: Probably maybe a week or two. You've -- you've done it. And you --
COATES: Why do you do that?
ROSSI: You do it because the judge wants to know the law when the evidence comes in so he can determine or she can determine what's relevant and irrelevant.
What strikes me, and Monique -- Monique and I talked about this, this is an eight-page letter making very significant changes in the jury instructions. And we finally agree on something. This shows that --
(LAUGHTER)
(INAUDIBLE) -- that the government is very concerned about their case.
COATES: You agree?
MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah.
ROSSI: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
PRESSLEY: I agree with me and Gene tonight. Listen, from the beginning, we've been talking about this case. They overcharged it. They came out guns blazing. They did what even progressive prosecutors have a problem with, where RICO is concerned, where he tried to throw everything in, including the kitchen sink, and see what's going to stick.
And I -- where I, the judge -- never mind the defense probably just wanting to stand on its head when they have the charging hearing. But the judge -- where I, the judge -- would be very upset because I'm taking you really at your word and at the strength of your papers and at the recommendation on what you submitted saying you're going to offer proof concerning these things.
Well, we all know. We all watched the trial. We know they didn't offer anything that would look like requisite proof. So, at the end --
COATES: They attempted to do -- I mean, obviously, the prosecution thought they attempted to do so.
PRESSLEY: But it's not enough. You know it's not enough.
COATES: They seem to think that -- just to be clear for the audience, too.
ROSSI: Yeah.
COATES: If you have these so-called predicate crimes, you're doing kind of mini-trials to figure out if this -- do you believe that arson happened? Have you proven it? Have you proven kidnapping? And then you use that to form the basis of the RICO.
But you have been saying, frankly, both of you, on both sides of this issue about this very point. But I want to go to the fact that the defense, they didn't really present a case. They don't have to. Right? It's the prosecution's burden.
ROSSI: Right.
COATES: But Diddy is not going to testify. They are not calling witnesses. Good idea or heavy gamble?
PRESSLEY: The only idea -- I mean, we -- we had this conversation as well. Every time somebody asks me, is he --
COATES: Are you, guys, talking without me?
(CROSSTALK)
Fine. Go ahead.
PRESSLEY: Every time someone asks, I would say the only way he testifies is if he's not listening to his lawyers, because this case is not aided by hearing him discuss whatever happened in the bedroom in his own voice. The jury not hearing it in his voice and not attaching him to these actions is the best thing for his case.
Now, that doesn't mean that they don't buy any of it. It just means that all they really have is the one audio for what he actually communicated to these women, and they're left to their own devices.
[23:54:57]
So, when the defense comes up and says these were choices, these were adults, this was a payoff, this was a money grab, you're not going to hear the voice of Mr. Combs saying anything, love or hate, wishing or desiring, hating or liking. You don't get anything, and that's where it should be because the -- the losses, the potential losses from him getting on the stand and all the things that they could ask him about, no, that would have been a catastrophe.
COATES: If that's exactly what the defense goes in their closing, what does the prosecution need to do tomorrow?
ROSSI: I was just going to suggest that. The prosecution has a heavy burden here, not just because it's beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to, and it goes with what you just said, Laura, for count one to RICO, it's not just explaining elements of RICO, you have to describe the elements of arson, of kidnapping, of bribery, of drug dealing. That's going to take time.
If that prosecutor loses the jury during that segment of the closing, then they're not going to get a conviction on RICO. If I were -- if I were a betting person, I think counts of three and five, the Mann Act, those --
COATES: Transportation to engage in prostitution.
ROSSI: Yeah. It's -- it's a relatively easier count.
COATES: Hmm.
ROSSI: I think they have a shot at a guilty on those two counts. I do.
COATES: Well, we'll see what happens. Monique, Gene, almost time. Thank you so much. Thank you all for watching as well. Jessica Dean picks up CNN's coverage next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
