Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Epstein's Ex-Attorney Speaks Out Amid Controversy; Trump Takes Steps To Pressure Russia Into Ending Ukraine War; Barack Obama Issues A Call To Action For Democrats; Court Temporarily Stays Termination Of Afghans' Protected Status. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 14, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: "Laura Coates Live" is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Jeffrey Epstein's former attorney is set to join me as the controversy over the Epstein files turns into, well, critical quicksand for the president. Can he dig himself out of this one? Plus, Barack Obama's blistering message to Democrats. Will his party listen and should they listen? And later, Trump's dramatic new tone on Russia. Is Putin ready for what might come next? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, it's a story that President Trump does not want anyone talking about. Not even his supporters. I mean, especially not his supporters. The problem is many of them don't want to listen to him when he says there's no there there over Jeffrey Epstein and the many, many questions they still have.

In a second, you're going to hear from one of the last people that Epstein spoke to before he died. David Schoen was his attorney. And in a moment, he'll tell us what Epstein revealed to him about one of the most controversial aspects of this entire story.

But first, let me get you up to speed on where things stand right now, at least for now. Sources tell CNN that Trump is telling his team to let the story die down. But that might be easier said than done after a conservative conference essentially supercharged the revolt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE KIRK, POLITICAL ACTIVIST, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST: There has to be some other bad guys still alive that are powerful that did something to these children. Why are we not impaneling a special prosecutor to find every single one of these powerful people that went after these kids? Like what -- why are we putting up with this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk. And I was over the weekend talking, of course, to Megyn Kelly, just one of many, to take issue with Attorney General Pam Bondi's handling of the case, especially now that that infamous memo is declared that no Epstein client list exists despite previously suggesting otherwise. Sources tell CNN that Trump called Kirk to express his support for Pam Bondi. And then suddenly, well, you heard Kirk changes tune today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRK: Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, balls in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend. So, if you guys want to see my commentary on it, that's fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Okay. So, he may be on board with Trump's call to move on. But plenty of others not relenting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELI CRANE (R-AR): I want to see more transparency, like a lot of other members and lot of other Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: MAGA voices are now floating all sorts of ideas to get more -- quote -- "transparency," including the idea of appointing a special counsel to independently investigate.

But if President Trump's daughter-in-law has to be believed, none of that may be necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: What would be your advice in order to take the temperature down on this issue from within the administration?

LARA TRUMP, FORMER RNC CO-CHAIR: Well, I do think that there needs to be more transparency on this. And I think that that will happen. So, I believe that there will probably be more coming on this, and I believe anything that they are able to release, that doesn't, you know, damage any witnesses or anyone underage or anything like that. I believe they'll probably try to get out sooner rather than later because they hear it and they understand it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to be clear, there has been no word from the administration on any sort of new action that's being taken or even really being considered. The only real smoke signal came from the return of the FBI deputy director, Dan Bongino. Sources telling CNN Bongino did work today after taking the day off on Friday in an apparent anger over the DOJ's handling of the case. Whether Bongino stays or doesn't, well, that remains to be seen.

But one thing is clear, House Democrats are not shying away from any of this. It's quite the opposite, frankly. They're now calling for a vote, on the record, to release anything related to Epstein. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): The attorney general said on her desk was the Epstein file. And now, she's saying, no, no, no, nothing to see, don't release it. This is a question of trust. We need to release the Epstein files so we can restore government of the people by the people and for the people. And every member of Congress tomorrow should be forced to vote on this amendment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Congressman Khanna's amendment was actually proposed in the rules committee late this evening. But Republicans voted it down.

Joining me now, Attorney David Schoen, who was hired to represent Jeffrey Epstein nine days before Epstein died. He has also served as one of President Trump's lawyers for his second impeachment.

[23:05:02]

David, good to see you. You previously praised the attorney general, Pam Bondi, for, as you called it, seeking transparency in the Epstein case. What is your verdict now that the DOJ says nothing to see here?

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT: I don't really recall praising her for that, but I'm sure I did if you say I did. I think that the thing has been handled clumsily, quite frankly. I think that they jumped the gun. I think they spoke before they knew what they had. I think there's a certain level of hypocrisy from Congressman Khanna's position now. Where was he during the last four years?

Biden administration, we know, you know, for sure that they had all of the same records. Remember, as Maxwell was prosecuted by Mr. Comey's daughter and others, they've had access, a lot of people have had access to all of the papers related to Jeffrey Epstein. But I think it was handled clumsily.

I don't believe there is a client list. I don't believe Jeffrey Epstein planned to blackmail anyone. I don't believe Jeffrey Epstein was in the employ of the Mossad or any other intelligence agency or any of these crazy Tucker Carlson theories that are going around.

COATES: Well, you know, you say that you asked Epstein, frankly, if he had any dirt on President Trump. What did he tell you?

SCHOEN: He said absolutely not. It was an important issue to him. This was before I knew President Trump at all, of course. This is 2019. I don't suggest that our conversation was limited just to that.

COATES: Sure.

SCHOEN: But this was at a time in which it would have behooved Mr. Epstein to give up every wealthy and famous person that he knew in his own defense. And so specifically, I asked him about Donald Trump because, you know, they had been publicly associated in the past, and Trump threw him out of his club years earlier. He said absolutely not.

And it wasn't important to him that people not cast aspersions on Donald Trump and others who we spoke about by wrongly associating him with any of his activities. Remember, Jeffrey Epstein ran with a lot of wealthy and famous people, people whose names, you know, everybody knows.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCHOEN: The fact that they might appear in an address book doesn't mean that they did anything nefarious with him. He had a photo array, for example, at his home with some of these rich and famous people with different stories for each photo that I very much enjoyed hearing, quite frankly.

For example, a picture of Bill Gates with the dollar bill. I asked what's that all about. He said he made a bet with Bill Gates. What was he going to bet Bill Gates? So, he bet him a dollar, and he won. Those kinds of things. But that doesn't mean that any of them had anything to do with women.

I would say one last thing I want to say about this, you know, this call for a special prosecutor and so on.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCHOEN: There is a cottage industry of lawyers representing victims against Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein estate. You can be sure that if any of these famous people who haven't been sued already were with these young women, the young women would be able to identify them and the lawyers would have brought a lawsuit against them a long time ago.

So, if what people are waiting for is some smoking gun that someone famous, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and so on, was with these young women, I don't think there's any such list, and he never intended any Black men.

COATES: Well, let me ask you. If everything you say is true, and you've laid it out quite precisely, why has none of this believed by the supporters who say, I don't trust the government, I don't trust DOJ, I think there's something there, and those who are elite are getting away with something else?

SCHOEN: Yeah, it's a good question. I think it's because they were told we're going to release the entire file and there's such and such and such and such. I think that it hadn't been reviewed, quite frankly.

COATES: But wait. David, I don't want -- hold on. But when you heard statements like Pam Bondi, for example, saying, I'm reviewing a client list on my desk or otherwise, you heard people talking about client lists and beyond, what did you think? Did you think that there was some reference that you had not heard of or that it was all make believe?

SCHOEN: I didn't think there was a client list. I think what she meant was that she had a file on her desk that she was reviewing. I think their position now is they reviewed the file, there's no smoking gun about blackmail and so on. They also came to conclusion that he committed suicide. I don't happen to believe that.

COATES: Why?

SCHOEN: I can't prove it, and they can't prove it. I don't believe it for two reasons. Anecdotally, as I say, I met with him nine days before. I know that during the course of that week, he was giving instructions right up until Friday based on the defense that we had talked about. He gave me another assignment that was forward looking.

But more importantly, Michael Baden who, to me, is the top forensic medical examiner in the world, went through an independent medical examination with him just after he died with the assistant New York City medical examiner. And Michael Baden said that medical examiner couldn't come to conclusion. And he, Michael Baden, has never, in the tens of thousands of autopsies he has done, seen injuries like Jeffrey Epstein had consistent with suicide.

I also have had calls from people who had jail cells nearby. I've seen the layout of the jail cell, that sort of thing. I'm also surprised the Justice Department never investigated -- never interviewed me, who had seen him earlier or other people. Anyway, it's my belief. I can't prove it, and I don't have a conspiracy theory on who killed him.

[23:10:02]

COATES: Well, a DOJ inspector general report did cite a combination of negligence and misconduct and jail staff failures that contribute to an environment that led to Epstein's death. But it states the New York medical examiner determined that Epstein died from suicide, that DOJ IG report, and the FBI determined Epstein's death was not the result of a criminal act.

So, I'll see what they might respond to what you've said as well. Thank you so much for joining.

SCHOEN: Thank you, Laura. Nice to see you.

COATES: I want to talk more -- Nice to see you, too. I want to talk more about this with Scott Jennings, who is a CNN senior political commentator and also host of "The Scott Jennings Show" on Salem radio, and Alencia Johnson, former senior advisor to the Biden 2020 campaign.

All right, you heard the way that he laid out just now. And, of course, he has said all the things that I'm sure the DOJ would like people to believe, but it's not sticking for whatever reason. Why is this the political hill that so many are willing to die on? Why is it that there are so many people who say, nope, I don't believe that, I don't trust it?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Well, it was taken as an article of faith for many years that --

COATES: What was?

JENNINGS: -- that, you know, that the idea that there's information that we're not seeing as the general public, and people said that, bought into it. And so, Donald Trump wins the election, he appoints Pam Bondi, he appoints Dan Bongino, he appoints Kash Patel. These are all people that this same audience has, you know, confidence in.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JENNINGS: We trust their judgment. And I think it's just hard sometimes to believe something for a long time and then be told, you know what, what we believe is -- is not the case. I think --

COATES: Who has that hurt, though, if that's the -- if that's the changing -- if the idea is I -- I don't trust what I've heard right now? Does that harm Trump and the Republican Party? Does that hurt Trump in particular?

JENNINGS: Look, I don't know. I mean, there are certainly people that have legitimate questions about what happened. I mean, I've heard now two lawyers, both your guest tonight and Arthur Aidala, who I was on with Friday night, both raised questions about whether they believe he even committed suicide.

So, you can see they're actually, you know, in the know people who are still raising legitimate questions about this case. So, you can see why the general public would also have those questions.

At the same time, you know, if you vote for Donald Trump and you have trust in his judgment and the people he has appointed, at some point, you have to trust their judgment. I mean, you put them in charge of this.

And I think what Doug said is important to know. The Biden people had this stuff. If there was something incriminating about Trump, it would have come out. And also, now, the Trump people have this stuff. And if there is something incriminating about, you know, Bill Gates or Bill Clinton, it would certainly have come out. And so, I guess at some juncture, if you trust the people that you voted for, you trust the people that you voted for.

COATES: Well, let me ask you, and then I want to play for you as well some of what the supporters this weekend were saying during the Turning Point USA conference. They told CNN this about the Epstein file. Listen to this, Alencia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I think they're going to maybe give us pieces and maybe not the whole thing and think that that's going to suffice. And I don't think people are going to be quiet about it until they really do it. But who knows if we'll ever know the true story.

UNKNOWN: I think that if they don't release the Epstein files, whatever J.D. Vance says then is irrelevant because it's like everybody is going to take it as like a lie because of what Donald Trump did. But I think J.D. Vance wants these files released as well.

UNKNOWN: And this is the first topic that all of us as Americans, not as Democrats, not as liberals, not as Republicans, are actually lining together and saying we all want the Epstein files. And I say, come on, Donald, give us those files.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, you hear what they're saying, Alencia. Obviously, there's an issue about the trust, about transparency, and about how this might impact the ability to set things straight. You also heard from the daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, who was saying that -- suggesting there might be some need to have more transparency. Is the political pressure working to Democrats' advantage?

ALENCIA JOHNSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think that's what you see Democrats are trying to use. Right? It's this conversation around trust.

The Trump campaign made a really big deal about the Epstein files. J.D. Vance was talking about this on the campaign trail. Pam Bondi was talking about this. They had people walking out of the White House with these binders, talking about the Epstein files.

And so, they were stoking their base around this conversation, around this, you know, big gotcha moment. We're going to show you this lesson, show you what's in these files, and then all of a sudden, did a bait and switch.

And Democrats are using this as a moment to say, you actually can't trust them to do the thing that they said that they were going to do. And I think --

COATES: Does -- is it a risk being backfired on them, though, in a sense? To his point, and I've heard others say this very notion, Alencia, that, well, Democrats had it before. Some people have accused Democrats of essentially sort of dangling something as a setup for Republicans or those who are believing this. What do you say?

JOHNSON: Look, I actually don't think Democrats are making this as big of a central issue. I think it's one of the big pieces of a broader puzzle, right, about the trust with the Trump campaign. This is not the central issue for Democrats, but it is just a piece of this puzzle as we're going into some special elections, our Virginia gubernatorial race, all of these things to talk about.

You can't trust Donald Trump and the Republican Party to do what they say they're going to do. And here's another example of that. Not the central example, but another example.

[23:15:01]

COATES: Leader Jeffries had this to say about the White House's role here. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): There's reason for the American people to be concerned as it relates to what information has not been released that could be damaging to the Trump administration, and the friends and family of the Trump administration, and their billionaire corrupt supporters. And so, they're actively engaging in a cover-up. Option one, they lied for years. Option two, they're engaging in a cover-up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: How did you, Scott, counter that point?

JENNINGS: Well, I mean, between Jeffries and Ro Khanna, and I've seen other Democrats today all over their social media tweeting up a storm, posting up a storm about Epstein, it is really disingenuous to hear these attacks today when for four years, while Joe Biden was the president, they control the Department of Justice. I don't recall any Democrats talking at all about this issue or demanding the White House release these files. The only reason --

COATES: Your strongest argument, though, they didn't say anything till now because -- that seems weak.

JENNINGS: Well, I mean -- is it? I mean, why -- why would a Democrat care about it today, but they didn't care about it a year ago or two years ago or three years ago? They only care about it because the party is in the ditch. They are desperate for anything to cling on to, any life raft, and they think this is going to divide Republicans.

The principal democratic playbook in Washington is always try to divide the other party. They have no path, so dividing Republicans is their only political option. My advice to Republicans is, don't let Democrats get away with it. Trump is on a roll. He has had an amazing six months. Don't let them take this issue and divide and, therefore, blunt the momentum of what Trump has going on so many other issues.

COATES: That was his -- that was his point in Truth Social about this long post about why not to blunt the momentum. But let me ask you. Are Democrats effective in this position or do you think there is any merit to what he has said?

JOHNSON: I think they're effective in listening to what Leader Jeffries was talking about, talking about this corruption. Right? And people who are able to get away with these egregious crimes.

Again, this is an example that's building to a larger case to sell a point to the American people, people who didn't show up to vote, people who are frustrated with the Republican Party kind of covering for Donald Trump. It's a key point of this larger argument that they're making about the corruption and people getting away with some very egregious crimes that are different than the American people.

And so, look, I hear you, Scott, on this piece of Democrats that make a big deal of this, but Democrats have used this moment to continue to show the corruption that is Donald Trump when he has been the one talking about rooting out the corruption in Washington, and yet he is the center of all the corruption that people are frustrated with. COATES: You raised these points in your fabulous book as well. It's USA Today bestseller. Everyone, you got to read it. Scott, Alencia, thank you so much.

Still ahead, is President Trump about to turn his sudden tough talk on Vladimir Putin into real action? And later, President Obama scolds Democrats for not being tough enough against Trump as billionaire Mark Cuban tells the party their message -- quote -- "sucks." Stacey Abrams will join me to respond to all of it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Russia respected us. Putin respected me. Putin would never have gone into Ukraine if I were president. Never, ever, ever. I know him very well.

If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.

(APPLAUSE)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: How would you settle that war in one day?

TRUMP: Because I'll meet with Putin, I'll meet with Zelenskyy. They both have weaknesses, and they both have strengths. And within 24 hours, that war will be settled. It will be over. It will be absolutely over.

COLLINS: Do you want Ukraine to win this war?

TRUMP: Uh, I don't think in terms of winning and losing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The talking points Trump brought up over and over again on the campaign trail that Putin never would have invaded under his watch, that he'd end the Russian-Ukraine war in 24 hours, well, now, we're six months into the president's second term. And today, he's changing his tune with this morning to Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're very, very unhappy with him. And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days. Tariffs at about 100%. You call them secondary tariffs. You know what that means.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Today, a White House official clarifying to CNN that these secondary tariffs will include 100% tariff on Russian imports as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that do buy Russian oil.

That's not all because today, the White House also unveiling a new plan to send weapons to Ukraine, albeit indirectly. The plan involves selling U.S. weapons to European nations who in turn will transfer them to Ukraine. So, have these tables turned?

Today, Zelenskyy thanked the president for his support, several months after that now infamous Oval Office shouting match. And Trump, well, he had this to say about Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We thought we had a deal. Numerous times. I'd get home, I'd say, first lady, I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir, I think we're finished. And then I'll turn on the television or she'll say to me one time, wow, that's strange because they just bombed a nursing home.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, and CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He's also a White House and national security correspondent for "The New York Times."

Ambassador Taylor, I want to begin with you. Give us a sense of how significant this new weapon deal that Trump announced really is.

[23:25:02]

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, I think it is significant. I've heard it's $10 billion or could be more. That's European money buying weapons for Ukraine from U.S. manufacturers. Ten billion or 20. It's a lot of money. It can buy a lot of weapons that will keep the Ukrainians able to fight, able to defend themselves from the Russians. So, I think this part of it is a big deal.

COATES: Well, David, we mentioned these new secondary tariffs that Trump is threatening to impose. These would include sanctions on other countries that buy Russian oil. Would this pressure be effective for Russia?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, one would hope so. But, so far, very few sanctions have been. So, first of all, putting tariffs on Russian goods doesn't mean much. We import almost nothing from Russia, even before the war started. I mean, when you think about it, other than, you know, vodka and caviar, there wasn't a whole lot that Americans, you know, daily wanted to go see from the Russians.

But since the war started, obviously, there have been all kinds of sanctions about oil exports and so forth. The violators of this have been countries like China and India. COATES: Uh-hmm.

SANGER: And I think the big question is, at a moment that we've got other issues with them, especially from the president's tariffs, but also other foreign policy imperatives, is the president willing to go to the mat with the Chinese and the Indians on this question? And I'm not sure he is. And, you know, you saw this a little bit in the 50-day clock until these sanctions kick in. Of course, I think the biggest fear is that there could be a summer offensive in the interim in which Russia makes lot of gains.

COATES: Ambassador Taylor, we -- in some ways, we've been here before. I mean, it's not the first time that we have heard President Trump issue these kinds of economic threats. And as recently as March, he posted on Truth Social -- quote -- "I am strongly considering large- scale banking sanctions, sanctions and tariffs on Russia until peace is reached."

I mean, I wonder if he takes these threats seriously and also about the timeline that he imposes, the 50 days or so. How does this combine to influence or pressure Russia?

TAYLOR: No one knows what Putin is thinking. No one knows if he's doing the calculations of the -- of the effect of these tariffs, whether or not they'll happen after 50 days.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAYLOR: What they do know -- what we do know is he cares -- Putin does care about the fighting in Ukraine. He cares about the Ukrainians getting weapons from Europeans or the Americans.

COATES: Even indirectly?

TAYLOR: Even indirectly. It doesn't matter. For Putin, it doesn't matter. For the Ukrainians, it doesn't matter as long as those weapons are coming, as long as they're flowing, as long as they can count -- the Ukrainians can count on them, coming from the Europeans. That's what matters to the Ukrainians, and that's what Putin will focus on.

COATES: This idea of when and what impact it will have, David, I mean, what do you make of Trump's pivot to backing Ukraine after saying that he would be able to end the war, I think he mentioned, on day one?

SANGER: Yes, and which later on, of course, Laura, he said he meant somewhat facetiously.

COATES: Hmm.

SANGER: Look, he has come full circle even in the past six months. You showed that infamous scene in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy. That was when he said, you don't have any cards. He gave up to Putin preemptively, a number of Putin's biggest points, that Ukraine could never enter NATO, for example, and there were others.

I think this has come out of something of personal peak of a -- he was offended that Putin appeared to be dangling them, as he said, or toying with him, that they would have these now six conversations and no progress and the bombing at night.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SANGER: I think he was embarrassed by it a little bit. And so, I think you have now seen him, you know, react to that. And I think it's very possible he miscalculated on President Trump, just as President Trump sort of miscalculated on what his relationship with Putin was.

COATES: Ambassador Taylor, was it a miscalculation that you see or was it a strategic, almost playing, from Putin against Trump?

TAYLOR: Putin has been playing Trump for months. There's no doubt. And I agree with David that the --- that Mr. Trump figured that out. He has now figured out he's being played, tapped, I think, are his words earlier. That Putin was never serious about one of -- one of Trump's main foreign policy objectives was to stop that war. And Mr. Trump -- President Trump has figured out that Putin is the main obstacle, is the main obstacle to that -- to that effort.

[23:30:00]

COATES: What do you do with that knowledge, diplomatically?

TAYLOR: Well, first of all, militarily.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAYLOR: Again, let's come back to these weapons. This is -- you know, $10 or $20 billion worth of weapons is -- is real. It should be real. We'll see if it's real. But it sounds like it's real. It's going to start in days. That's -- that's the -- that's the response to being embarrassed, to being played. Now, it's serious.

COATES: We'll see. Ambassador Taylor, David Sanger, both of you, thank you so much.

SANGER: Thank you.

COATES: Former President Barack Obama telling Democrats to quit whining and get out of the fetal position. How is that message being received? Well, I'll ask Stacey Abrams because she comes next after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, former President Barack Obama issuing, well, frankly, a blunt message to Democrats, toughen up, at a private fundraiser in New Jersey. Former president issuing a call to action, telling Democrats frustrated with leadership under President Trump to stand up, saying, what's required is -- "a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. What's needed now is courage."

Obama going on to chide voters, saying -- quote -- "Stop looking for the messiah. You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates." But warning those candidates, they need to deliver for people, saying, "You want to deliver for people and make their lives better? You got to figure out how to do it."

With me now, the two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams. She's the author of the new novel, "Coded Justice." It's available in stores tomorrow.

So, Stacey, I want to get to your latest fabulous novel in just a moment. But first, what is your response to former President Barack Obama's quite blunt message to Democrats, talking about getting out of the fetal position? Is that how you would describe the state of the Democratic Party right now?

STACEY ABRAMS, FORMER GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I think people are trying to grapple with the unraveling of what we have assumed for very long time was a nation impervious to the type of autocracy and authoritarian regime that we see unfolding in front of us.

But I think the response is in line with President Obama, which is that we've got to take an action. We can't simply react. We have to lead. And that means not just those who are elected officials or those who are party officials. It's anyone who shares our values, anyone who believes in fairness and opportunity, who believes in dignity and in justice.

We are the ones who have to take leadership and ownership of this moment. We've got to show that democracy can deliver. But that doesn't just mean those who are in elected office. It means anyone who sees a neighbor in need. We lead with our values, so we show up and we help.

COATES: Hmm.

ABRAMS: And yes, that's our job in this moment. What they want us to do with their attempt to freeze our sense of capacity, they want us to just curl into the fetal position. But what we've got to remember is that before we had money, before we had power, we had each other. And the way we get back to power, the way we save our nation from those who want to tear it apart, is that we stop waiting for someone to come and help us, and we do it ourselves.

COATES: The idea of stop waiting for the messiah is one of the things that Obama had to say. And then you've got people who are not elected, as you point out. But not everyone's neighbor is Mark Cuban, although he is criticizing the party's officials and he gave a new interview.

And I want to read for you a little bit of what he said. He said, you know, that -- that the "Trump sucks" message is not the way to win. Talk to me a little bit about the messaging that Democrats should put forth. Is it the help thy neighbor or is it something more substantial?

ABRAMS: It's a combination. I have a podcast, "Assembly Required." And on my podcast, I refuse to simply attribute everything that's going wrong to the current president because this is a joint decision by a complicit Congress and by a conservative judiciary that is handing power over.

I recently spoke about the 10 steps to autocracy. This isn't just about whether or not they shut down the Department of Education or they raid the city of L.A. This is about whether they believe in the fundamental values of democracy. And they don't. And if they do not believe in those values, we've got to live those values even harder.

Our responsibility is to understand what their intention is, to expand executive power, to constrain any competition, to put loyalists in charge, and to basically ensure that we never again have free and fair elections where we get to choose our leaders.

And if we know what's coming, then the way we solve it is by helping each other, by making sure that we understand what's going on, but that we don't become so afraid and broken and numb to the behaviors that we forget that this is our country, too, and we are in this together. Patriotism isn't partisanship.

COATES: Well, let me ask you about this, though. I mean, obviously, there has been a lot of criticism towards Democrats. I know Democrats are not the majority party in Congress. But there has been a lot of criticism about the reactive nature of their approach, number one, and also almost too relaxed nature and waiting for people to essentially just see it all happen and then somehow respond to the polls.

Do you think that Democrats, who are currently in office, are doing enough to counter what is happening from top down?

[23:40:01]

ABRAMS: I think what we're watching is a reactive response to a completely unexpected reality. No one expected the United States to fall under autocracy so quickly. And that does tend to lead to a stunted response. But --

COATES: But Trump -- one thing, though. But Trump was quite clear as to what he was going to do.

ABRAMS: Yes.

COATES: And he has almost followed -- almost to the letter of the plan. So, people can't possibly be fully blindsided. Why is it taking so long to react?

ABRAMS: Because we believed in the norms that have upheld this nation for so long. Let's be clear. Liars lie. And he is full of bombast and always has been. But I think that's the point. This isn't about Trump. This is about a Republican Party that is suborning behavior.

And as long as our attention is focused on Trump, and I think this is what Mark Cuban was referring to, as long as our attention is only focused on one person, one avatar, one puppet, we are missing the larger narrative, which is that they are trying to fundamentally remake this nation.

When Tom Homan says that he is willing to use racial profiling to take away the rights of people to due process, we should believe them. But that's not Donald Trump. That is one facet of Project 2025 and our responsibility.

And this is the place where I'm going to say it's not just about Democrats. It's about Americans. This isn't about partisanship. This is about patriotism.

COATES: Hmm.

ABRAMS: If we believe in our nation, we can disagree about who gets to hold office, but we should not disagree about the fundamental rights accorded to every person in this country, the right of due process, the right to not have to worry about being separated from your family or stuck in a cage or kidnapped off the streets. Those are fundamental truths that we have held sacred for so long, and we cannot allow one party in one moment to fracture that.

COATES: Let's talk about what's happening in one particular city who is looking at their races. I'm talking about the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani. He ran a campaign almost solely focused on affordability. He's not being fully embraced by the democratic establishment. He is a self-described Democratic socialist. Do you think that contributes to why some Democrats are reluctant to support him?

ABRAMS: Voters are less concerned about labels. They're concerned about values.

COATES: Hmm.

ABRAMS: And my focus is on what values is he bringing to the table. He is bringing the value that we have to listen versus lecture. He's bringing the value that affordability matters, that you cannot ask someone to worry about the $10-word autocracy when they can't afford the four-letter word rent.

And so, when we start delivering, when we start showing at every level of government that Democrats believe in doing the work, then we are going to consider to win.

And let's remember, this was not a landslide election in 2024. It was a two-million person vote with 90 million people not showing up. Our job is to find out why 90 million people didn't think their voices mattered. And it's to tell them, here's what's happening.

That's why I talk about the 10 steps to autocracy. Let's know what's at stake, but let's also know what we can do to serve the people, to serve our needs, and to save our nation. Those are things we can do because we've done it before, and we can do it again.

COATES: Speaking of things that you have done again, another compelling and thrilling novel, let's turn to it now, "Coded Justice," where artificial intelligence is playing a central role. Give us a preview of what readers can expect.

ABRAMS: Well, this is the third book in the Avery Keene series. My intrepid lawyer, she has now left the Supreme Court, and she is an internal investigator at a law firm. And her new client is a tech firm led by a charismatic former major in the Army, who's trying to solve veteran health care with A.I. And then things go awry.

And so, she's trying to figure out what does A.I. really mean in the context of health care, what does it mean in the context of trying to serve a diverse population like our veterans, and what happens when ambition runs into intention, and a few people have to die along the way to find the answer.

COATES: Ooh, that's a cliffhanger. I can't wait to read it. I don't know how you do it all, but you do. Stacey Abrams, thank you.

ABRAMS: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Thousands of U.S. allies set to be deported at midnight until a judge stepped in with just hours to go. I'm talking about Afghans fleeing the Taliban, who the Trump administration wants out of the country even though many of them risk their lives to help U.S. troops. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Thousands of Afghan refugees breathing a sigh of relief tonight. That's because the administration's plans to terminate their temporary protected status were put on hold by the courts just hours before they were set to expire. So, how do we even get here?

Well, remember, the U.S. granted temporary status for Afghans following the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and takeover by the Taliban in 2021. Then, in May, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she would not be renewing protections, saying Afghanistan has had an improved security situation and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.

Now, it's important to note that many of these Afghan refugees risked their lives alongside American forces.

[23:50:02]

Joining me now is Shawn VanDiver. He is the founder of AfghanEvac, a coalition working to evacuate and resettle Afghan allies right here in the United States. Shawn, the court delayed proceedings for just one week. Does that help refugees in this situation? How do they prepare for what happens next?

SHAWN VANDIVER, FOUNDER, AFGHANEVAC: Sure. Look, uh -- Laura, thank you so much for having me on today. It, in fact, does help. Right? People get one week of relief. Folks are not able -- as soon as they lose TPS protection, if that's all they have, they lose their ability to work. People were really living in fear of ICE raiding their workplaces, their -- their places of worship, other places like that. And this gives a little bit of breathing room for arguments to be heard. Hopefully, it will become permanent. But it's at least seven days to breathe easy.

COATES: Is there any expectation that it could be permanent or would have to happen?

VANDIVER: Well, look, the lawyers on both sides are going to argue their cases. I think that anyone with eyes and a brain can look at what's happening in Afghanistan, with people trying to hunt down our wartime allies, anyone who stood with the United States, and see that it is not safe to go back.

They can look at the plight of women and girls. Women and girls can't be seen, can't be heard. They can't even be seen through the windows in their own homes. I don't know why they are rescinding this but, hopefully, the crew will have some critical thinking skills.

COATES: I mean, Shawn, there are more than 180,000 Afghan refugees here in this country. About 12,000 are here under TPS. What are they telling you about how they are feeling?

VANDIVER: Oh, my goodness. People are terrified. They're anguished because they're trying to get reunited with their families. And the Trump administration keeps putting roadblock after roadblock after roadblock in their way. Some of them have family trapped in a U.S. government facility in Doha, Qatar. And right now, the team at the State Department is making the case to send them all back to Afghanistan.

So, people feel really let down. They feel betrayed, and they feel like it's really hard to trust the word of the United States. And veterans are furious because it was us that made the promises down there. It was us that said, if you stand with us, we'll stand with you.

COATES: On the point that you raised earlier, too. You're thinking about the conditions that are presently in Afghanistan. I mean, the secretary of DHS, Kristi Noem, she says the situation has improved. But Afghan refugees have said that they are still, as you have said as well, in fear for their safety. What's happening on the ground? Are the conditions, knowing that people might have to go back, is there a particular fear for those who have helped the United States?

VANDIVER: There's an extraordinary fear for those who have helped the United States. And the implicit protection of the United States resettling folks that were trying to come here is gone. They've implemented visa ban. They've stopped "enduring welcome," the safest, most secure legal immigration pathway we've ever had in our country's history. And now, if they get sent back, the Taliban is still going around looking for these folks.

COATES: Hmm. VANDIVER: When they get them in their hands, the worst is going to happen. And women, there are women who are translators for special forcers that are on that base in Qatar, and they're terrified that they're going to be sent back. If they get sent back, they'll go to jail. Awful things are going to happen to them and their life. They're going to be killed.

Folks can follow along in our social media to get all these updates. We are @afghanevac.org as well.

COATES: Shawn, finally, I mean, the last time we spoke, one of your clients, who is an Afghan Army veteran -- actually, Army interpreter, had been detained by ICE. Do you know what has happened with his case?

VANDIVER: Yeah. Actually, we have great news. Great news, relative. It sounds like he passed his credible fear interview. So, now, he'll go right back to the beginning of the line for asylum. But it means that he's not going to be deported. So, it's a big win for Sayad. It shouldn't have been this hard.

We're really happy. And that's because so many veterans stood up and stood with our wartime allies. They joined a program called "Battle Buddies," which we started because of Sayad's case. Folks can go to afghanevac.org/battlebuddies to learn more. It's an incredible program. Six veterans across all 50 states have already signed up.

COATES: Shawn VanDiver, thank you so much for joining.

VANDIVER: Thank you again, Laura. It's always a pleasure to see you.

COATES: Me, too. Thank you. Up next, it may have just been an ordinary car break-in except for the fact that the car had Beyonce's unreleased music in it. And now, the music is gone. The mystery, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Can't break her soul. But someone did break a window. Beyonce's Cowboy Carter stop in Atlanta coming with an unexpected security breach. Hard drives, laptops containing unreleased Beyonce music, plans for show footage, and past and future set lists all taken from Beyonce's choreographer's car.

The police reported -- police report obtained by CNN says that Beyonce's choreographer and dancer returned to their rental car to find the trunk window damaged and their two suitcases stolen.

[00:00:00]

Also in the suitcases, thousands of dollars-worth of designer clothing and accessories. An arrest warrant has been issued for an unnamed suspect, all while Queen B wraps up her fourth night in the ATL. Now, on a personal note, I was just inducted as an honorary member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. I tell you, I am so honored and moved. Truly a sisterhood like no other.

Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.