Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Orders Federal Takeover Of D.C. Police; Judge Shuts Down DOJ's Request To Unseal Maxwell Docs; Trump Sets Expectations For Summit With Putin. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 11, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media: X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: All right, well, Trump has taken over D.C. FBI agents are ordered on patrol, the National Guard has been activated, and other cities have been warned they may be up next. Well, the mayor of Baltimore is standing by with his response tonight. Can't wait to hear what he has to say. Plus, a federal judge is calling B.S. on the DOJ's request to release grand jury transcripts in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Why, he says, well, just a smoke screen? And just where are expectations for the Trump-Putin summit? Well, Trump is giving us some hints. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, it's Monday, time for a pop quiz. If you had to pick just one issue that President Trump loves to put his finger on more than any other, what would it be? I'm going to give you a second to think about it. You got it? Well, if you pick crime or law and order, you might be on to something because today, he announced his plan for the federal government to take over the D.C. police. And the show of force, it was real. I mean, almost half of his Cabinet was standing alongside him when he said it.

And in addition to taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department, that part of it, well, it includes activating 800 soldiers from the D.C. National Guard. It includes moving federal agents to help with patrols. It also includes up to 130 FBI agents. And why all of that? Well, he told us in stark Trumpian language.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people. And we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look, you know I was a former prosecutor right here in this city, Washington, D.C. You're not going to not convince me that crime is here. It is. And at times, it has run rampant.

But what's the reality of the grim picture that he's painting? Well, tonight, we're learning that his takeover was fueled by last week's attack on a former DOGE staffer. More than one person today referenced that bloody photograph of the young man who was trying to prevent a carjacking. There is also anecdotal report of crime, of homelessness right here in the nation's capital.

But by now, you've probably heard the actual data doesn't line up to everything that he's saying. And when the crime stats show the violent crime rate in the capital, it's actually on the decline, falling both last year and also in 2025. It did spike right after the pandemic. But now, about five years since the start of that pandemic, it is now at a 30-year low.

But the reality is, and you know this, perception is king. If you don't feel safe, you don't really give a damn what stat, I quote you. It's about what people feel is going on in their neighborhood, how they feel when they come to town, how they feel about their children's safety, how they feel as families going around the city.

And there are people in Washington, D.C. who are very concerned, maybe even in your own neck of the woods. One resident told "The Washington Post," the language Trump uses to describe D.C. is wrong, but clearly there is something bad going on that needs to stop.

And a few weeks ago, CNN affiliate WUSA spoke with residents who actually pushed back when a police commander cited crime data that trended downward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Does anyone here actually think that? It shows such a lack and disconnect between what you're trying to sell versus what we're experiencing.

UNKNOWN: I fully admit that we have work to do here. How you feel is important. People need to feel safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:00]

COATES: In a way, it kind of reminds me -- I was just talking to someone about this. It reminds me of how there is that disconnect between the economic numbers and how the economy is doing and how someone feels about how the economy is doing. The disconnect, though, how does that translate? Because, you know, in addition to feeling safe, people also have said and have joined in on who else thinks it's important about how people feel.

The D.C. mayor, Muriel Bowser, for example. I mean, she is calling Trump's takeover unsettling, unprecedented. That's a quote. But she admitted there wasn't much she could actually do about it. Remember, this is a district, not a state. And she pledged to work with the federal government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, WASHINGTON, D.C.: We engage with all officials that impact the district, and that includes the president. So, I don't expect that that would change from our part. The fact that we have more law enforcement and presence in neighborhoods, that could not -- you know, that may be positive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, D.C. is not the first time. I mean, it's not the first city as well where the president has made crime his focal point. Remember, it's not even the first year he said it. He did it in his first term when he was president before. He did it during the campaign in 2024, trying to be president again.

He did it two months ago, actually, when he deployed nearly 5,000 National Guard troops to L.A. That was to end protests against immigration raids, remember that. Well, that move, you know, is still being challenged in court, and we haven't seen the end of that yet.

But he gave a warning to leaders of other what he knows as blue cities. Who might be next?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have other cities also that are bad, very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore. They're so -- they're so far gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, I have to wonder, when I was watching him earlier, what each of the mayors of those cities were thinking when they were called out, whether it was accurate or not, what the reaction might be. So, I'm inviting one on. So, I'm inviting one on. The mayor of one of the cities that Trump said might be on deck, he joins me now. It's Mayor Brandon Scott of Baltimore, Maryland. Mayor, welcome.

You know, as I mentioned earlier, people have to feel safe. And you can give them all the stats in the world. If they don't feel it, then they're not buying it. You, of course, know that in your district -- in your state and city, excuse me, it's different than Washington, D.C., right, because the president is able to send in the National Guard and take over D.C. police for a period of about 30 days. But a military presence in Washington, D.C., is that the right way to fight crime here, given your experience in Baltimore?

MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND: No. And I think we all know that. Right? And we all know what the president is doing is really just spitting this right-wing propaganda and using the media and the bully pulpit of the highest office of the land to push things that we know no one in D.C. -- my sister mayor is not saying that they don't have issues to work on. But the reality is that D.C.'s violent crime is at a 13-year low. And quite frankly, that's the case for cities around the country.

I think it's very notable that each and every one of the cities called out by the president has a Black mayor. And most of those cities are seeing historic lows in violent crime.

In my city, in Baltimore, we have the fewest amount of homicides through this date on record. That's 50 years, a 50-year low. Maybe we are too far gone, too far gone from the broken right-wing policies of zero-talents policing and all the things that did not make our cities safer for all those many years, but we know that having the military there is not the way to do it.

The way to drive down violence in cities has been proving mayors across the country have brought together law enforcement, the legal community, the actual community view, community violence intervention work to reduce violence across this country and cities to lows that we have not seen in decades. The president could learn a lot from us instead of throwing things at us.

COATES: You know, interesting, hearing your response, very different than your sister mayor here in Washington, D.C. She walked a fine line with her response, saying that there was no emergency condition in D.C. She did not openly criticize the president like others have and perhaps justifiably so. But, as I mentioned, different leverage, right, from your counterpart, Baltimore, the District of Columbia.

[23:09:58]

I mean, the license plates alone here remind people about new representation. And no elections being able to be voted on by the people here at the federal level. So, does that lack of leverage, do you think that explains her approach compared to what you can say?

SCOTT: Well listen, my sister mayor is in a position that no other mayor in the country is. Right?

COATES: True.

SCOTT: The federal government has deep control over the -- over the District of Columbia. And they have deep control in many different ways, not just with -- with -- obviously, with the National Guard, but with the purse strings (ph). And what -- what she is doing is trying to balance out -- balance out that reality verse (ph), also being able to fight for Washingtonians.

COATES: Yeah.

SCOTT: And I think that all of us should be thinking about that and how -- how we would perform in that same situation. But the rest of us, we -- we don't have those -- those same issues that -- that -- that our sister mayor in D.C. has, and we are proven. And I think that what we cannot do --

COATES: So, hold on. Mayor, how would you -- SCOTT: -- is allow this to be a distraction.

COATES: Sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you there. But I am curious in what you said, without the strings. What if the president picks Baltimore next? Given the decrease in crime rate, the job that you have done to lower those numbers, you talk about the historic lows, what -- how would the city of Baltimore, under your leadership, react if President Trump orders the National Guard and the FBI into Baltimore?

SCOTT: Well, listen, we -- we would take -- as we have seen before, we would take any legal action or any action that we can to work to prevent that. We've seen this and have had this threatened before in 2020 --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCOTT: -- following George Floyd's murder. This isn't the first time on this rodeo. But the reality is that we all know this is a distraction. The president does not want the American people to hear him answer questions about the economy or the Epstein files or that the country has lost its state in the world or that we are a less safe nation -- become of the -- some of the actions that he has taken.

And what he's doing is dog whistling through this right-wing propaganda and, quite frankly, racist viewpoints that they have about these cities and trying to convince the American people that what they know is not true. The reality is no mayor is out here saying that we don't have to deal with crime. That's our number one issue that we deal with each and every day.

COATES: Yeah.

SCOTT: But what we are saying is that right now, we're safer than we have been in decades, in my lifetime, in most cities. And that's something that each of these mayors should stand on and something the president should be coming to work alongside them to continue that partnership which, by the way, has included the local federal law enforcement agencies over these past four to five years. Why disrupt that simply to push your own agenda? Do what's right for the people.

COATES: I'm guessing the president has not reached out to take some guidance or advice from somebody like yourself who has decreased the crime rate. Am I -- am I going on a limb by saying I doubt he has made that call?

SCOTT: No, they have not, unfortunately.

COATES: Hmm.

SCOTT: But we still -- still have a great working relationship with our local federal law firm partners. I had the opportunity to stand with some of them just a couple of weeks ago.

COATES: Yes. SCOTT: And we wanted to continue that partnership. And we're going to remain focused on reducing violence in Baltimore. We won't get caught in the dog whistling.

COATES: Mayor Brandon Scott, thank you for joining.

SCOTT: Thank you.

COATES: You know, I need to hear from someone who knows a thing or two especially about what it's like to have a military presence in a community, particularly during an emergency. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Russel Honore joins us now. You remember, of course, that he led the National Guard response, Hurricane Katrina, 20 years ago this month, actually. Welcome, general.

Let me -- let me dive right in here because, as you know, about 800 National Guard soldiers are going to be activated right here in Washington, D.C. We heard from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. He says that they won't be involved in -- quote -- "law enforcement functions" but they could still detain people. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There's no rogue law enforcement going on from the National Guard. But there's also the application of commonsense. We're not going to have National Guards sitting there like this, seeing a crime committed, not do something about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Okay. So, unpack that for me. So, if they aren't technically involved in law enforcement, but they're not going to sit back and let a crime happen in front of them, what exactly do you anticipate they will be doing? It's not just going to be performative reinforcement. Right?

RUSSEL HONORE, RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Well, the way the secretary of defense is describing it, under Title 32, which gives them the authority under the National Guard to detain people and to stop a crime from happening, and detain people until the police get there, which will then do the police functions.

[23:15:00]

That's normally authorized under what they call Title 32 --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: -- where normally, if they were in a state -- D.C. is different. DC is a different animal because they don't have a governor. Under that case, they will work under federal guidance and the rules of engagements given to them by the chain of command on what they can or cannot do.

So, I would imagine this guard has a lot of experience working with federal authorities --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: -- that you won't see a whole lot of difference in D.C. over the next 30 days, you've seen over the last, other than a lot more police presence. Police presence is good. Nobody argues with that to be able to drive down crime. It's not what the president is doing, it's how he's doing it, Laura, because his audio and his video don't match.

COATES: Well, on that point, general -- I mean, the idea of police presence is good. I'm going to challenge that notion. I certainly don't want crime. I was a prosecutor here prosecuting crimes and did so with distinction. But the idea of police presence or the National Guard just present, that changes a bit of the community dynamic, maybe not even in the direction they would want. I mean, it's one thing you're talking about an emergency, an urgency. Does it change the dynamic if it is ordered in the way that it has been?

HONORE: Absolutely. Look for the restaurants, reservations to go down, people going to movies to go down, because the president overnight has declared an emergency in D.C.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: Look for commerce to drop off. Look for tourists to drop off. D.C. is a -- D.C. is a vibrant city. I spent two months there doing the 1-6 investigation.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: And I enjoyed it. Did I see people on the street? Most of the people I saw on the street who were hanging around were people that probably needed some mental assistance. They lived on the street. He wanted to remove the homeless people. Where are you going to put them? What is the plan for that? Are you going to incarcerate them or are you going to give them a place to stay? So, the president has taken his own now. Now, he owns it.

COATES: Hmm.

HONORE: Regardless of what happened. And I agree with the mayor that he's -- she's got to work with him. The D.C. Metropolitan Police is doing their job tonight just like they do it every night. It's very performative move. Does it sound good? Have a good sound bite? Yes. With more FBI agents helping them close cases, that's good. ATF working with them to close cases, that's good.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: National Guard presence on the street, that'll be questionable because the D.C. National Guard is -- have a lot of experience working with federal authorities on national security events, Laura.

COATES: Well, general, really quickly, though, they may have that experience. Do you have any concerns that they don't have the experience that, say, everyday metropolitan police officers do in terms of making arrests? I mean, obviously, the Fourth Amendment and other amendments, the Constitution protecting rights and civil rights and process. Do you have confidence the National Guard is as fluent in those aspects to protect people's rights?

HONORE: Yes. Remember, National Guard under governor or under the president can engage in limited law enforcement --

COATES: Right.

HONORE: -- activities to retain -- to detain citizens. They still got to go through the same process.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HONORE: They detain them, wait till the police get there, people read them the Miranda rights. They do not do investigative work. But they have the authority to stop a crime. And that, I hope, is what people will do. The D.C. Guard has worked with federal authorities a lot.

But, again, the president's message is not matching his video when he declares that people are not respecting police. And at the same time, he gave pardons to over 1,200 people who attacked the Capitol, beat up our police officers, beat up our federal officers. And at the same time, he gave in. His audio and video is not matching, Laura.

COATES: General Russel Honore, thank you.

HONORE: Good evening. God bless America.

COATES: Indeed. Still ahead, President Trump might think the FBI is for basically everything. Shifting priorities, missions. But realistically, can the bureau handle all that it's being tasked with? One of the FBI's top historians and a former top agent is standing by with the answer next. And later, a federal judge explains why he went against the wishes of some Epstein victims who told him they wanted the grand jury transcripts released.

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, the administration is reshaping the FBI, even driving in today. Frankly, there was a very different scene in Washington, D.C. Over 100 agents patrolling the streets of D.C. alongside local police. Trump says when it comes to crime, the district is out of control. And he believes this is the perfect enough is enough solution. But the extraordinary move follows a recent shift in resources to support immigration enforcement all across the country.

So, what else has been on the FBI's to-do list? Well, this spring, hundreds of FBI agents were tasked with combing through the Epstein files to find something that could be released to public. Yeah, like they were associates in a law firm tasked with doc review. And possibly next on their to-dos, Texas Democrats. [23:24:58]

This after Republican Senator John Cornyn revealed the bureau granted his request to track down state legislators who fled Texas to try to block a vote on congressional maps and gerrymandering. None of this comes as a surprise. The remaking of the bureau has been FBI Director Kash Patel's goal. And that was even before taking over one of the nation's most powerful law enforcement agencies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Go be cops. With me now, former FBI assistant special agent in charge, Mike Feinberg, who says that he was pressured to resign from the bureau in May, and the author of the new book, "The Devil Reached Toward the Sky: An Oral History of the Making and Unleashing of the Atomic Bomb," the prolific, Garrett Graff. Good to have both of you here.

Michael, let me begin with this idea of go be cops for a second because patrolling with local police is obviously not what the FBI is trained or normally tasked to do. So, what type of work are these agents expected to do?

MICHAEL FEINBERG, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, FBI: It's not quite clear because the FBI, FBI agents emphatically are not cops.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FEINBERG: They're investigators. They work on long term complex investigations using multiple statutes, as you know, in concert with U.S. -- with assistant United States attorneys.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FEINBERG: They are not trained nor do they practice nor do they regularly patrol streets or engage in first responder-type activity. Kash Patel's statement that they're cops, they should go be cops, is just one more way of him admitting that he actually has no idea of what goes on at the FBI or what its primary missions are.

COATES: So, that gives me immediate concern about the Fourth Amendment and excessive force cases. Right? These are, obviously, things that the Constitution is very clear on. But given the lack of experience compared to, say, an actual police officer, do you have concerns that the standards might be shifted in the wrong direction?

FEINBERG: It's not that the standards might be shifted in the wrong direction. It's that the FBI, because it's generally only interacting with subjects during the arrest phase or on pre-planned operations -- COATES: Yeah.

FEINBERG: -- has a very different conception of the use of force than a state or local officer who is engaging with the public on a daily, if not hourly basis. The FBI doesn't have a use of force continuum where if a subject does A, then the special agent does B --

COATES: Right.

FEINBERG: -- then the subject responds with C. They have a deadly force policy for when their life is in danger, and they're taught defensive tactics to effectuate arrests, but they're not dealing with the sort of day-to-day conflicts that come from patrolling for street crime.

COATES: Well, Garrett, I see you nodding here --

FEINBERG: And that's not a knock on the agents whatsoever.

COATES: I see you nodding, Garrett. I mean, this isn't the first time the administration has reassigned the role of the FBI. I mean, to do other things. But are they bursting at the logistical themes?

GARRETT GRAFF, JOURNALIST, HISTORIAN: Yeah. And I think I would sort of pull back a little bit from what Mike is talking about. I absolutely agree with him. But I think the bigger picture to me here is the jobs and the crimes that the FBI is not investigating --

COATES: Good point.

GRAFF: -- on a day-to-day basis. That the FBI, you know, you're pulling agents from foreign counterintelligence work, you're pulling them from counterterrorism work, you're pulling them actually from violent crimes task forces where they are actively engaged in going after complex investigations of the types of people who might be engaged in the street crime that is taking place in D.C.

COATES: Well, it sounds very counterproductive to the strategy they say.

GRAFF: Yeah. I think this is wildly counterproductive to what -- you know, this is sort of performative public safety politics. It's not about actually helping address what is taking place in D.C. or any other major city. And, in fact, you are undermining the work that the FBI is doing to help local law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies across the country on its routine work.

COATES: Is that the point? Because there must be a different vision for the FBI if all this is coming into play given what Kash Patel has said in the past.

GRAFF: But I don't think it's -- I don't think it even is the vision that Kash Patel has laid out because Kash Patel, when you look at his confirmation hearings, when you look at his public speeches, he has -- he has sort of phrased this let's go be cops of, you know, doing things like going after fentanyl -- [23:30:00]

COATES: Right.

GRAFF: -- going after drug investigations which is, again, is in the wheelhouse of the type of work --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GRAFF: -- that you see the FBI actually doing. One of -- one of the videos that I saw circulating online today, which looked like sort of a closing shot out of Veep, was a team of DEA agents today in tactical gear with bullet resistant vests, walking in a group along the National Mall as women in sports bras jog past them. I mean, this is like just ridiculous scenes of federal agents being misapplied to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

COATES: I remember how much I love that show. Thank you, Garrett Graff, Michael Feinberg. This is reality again. Welcome. Can I take your coat?

Still ahead this evening, a federal judge says that he will not unseal the grand jury transcript in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Several reasons why he didn't, but it's the reason why he almost did. That's deserving of your attention tonight. I'll tell you about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Motion denied. A federal judge in, you guessed it, New York, ruling against the release of grand jury testimony from the Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking case, calling the government's request, in not so many words, B.S or here, smoke and mirrors. It's a bitter term.

In a scathing 31-page opinion, the judge said, the one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the government's public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at transparency but at diversion, aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.

Not pulling any punches, I see. Well, joining me now, editor-in-chief and owner of All Rise News, who covered the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Adam Klasfeld, also former Miami Dade County court judge, who has handled his fair share of grand juries, Jeff Swartz. Thank you both for being here.

Judge, I'll begin with you, Your Honor, because this New York judge did not hold back. Have you ever seen that a judge essentially accused the DOJ of carrying out a red herring like this? JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER JUDGE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTRY COURT, PROFESSOR AT THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Not really. I've never seen a federal grand jury do that. I think that I've seen some judges do that in state court because they can get away with it a little bit more.

ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: Uh-hmm.

COATES: Yeah.

SWARTZ: But, you know, they're using word like demonstrably false.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SWARTZ: They're using -- he used words like disingenuous, which to some people means lying but it really means being insincere. I mean --

COATES: Tomato, tomato, Your Honor, on that. Right?

(LAUGHTER)

SWARTZ: Something like that. Yeah. I mean, he literally took everything that they were alleging and said, this is not true, this is not true, this is not true, and used their own words against him. That's the judge who put a lot of thought into saying, I don't believe you.

COATES: But on that point, though, just for the public to understand, really, I mean, normally, you think of the judge wrestling with legal doctrines and case law. But one of the arguments the government made here was that this is for the public's interest. There is such a public interest in having this information out there. They had to disclose it. Otherwise, it would be kept secret. The judge went through essentially what was in there. Was there any meat on the bone? And that's why he went methodically through this. Right?

SWARTZ: Correct. He took all of the elements, for example, of special circumstances or extraordinary circumstances --

COATES: Yep.

SWARTZ: -- and belied every single one of those, and basically just said, everything you're telling me is disproven by what I read in these transcripts. Uh, the fact that there were only two witnesses that were ever called and those were FBI agents, no witnesses who actually were victims, nobody who actually saw anything was called, there was nothing in there. These were typical grand jury presentations where witnesses are not there. All that come in are the officers that investigated it, who tell what everybody had to say and everything that they know, please give me my indictment. And that's basically the way it went here.

COATES: Well, let's talk about this, Adam, because you covered the entire Ghislaine Maxwell trial. And I should say it is not unheard of in a grand jury setting to have law enforcement come and summarize testimony. It's a probable cause finding, not beyond a reasonable doubt. But the judge's point more broadly, as the judge indicated here, was that a lot are publicly known and essentially that there was no there there in the sense that if people wanted to get full transparency and sort of move the needle, it wasn't going to be in here. So, if that's the case, where is that transparency, Adam?

KLASFELD: Probably in the 300 plus gigabytes of information that the FBI and DOJ reviewed as they laid out in that letter where they said nothing to see here.

[23:40:00]

Now, the entire grand jury record search began in the blowback to the DOJ and FBI saying that there's nothing to see here. So, they said, we'll give you transparency, we will go for the grand jury records, which no one was clamoring for and what's heavily guarded.

In fact, this ruling is a major vindication of what you have been saying from the start, Laura, what every legal expert has been saying from the start, which is that there's unlikely to be any information here. As a matter of fact, as the judge said, the government admitted as much that there was not new information here --

COATES: Hmm.

KLASFELD: -- and that it went to motive. The judge called it a diversion.

COATES: Yeah.

KLASFELD: That goes to -- that's blistering language. That is a judge saying, I'm not going to be the fall guy on your quest for phantom illusion transparency.

COATES: You know, let me say --

SWARTZ: The real meat on the bones, Laura --

COATES: Go ahead.

SWARTZ: -- the real meat on the bones is in the FBI 302s. It's -- it's in all of the documents that were created. That's where everything about it -- they -- they talk to everybody. They make notes about everything. Wverything is there in the 3 gigabytes of 302s and other evidence that they got. That's where it all is, and they don't want to give that to us.

COATES: It's almost like you go to a fancy restaurant and they un- shelve or unleash the pretty food, and there's like a pea, a carrot, and like an ounce of meat.

SWARTZ: Right.

COATES: Yeah, this is what it looks like. But I'm asking about the judge because, Judge Swartz, the judge actually had a message for the Epstein survivors in the order. I had some pause about this. He wrote, the victim's interest in reviewing the grand jury materials appears to be premised on the understandable but mistaken belief that these materials would reveal new information.

SWARTZ: Right.

COATES: Maybe they consider they wanted the information to come out there. Should the judge be interpreting what the victims ought to have wanted or really would see?

SWARTZ: Well, they have -- they have an interest in what's happening here. That by law, they have to be consulted about whether they want their names exposed, whether they want anything involving them exposed. That's the real problem. They do want to expose. But this wasn't going to do it. This is the second judge that said this is not going to do it. A judge in Maryland said the same thing.

COATES: Hmm.

SWARTZ: So, what it comes down to is it -- what they want is they want what they said, they wanted everything that they -- that happened to them exposed to the public, and this wasn't going to happen. And I think that's why some of them backed off and said, no, this wasn't going to do it. I understand what the judge is saying. We need more. And they're going to go after more.

COATES: Look, gentlemen, 31 pages to say no. Adam Klasfeld, Judge Jeff Swartz, thank you both.

KLASFELD: Thank you very much.

SWARTZ: Have a nice night.

COATES: You, too.

SWARTZ: Nice to see you.

COATES: Still ahead, from the president who said he'd end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours comes a new bold timeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, we're going to have a meeting with Vladimir Putin. And at the end of that meeting, probably in the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A lot of (INAUDIBLE) expectations. But what exactly are those expectations for this summit? And what do you think Putin is thinking about? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: All right, count it up, guys. We're about four days out from the high-stakes summit between Trump and Putin and, of course, Alaska. And today, the president laid out just some of what we can expect this Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is really a feel-out meeting a little bit. So, I'm going to go and see the parameters. Now, I may leave and say good luck. And that will be the end. I may say this -- this is not going to be settled. I'm going to meet with him. We're going to see what the parameters are. I'm then going to call up President Zelenskyy and the European leaders right after the meeting. Yeah. And I'm going to tell them what kind of a deal. I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal. I think a deal should be made for both.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, if you have to call up somebody about the meeting, they're not at the meeting. Right? I mean, that starts with the Ukrainian president. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now being told about his role. It suggests instead that the meeting will be a chance to simply test the waters with Putin and see what kind of deal he'd even be open to. It's quite a gift. What Trump, of course, anticipates will likely involve, his words, land swapping.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both. So, it's good and it's bad. But it's very complex because you have lines that are very uneven. And there'll be some swapping. There'll be some changes in land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He's also a White House and national security correspondent for "The New York Times." Also here, Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence. Got the right conversation people here for this.

David, let me begin with you here. He said that there's some good and there's some bad stuff for both sides when it comes to land swapping. Zelenskyy posted this on X: Russia refuses to stop the killings, and therefore must not receive any rewards or benefits. Concessions do not persuade a killer. So, this cost benefit that he's talking about for the good and bad, where is it for Ukraine?

[23:50:00]

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: What's fascinating to me, Laura, as you listen to the president, are two things. First, he's making it sound as if this is the first time he has brought this up with President Putin. They've had five phone conversations. His special envoy, Steve Wittkoff, has been to Moscow many times. So, this is not really the first time that they are, as he said, feeling -- feeling this out.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SANGER: The second is that while he was discussing land and land swaps, which suggests, of course, that perhaps Russia may get some land that is not taken militarily here, but maybe not, what he was completely missing was any discussion of security guarantees for Ukraine so that the Russians did not just use this kind of pause, this ceasefire, to rebuild and then try to take the rest of the country. He didn't talk about any minimum levels of arms that the West would send to Ukraine.

These were all the issues the Ukrainians and the Europeans are discussing. They never came up once.

COATES: And yet, how can it be, Josh, that Zelenskyy is not going to be present? I mean, how -- I mean, you actually heard him say -- Trump is saying it's not up to him to make a deal. But the person who is also has a vested interest, obviously, Zelenskyy, is not going to be there. He'll get a phone call if it's good to Trump?

JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right. This entire scheme is based on a completely false premise, which is that any deal that Trump strikes with Putin could actually happen without Ukrainian buy-in, which is obviously not true.

I mean, land swaps, what are they talking about? What they're talking about is telling a bunch of Ukrainians in some city who are living there, who have been fighting for three years, oh, now you're going to get ruled by Russia because Donald Trump decided that your real estate should go into the Russian pot. They're not going to do that. Okay?

And even if Zelenskyy wanted to do that, he couldn't do that because Ukraine is a democracy with the Constitution. They can't just give up their land because Donald Trump says, oh, I made a deal.

COATES: Land swapping sounds very almost kind. Right?

ROGIN: Right.

COATES: I mean, oh, we're just going to swap land, like Jacks.

ROGIN: Right. But it's not going to happen. So, it's all based on an assumption that Trump is making. That's false. So, it's an exercise of futility and a demonstration of deep incompetence on the Trump team.

Remember that when Steve Witkoff went to Russia and he came back, this was reported by "The Wall Street Journal," he had three different versions of what he heard from Putin that he told the European and Ukrainian leaders. In other words, the whole idea of land swaps is probably not what Putin wants anyway. He doesn't want to swap land. He wants Ukraine to give up land and for him to not give any land. So, even what Trump is talking about in that very press conference is totally wrong. He has misinterpreted something that his own envoy misinterpreted. So, this is the level of sheer incompetence and confusion and just total bizarre chaos that's surrounding this Alaska meeting.

That's the context here, is that the president of United States is flying to meet the president of Russia based on a premise that's not true, based on a meeting that his envoy had with Putin that was completely garbled between the meeting and this meeting.

COATES: Hmm.

ROGIN: And so, the chances of success are less than zero, but the costs are real because Putin will achieve a diplomatic coup and he'll achieve the ability to influence the U.S. president to try to get him to think that you craze the problem and that who is actually a really reasonable guy who just wants to make a deal which, again, isn't true.

COATES: Hmm.

ROGIN: So, it is just incompetence layered upon incompetence, and it's just a perfect example of the total wrong way to do diplomacy.

COATES: Hmm.

ROGIN: And I think for that reason, it's going to be a pretty embarrassing and stunning failure. And I think that's why you saw President Trump lowering the expectations when the press comes because he's starting to realize, like, oh, my God, there actually is no deal, nothing is going to happen, I'm going there for no reason.

COATES: We'll see what happens on Friday. Gentlemen, thank you so much. We'll be right back with little bit of, well, nostalgia tonight as we bid farewell to a screeching, beeping 90s legend. You're intrigued?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(RINGING)

COATES: Ah, the iconic soothing sounds of entering cyberspace brought to you from AOL, America Online. That's if your big sister, Tracy, didn't all of a sudden pick up the phone while you were trying to connect to talk to her boyfriend. But seriously, the dial-up experience that brought us the internet is nearing its end because AOL has said that after 34 years, it'll end its dial-up service this September 30th. The product was so novel that AOL's president came on CNN in 1995 to explain how it even worked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOB PITTMAN, PRESIDENT, AOL (ph): We're going to go right into the web here, right into America Online. Make sure the camera is looking while I type in my password.

UNKNOWN: You should never tell anybody your password.

PITTMAN (ph): Now, it's all over to you.

UNKNOWN: Well, it looks like you've paid your bill, so we are now into America Online. When you first get into the service, there's a welcome screen that promotes some of the services that we think you should recommend, the latest news story. And you can click on the main menu.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look at that line that went up. The usernames, the chat rooms, the buddy lists. Take that, Zuckerberg. Endless marketing CD-ROMs. So many CD-ROMs. And, of course, the words that brought us Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks together again and they're best since "Joe Versus the Volcano."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEG RYAN, ACTRESS: I turn on my computer. I go online.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Welcome.

[00:00:00]

TOM HANKS, ACTOR: Welcome.

RYAN: And my breath catches in my chest until I hear three little words.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You have mail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It was the gateway to a new world. You could connect and perhaps, importantly, disconnect. Maybe that's why some of us miss it so much. Maybe we just miss those floppy disks loaded with Rabbit Jack' Casino Blackjack. I'm dating myself here. But they're still available at eBay for just under two grands if you want one, by the way.

In any case, it's the end of an era for American Online and for all of us who used it. So, it's only fitting tonight we allow AOL to sign us off one last time.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Goood-bye.