Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Floats Potential Putin-Zelenskyy Meeting; Trump Vows to End Mail-In Voting Nationwide; Bill Barr Testifies in Congressional Epstein Probe; ESPN Scraps Spike Lee's Kaepernick Doc Over "Creative Differences." Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 18, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, tonight, Trump says he's heading the stage for Putin and Zelenskyy to meet. So, what was it about today that has him thinking the one-on-one is even possible? Plus, Trump wishes upon an executive order to rid the country of mail-in voting. Can he do it? And later, a key figure in the Jeffrey Epstein saga testifies on Capitol Hill. What Attorney General Bill Barr told Congress under oath and behind closed doors? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, when foreign leaders visit President Trump's White House, you never know what you're going to get. Fireworks? A love fest? Thrown out? A lecture? Both? Well, Ukraine's President Zelenskyy was definitely hoping to avoid those last two and not have a repeat of the last time he was there.

And here's a hint about how it all went. Good enough for Trump to tease even more meetings over Ukraine. Just look at Trump as the middleman. He says he called Putin today to begin trying to set up a face-to-face between Putin and Zelenskyy. And if their one-on-one happens and goes well, well, Trump says that he'll schedule then a three-way meeting. Hence the reason you're suddenly hearing the word "trilat" all across your feed.

The White House posted this picture of Trump on the phone with Vladimir Putin. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was also inside the room.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The president suggested that Zelenskyy and Putin meet. So, we're working on that now to try to set that up for them to meet somewhere which, again, would be unprecedented.

Just the fact that Putin is saying, sure, I'll meet with Zelenskyy, that's a big deal. I mean, I'm not saying they're going to leave that room best friends. I'm not saying they're going to leave that room with a peace deal. But I think the fact that people are now talking to each other, this wasn't happening for three and a half years. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the vibe at the White House today, it couldn't have been more different than Zelenskyy's last visit in February. Trump, he gave him a warm welcome when he arrived. Ukraine's president ditched his military uniform in place of a black suit. I guess my mom was right. Dress for where you want to be. And he wanted to be inside not just the Oval Office, but Trump's Oval Office.

And it was night and day compared to the berating that Trump gave him in February. This time, lots of laughing and no shouting. And on top of that, seven other European leaders showed up to support Zelenskyy and talk about how to end the now three-and-a-half-year war.

It's wild to think about how far and how fast all this has come together because just a couple days ago, in fact, three, where Trump gave Vladimir Putin the red-carpet treatment in Alaska.

But look, optics are one thing. Beyond the red carpet, the parade of leaders at the White House, the handshakes, the photo ops, the question is, are we any closer to an actual deal? It's hard to say, frankly. But yes, people are talking. And Trump seems cautiously optimistic about the possibilities. He has even caught on a hot mic with France's president saying he thinks Putin may actually want to stop the fighting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think he wants to make a deal for me. You understand that? As crazy as it sounds.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But if there is a deal to be had, there are at least two major questions that just need to be answered. And sitting here today, we have virtually no clarity on either. For one, who gets what territory? There's a lot of talk about this thing called land swaps. Is that a synonym for giving land away or is Ukraine getting them from Russia in return? Not a lot of detail is there.

And frankly, I cringe every time I use the phrase land swap as if the land is just a map. It's not. There are people on that land. Families, communities, entire generations have lived there and live on that land, people who have experienced years of war, whose homes have been destroyed. NATO secretary general says territory wasn't even on the agenda today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK RUTTE, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: We have not discussed that today because everybody is clear, including the president, that when it comes to territory, it is the Ukrainian president who has discussed this in the trilateral, and then probably more conversations after that with the Russian leadership, with Vladimir -- Vladimir Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:11]

COATES: Now, Zelenskyy says the question of territory is between him and Putin. Okay. But today's meeting was about the second big unknown, and it's a big one. Will there be security guarantees for Ukraine? And what would that even look like? And Trump was asked whether that would actually mean American boots on the ground.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Your team has talked about security guarantees. Could that involve U.S. troops? Would you rule that out in the future?

TRUMP: Uh, we'll let you know that maybe later today. When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help. It's going to be good. They are first line of defense because they're there, they're Europe. But we're going to help them out also. We'll be involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The door seems to be opened a little bit. But here's the catch: You see, Russia is not having any of it, whether it's U.S. troops or forces from any other NATO country. Russia's foreign ministry is flatly rejecting any scenario of NATO troops in Ukraine. So, how does Trump guarantee security when Moscow is taking one of the best ways to do that, maybe off the table? We'll find out soon if it's even possible. When and if the leaders do meet face to face.

I'm beginning with the reporter who always has the inside scoop, senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo. Marc, good to see you. Look, I have to tell you, it's hard to imagine after all that has happened, Putin and Zelenskyy face-to-face. Is Trump really confident that he can actually make that happen, and not just happen, but a productive meeting to happen?

MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: He is a power -- positive thinking guy and one of his advisors that we spoke in Axios that we quote today said yes, always rosy view of things, but so did Marco or so do does -- Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, they felt good coming into this meeting as of yesterday and as of this morning. And after this meeting today, they feel even better. Whether the feeling is justified, whether it's going to last, we're going to see.

COATES: Did the tone of the meeting surprise you, Marc? I mean, especially after the Alaska summit with Putin. I mean, Trump seemed to be putting pressure on Zelenskyy to make a deal, and then they had that very hostile meeting back in February when there's even a lot of hay about what Zelenskyy had on. Did the tone of this meeting surprise you?

CAPUTO: No, because we in the media and a lot of Trump's critics and pundits like to focus on oh, Donald Trump said there is going to be a ceasefire. If didn't get a ceasefire, he's going to be disappointed. He comes out of this meeting with -- good on Friday. There's no ceasefire. And yet, he didn't express disappointment. Well, what's going on?

A story we wrote today kind of spelled out for people that this is sort of simple math for Donald Trump, which is get Putin in a room, meet with him, see if he's ready for peace and if a peace deal is possible, then get Zelenskyy in a room, see if he's ready for peace and if a peace deal is possible, then get them both in a room. Now, then the hard work really begins getting them to agree to a peace deal.

So, Donald Trump is going to do and say almost anything he can to have them get in that room. And one way he's going to do that, that we've seen so far, is to be very positive about things and to try to move things along. This is a momentum game for him. It's one meeting at a time, one little win at a time. Momentum, momentum, momentum for progress.

COATES: What will his supporters make of the idea that he is not ruling out? He hasn't been definitive about saying, yes, that's true. But he is not ruling out, it seems, sending U.S. troops to Ukraine as part of a peace deal of some kind. You heard him say, we'll let you know that maybe later today. If that does become part of any security guarantee that Trump is going to make to Ukraine, how do you think his supporters will react?

CAPUTO: You know, judging by the way Donald Trump in the past has done things and his supporters who many people have suspected wouldn't go along with things, then go along with things, I would suspect that past is going to be prologue.

It also depends on what kind of troops we're talking about and what sort of scenarios in which they're going to be deployed. If you're talking about redistributing already deployed troops in Europe and just moving them over to Ukraine, I would imagine that would be less noxious to some of the America First base than putting actual combat troops there with the idea that there's going to be imminent war. We just have to see the details.

COATES: We certainly do. And we've yet to see all of them, but that might be part of the incremental deal making you're just suggesting. Mark Caputo, thank you so much.

[23:10:00]

CAPUTO: Thanks. I appreciate you, Laura.

COATES: With me now is CNN's senior political commentator, former congressman, Adam Kinzinger; CNN national security analyst, former deputy director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner; and international affairs analyst Bobby Ghosh. Good to have you all here.

I want to begin with you, congressman, because, as you heard, I'm trying to imagine a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting, given all that has happened. Now, according to Zelenskyy, he doesn't want to impose conditions because then Putin would want his own conditions. You know how that might go. Tit for tat. But what's your read on this potential sit down? ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah, I mean, the craziest thing here is Putin doesn't want peace. Everybody knows that Trump somehow thinks maybe he does. And so, Zelenskyy is doing everything he can to basically say, look, I'm -- look, I want peace here, but I'm not going to give my country a way for it.

So, you know, look, ultimately, I think what it's saying is we just don't know. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know where this is going to go. And, uh, you know, everybody is playing their part. Everybody is doing the best they can.

Donald Trump, though, is the one that doesn't recognize, I think, that you have to play tough, I think, to really compel Putin to the table where he's willing to give some things.

I mean, two weeks ago, we were supposed to have these massive secondary sanctions in place on, you know, people who purchase Russian oil. Those are the kind of things that I think bring Vladimir Putin, frankly, to his knees, but actually to the table, and then can bring those two together and figure out what this looks like in the end.

COATES: Well, Beth, I mean, one condition that was talked about was a ceasefire. I mean, the leaders of France and Germany were also pushing for it. Trump had been as well. He doesn't now, though, think it's necessarily required to end the war, to have that chronology of ceasefire and then talks.

But this really interested me today because you had the former Trump national security advisor, John Bolton, earlier today, and he was explaining why he thinks that a ceasefire first followed by negotiations is actually in Putin's best interest. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: There should not be a ceasefire, not for the reasons Trump is saying, but because from Ukraine's perspective, if you have a ceasefire along the existing front lines on the battlefield, and then have negotiations that stretch out over months and years, that ceasefire line could harden into a border.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: When do you make that argument, Beth?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: You know, I mean, I think you can look at it in multiple ways. I think that, you know, risk is if you don't have a ceasefire, these negotiations can stretch on for months and years, just as Ambassador Bolton said. And I think that that is extremely likely because that's exactly what Putin wants to do.

And so, under those circumstances, I would say, gosh, do you want it to last years without a ceasefire and -- and, as Trump rightly says, thousands of people dying weeks, a month, you know, or do you want to do that in a way that would have fewer casualties? So, I mean, I'm actually for ceasefire. I mean, sure, it can turn into a reporter but, you know, it is what it is right now, anyway.

COATES: Bobby, let me bring you in here because the president has said that he first prefers to pursue a peace deal than a ceasefire by citing six wars that he claims that he has ended all without a ceasefire. Now, he acknowledged where the twists and the turns of this conflict and how it has surprised him. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I thought this was going to be one of the easier ones. It's actually one of the most difficult, very complex.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Bobby, why do you think the president underestimated the complexity of this war?

BOBBY GHOSH, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, he has underestimated the complexity of this war right from the beginning. He underestimates the complexity of foreign policy as a rule.

And in this case, I think it was particularly difficult for him to comprehend because he admires one side of this so much. He admires Putin so much. He has said so repeatedly. He has demonstrated that by his behavior. He regards Putin as somebody of his stature, as equal, a strong man on a global scale. It's a little difficult to then gain a perspective of a situation when you are so much in favor of one side.

The way American sort of brokerage of peace deal is meant to work is that the broker, in this case the United States, is meant to take both sides' points of view into consideration, is meant to be the honest broker, meant not to have the interests of one side over the other. That's plainly not the case in this instance.

Trump does admire Putin, does think of Putin as this world figure of world importance and a figure that in some ways he has tried to emulate, and I think that has clouded his view of this conflict from the beginning.

[23:15:08]

COATES: Well, we'll see if that indeed is the case, given that Zelenskyy and Putin may indeed end up meeting in this way.

Congressman, you know, we've learned tonight at CNN that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has been involved in ironing out possible security guarantees for Ukraine. The NATO secretary general actually told Fox News that there was no discussion about deploying U.S. troops on the ground, but it's on the table for future talks. Do you think that U.S. troops should have a role in Ukraine's security?

KINZINGER: Yeah. I mean, sure, yeah, if there's going to be real security guarantees. And this is the key because, keep in mind, Ukraine had a security guarantee in the Budapest memorandum. They gave up their nuclear weapons and everybody guaranteed their security. And, you know, that's not working.

So, if this is a serious security guarantee, the United States has a military for a reason. It's -- we hope to never have to use it. But in many cases, that military is there to prevent war and to also be a block for further invasion, for instance, from Russia.

So yeah, if -- if U.S. troops or U.S. peacekeepers on the ground in Ukraine to ensure the safety there is necessary, then absolutely. I mean -- because I think what that guarantees, by the way, is there will not be a further war from Russia because Russia has taken 20% of Ukraine, lost a million men in three-and-a-half years after owning 30% of Ukraine after the first week of the war. They are losing this war and there's no way they would actually be able to come up against Europe or U.S. forces.

COATES: You have no concerns that if a U.S. soldier were somehow harmed by Russia, if you could not trust them to prevent and stop, that the United States would not be implicated in a further larger war?

KINZINGER: Well, certainly, there's always a risk. Anytime you put American troops anywhere, there's always that risk. But again, the military exists for a reason. And in many cases, if the military can be in there to prevent a further war from Russia, then that's fine.

Look, if there is like a misfire or something on the border, it's not going to start World War III because we'll sit down. But yeah, I think it's important that the U.S. Military be on the table. Obviously, Europe carrying the bulk of that weight because it's their continent.

COATES: Thank you, everyone. We'll see what happens. I appreciate your time.

Look, still ahead tonight, Trump says the American media has been fair about his work on ending this war as of late. Refreshing. But how might the Kremlin's propaganda machine be spinning everything we've seen in the last 72 hours at least? Insight from a former Russian journalist is next. And later, forget all the millions of dollars Republicans have spent on mail-in voting because Trump says he's going to end it nationwide even if he has to bend the law to do it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's a tale of two narratives tonight. Analysts the United States criticizing the outcome of Friday's summit in Alaska from a failure to secure a ceasefire to giving Putin that red carpet welcome. But over in Russia, the state-controlled media is telling quite a different story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Here it is. One can say already a historic handshake. We see that the U.S. president, as he basically said before, is extremely friendly toward Putin, which is confirmed by this personal meeting at the airport.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Today, Russian media ramped up its efforts to undermine Zelenskyy as he met with Trump in Washington. The headline of a major Moscow newspaper reads -- quote -- "Either disgrace or disgrace. Zelenskyy has no choice, every decision is suicide."

And as for Trump, today, a prominent Russian political analyst writes in a state newspaper that he's now cooperating with Russia because -- "it offers a path that seems more realistic to Trump and conditions when it is impossible to force Moscow to do anything."

Joining me now, former Russian journalist, Stanislav Kucher. Welcome, Stanislav. I wonder, you are, of course, a former Russian T.V. presenter, how has the Kremlin and Russian state media been trying to spin the events of these last several days? As a win for Putin?

STANISLAV KUCHER, FORMER RUSSIAN JOURNALIST: Well, first of all, thanks for having me. Second, you know, August 15th became not only a great day for me personally because I got married on August 15th, but it did become --

COATES: Congratulations!

KUCHER: -- a red-letter day for the Russian propaganda -- thank you -- for all my ex-colleagues who I -- most of them I know personally. And yes, you're absolutely right, they've been celebrating it ever since, like every single day, including today. I've been reading posts by Kremlin's top propagandists remembering Alaska and stating what a great win it is for Putin, what a great humiliation it was for Zelenskyy and his European counterparts and colleagues, and what a good day it was for Trump.

COATES: So --

KUCHER: And one of propagandists showed a Russian Aurus, Putin's limousine, on American soil with Russia license plate. What else can we wish for?

COATES: And the fact that there were the European leaders today in the White House in support of Zelenskyy, showing up there without Putin present, that did not undermine the way in which it was captured.

[23:25:03]

This moment of Alaska was still paramount.

KUCHER: As to today's meeting, they've been doing all their best to ignore it. And they tried to stress certain segments, like European leaders waiting for Mr. Trump, sitting on small chairs, patiently waiting for him. And so, out of just those few shots, they made conclusions about the humiliation of European leaders. So, they're trying to do everything to underestimate the meaning of this meeting, saying it's a disgrace for Zelenskyy no matter what result it may bring.

COATES: I'll be curious to see how any subsequent meetings that take place will be described in Russian media as well. Stanislav Kucher, thank you for joining us.

Still ahead, two elections in, and Trump still has a problem with mail-in voting. How do you think he grudge against mail-in voting to brand-new heights? Promising now to use his power to end it nationwide. But can he actually do that? Well, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is standing by with her reaction next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's one of the president's favorite things to complain about, the re-election, and his claims that he won in 2020, and it was all rigged. Well, here's today's complaint.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots. You can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots. And we, as a Republican Party, are going to do everything possible, that we get rid of mail-in ballots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president didn't stop there, though. He also called voting machines -- quote -- "highly inaccurate, very expensive, and seriously controversial." So, why, you may be asking, he is talking about this again? Well, on Friday, he said Vladimir Putin told him that U.S. elections were rigged because of mail-in voting. And President Trump is vowing to change at all the executive order before the midterms. But is that legal?

Well, the Constitution says the power to hold elections lies with the states, not the federal government. And I should note, Trump has voted by mail before. In fact, during the 2018 midterms, and again in 2020's presidential primary.

With me now, Secretary of State in Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, who's also running for governor of Michigan. Jocelyn, welcome. I mean, I need to tell you this. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution is quite explicit. It gives the states the power to conduct elections. But Congress can alter some election laws, as we well know. So, is Trump hinting he could try to nationalize elections and would that even be legal?

JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, MICHIGAN: Well, thanks for having me. And, you know, one thing that's particularly striking about this moment is that we have the president of the United States taking advice on how to run American elections from a Russian dictator. And you're exactly right, Donald Trump does not dictate how our elections work and neither does Vladimir Putin. Actually, the states do. The voters do. And in our democracy in Michigan, the overwhelming majority of voters actually embrace voting by mail as legal, safe, and secure.

So not only are we in questionable legal territory here in a quite egregious way, we're also seeing a president not take advice from states, election officials, professionals in the states who run elections, voters themselves, on what's best for democracy. He's taking advice from a Russian dictator and then repeating the lies that he said -- that he feeds the president to the American public. So, it's extraordinary sign for how this president sees democracy, how he respects or doesn't respect the will of the voters.

But here in Michigan, as in all across this country, we're going to follow the law, continue to ensure that our elections are accessible and secure, and that includes making sure that any citizen who wants to vote by mail, which is their legal right to do so in Michigan, in our state constitution, will be able to do so in the 2026 midterm elections.

COATES: So, what if the president ignores all that? Because there has been a track record of ignoring certain precedential things. How would banning mail-in voting and voting machines, how would that impact voters in your state?

BENSON: Well, we're going to follow the law here in Michigan, which means under our state constitution, every single citizen has the right to vote by mail. That includes senior citizens and military service members and their families serving overseas, for whom that's the only way they can participate in our elections by mail. So, we're going to make sure that right continues to be secure for our citizens. And I know my Republican and Democrat counterparts all across the country who work in elections will continue to follow the law.

What the president is going to try to do, however, is intimidate us, scare us, threaten us, throw false rhetoric out there like he did today to make us afraid to do our jobs. But that didn't work in 2020 and it's not going to work now.

COATES: Talk to me about Texas for a second because I know, as you know, Democrats in Texas ended their standoff over redistricting. They returned home. It is now likely that that new congressional map will pass there.

[23:35:02]

California's governor, Gavin Newsom, says that it's time to fight fire with fire. He has been calling on others to join him in being proactive about redistricting in a way that benefits Democrats as well. Will Michigan join the fight?

BENSON: Now, in Michigan, we have very clear rules around who draws our districts, and its citizens. Citizens draw our district lines because citizens actually amended our state constitution to put that into the law. But what this debate over redistricting and this back and forth in Texas and California is really underlying it.

And again, this was started by Texas, who tried to egregiously redraw maps in the middle of the decade to further the president's will, is that you see both in that example, as well as in the attacks on voting by mail, you see a president who is eager to attack the laws of democracy in his own country.

And the question has to be why. Why is he so desperate to change the rules of the game in the middle of a, you know, of the democracy, in the middle of his presidency? And in my view, it's because he's scared. He's scared of the power of the voters in the midterm elections, voters who have seen grocery bills skyrocket, who can't afford to buy homes, who are facing huge tax increases and cuts to healthcare. He doesn't want to have to face the voters in fair districts with fair and accessible voting laws across this country.

And so, you're seeing these attempts to essentially rig the election and scare people about voting this far in advance. But we won't stand for it in Michigan or anywhere else. We're going to protect democracy, protect the voting rights of every citizen in our state and in our country. That's what democracy requires.

COATES: Speaking of scare tactics, you and I have spoken before about, as secretary of state, the concern about voter intimidation and what that can look like, what that can feel like to voters, but also poll workers, election workers more broadly. As you know, several states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, they're sending in the National Guard to Washington, D.C. as part of Trump's federal takeover of police in that district. Now, we don't know how long that would last. In the past, it has been longer perhaps or maybe could be in the future.

Do you have concerns that the presence of the guards as it stands, if it extends towards the election cycle, could have an impact on voter intimidation?

BENSON: Potentially, sure, yes. And then to emphasize, I come from a military family. My husband served in Afghanistan in the Army. So, I know firsthand also the impact of this type of theatrics around our National Guard, the impact that that has on the men and women who are serving, who signed up to serve their country to protect and defend freedoms and democracy. And now, you see this misuse and abuse of that service in these instances.

And so, to me, that -- you know, I think governors all around the country need to be talking about that and calling that out, and then also connecting the misuse of our military and our National Guard is a way to potentially even intimidate Americans, American citizens, from exercising their fundamental right to vote. As we get closer to the midterms, we're going to see how this escalates.

But my hope is and my expectation is that secretaries of state, attorneys general, and governors in the states will stand firm in protecting our voters, our citizens, from any types of theatrics or overuse and abuse of authority so that we can ensure in 2026, the midterm elections go securely, safely, and reflect the will of the people.

COATES: Secretary Jocelyn Benson, thank you for your time.

BENSON: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, he was the attorney general when Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his prison cell. And today, he spent hours on Capitol Hill testifying about the Epstein case. What exactly did Bill Barr say? Plus, is the DOJ actually about to start producing some Epstein files? I'll give you all the developments next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: There's so much going on in Washington, D.C. But there's one scandal that is not going anywhere, the Epstein files. Today, the House Oversight Committee said the DOJ would hand over some documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex abuse case. But the DOJ is going to miss tomorrow's deadline set by a congressional subpoena. Instead, the DOJ will start setting documents to oversight committee this Friday.

Why can't they meet the deadline? We don't know. It wasn't suddenly sprung on them. Congress has wanted it for a very long time. Saying that aside for just a second, the big questions, what's in the files? The DOJ did not say. But today, the committee did begin hearing from some key officials about the Epstein investigation. Who was first up? The former attorney general, Bill Barr, who testified for hours behind closed doors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): He had never communicated with President Trump on a potential Epstein list or anything else. He was -- and he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, Illinois Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. He also is on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, thank you for being with us tonight. There's a lot of questions about a closed-door session. We can't hear what's going on inside. We want to know what's happening. What were the takeaways from the testimony of Bill Barr?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Well, I think that there weren't any huge revelations from today's testimonies, about four hours of testimony.

[23:44:57]

I think that, quite frankly, he didn't seem to have enough information with regard to the heart of the matter, and that's the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, or for that matter, exactly why or how Jeffrey Epstein was in a position where he committed suicide in the cell at the -- at the Metropolitan Correction Center.

I think that we need to depose other witnesses, people who are closer to the matter, people like Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney who negotiated the sweetheart plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. And, of course, we need the unredacted files. That's extremely important. I think that's what the vast majority of voters, our constituents want, and what we need to see.

COATES: You know, Acosta is exactly right. I wonder why there hasn't been more effort there because he is the former federal prosecutor who gave that sweetheart deal. And remember, Ghislaine Maxwell, she is using that deal that said that any, you know, co-conspirators or others should not be prosecuted to include herself, trying to get the Supreme Court to see things her way. But then there's this idea of why he hasn't been called first, let alone in the long run. Comer had this to say about him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you interested in expanding the list of who you're calling?

COMER: Yeah. We -- we'll bring in everyone that we think can add information to the investigation. This is a serious investigation. This is a sincere investigation. I hope this will be a bipartisan investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You see, that doesn't sound like very committal to me because anyone generally with information is very different from the person who would have probably the most information on that sweetheart deal. Alex Acosta, why is he seeming be waffling?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't know. I'd like to know the answer to that because Alex Acosta, perhaps more than anyone else, would also know what's in the files. And I think that might help explain why he hasn't been asked to come before us. I think that, quite frankly, if he did get deposed, if he did get interviewed, then we would actually ask him about the files and what's in those files. And again, I think that's one of those people that, quite frankly, the White House doesn't want us to interview or depose right now.

COATES: The list of people goes from the Clintons all the way through, you know, other former U.S. attorneys general, including Jeff Sessions and, of course, Bill Barr is on that list, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch. The list goes on and on. James Comey is on that list as well.

But the heart of the matter for people, I think, is really focusing on the substance of the prosecution. But then you have Comer who is saying -- he's claiming that Democrats are only after political dirt on Trump, that they are creating a false narrative around him and Epstein. What is your response to that allegation? KRISHNAMOORTHI: No, we just want to see what's in the files. I think that's what Republican voters want to see. I think that's why there was a mutiny in the republican conference or House conference, uh, before we adjourned for -- for August.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Um, and, of course, Michael -- Speaker Mike Johnson basically to adjourn -- take -- quell the mutiny. Look, I think everybody wants to see what is on those files. That's a very serious case. And I think it's going to be a question for the White House and Mike Johnson. Are they going to obstruct what their own base wants or are they going to allow the disclosure of these files and then allow us to get on to other legislative business such as funding the government?

COATES: Tomorrow was the deadline. Now, for the average citizen, civilian, regular person, they have to meet a congressional subpoena deadline. It actually means something. But the DOJ is saying Friday is better for us. Comer says the DOJ is going to start handing over on Friday.

One, do you have any idea as to why they're waiting till then? But more importantly, does the fact that DOJ is committed to doing that, does that suggest to you that your colleagues on the other side of the aisle maybe are going to be less -- less likely to request the actual files now?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not sure. It's a good question. I think what they're trying to do at the White House is delay the production of these documents and -- and basically placate people by delivering some documents but maybe not all of them.

What Mr. Comer said today is that the White House is going to begin producing documents on a rolling basis starting on Friday. I just hope they don't slow off the process so much that we really can't get at what the American people want, which is what's in those files.

Now, there are large files. It's like tens of thousands of pages, one to five terabytes worth of data, which is a lot, but still that type of information is what people want more than anything else. They don't want to see the grand jury transcripts as much. They don't even want to necessarily see the transcript of the interview between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell.

[23:50:01]

They want to see the files.

COATES: Congresswoman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you so much.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, new drama around Colin Kaepernick. And this time, it involves Spike Lee, ESPN, and some kind of creative differences. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, when you work in television, you learn it's not uncommon for projects to get shelved or sometimes scrapped altogether. But tonight, there's one cancellation that's raising some eyebrows. That is the long- anticipated documentary on former NFL star Colin Kaepernick. It was being held by none other than Academy Award-winning director Spike Lee.

[23:55:04]

Well, tonight, Reuters is reporting that ESPN no longer plans to air the docuseries. The reason? Well, ESPN is saying all parties involved -- quote -- "collectively decided to no longer proceed with this project as a result of certain creative differences."

You'll recall Kaepernick famously protested police brutality and systemic racism by kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games. That drew the ire of President Trump and many others at the time. And many argue it cost Colin Kaepernick his career.

With me now, opinion columnist for the L.A. Times, LZ Granderson, who's also the host of the "LZ Granderson Show." LZ, good to see you. I've been curious about this all day because ESPN is citing creative differences. But here's what Spike Lee himself said about the project getting shelved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPIKE LEE, FILM DIRECTOR: It's not coming out.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What -- what do you mean?

LEE: It's not coming out. That's all I can say.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Because?

LEE: That's all I can say.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It's not coming out on ESPN or it's not --

LEE: Not coming out. Period.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It's dead? The project is dead? What? Can you give us any idea?

LEE: I can't.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is that your decision then?

LEE: I signed a non-disclosure. I can't talk about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, I have a lot more questions. He's not ruling much. And, obviously, the NDA as well. What's going on here, you think? LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST FOR LOS ANGELES TIMES, PODCAST HOST, VISITING SCHOLAR AT WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: Wow, a lot of business decisions, Laura. First of all, it's really great to see you. I wish it was under better circumstances.

But, you know, this has -- this has always been the problem with -- when it comes to ESPN because it straddles a fence between journalism which, you know, ideally is objective, and then the entertainment aspect of its wing. And sometimes, the business of ESPN, the journalism, or in this case, a documentary, may get in the case or come in conflict with the business in terms of its relationship with the NFL.

I think Spike Lee's disappointment on his face kind of sums it all up. Many of us who wanted to see this kind of explore through his eyes are very disappointed, but understanding that this is probably a business decision.

COATES: What would factor into that? Because, I mean, obviously, there's a number of issues in terms of the exploration of a topic like this. It was not without political disputes, even the kneeling itself, let alone how it became really this inkblot test of how people viewed patriotism and police protests and African-Americans and beyond. What was, you think, the business calculus for something like a Colin Kaepernick film?

GRANDERSON: I would say that they probably decided that it wasn't risking upsetting the president, to be honest with you. When you think about the conversation --

COATES: Tell me (ph).

GRANDERSON: Well, I mean, it's kind of, like, par for the course right now. Unfortunately, in our industry, you see a lot of networks that are deciding to settle or capitulate to demands or sometimes be proactive in trying to not draw the ire. This appears to be, you know, another example of that.

When you consider that Colin Kaepernick was the focus of a lot of criticism from President Trump during his time in office, during his first term, when you consider that the NFL also received a lot of criticism from President Trump, when you consider that ESPN, we see a lot of criticism with President Trump.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GRANDERSON: You can see why everyone involved decided collectively, maybe we don't want this smoke.

COATES: You know, Puck's Matt Belloni reported back in September that there were creative differences between Lee and Kaepernick over whether the film should focus more on Kaepernick's life or injustice towards Black athletes in the NFL. And he also wrote at the time -- quote -- "Lee's film is definitely not apolitical. I'm told it's full of incendiary critiques of conservative politicians and Donald Trump."

And to be clear, LZ, I mean, ESPN did not say that politics played a role in this decision. But, as you described --

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Well, what is your laughter telling me?

(LAUGHTER)

GRANDERSON: Well, I mean, sure.

(LAUGHTER)

But -- but -- it's -- it's -- it's hard to think that creative differences were ultimately the reason why when you look at everything else that's kind of circling around this conversation. Now, that doesn't mean that the two of them could not have been in conflict. In fact, there have been previous reports that Colin Kaepernick and Spike Lee did have some creative differences early on in the development of this documentary.

So, it's not totally out of the ordinary. But the timing of it, Laura, considering that the NFL and ESPN are trying to merge together this deal that ultimately will have the NFL have 10% of ESPN, it seems as if they would need this administration's permission to have that merger go through.

[00:00:00]

And, as we've seen with other examples, business decisions have been made.

COATES: Well, we'll see if we ever get to have this see the light of day. LZ Granderson, thank you.

GRANDERSON: Thank you for having me.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.