Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Erik Menendez Denied Parole 36 Years After Murdering Parents; Newsom Signs Bill to Counter GOP's "Rigged Map"; Trump Vows to Spread Police Crackdown to Other Cities; Appeals Court Voids Trump's $500M Civil Fraud Penalty; Backlash Over Redesigned Cracker Barrel Logo. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 21, 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]
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: UNKNOWN: -- to be a wall between Indiana and Illinois, and Illinois should pay for it.
(LAUGHTER)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Okay. All right.
UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).
PHILLIP: Are you going to paint --
(LAUGHTER)
UNKNOWN: -- western --
PHILLIP: Are you going to the wall black so that when it gets hot, you know, you can't -- that's -- apparently, this is floated about the actual wall.
UNKNOWN: Again, they pay for it. As long as --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: -- Illinois pays for it, we'll do whatever.
PHILLIP: All right. Well, okay, all right, you heard it, Illinois.
(LAUGHTER)
Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me actually on social media: X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. It has almost been 35 years to the day, in fact 36, that Erik and Lyle Menendez killed their parents in their Beverly Hills home. It would be seven years before they were convicted of those murders, another 29 years before they would be before a parole board asking for their freedom.
And now, breaking tonight, the answer. Well, the Menendez brothers, at least one of them tonight, is staying behind bars for now. Erik Menendez was just denied parole by the California Parole Board. This picture was from his hearing today, which lasted over 10 hours. And the parole commissioner says that he doesn't buy his explanation for the killings, that his behavior in jail, since he has been locked up, kicks the can down the road. The board says he can try again for parole in three years. Now, Erik's brother, Lyle, he'll go before the board tomorrow.
It has certainly been a winding legal battle to even get to this point. It was 1989 when the brothers opened fire inside their family's Beverly Hills mansion, killing their mother and their father. They were convicted to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 1996.
But then there was a resentencing this year. They gave them their first chance at the possibility of parole and freedom. They say that they have killed and they did kill their parents in self-defense. And new evidence in recent years has boosted their claim that they were sexually abused by their father.
And that really shifted how people viewed their case and the public opinion about their release or potential release. It also fueled a huge surge of attention all around them. You had people like Kim Kardashian pushing for their release. Their story has been fictionalized in the high-profile Netflix series. And the national obsession has sparked multiple documentaries, including the docuseries "Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Jose would go upstairs to be with Erik. And he would be up there for a while. I mean, long enough for us to make the dinner, long enough for us to eat it, and then to clean the kitchen.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Oh, yeah.
UNKNOWN: But then Jose would come back downstairs and say, Erik isn't feeling well, he's not going to eat right now.
UNKNOWN: Right.
UNKNOWN: I'll give him his dinner later. Well, I've never realized that until Erik said what he did. And it just, like -- like, oh, my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The executive director of that series will join me in just a moment. But despite all of that attention this case has been getting, one person, well, might be pleased with the parole board's outcome tonight, the L.A. district attorney, Nathan Hochman. Now, he says that the brothers' claim of self-defense is all a lie, and he's arguing the evidence proves that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATHAN HOCHMAN, L.A. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We showed that they basically bought the shotgun two days before in a different city under a fake name. They had a pre-planned alibi to see "Batman," the movie, and actually tried to buy tickets after the murders to prove their alibi. They shot their parents to make it look like a mafia-style killing. So, we outlined 16 different lies. We did this months ago. And at any point, in the last number of months, they could have finally come clean with all these lies. Instead, they double and triple down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's start with CNN's Nick Watt, who has been following the parole hearing all day. Nick, a long hearing today. What reasons did the parole board give to make the case that Erik continues to pose what they say is an unreasonable risk to public safety?
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Laura, 10-hour hearing, and that is the crux of it, that's what they had to decide, is he a danger if he is let out? And basically, they said yes because, frankly, they say he has not been a model prisoner. Number of cell phone infractions, which might sound trivial, but on the inside, they are a big deal. Also, he was involved in a couple of violent incidents, involved with helping a gang in some sort of tax scam.
Now, Erik himself said, sure, I made some mistakes, particularly back in the day when I thought there was no chance of parole and I was in a pretty deep hole.
[23:05:03]
Yeah, I made some bad choices. He says, in 2013, he changed, became a better person, but for the parole board, not good enough. Now, there was also talk of the original crime --
COATES: Right.
WATT: -- and particularly the murder of the mother. The commissioner said that that showed he was devoid of human compassion. They also say that the spending spree the brothers went on after the murders suggests that it perhaps wasn't just the sexual abuse of the father. There was an issue here that maybe this idea that they were trying to get their parents money holds some water.
So, it's not over for him. It could have been worse. The parole board say that he will be eligible again in three years. And, of course, ultimately here in California, it's up to the governor, Gavin Newsom, to decide whether he gets out or not. So, a bad day for him could have been worse.
COATES: That's just one of the brothers. Obviously, Lyle, who's Erik's older brother, is going to appear before the board tomorrow. They did not do this together, but I would assume that some of what they heard today will apply to the brother as well. What is the Menendez family saying about it?
WATT: Yeah, listen, sure, this is not good news for Lyle by any stretch. But they are different people, they play different roles in the murder, and they also have different prison records.
Now, the family say that they still stand by Erik after what happened today. They say, while we respect the decision, today's outcome was, of course, disappointing and not what we hoped for. Tomorrow, we turn our attention to Lyle's hearing. And while it's undoubtedly difficult, we remain cautiously optimistic and hopeful that the commissioner will see in Lyle what so many others have, a man who has taken responsibility, transformed his life, and is ready to come home.
So, that second hearing tomorrow and a decision tomorrow as well.
COATES: Not only the length of the hearing, but an immediate decision after each one. Nick Watt, thank you so much.
I want to bring in a journalist that has closely followed the Menendez brothers' case, Nery Ynclan. Her reporting was showcased in the docu- series she produced, "Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed." Also, former federal prosecutor, Neama Rahmani. Glad to have both of you.
Nery, let me just begin here because the bottom line, the board says and they told Erik -- quote -- "Contrary to your supporters' beliefs, you have not been a model prisoner and, frankly, we find that a little disturbing."
Now, they say that his prison behavior included violations like drug and alcohol use, illegal cellphone use, gang behavior, a tax fraud scheme. They pointed to those violations as the primary reason for the denial. It seemed to outweigh in some respects the actual crime that he was convicted of.
NERY YNCLAN, JOURNALIST, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF "MENENDEZ + MENUDO: BOYS BETRAYED: Well, I would say that we could look back at the judge in May who reviewed all of these same materials and did not find that these violations were serious when you're considering the setting of a prison.
And I believe that some of the violence you're talking about are incidents from 30 years ago and 24 years ago. Really, the question that the family had hoped would be before this board is whether or not they are rehabilitated, whether they would be a danger to society.
And you get a file in which the judge, who decided that they deserve this opportunity for parole, saying he had never seen a file like this, in which these brothers had become leaders in their prisons with no chance of ever getting out and yet dedicating their lives to creating programs, to help other prisoners with their mental health problems, with education, with art programs --
COATES: Hmm.
YNCLAN: -- exercise programs, and on and on. That's why they got to this point. It's their -- it's their record that got them to this point.
COATES: Well --
YNCLAN: Now, I'm not shocked by this decision --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
YNCLAN: -- because it's extremely rare for a parole board to give parole to an inmate the first time they come before the board. That is why the family had hoped for clemency. And we can talk a little later that they still have other options ahead.
COATES: Well, Neama, let's talk about the family because 18 family members spoke and supported from today. This was a nearly 10-hour hearing. The support of those family members, frankly, for some, has been quite consistent. The spotlight is very, you know, bright on this case and it has been for a number of years now. Did any of that support factor in for the parole board should it have?
NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Laura, it did, but they didn't think it was enough. And you're absolutely right. I've never covered a case in more than 20 years where every single living family member of murder victim supports release. It's really unprecedented.
And really, this result today is surprising for this reason. The brothers had a lot of momentum. And, obviously, Lyle has his hearing tomorrow.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
RAHMANI: But in terms of overcoming Nathan Hochman's objection, even getting to the resentencing, obviously, all the broad public support after the Netflix series "Monsters" and other documentaries.
[23:10:07]
And the fact that they've already served an additional 10 years more than the 25 years, which would have made their parole illegible, obviously, that's the result of the resentencing. So, most of the folks who are watching were very surprised by this result.
Obviously, the parole board talked about the drug use, the gang affiliation, the cellphone violations. But, usually, when you're talking about convicted murderers serving time in Donovan State Prison for three decades, those types of violations are going to be more significant. I think --
COATES: Hmm.
RAHMANI: -- the biggest challenge that they had, Erik had and Lyle will have, is really with respect to their mother, Kitty. I think that --
COATES: On that point -- hold on, because on that point is a really important one. And before you get into that, some would say that prisoners who have life in prison with no possibly of parole, that survival is very different on the inside in terms of what one must do in order to survive and that may be factored into this.
But on the point of their mother, the parole board pointed to the murder of their mother, and they called him devoid of human compassion and all the earlier evidence of motivation and predetermination and premeditation and more was under consideration. Three years from now, though, if killing the mother is a factor today, that won't change three years from now. How might that be viewed differently? Would it be viewed differently?
RAHMANI: I don't think it's going to be viewed differently, Laura. They reloaded and they shot their mother 10 times, including in the kneecaps to make it look like a mob hit. So, the challenge that they have is the lack of empathy, the lack of responsibility, the lying. The brothers still have their habeas petition. So, they can't just show up to the parole board and say, we killed our parents because we were sexually abused and wanted revenge. They want to preserve that self-defense argument. And that's part of the minimization that the commissioners pointed to today. They said, well --
COATES: Yeah.
RAHMANI: -- how can this be self-defense if your parents are watching T.V. and you shoot them in the back of the head while they're eating ice cream? That's the challenge the brothers have. They do have these other paths to release and they don't want to abandon them just yet.
COATES: Well, Nery, in that point, for the audience --
YNCLAN: I want to -- I want to jump --
COATES: Okay.
YNCLAN: I want to jump in here.
COATES: I will -- Excuse me. I want to explain to the audience one point before you jump in, the idea of the habeas. He's essentially saying that there are -- there are other legal considerations for somebody who's trying to appeal in other way -- in other ways, to have an opportunity. And so, there's this -- this sort of rock in a hard place of trying to admit what the prosecutor wants you to admit, and what you're trying to preserve is your arguments later on. But Nery, on that point, please jump in.
YNCLAN: Well, I want to say that children, who are brutalized and terrorized and traumatized by their parents, do not grow up thinking straight and rationally. And their abuse started when they were five and six years old.
COATES: Hmm.
YNCLAN: It's Roy Rossello, okay, who came forward and proved that Jose Menendez was a vicious pedophile, who told him, you are bought and paid for, you are mine. Okay? Who said to me, when I said to him -- when I said to him, you know, these guys, they did kill their parents, when he first told me what Jose Menendez did to him. He said to me, their parents killed them first --
COATES: Hmm.
YNCLAN: -- and their whole life has been a prison. Okay? And so, I hear people, they keep going back to the killings when they were 18 and 21 years old. They wouldn't be at this point now if society, law enforcement, psychology hadn't recognized that men and women, in their teens, until their brain is fully formed. Right? The consequences part of their brain has not developed.
When your father -- when you're five and six years old and you refuse to perform oral sex on your father, and he comes back and holds a knife to your neck and tells you that he will kill you if you do not do exactly what he says, do you think that that child believes their father will kill them if they ever tell or don't do what he says? They do.
COATES: Nery --
YNCLAN: The very first thing, the very first time I met Lyle, he said to me he was -- regret everything that happened, that he was stupid -- that he was just stupid, desperate, frustrated, didn't know what he was doing.
COATES: Hmm.
YNCLAN: Who is he now? Who is the man now? Who is Erik now? They are very different people. Does the prison system, is it built for rehabilitation or is it not? That is the question. And what -- and I -- I agree so much with Neama's point.
COATES: It is indeed --
[23:15:00]
YNCLAN: What's going to be the difference in three years?
COATES: Yeah.
YNCLAN: They've all -- had they been -- had their abuse been considered in their second trial fully, as it was in the first trial, that received two hung juries --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
YNCLAN: -- had that been allowed, those would have been mitigating circumstances that might have given them life with parole, and they would have been considered 10 years ago.
COATES: Nery, there's a lot there. I -- to say the least, the disturbing, horrific nature of what happened to them cannot be overstated. And clearly, the family members took that into consideration, Neama, even as they spoke in support of both of these brothers so far. We've heard from one parole hearing.
But then there was an interesting point I want to get to, and that is the parole commissioner asked about a document, Neama, in which Erik had said, he had -- quote -- "no justification for the killings." He was asked if he believed any part of this was self-defense, and Erik replied no. And for years, the brothers have alleged self-defense. What do you think changed for him in this moment today? Was it the prospect of this might be the only way?
RAHMANI: I think that's right. And first, Nery, I understand the psychology of abuse, and I fully believe that Erik Menendez should have been paroled today. That would have been the fair and just result.
I'm just discussing the legal challenges that they have appearing before this parole board hearing. And one of those is that self- defense argument that they raised for many years. Let's not forget, the brothers were almost executed. This was a capital case. And the jurors spared their life.
I was born and raised in Southern California. I never thought, Laura, I would be sitting here this close to Erik Menendez being released from prison.
So, everything they've accomplished is really a testament to them, their lawyers, the family members, the public. But this is still a challenge in the case when for years you have lied, you have told a story, and all of a sudden, right before you're considered for resentencing, right before the parole board hearing, you're telling something completely different. You're going to need to explain to prosecutors and parole commissioners why.
And it was too little, too late in their opinion, and that's why they ended up where they are. I'm not saying they're going to be stuck here forever. By the way, three years is the minimum under California law where you can come back for a parole hearing generally. It's three to 15 years.
So, it's not done with them. Obviously, they have their clemency petition. I can't see Governor Newsom sticking his neck out and pardoning them or committing their sentence. But who knows? They still have that possibility as well.
COATES: Well, tomorrow, we will know the fate in terms of, at least for now, the parole. My mind goes to what happens to so many others who are similarly situated like the Menendez brothers, who don't have the same spotlight. What about those people as well? We'll see. Nery Ynclan, Neama Rahmani, thank you both.
Still ahead tonight, California Governor Gavin Newsom hits back, officially signing his plan to counter the redistricting in Texas. But are some other red states about to play spoiler? And later, Trump is out in Washington, D.C. with the troops and the police. He's making it clear, his police takeover is about to spread way outside of the nation's capital.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, Texas fired the first shot in the redistricting war. And 24 hours later, California is firing back. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the state's redistricting proposal that swept through legislation and legislature today. That means this November, voters will be asked two questions. One, should the state override the power of their independent redistricting committee? And do they approve of the new congressional districts that give Democrats five additional seats?
As the kids say, California is matching Texas's energy. Now, where that state is pushing through a redrawn map, well, that's the real issue. That gives Republicans five additional seats at the expense of Democrats. President Trump urged Texas to do it to give the GOP an edge in the midterms. But Newsom says that redistricting mid-decade actually shows one thing, that Trump's agenda is weak.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): He is failing. He recognized that. And that's why he made a phone call to Greg Abbott asking for five seats. Can't win by playing by traditional sets of rules. He plays by no rules.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, California State Democratic assembly member, Isaac Bryan. Assemblyman, thank you for being here. I mean, Republicans did ask the state Supreme Court to stop the redistricting push. The court rejected their case. Republicans, though, are vowing to make even more legal challenges now. Are you confident that this proposal will actually end up on the ballot in November in California?
ISAAC G. BRYAN, DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: Yeah. I think the state rejecting -- uh, Supreme Court rejecting is a generous assessment. They threw that thing out within 24 hours because it was a nonsense lawsuit. This is completely transparent. It is the first time in U.S. history a state has put redistricting before its voters. And I believe the people of California are tired of being Trump's punching bag. We're ready to hit back.
COATES: Well, talking about the voters, because the majority of voters in California, they seem to want to stick with the Independent Redistricting Committee. I have a poll talking about what? Sixty-four percent seem to agree with that method. They don't want you and your colleagues drawing the maps.
[23:24:58]
Will voters come around, though, given where we are today in terms of the political back and forth?
BRYAN: Look, I'm one of those people who supports the Independent Redistricting Commission. In fact, I wrote legislation to establish independent commission at every single level of California government. That proposal, by the way, was rejected by every single Republican in the state legislature.
I believe the people of California can walk and chew gum at the same time. We believe in the best of what the electoral process should look like. But we know these are not normal times. We're ready to fight back. We know our responsibility is bigger than just our state. We have a responsibility to this nation, and democracy is under threat.
COATES: You know, there was a point raised earlier by a gubernatorial candidate, former congresswoman, Katie Porter, on CNN earlier today. And essentially, she was asked by my colleague, Dana Bash, whether or not she would commit if she were the governor to reverting back to an independent commission in 2030, assuming that everything stays normal. And her response is kind of interesting. Listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE PORTER, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: It would be my definite intention to have it continue, to go back to an independent commission. I don't know what kind of world I'm going to be living in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Of course, she referenced the idea that two years ago, she wouldn't have predicted this moment in time, this would be done. But now that Texas essentially is doing what they're doing and times are changing, there is an open-mindedness, essentially, of many. Would you support going back to an independent commission after the midterms or would this be the new status quo?
BRYAN: Oh, absolutely going back. But we're preparing for the absolute worst. They're selling Trump 2028 merch. I never thought the federal guard would be nationalized here in California and in D.C. I never thought they would take food from our kids mouths --
COATES: Hmm.
BRYAN: -- health care from our seniors or literal people from our streets. These are unprecedented times. And California is not going to sit back and just watch it happen. We're going to stand up and stand on business.
COATES: Respond to the complaint that some have, namely Republicans. This is a race to the bottom. And what you're doing is going to not play fire with fire, but burn everyone. What's your reaction to that?
BRYAN: I said it's a pile of hypocritical mess, man. When I proposed that independent redistricting commission for every level government in California, like I said, they opposed that. When I authored updates to the Fair Maps Act just a couple of years ago, every Republican opposed that. The only reason that they're trying to take some sort of moral high ground now is because they're behind on the line. And we're not going to let them off the hook that easy.
I believe in a national independent redistricting commission. And the constitutional amendment that we push forward today affirms our belief in that commission. So, I hope when this administration is over and all the chaos is done, we can move forward with what democracy should really look like.
COATES: No fear that other states getting involved might mean this is a domino effect?
BRYAN: I don't play scared. I play for the people of California.
COATES: Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, thank you.
BRYAN: Grateful to be with you.
COATES: Next, President Trump praises National Guard troops during a D.C pit stop and says his crime crackdown is about to spread.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are going to make it safe. And we're going to then go on to other places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That wasn't all he talked about. He boasted about his win against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, and the over $500 million fine he, apparently, no longer has to pay. But is it the total victory he's claiming? I'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've never received so many phone calls thanking me for what we've done in Washington, D.C., from people that haven't gone to a restaurant literally in four years, and they said, we just -- we couldn't -- we couldn't stand it, sir. And now, I take my wife and my kids to dinner. One of them said he has gone out four nights in a row, and he hadn't gone out for four years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump claiming victory tonight, declaring his recent crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C. is a massive success. And while he initially teased that he would join officers in a ride- along, he instead opted for a walkthrough, a more center kind of meet and greet to thank law enforcement. There was pizza, there were burgers. But most importantly, an announcement from Trump that his crime crackdown here is just getting started.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There are no games, right? We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe. And we're going to then go on to other places. But we're going to stay here for a while. We want to make this absolutely perfect. It's our capital. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, former Democratic congressman, Joe Crowley, along with CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. He's also the co-founder of wethefree.com.
Congressman, I heard the phrase for a while, until things are perfect.
JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: Hmm.
COATES: I thought it was a 30-day window to be able to do something like this. Obviously, he wants it to go on the longer. But what does for a while mean and the impact on this city?
CROWLEY: I think it depends on how long he needs a distraction. Once he doesn't no longer needs a distraction, this will go away as well. It was interesting it was in Anacostia. He may have been the first president to be in Anacostia in a long time. I give him that.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: -- curious.
CROWLEY: No, I don't. I mean --
COATES: Anacostia, for the outside the Beltway, people, is southeast D.C. So, you know, the capital is the center point and every quadrant around it is that. So --
CROWLEY: Right. I mean, clearly, though, what we're hearing from people, the presence of law enforcement really isn't in those areas. The presence predominantly is in tourist areas like -- I was at Union Station. I saw the tanks or I saw the armored cars and things of that nature. It's peculiar. It's odd, to tell you the truth. It's very -- I don't feel -- I'm more ambivalent about it. But --
COATES: Hmm.
CROWLEY: -- it just -- to me, it's - it's phony, it's fake.
[23:34:58]
COATES: Interesting because people are focusing a lot on the idea of the crime and safety aspect of it. But one of the words he kept using when he first announced it was the beautification, beautification of the Capitol. He focused on the monuments. He focused on the idea of what this appears to be to the outside world as well. When you look at his statements tonight, I mean, do you have the reaction that this is a winning strategy that will expand beyond Washington, D.C.?
SINGLETON: I think it's a winning strategy in that the president recognizes that most people out of necessity want to feel safe. And I'm going to borrow something you pointed out, Laura, in a wonderful interview on the Breakfast Club, which I highly recommend people go check out, by the way.
COATES: Thank you. SINGLETON: When you said it doesn't matter, about the stats. It's about how people feel. And it's very peculiar Machiavellian kind of way the president -- maybe it's a guttural thing more so than this well-thought out idea. But he really understands.
If people see something on the news or they hear about something enough, and people begin to wonder, well, will the crime come in my area or maybe crime really is a problem despite the fact that many of my Democratic friends would cite the statistics and that crime is down, well, the people are saying they feel otherwise.
The president has tapped into that. He recognizes it. And I'm sure you can go to any major city in the country, and they would probably say, yeah, I think we have crime in my city as well. That's a problem.
COATES: So, what should Democrats do to counter? Because they've got to toe the line from being soft on crime, which is like the doomsday notion if you're trying to run for office, and also trying to say that this is not the path.
CROWLEY: Yeah, I won't say they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
SINGLETON: Thank you, congressman.
CROWLEY: I'm sure Shermichael will like that.
(LAUGHTER)
But I do think they have to be -- they have to play this politically as well.
COATES: Yes.
CROWLEY: You know, I'm certain, when they get back to Congress in September, there'll be a resolution on the floor or some bill to put people on the record. And I think Democrats have to play along with that a little bit.
But listen, at the same time, this is a real drastic change, how we police in our country. Maybe they should restore the billion dollars they cut from the city government of Washington, D.C. so they can hire more police and effectively train them. We have something called the Posse Comitatus Act --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROWLEY: -- from 1878 that prohibits, that outlaws the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes. And unless that law is changed, I don't think it will be nor should it be, we don't want to become a police state. We want to be a federally-armed state. That was one of the reasons why we rebelled against Great Britain.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROWLEY: They were forcing their military to quell the uprising in Boston and elsewhere.
COATES: Right.
CROWLEY: This is a long history in our country. It's why we prohibit the use of federal forces.
COATES: Speaking of federal agents specifically, I'm talking about the FBI, because we know that "The New York Times" is reporting tonight that the FBI director, Kash Patel, and his deputy, Dan Bongino, they are pushing a plan to actually lower the requirements to become an agent, and what they've said is that it would no longer require a college degree, and recruits are spending far less time in training, as part of what they're talking about.
So, talk to me about how this looks as a split screen, Shermichael. On the one hand saying crime and lowering it is very important and honoring the federal law enforcement presence, and then saying, but we're going to lower the requirements to become one.
SINGLETON: Yeah, I think this is a part of a broader problem within law enforcement across the country.
COATES: Recruiting wise, you mean?
SINGLETON: Recruiting is a big, big problem. I mean, cities have tried to reallocate more dollars. Some cities have lowered standards. Maybe you only have to have an associate's degree. Or if you only have a college -- a high school diploma, then you go through additional training, and they'll let you in through some type of lowered entry program. They're trying everything.
And for the most part, you're really not seeing any effectiveness to these strategies at all. And so, the fact that the administration is lowering standards at the FBI level, at federal level rather, tells me that they're also experiencing real recruitment issues. Who wants to be in law enforcement right now when you're going to be demonized? The money isn't really that great, Laura. It's a difficult job.
COATES: Hmm.
SINGLETON: You're living in a city like D.C. where it's expensive as hell to take care of yourself, let alone a family and a wife, buying a home, putting kids through school. So, most people are opting to go into different directions, especially after four years of college with $80,000 in debt. So, you're probably going to have to lower some of those standards a little bit to try to recruit other individuals.
COATES: What message does that send?
CROWLEY: I think we have to really strike a balance here. I do think this could very well present opportunities --
SINGLETON: Yeah.
CROWLEY: -- for people who have been shut out --
SINGLETON: Yeah.
CROWLEY: -- of this opportunity. But I do think we should require that they do further their education when they become federal officers, when they become FBI agents.
SINGLETON: Subsidize that.
CROWLEY: But that's what I'm saying. They should continue to do that. But I think this could very well be an opportunity to open up this opportunity where it has been denied, especially maybe in more -- in more minority communities.
SINGLETON: Yeah.
CROWLEY: So, look, I want to strike a balance here. I don't want to throw it out entirely. But I do think they're dumbing down the -- the -- the training of these officers. That's a bad idea.
[23:40:00]
COATES: Absolutely. Joe and Shermichael, thank you both so much. Ahead, Donald Trump gets a big win, and it's a big one in his civil fraud case. And more than half billion dollars-worth of a penalty gets a big -- never mind. Still on the hook for fraud, though. But does today's ruling give him a shot at getting the entire case tossed?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Not only did President Trump get a major court ruling in his favor today, he got it against one of the prosecutors he most despises, New York Attorney General Letitia James. Now, remember that $500 million penalty that came from the civil fraud case she won?
[23:45:00]
Not the Stormy Daniels case. No, no. Not the E. Jean Carroll case. No. This is the other -- other one. Well, today, an appeals court brought that penalty down to zero. The five judges may have disagreed about some aspects of the trial, but they totally agreed to one thing, that the amount was excessive, saying -- quote -- "While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state."
Trump, of course, thrilled. He issued a long 514-word Truth Social response, calling it a total victory, a fake case, a political witch hunt, a scam.
Let's be clear, though, what the appeals court did not do. They didn't remove the finding that Trump engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for years. So, the fight really isn't over because James says that she is going to appeal.
With me now, Jim Trusty, former attorney for President Trump and the former chief of the DOJ Organized Crime and Gang Section. First of all, there may have been one decision about the excessive penalty, but they didn't agree on much else. Three different opinions at least? JIM TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, DOJ ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Three opinions with five judges. But I got to tell you, it's a crushing defeat. I mean, we're not just talking about excessive, we're talking about a constitutional 8th Amendment violation for cruel and unusual punishment. I mean, we're in the category of rarity. You don't see that many fines or disgorgements in this case --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TRUSTY: -- that subject themselves to Eighth Amendment analysis. And they basically said the judge and Letitia James essentially consulted a wee-jee board, came up with a number that was completely disproportionate for the victimless crimes of puffing your own real estate.
COATES: By the way, there was allegedly -- $335 million was the fine. You had fines and you had interest on top of interest, gained that $527 million dollar fine. This was not a jury trial. This is a bench trial. Did that factor at all in how the appellate courts way this?
TRUSTY: Yeah, it really did. I mean, this is still not a Trump friendly court system.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TRUSTY: You know, this is -- this is the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York, which is the trial courts' appeals group. And look, they are all over the map, but they still somehow give a lot of deference as they kind of have to do to the fact finder, and a fact finder in a judge trial is a judge.
So, you end up with an opinion or at least one of the opinions that says, well, the judge credited Michael Cohen as a credible witness and didn't believe all these other folks on Trump's side of the aisle. So, we're bound to accept that Michael Cohen is a credible witness. And I kind of think to myself as I read this, legally that makes sense. You defer to the facts found below.
But in real life, I mean, literally, the least credible human being never walked the earth is suddenly being exalted as like the guy that Letitia James correctly relied upon, his congressional testimony, to even bring the case in the first place. So, it's a little bizarre to read, you know, the deference that they give.
And, of course, there's one justice who says this whole thing is a travesty. She targeted him unethically from her campaign on. And he took a real issue with Michael Cohen. It was music to my ears. But at the same time, it's like I'm not sure that the majority is wrong to basically accept the facts that this judge found.
COATES: But yet, four of the five judges, they did not try to disparage Letitia James at all. In fact, they said, the attorney general acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so.
I know you talked about before and now the victimless crime aspect that was heralded by his counsel as well, the idea of who was really bothered by this, the banks got their money, what's the big deal. The A.G. thought, well, the people did not get a fair shake in this particular business. The fact that they said this, what impact will that have going forward? Because she wants to appeal.
TRUSTY: Yeah. Not a whole lot. I mean, what's crazy is President Trump, I think, will appeal the liability part of this still, saying there's a whole bunch of problems with this prosecution, not the least of which is Letitia James's preconceived notions that she's going to go after him. But --
COATES: Because you say she campaigned --
TRUSTY: Yeah. I mean, she recently just flat out on ethical -- unethical for --
COATES: But they didn't think so.
TRUSTY: Well, they -- they glossed over. Four out of five glossed over it. They go, look, we dealt with that on the motion to dismiss, we're not going to revisit it. But it does color the water. It does flavor where this case goes on appeal.
And the four -- the five opinions basically cry out for appeal. You know, it's not an automatic acceptance of the appeal by the Court of Appeals in New York, the highest court. But I think the judges are basically begging them, saying, make some sense of this stuff we can't agree on. So, basically, President Trump gets another bite at the liability in general and says, you know, this is a ridiculous misguided case.
And Letitia James will try to make another run at that font, at that discouragement, that half a billion dollars that she just lost today. But, look, overall, huge crushing loss for her. I mean, the whole point of this incredibly high number for discouragement was to send this big message she can take on President Trump, and she lost.
COATES: Well, that bond is still in action, $175 million. We'll see how long that lasts while the appellate process continues.
[23:50:01]
Jim Trusty, thank you so much. Next, out with the old, in with the new. Cracker Barrel, they dropped to new redesigned logo, without the man or the barrel. And the backlash, some would say hotter than their biscuits.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, the internet seems to have lost its mind about, well, anything these days. And today's fixation? Well, it's not a jeans commercial, it's not Taylor's new album. It's a restaurant logo? Yep, the outrage began when the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel unveiled that its new logo would go from this to this, missing that signature man leaning on the barrel. And before you go ahead and say, who cares, well, the rebrand was apparently enough to send Cracker Barrel stock tumbling today.
[23:55:03]
Still, the company's CEO is standing by the move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULIE FELSS MASINO, CEO, CRACKER BARREL: Cracker Barrel needs to feel like they're Cracker Barrel for today and for tomorrow. And again, the things that you love are still there. We need people to choose us, and we want people to choose us because people love this brand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Those comments about a Cracker Barrel for today and tomorrow, well, as many of them -- the right blaming wokeness tonight. Donald Trump, Jr. posted earlier, WTF is wrong with Cracker Barrel?
But it's not just the right who seems to be outraged because tonight, the official handle for the Democrats is posting, we think the Cracker Barrel rebrand sucks, too. In fact, a lot of the frustration here has to do with the company abandoning a core part of its aesthetic. That old country farm, knickknacks on top of a fireplace, vintage photos, farm tools on the walls. For loyal customers, the new logo just screams corporate.
Well, my next guest is a logo artist himself. You may have seen some of his logo redesigns on social media. Allan Peters joins me now. He's also the author of the book, "Logos That Last." Allan, all right, rate this rebrand for me. Rebrand on a scale of 1 to 10. What do you think?
ALLAN PETERS, SPECIALIST IN LOGO AND BRAND DESIGN: I would probably rate it about six or seven.
COATES: Hmm.
PETERS: I think, strategically, they did everything right. I think, from their perspective, their audience is getting older, they're in their 70 and 80s, and they're trying to attract a younger audience. And so, they're simplifying it down.
And the other thing is people see a brand now on a phone for the first time. And so, you need to simplify it a little bit more. You can't have full on illustrations like that man in the barrel.
COATES: Hmm.
PETERS: Um, what they've done, you know, they -- they took that outline shape that -- that you saw, and they made it into a barrel shape. Um, if you look at this screen to the right here, you can see right in the middle, they have a shorthand mark now, a brand mark on monogram, which can be reduced down for small sizes.
But yeah, overall, I think there are some aesthetic choices that I don't 100% agree with. And I think a lot of people aren't seeing the big picture as well. They're just seeing -- COATES: So, what would you have done differently?
PETERS: -- there's logo and here's another logo.
COATES: Yeah.
PETERS: What's that?
COATES: What would you have done differently?
PETERS: Uh, personally, I -- I -- I think a lot of the moves they made were correct. You know, they took an existing type of graphic, uh, form here with the cracker and the barrel set like that, and they refined them down. Uh, they -- they kept this similar aesthetic, though.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PETERS: They kept the colors, but they made them higher contrast so that they'd work better on the screen and help with, uh, people who might have disabilities like, uh, trouble seeing colors. Uh, you know, that higher contrast, that's something you see in different road signs and stuff like that because it's one of the highest contrasts, the black and yellow. So, there's a lot of nice things in there.
But just like at a glance, looking at the logo on the right, I think I'd probably pull in a little bit tighter. There's a lot of space around it. Or if you were to add a brand mark that's more than just the monogram, you know, potentially do a refinement of that barrel or that band space. You know, distilling it down into something that works at a small size.
COATES: So, Allan, what do you think it is? You are an expert on logos. Why do you think people become so emotionally invested in a logo?
PETERS: Well, a logo at the beginning starts as an empty glass. And over time, it's filled with meaning. And another name for that is brand equity. But for most people like you and I, it's nostalgia. You build this nostalgia over time. Every commercial, every time you hear that name, and that logo dwells up all that. And so, when you make a big change like this, you run the risk of losing all that brand equity, especially if it's too big of a change.
COATES: Almost everything seems to be viewed politically or through a political lens these days. Do businesses have to always anticipate that any change they make might run that very risk?
PETERS: Absolutely. Um, there have been some very small, subtle changes in the logo world, like the new Walmart logo, the new Amazon logo. People got even upset about them making such small changes. But, honestly, they kept all the brand equity and they made the mark stronger and more legible and made them more functional.
And so, should have Cracker Barrel have made more subtle change? I think to hit a different target audience, they needed to make a big change, and they did that.
COATES: Funny to think about how just the simplification, how it plays on one's phone, and how we really research, see, receive, and see information all factors into all of that. Allan Peters, thank you so much.
[00:00:00]
PETERS: Thank you very much.
COATES: And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
