Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Ghislaine Maxwell Speaks With DOJ About Trump And Epstein; FBI Searches John Bolton's Home And Office; California Parole Board Denies Parole For Lyle Menendez; Laura Coates Interviews Actor Wendell Pierce. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 22, 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: She speaks. Finally, we hear Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice in her own words. So, what Ghislaine Maxwell told the DOJ about Trump, Epstein, and the parts of the story she couldn't quite remember? I'm going to tell you.

Plus, the FBI goes after one of Trump's most vocal and high-profile critics, searching John Bolton's home and his office. Is it a legitimate investigation or revenge? The dish best served cold.

And the parole hearing for Lyle Menendez. Can you believe it? It is still underway late into the night. Will he denied pro like his brother or face a different outcome?

And later, I go one-on-one with actor Wendell Pierce.

Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Oh, we got the transcripts. Okay, we got the audio tapes. But if you think that what we heard from Ghislaine Maxwell, that's Jeffrey Epstein's longtime associate, if that's going to shut everybody up, well, you've got another thing coming.

And yes, that's taking in to account everything that Ghislaine Maxwell said about the president in her interview with the DOJ. I'm talking all nine hours of it over the course of two days.

Now, here is what she told the deputy attorney general, the number two, Todd Blanche, about her own relationship with President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER (voice-over): As far as I'm concerned, President Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me. And I just want to say that I find -- I -- I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now. And I like him, and I've always liked him. So that is the sum and substance of my entire relationship with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: She went even further, by the way, in defending Trump, saying that she never saw him do anything inappropriate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (voice-over): Did you ever observe President Trump receive a massage?

MAXWELL (voice-over): Never. I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.

BLANCHE (voice-over): And did you ever hear Mr. Epstein or anybody say that President Trump had done anything inappropriate with masseuses or with anybody in your world?

MAXWELL (voice-over): Absolutely never, in any context.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: For the record, in this case, Trump has never been accused criminally of any wrongdoing. But she might know how to read a room. It was President Trump's former personal attorney, Todd Blanche, the one turned number two at DOJ, who, of course, she was talking to. He would come down from Washington, D.C. in that position to speak with her.

Because we know that Maxwell wants a line to the president, would love nothing more, I'm sure, than a pardon. We also know that she's a serial liar. Now, not by my own word, but by the DOJ's own description.

And when you stack what you told Todd Blanche to everything else we know publicly, well, those concerns of credibility start to come right up. Well, take this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL (voice-over): I think they were friendly like people are in social settings. I don't -- I don't think they were close friends or I certainly never witnessed the president in any of -- I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Not close friends? Hmm. But Epstein himself told a very different story to reporter Michael Wolff just in 2017.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL WOLFF, REPORTER (voice-over): So, how do you know this?

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SEX OFFENDER (voice-over): I was Donald's closest friend for 10 years. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: His closest friend for 10 years. Now, I have no idea if they were close or not. I know what one was said and what was not said now by Ghislaine Maxwell. I know what now President Trump has to say about it. But I do wonder, the lawyer in me who thinks in flow charts and follow-up questions, I wonder why Blanche didn't press the issue given the discrepancy and, of course, the public knowledge of it or thoughts about it, even if only to aid Trump.

[23:05:00]

And then there's the moment that Maxwell denied knowing about any inappropriate cameras in Epstein's homes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE (voice-over): From what you know, you do not believe a camera exists, or a video camera or a camera that takes pictures, inside any of his residences?

MAXWELL (voice-over): Correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And we have this image published by "The New York Times" from Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Its surveillance camera, it' s mounted in a suite on the third floor. I see that it's small compared to, of course, the crown molding that is intended to hide it, perhaps.

That gets us to one of the most striking moments of the interview because Maxwell tried to distance herself from the crimes that she was convicted of. And let's be clear, what she did and was convicted of. Recruited, groomed, trafficked underage girls for Epstein's sexual abuse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL (voice-over): I'm not saying that Mr. Epstein did not do those things. I'm not casting those -- I'm not going to say -- I don't feel comfortable saying that today, given what I now know to be true. So, I am not here to defend him. But what I can say is that I did not participate in that activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But survivor after survivor, and there was also a trial, say otherwise, including the four women who testified at Maxwell's trial, who told the court they were under 18, under 18 years old, when the abuse happened.

Take Carolyn, who recalled this instance involving Maxwell when she was just 14. "She came in and felt my boobs and my hips and my buttocks and said I had a great body for Mr. Epstein and his friends."

So, if Maxwell can be doubted on all of that, I do wonder how the DOJ can take anything she says at face value and whether the public could either.

Let's begin with the editor-in-chief of All Rise News, Adam Klasfeld. He, of course, covered the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Also here, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Aronberg. Glad to have both of you here.

I'm going to begin with you, Dave, on this because -- first of all, let's just be clear for the audience. Prosecutors, let alone the number two in the DOJ, they're not on fact-finding missions where they're detectives investigating a case, and they don't want to ask one question too many in a trial setting that might lead them down a path they cannot meet a burden of proof.

But you had him go down there. It was nine hours, two days. And they start out by saying that he wasn't promising her anything. But all of sudden, a week later, she's transferred to that lofty prison camp. So, I wonder what you think the DOJ really got out of this, given the way this has gone.

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Well, Trump and the DOJ got what they wanted out of this, which was exoneration of Donald Trump. That's why they sent down Todd Blanche, number two at the DOJ, Trump's former defense lawyer.

COATES: Was he exonerated in your mind because she said in the statements that she had never seen anything inappropriate? Was that enough?

ARONBERG: Well, they believe it. That's why I think she was rewarded, because she played ball, she answered the questions for nine hours, and she asked, her lawyers asked, if she could be moved to this better facility, and they granted it. Maybe one day, she'll get a pardon because she gave Trump what he wanted.

Now, as you correctly said, there's no evidence that Trump did anything illegal.

COATES: Right.

ARONBERG: I've always wondered why he's so concerned about being tied to Epstein because we all knew they were friends. But Ghislaine Maxwell actually said, no, nothing inappropriate.

But keep in mind, she also said in that same nine-hour conversation, she never saw anyone act inappropriately with an underage girl, including Epstein.

And when she said that under oath in a 2016 deposition, the Trump Justice Department in 2020 --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ARONBERG: -- charged her with perjury.

COATES: Didn't follow through in terms of trial on that point. But they have that in their back pocket, knowing what they thought of her credibility.

Adam, I mean, Maxwell denied that both she and Epstein -- well, she said she wasn't there to defend Jeffrey Epstein, but she said that she does not believe victims were sexually abused because they never looked -- in her words -- unhappy. In fact, she criticized survivors who testified against her at trial. One of them telling Tara Palmeri tonight, "She's like listening to Ted Bundy talk about his victims. Literally, what's the point?"

So, as you know, she didn't testify in her own trial. She could have been challenged there, truly challenged. She could have been impeached -- been impeached and cross-examined. So here, the idea of her having sort of the carte blanche to say what she wanted to say in her version, what is the risk of that?

ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: Well, the risk of that and what Blanche allowed her to do is try to rehabilitate herself at the expense of the victims, and he did it time and time again. There was, having sat through the trial, the testimony of Jane.

[23:10:01]

You had Ghislaine Maxwell trying to rewrite the entire history, saying, no, Jane wasn't 14 years old, she was 16 years old.

COATES: Hmm.

KLASFELD: Well, not only was there -- her testimony, Jane's testimony that she was 14, the testimony was that they met at Interlochen summer camp in Michigan, and there were flight records corroborating it on the year that it was said.

There was no pushback. No pushback whatsoever from Blanche on that or in mocking testimony of Virginia Giuffre in the infamous photograph that we have all seen of her and Prince Andrew with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background.

She claimed in this depo -- in this testimony that it was a forgery, that it was a fake. She didn't believe it. She thought it was all manufactured. Well, the prince himself, when he -- he claimed in an interview one time that it was doctored, but when the chips were down and the lawsuit was filed, and he had to respond to the allegation, he said, oh, I don't have enough information. So, he didn't dispute at that time the authenticity of the photograph.

No pushback from Todd Blanche who, as Dave pointed out, appeared not to be representing the victims or the United States of America but Donald Trump.

COATES: Dave, why do you think there was not the pushback? I mean, by the way, even on points where it could have followed up to almost buttress her actual statements about Donald Trump and beyond, he chose not to do that in some respects.

But then there was the conversation when he did push, when it came down to her questions or statements about Epstein-Seth. He asked her whether Epstein-Seth was a suicide. She did not believe that it was. That wasn't his exact question, but she didn't believe it was a suicide. He then pressed her and asked her if she had any reason to believe that he was killed to protect the rich and powerful, and she said no. Tell me about his approach there.

ARONBERG: This shows, as Adam said, as we all said, that he was or he was reading the room --

COATES: Hmm.

ARONBERG: -- she was reading the room. They both got what they want out of this. He wanted her to say nice things about Trump, and she wants a pardon. And they both play ball.

And if they wanted to go into detail, then they would have sent down a lying prosecutor, but they couldn't because Maurene Comey, the one who prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell, was fired. So, if this were really about fact-finding, they would have sent down a prosecutor who knew all the details.

Todd Blanche wasn't familiar with this case. And also, this question of Ghislaine Maxwell, these questions were never going to lead to more charges, and we know that because they made this all public. So, now, anyone who she identifies as a potential target is notified. So, this was never about an investigation. This was about Trump being exonerated.

COATES: We'll see how all this unfolds. This surely has not answered all the questions. Adam, Dave, thank you both so much.

Joining me now, Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury. Welcome, congresswoman.

I -- I'm really curious, what you thought, given how Congress has really expressed an interest and trying to get as much information, at least some members of Congress, as possible for transparency's sake here and unfolding. What do you make of the tone of this interview, the idea that Maxwell made these statements, sort of questioned the suicide, but didn't go as far as to say that it was protect with rich and the powerful? What do you make of all of it?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Yeah, you know, the clip you played a few moments ago, I think, speaks volumes, especially in what she doesn't say, the way in which she prostrates herself for Trump in such a clear way, essentially like she's begging for a pardon.

And I think it's very clear that she's not a credible witness that -- as your analysts who were just on were stating, you know, this was not a fact-finding mission, this was not about justice for victims.

This was about them creating a smoke screen so that Donald Trump can tell his supporters and the MAGA base, who's demanding transparency and the release of these files, that, you know, they talked to somebody who was there, Trump is --

COATES: Hmm.

STANSBURY: -- exonerated, and there's no files. But we know there's files. They delivered 33,000 pages of them today, and that was only a partial delivery. We know from reporting that Pam Bondi told Trump he's in the files. So, these guys are totally manufacturing a smoke screen to shield the president.

And, in fact, there was a hot mic moment released today by Mike Collins, who's a representative from Georgia, in which he said, of course, Trump is in the files, he's all over them. So, these guys know what's going on.

COATES: All over the files are in them, but not criminally implicated. There's maybe a distinction there on that point. But if you had all these misgivings, which you obviously do when it comes to Ghislaine Maxwell and her credibility, I would say justifiably so given reputationally at DOJ, what would your committee be looking to get from her if you were able to get her to testify?

[23:15:07]

Is it simply a matter of members of Congress sort of barking at her and explaining their disgust for a woman who was engaged in this behavior or you actually believe she would give you anything productive?

STANSBURY: Well, first of all, I think it's important to recognize that after Trump promised he would release the files and then Pam Bondi informed him that he was in the files, Trump spends weeks and weeks saying that the files didn't exist.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: Then Democrats are the ones who issued the subpoena to release the files. And it was during the hearing that the subpoena was issued, that actually Republicans in the subcommittee started listing out people to come and testify in front of the committee. And there are a number of people that we would like to bring in front of the committee, including Acosta --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: -- who was involved in the first Epstein trial, to understand what actually is going on.

COATES: He gave that sweetheart deal.

STANSBURY: Yeah, exactly, exactly. But yeah -- I mean, if we're going to go down this path, and this is about transparency and this is about justice, then I think it's appropriate to put these folks under oath in front of the American people. And -- I mean, as you show the testimony that she gave to Trump's personal lawyer, that was not a cross-examination.

So, bringing witnesses in front of the committee, in front of the American people in full transparency allows for Republicans and Democrats to ask questions. And these folks will be under oath. And if they perjure themselves, then they will be held accountable.

COATES: Congresswoman, what can you tell us about the contents of the files the DOJ handed over your committee? And, by the way, when will the public get to see them?

STANSBURY: So, as I understand it, the files arrived late in the evening on the East Coast time. I'm currently back in New Mexico, and so I was not physically there when the files were released to the committee. My understanding is that there were 33,000 pages of files, and the staff and lawyers for the committee are waiting through them right now.

It's clear from the first tranche of files that they've released that they've only release things that basically are already in the public domain. There's not a lot of new information. And so, yeah, the real question is, when is the real stuff going to be released to the committee?

COATES: Will the public see it when it is released to you?

STANSBURY: I mean, certainly, the Democrats are committed to releasing the files fully, but I don't -- I'm not currently in the discussions regarding how that will happen. So, that's not my role at this moment.

COATES: We shall see. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, thank you.

STANSBURY: Yep. Thank you so much.

COATES: Up next, the other major story is unfolding tonight. John Bolton's home and his office searched by the FBI. The DOJ calling it a national security investigation as Trump's critics call it revenge. Plus, breaking news, just in, parole has been denied for Lyle Menendez 36 years after he and his brother, Erik, murdered their parents. The details are just coming in, and we'll have them for you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, it's not often that you see the FBI raid the home of a former top national security official, let alone when they happen to be one of the president's fiercest critics. You sure you saw that today at the home and office of former national security advisor, John Bolton.

Source is telling CNN the search was part of an investigation into whether Bolton disclosed any classified information in his 2020 book recounting his time at the White House. It was a book that sharply criticized Trump's foreign policy expertise and his fitness for office. That investigation began during Trump's first term, but was later closed under President Biden.

The president today is telling reporters that he had nothing to do with the raid. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know about it. I saw it on television this morning. I'm not a fan of John Bull. He's a real -- sort of a low life. He's a not a smart guy. But he could be a very unpatriotic guy. We're going to find out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, former Trump Homeland Security official, Miles Taylor. He's the author of "Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy from Trump's Revenge." He's also the subject of a DOJ investigation recently ordered by President Trump. I'm also joined by national security lawyer, Dan Meyer. Glad to have both of you here.

Let me begin with you on this, Miles, because Bolton is, of course, a staunch critic of the president, as we have all heard. We should also note the FBI director, Kash Patel, included him on a list of more than 50 officials -- 5,0 -- that he says are -- quote -- "members of the deep state." And, in fact, you're also on Patel's list. Do you believe the search today was politically-motivated?

MILES TAYLOR, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Absolutely. No question. Not only do I think it was politically-motivated, Laura, I do think this is one of the most egregious things we've seen yet in the second Trump administration. That sounds maybe a little hyperbolic. A lot of things have happened that are pretty shocking during this administration.

But this was sort of the visual culmination of the thing that many people have been warning about for months and for years, is that Donald Trump would use the investigative organs of government to go after his enemies. And make no mistake, this is exactly that.

And, in fact, I tallied up tonight, there are at least by my count five people who are being investigated by parts of the administration.

[23:25:03]

Let me list them off to you. John Bolton, John Brennan, James Comey, Miles Taylor, Alex Vindman. Now, what do those five people have in common? Yes, they all wrote books about Donald Trump, but they all wrote critical books about Donald Trump.

What I couldn't think of, Laura, is whether there's anyone who wrote a flattering book about Donald Trump that's being investigated for the release of classified information like John Bolton.

Yet the vice president today wanted us to believe that this had nothing to do with revenge. That's an awful big coincidence --

COATES: Hmm.

TAYLOR: -- that people who wrote critical books are being conflated as people who potentially engaged in dissemination unlawfully of classified information. COATES: Dan, let me bring you in here because, you know, this wasn't as if it was directly ordered from the president. There was a magistrate judge who signed off on a warrant to have this actually executed. But what's the criteria for people to understand that would have to go into play to be able to do this sort of warrant, but also what they're looking for, potentially?

DAN MEYER, NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER: Well, you have to remember that just because a warrant has been issued doesn't mean there's smoke, doesn't mean there's fire. John Bolton is guilty of nothing at this point in time.

All that's happening is there's a collection of evidence by federal investigators. They have to have probable cause and reasonable belief, not by the judge, but by somebody who's in a position to understand what the alleged classified information is, where it's located, and how it is attached to John Bolton.

That information is a pretty low standard. So, searches go on all the time, more so electronically than physical.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MEYER: They're dramatic. He's a celebrity, and so it garners a lot of attention. But federal employees in Washington, D.C. have been dealing with this type of investigation for decades. And so, a judge has to be convinced, and a judge was convinced.

So, there was some protection for Ambassador Bolton in that there had to be some information coming forward. That information could turn out to be wrong. It has happened. I have supervised investigations where there were actually falsified affidavits that went to judges. It happens.

COATES: Yeah.

MEYER: So, we shouldn't jump to conclusions that he is guilty somehow of some retention of classified information.

COATES: I am curious because this was actually the investigation of Bolton actually happening in the first Trump administration. The Biden administration and the DOJ served under his administration. They did not pursue it. It has now been brought up again. Is that unusual?

MEYER: No, it actually isn't unusual, and I wouldn't assume that that was political. What probably happened was somebody in the Justice Department gathered up altogether all the evidence, looked at it, and decided that if they took that to an assistant U.S. attorney, the assistant U.S. attorney would probably not go forward.

There are often passionate fights between U.S. attorneys --

(LAUGHTER)

-- about who should take a case, who should not take a case. Sometimes, investigators will think that their evidence is just beautiful, and an attorney will look at it and say, no, I can't convince a judge --

COATES: Right.

MEYER: -- or a jury on that.

COATES: Miles, you mentioned the vice president, J.D. Vance. He was asked about the search earlier today. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump?

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, not at all. And, in fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions willy-nilly like the Biden administration, DOJ did. If they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he has broken the law.

We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that because we don't think that we should throw people. Even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically, you shouldn't throw people willy-nilly in prison. You should let the law drive these determinations, and that's what we're doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Miles, do you believe it? Do you think that's the prudent course?

TAYLOR: Well, look, in my view, the vice president of the United States is a smart man but, unfortunately, he thinks that we are not smart in listening to that.

This would be an extraordinary coincidence, that so many people who have been critical of Donald Trump for so many years consistently are finding themselves on the receiving end of retribution from the executive branch. Come on, I mean, we're not stupid about that. I mean, I think, you know, it is very obvious that there are political motivations here. And as Dan was noting, you know, we don't know what was taken to a judge to get signed off.

But look, I've had a lot of these conversations, as you'd expect, the last few months. There's extraordinary worry across the legal community that there are agents and intelligence officers across the U.S. government that maybe have a favorable view of the president, that might be willing to swear on affidavits, things that don't really hold up at the end of the day in court to be able to help go investigate his enemies. That's a scary thing to see happening in the United States.

COATES: Hmm.

TAYLOR: But there's another part of the vice president's comments that are worrying, Laura, is he said that this was the start of an investigation into Ambassador Bolton.

[23:30:00]

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAYLOR: Typically, in a case like this, especially a case involving the Espionage Act, the raid of his home and his offices would be one of the last major investigative steps. So, this, to me, smacked of a fishing expedition.

COATES: Well, we shall see whether this is the beginning, the middle or the end. Something tells me it's really not the end. Miles Taylor, Dan Meyer, we'll continue to pick your brain. Thank you so much.

Still ahead, breaking news out of California. The Menendez brothers officially both denied parole. Lyle learning his fate just moments ago. So, where's this and their bid for freedom go now? Well, the LADA who stands against their release, Nathan Hochman, is standing by to join me live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news, a parole board in California has just denied parole for Lyle Menendez after a 10-hour hearing. He, along with his younger brother, Erik, were convicted of killing their parents in Beverly Hills 36 years ago. Their original sentence, life without parole.

But the brothers have argued consistently that their father sexually abused them. And today, Lyle added his mother sexually abused him as well. After the case captured the public's attention again, a resentencing hearing earlier this year gave them both a shot at parole.

But yesterday, the parole board rejected Erik's request. And now, Lyle's parole has also been denied. The panel were ruling that there are still signs that Lyle poses a risk to the public.

L.A. County D.A. Nathan Hochman joins me now. Nathan, welcome. D.A. Hochman, this is the result that your office wanted. But what is your message to the family members who wanted Erik and Lyle to be paroled?

NATHAN HOCHMAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, my message, and I spoke with those family members, all of them, for over three hours myself, I heard what they said, and what I communicated to the family members is that the issue for parole is not never, but not yet.

And the two things I based it on is in part what the parole board itself based it on. The first was the failure of both Erik and Lyle to exhibit full insight into their criminal actions and all the lies they have told. The central lie being the self-defense defense at trial, and that's a lie that they have persisted in for 35 years.

That's a lie that where they said, and they actually testified to this, that it was not sexual abuse that led them to kill their parents the night of August 20th, 1989, it was the fact that they said that their parents were going to kill them that night, both their mom and their dad, so they had to kill them first.

We show that lies by looking at 50,000 pages of trial transcripts and interviewing everyone involved in the case. We say that that is an absolute lie. The Menendez brothers bought shotguns two days before the killings in a different city under fake names. They had a pre- planned alibi where they were going to see "Batman" the movie and actually tried to buy tickets for it.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HOCHMAN: They then staged a methodical mafia-looking type of murder where they shot the daddy in the back of his head. The mom who were dying on the ground, they reloaded a shotgun, put it up to her cheek, and pulled the trigger. They shot the parents through the kneecaps. It then methodically got rid of all the evidence. And then when it came time to call 911 --

COATES: Yeah.

HOCHMAN: -- he screamed, someone killed our parents, until they finally admitted it.

COATES: Well, the admission, at one point, though, yesterday, Erik admitted to one of the criteria. There was no justification for a self-defense. Does that admission yesterday changed anything in your eyes, moved it from not now but not yet for parole?

HOCHMAN: Well, yeah, his admission yesterday, it was very tearful way, that he apologized to his own family members for his conduct in murdering his own parents. That was not an admission at the self- defense defense that he has told for over 35 years. It was an abject lie the entire time. There was no evidence --

COATES: And why -- and why specifically, though -- I mean, for people who might understand it, why specifically would his admission or either his admission of that particular statement in the way that you'd like it said, why should that move the needle for the parole board?

HOCHMAN: Let me tell you why. What I'll use is the example of Governor Newsom's rejection of parole for Sirhan Sirhan. Sirhan Sirhan had all the same pro-parole factors as the Menendez brothers. He committed the offense under the age of 25 when he assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. He had been in prison for 54 years.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HOCHMAN: He was in diminished health. He had done every rehab program and education program in the prisons. He was considered a model prisoner. The problem with Sirhan Sirhan is that he failed to completely accept responsibility for his crime and all the law he told afterwards.

That's why I'm focusing on this. Because, again, the idea -- and by the way, it's not just true for the Menendez brothers, it's true for everybody. Until you have the baseline acceptance for all the things you've done wrong, it's virtually impossible to trust that if we let you out, you're going to abide by society's laws.

COATES: Hmm.

HOCHMAN: And what the parole board also focused on was that while they've been in prison over the last couple of years, they've broken the prison rules.

COATES: You're talking about unauthorized cellphone use. You're talking about -- and that the idea that they would -- one of them was saying -- Lyle was saying that he had unauthorized cellphone use, but he was not using his tablet because he was afraid that that was going to be leaked, sold the tablet, and wanted privacy.

[23:40:02]

Does that factor into the same level for you as not admitting that there was no self-defense here? Should those be judged on the same basis?

HOCHMAN: You know, it is part of a continuum of --

COATES: Okay.

HOCHMAN: -- the failure to basically come clean with the truth. I think that's what the parole board really focused on. That if these folks, if these two brothers are going ahead and violating the rules inside the prison, in a structured environment, if they keep failing for 30 years to acknowledge the full extent of their crimes, how can we trust them on the outside to abide by the rules? And I think that was what the focus of the parole board was both for Erik and Lyle in each of these situations.

COATES: Well, they will both have another opportunity before the parole board, one through the other. D.A. Nathan Hochman, thank you for your explanation tonight.

HOCHMAN: My pleasure. Thank you.

COATES: Up next, a very special guest on this Friday night. Actor Wendell Pierce opens up about the political moment we find ourselves in and his message to those attempting to rewrite history.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDELL PIERCE, ACTOR: And the president's effort to whitewash the past because it makes him uncomfortable is the odd offenses. It's un- American, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Remember when President Trump said the Smithsonian focused too much on how bad slavery was this week? Well, that was just what? Tuesday? Well, now, the White House is trying to explain what Trump meant by that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDSEY HALLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: While slavery is obviously a horrible aspect of our nation's history, you can't really talk about slavery honestly unless you also talk about hope and progress. And I think we need to be focusing on the progress that we've made since then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I think you can talk about it honestly without that. But plenty of people aren't actually buying that explanation. That included Tony award-winning actor and activist Wendell Pierce, who I had the pleasure of speaking with today.

I'm so glad you're here, Wendell, because you have been unapologetic in your criticism of President Trump's attack on our -- attacks -- to plural -- on our many cultural institutions. For example, the Smithsonian. And just in March, you wrote, quite presciently, I should say, "How close are we to a House un-American activities committee?"

I wonder, given the fact that there has been a conversation that the president has had about slavery is being focused on as too bad or our entities are too woke, and we have to have one particular American party line when it comes to remembering history, what do you make of his focus on trying to reshape the Smithsonian?

PIERCE: My parents taught me a long time ago, they are those who do not have your best interest at heart.

COATES: Hmm.

PIERCE: The president does not want a true consideration of America's original sin. It is the height of white fragility and -- and an insult to the men and women who lost their lives. We cannot forget what happened in the past or we are doomed to repeat it. And the president's effort to whitewash the past because it makes him uncomfortable is beyond offensive. It's un-American, actually.

The American idea is we are looking to be a more perfect union. Any serious adult or any serious government or any serious society is able to look at their inadequacies and make a change and say, oh, we have done this in the past, I will dedicate myself to not doing it in the future.

And so, to disregard slavery is to elevate slavery. It's because you are trying to say what happened was of little significance. We have that problem in Louisiana. If you go on a plantation tour, they would always look at it as if it was an architectural tour. The House was built in 1845. And in 1923, when the Smith family, like, hold on, you just skipped over a couple of centuries there.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PIERCE: Um --

COATES: I've been on one of those tours.

PIERCE: Yeah.

COATES: The Laura Plantation I visited in New Orleans.

PIERCE: And then there was a plantation, Whitney, that said, we're going to tell the true history. And it has become one of the top destinations of people coming to see the plantation tours because it gives you the full story. Right?

COATES: I want to ask you about the other cultural institutions. The Kennedy Center.

PIERCE: Uh-hmm.

COATES: PBS. The Smithsonian is one of them. Library of Congress. When you see each of these having a proverbial thumb on their scales --

PIERCE: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- what could be the long-term impact?

PIERCE: Well, it actually gives us -- there's a clarion call for artists, really, to demonstrate the role of art.

[23:50:01]

You know? What thoughts are to the individual, where we reflect on who we are, toss and turn at night, look at our failures, celebrate our triumphs, think about what we want to become. That's what the role of art is for society as a whole. Entertainment is a byproduct of it. It's not the purpose of it.

It is the place where we come together as a community, as a society, reflect on who we are, where we've been, where we hope to go, what our values are, and then leave and act on those values.

Those who do not have our best interest at heart will do everything to stop that process. They're fearful of that. I want to control the narrative. And that's what, you know, an authoritarian government does. We're going to control the narratives.

When a coup happens, the first thing they do is take over the television stations, the radio stations, because they want to control the message and the narrative of what's happening. And it is artists who always, always remind the community of what our true values are. COATES: We're going to get a quick break here. More of my conversation with actor Wendell Pierce right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Wendell Pierce is a born and bred New Orleans native. And just like everyone else in the Big Easy, he is reflecting on what happened 20 years ago next Friday.

Hurricane Katrina barreled into the Gulf Coast and changed the region forever. One thousand, three hundred and ninety-two people died from the storm. And the images, well, they are seared into our brains. The levees breaking, submerging New Orleans with 20 feet of water. People waiting for days on rooftops. And thousands more stranded at the Superdome. Katrina was a natural and a man-made disaster. In a new CNN Original Series, "Rebirth of the Superdome" explores just how the city rebuilt after the storm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCH LANDRIEU, CO-CHAIRMAN OF AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY, FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: When Katrina hit the Superdome, it was the site of devastation. When the Saints came back into that building, and we all saw each other for the first time in a long time, and we had the glorious Saints, that's the moment where we knew we were going to survive. It was a big -- I'm still crying. It was a big moment for us. And people -- people in New Orleans remember that very moment. And the Saints gave us that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, stars in the documentary. And I talked to him about when the levees broke and how New Orleans rose again.

PIERCE: There were nine people in my neighborhood of Pontchartrain Park, uh, got -- lost their lives. So, it was neighbors, it was friends, church members we knew were in the city and perished.

Then there was the double tragedy of friends in the middle of the night who called because that's the only time we could get cell service in the middle of the night. And friends from New York, actually, called me, and I said, man, you don't understand what's going on here. I said, the city is devastated. Thousands of people are going to die. People are stranded.

COATES: Hmm.

PIERCE: The federal response is non-existent. And I said, I don't think people understand it. And the thing that incensed me then and even to this day is that no, Wendell, it's on television, we're seeing everything. I said, you can't be seeing everything because --

COATES: There's no response.

PIERCE: -- there's no response. You said there's people at the Superdome.

COATES: Let's talk about there because the fact that people were seeing this in real time --

PIERCE: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- and your instinct saying, I can't believe you're seeing it because the help is not coming.

PIERCE: Right.

COATES: Talk to me about the Superdome. For many people, that is really the iconic landmark. One of many, frankly --

PIERCE: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- but in New Orleans. And to have it become what it did. Talk to me about the Superdome and its significance.

PIERCE: The Superdome is an example of our failure to treat the best resource that America has, its people, in the way that they should be treated. In this 20th anniversary, we will look back and rightfully so, look at the resilience of the city, the response in these 20 years, and how we are back. But we shouldn't look at it through rose- colored glasses and forget that it was a failure of government, a failure of our levy systems, and an ugly part of human nature. It was the best of times, but it also was the worst of times.

COATES: Watching it reopen a year later, did that give the community in New Orleans hope?

PIERCE: Yes. I was there when it reopened. I was there for the famous football game against our rivals, the Atlanta Falcons, the famous blocked punt for a touchdown.

(LAUGHTER)

That is emblematic of the restoration of hope. It's one of the reasons I'm an actor. That's the role of art, you know. And that's what the Saints -- what thoughts are to the individual. Art is to the community as a whole. It is a place where we reflect on who we are and what we can be in our hopes.

And that's what the Saints did then and do to this day, bring us together in a way that our differences fall away.

[00:00:00]

They kind of dissolve away. And for that time, in that period, the Saints returning to New Orleans, let us know that the city would return.

COATES: Let's hope life imitates art -- artist. PIERCE: Yes.

COATES: Thank you so much.

PIERCE: Thank you.

COATES: You can watch that documentary this Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern only on CNN. I thank you all for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next.