Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

House Democrats Post Alleged Trump Letter To Epstein; Did The Supreme Court Rewrite Rules On Racial Profiling?; Justice Amy Coney Barrett Defends Her Record And The Court. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 08, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A quick programming note. We spent our summer Fridays during the show live from the Food Network. And some good news tonight. That will continue. Don't miss our debate roundtable at the Food Network on fall Fridays. That starts this week.

And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Jeffrey Epstein's infamous birthday book revealed, including the alleged letter that Trump says he never signed. One of the congressional Democrats who helped get it released is standing by to join me.

Plus, did the Supreme Court just imply racial profiling is a go? We'll take you inside the controversial decision that could be about to turbocharge immigration raids and possibly a whole lot more.

And later, Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaking out and defending herself from the right and the left.

Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, tonight, we've got a major batch of Jeffrey Epstein files. And I know what you're thinking already. Same old, same old. Nope. This time, it's not a rehash of what we have seen before. It's new records, documents we've heard about but are yet to see the light of day. You know where they're coming from? Epstein's estate. No, they -- they weren't volunteered. They were complying with the House Oversight Committee's subpoena.

And the biggest reveal? Well, Democrats on the committee released this. A page from a book compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday back in 2003, featuring a drawing of a naked woman and a signature bearing the name Donald. It was first reported by "The Wall Street Journal" back in July. And back then, we'd heard about it, we talked about it, we didn't see it. And Trump claimed -- insisted really -- he didn't care what we heard about. He never wrote it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't do drawings. I'm not a drawing person. I don't do drawings. Sometimes, people say, will you draw a building? And I'll draw four lines and a little roof, you know, for a charity stuff. But I'm not a drawing person. I don't do drawings of women. That I can tell you.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you maintain you did not write a letter for Jeffrey Epstein's birthday?

TRUMP: I don't even know what they're talking about. Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name. That happens a lot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president was so adamant it was not real back then, remember, that he sued "The Wall Street Journal" for at least $20 billion for defamation. So, what's the White House doing tonight? It's saying that Trump is going full steam ahead with that lawsuit. The press secretary insists the president did not draw the picture or signed his name.

One official win so far is to post a series of recent signatures from the president trying to suggest that the birthday book signature is not even his. Now, here's the book signature and one of those recent signatures side by side. But, of course, one glaring problem, these would have been written more than a decade apart. So maybe not the best comparison, right?

So, we've got some Trump signatures from the era for a better comparison. The far left is the birthday book signature. The one in the middle is a Trump signature from a 1999 letter to Larry King. And on the right is from a signed letter to Rudy Giuliani in 2001.

Oversight Democrats also highlighted another page from the birthday book appearing to show Epstein in a long-time Mar-a-Lago member with a poster board-sized check to Trump. The handwritten text under the photo says, Jeffrey showing early talents with money and women. Sells fully depreciated -- redacted -- to Donald Trump for $22,500.

Now, Republicans on the committee, they're crying foul. Chairman James Comer says that Democrats are politicizing the files and cherry- picking what precisely to release.

But if you ask GOP lawmakers what they think of these new documents, especially the birthday letter, you know what? Many of them are punting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you think it's believable that someone came in and forged Donald Trump's signature and sent this letter to --

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I think -- I think unlikely, but anything is possible in this. REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I don't know if that's legit, and I haven't seen it. I'll take a look at it all.

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I've been a little busy today. I haven't dialed in on that. I'm told that it's fake. So --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Will these new files push more Republicans to sign on a vote to force a House vote and make the White House release all the Epstein files? Well, two more signatures are needed.

[23:05:00]

The Democrat leading the charge says even Republicans -- even if Republicans hold out, we'll have enough in just a few weeks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): There are two vacant seats, one in Arizona and one in Virginia. Both of them are going to be filled by September 23rd. And both of those candidates have said they're going to sign the discharge petition. That gets us to 218, and that will trigger a vote one week later in the House of Representatives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, I guess mark your calendars for the end of September.

With me now, member of the House Oversight Committee, Democratic congresswoman from New Mexico, Melanie Stansbury. Congresswoman, welcome. The White House, as you know, is insisting that that is not President Donald Trump's signature. I know that you are skeptical about that, but is the committee able to verify the authenticity of it?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Well, what we can verify is that these are the documents that have been provided by Jeffrey Epstein's estate pursuant to a subpoena from the committee. And they provided 350 pages of documents today. We're still looking through them.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: But this is the infamous birthday book. And it's very clear, if you look at the handwriting, if you look at the bizarre note that Donald Trump provided in this book, that's Donald Trump's signature.

COATES: I want to talk more about what's in this new batch because there's a lot of documents released. And for the last couple weeks, it has been -- we've seen these before, we've seen these before.

But talk to me about what's in this new batch because there's an image that shows Epstein and a friend that seems to joke about a fully depreciated -- that's the phrase -- woman, selling that person to Donald Trump for over $22,000. Very demeaning and degrading to say the least. But what else is in this first batch?

STANSBURY: Yeah, well, I want to contextualize the bigger picture here and really connect some dots. First of all, it's important to understand that these incidents that happened around Jeffrey Epstein are not isolated. This is a 30-year long sex trafficking scheme that involved hundreds if not thousands of women, international banking institutions. It involved hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in monetary transfers.

And so, it's not like a little bit of, you know, sex trafficking that was happening on the side. Jeffrey Epstein was involved in one of the largest known sex trafficking schemes in American history. And the institutions that were involved that enabled it and the crimes, corruption and cover-ups have been ongoing for decades.

And it's very clear that the White House is involved actively in a cover-up right now. Donald Trump is actively preventing the Department of Justice and Treasury from producing documents that have been subpoenaed by the committee.

COATES: What is he doing specifically to stop that?

STANSBURY: He hasn't released them. He has instructed, as we understand it, his, uh, DOJ to not produce those documents because, as up to now, we have not actually received the documents that we have subpoenaed.

But what is in these documents that came from the estate are new documents, some of which we've not seen before, including the birthday book. There are some financial statements.

And really, what we've been told by the survivors, by the attorneys who know this case in and out, is that we have to follow the money. So, in addition to the financial documents that were produced today as part of this document production, we will be going after every possible document to look at the financial crimes that were involved in the sex trafficking scheme.

COATES: Yeah. There was a New York Times investigation that delved into the years-long relationship with JP Morgan, the bank, obviously, and Jeffrey Epstein. It talked about withdrawals and beyond.

But they did -- they did talk about and issuing statement, saying, it "was a mistake and in hindsight we regret it" -- talking about the issue with them -- "But we did not help him commit his heinous crimes. We would never have continued to do business with him if we believed he was engaged in an ongoing sex trafficking operation."

Of course, he'll continue to follow the money and pierce through that if possible. But there's also this idea of how Democrats on your committee are being criticized, even by your own chairman, Comer, who suggests in some way that Democrats are cherry-picking the information to release. What do you say to that?

STANSBURY: Well, first of all, it's very clear that Donald Trump, the speaker of the House, and the chairman are involved in a cover-up to protect the president and whoever he is --

COATES: He would say -- as Comer, he has helped to subpoena, he's not covering up, he's looking for transparency. Is that not credible?

(LAUGHTER)

STANSBURY: Well, I think it's very obvious that they're involved in a cover-up. You know, Mike Johnson, just a couple of days ago, claimed that Donald Trump was an FBI informant and walked it back today. They can't even keep their story straight. You know, one day, Donald Trump is saying that the files exist. The next day, he's saying they don't. The next day, he's saying it's a hoax. Then we produce the documents. It's very clear that they are trying to cover something up.

[23:09:57]

And I think it's important to remember that not only these crimes and corruption and a cover-up, but when you think about some of the largest crimes in history that, for example, took down presidents, maybe we should be talking about Watergate, it wasn't just the crime itself, it was the cover-up that took down the people who were involved.

And so, if Donald Trump thinks that he's exonerated in these files, then why can't he produce these documents to the public? I think it's very obvious that they are trying to shield Donald Trump, his friends, whoever he thinks is in those files. And, you know, if he believes that he's exonerated, release the files.

COATES: Even more broadly, the victims and survivors have talked about all the names, everyone along the route who may have known about the trafficking, whether it's butlers or accountants or drivers and beyond. You intend to seek those out as well.

STANSBURY: Absolutely. But it's bigger than just the immediate staff around Epstein.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: I think it's important to also understand that we're talking about financial crimes, we're talking about immigration fraud.

You know, we understand that part of what happened is that at a certain point in time, there were international modeling agencies set up by Epstein and his associates.

It's worth mentioning that Donald Trump himself had an international modeling agency and that they were using these modeling agencies to bring young women to the United States, mostly from Eastern Europe. They were engaged in immigration fraud.

Financial institutions paid them millions of dollars, including JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank and others, who were used for money laundering schemes. And not just one or two bank accounts --

COATES: Hmm. STANSBURY: -- but, potentially, hundreds of bank accounts that were used to hide money.

COATES: We're curious to where that trail leads. Of course, the president has not been charged with the crime. I'm curious to see what your investigation unfolds. Thank you, congresswoman.

The Supreme Court again backing the administration's hardline immigration approach in a 6 to 3 decision along -- surprise, surprise -- ideological lines. The court is allowing immigration officers in L.A. to continue to stop people based on where they work, what language they speak or the color of their skin. Critics say that the so-called roving patrols are unconstitutional.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes, federal law says immigration officers may briefly detain an individual for questioning if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is an alien illegally in the United States.

Well, tonight, the L.A. mayor, Karen Bass, is slamming the high court, saying the decision is un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.

I want to bring in justice correspondent for "The Nation," Elie Mystal. Elie, so glad you're here because, you know, racial profiling is supposed to be illegal, yet Justice Kavanaugh writes, "To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion. Under this court's case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors."

So, how is using apparent ethnicity as even one factor along with, say, language or job, how is that not unconstitutional or the other factors pretextual?

ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: Yeah, you know, the other factors that Brett Kavanaugh says, in addition to the color of a person's skin, is whether or not they speak Spanish or whether they speak English with a Spanish accent --

COATES: Hmm.

MYSTAL: -- or whether they're poor or whether they're at a bus stop. These are the other factors, according to Brett Kavanaugh, that allows unconstitutional racial profiling to go forward.

Laura, you said that racial profiling was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional until this morning.

COATES: Well --

MYSTAL: Until this morning, when the Supreme Court authorized what I would call its most racist decision since Plessy v. Ferguson, which was the decision that upheld racial segregation and Jim Crow laws.

This is the most racist thing the Supreme Court has done since then because make no mistake, this case allows the government to sweep up any person who is Latino, looks Latino, might be congregating in places where poor Latinos congregate and ask them to show them their papers, right? This doesn't apply to white men like Brett Kavanaugh.

And that is why -- well, that is, I think, one of the most galling things about Kavanaugh's decision. He says that these stops, these reasonable suspicion stops, are no big deal. It's just a friendly conversation like with your local masked jackboot where if you answer their questions wrong, you end up in Uganda. But whatever.

The point is this will never happen to Brett Kavanaugh because of the way he looks. Nobody is ever going to pull Brett Kavanaugh over and say, hey, there's a lot of crime here in the -- in this region, Mr. Kavanaugh, and you --

(LAUGHTER)

-- your face, it fits the description.

[23:15:05]

Do you have a calendar, perhaps, that shows that you were not part of any of these crimes? Nobody is ever going to ask him that. Nobody is going to ever ask any white man what Kavanaugh says the government can ask every Latino now according to his ruling. It is definitionally racist.

COATES: And this is applied just to the immigration context that would an immigration officer do or is it more expansive, Elie, in terms of how it could be applied in other contexts, say, with police in a reasonable suspicion contacts for every person?

MYSTAL: I mean, for now, it just applies to Latino immigrants that Trump wants to brutalize and harass. But once you open the pandora's box on racial profiling, I mean, look, Laura, I live in New York.

COATES: Hmm.

MYSTAL: Mayor Bloomberg tried to do this for decades, right? And was consistently told that he couldn't by courts of law. Now, all of that is out of the bag, racial profiling for crime, you know, racial profile -- if you happen to be a Vietnamese woman working in a nail parlor, Brett Kavanaugh is going to let Trump come after you, too, just based on who you are, what you look like, and what job they think you are doing at the time when they apprehend you.

The other thing that Kavanaugh never says, never explains, is he says that they can stop you and you can be forced to prove your citizenship to ISIS satisfaction.

COATES: Hmm.

MYSTAL: But he never says what --

COATES: What that is.

MYSTAL: -- constitutes satisfaction according to ICE. And again, I don't think Brett Kavanaugh is rolling around with his birth certificate in his wallet all the time. I don't think John Roberts is either. I know Amy Coney Barrett ain't. So, what's -- so, when you get stopped just because you're Latino and you happen to be at a bus stop, what do you have to do to prove to ICE --

COATES: Hmm.

MYSTAL: -- that you are an American citizen after they racially -- after they racially profiled you? And are you sure you have the documents to do it? All of these questions are now fair game because of this racist decision from the Supreme Court.

COATES: You have Supreme Court justices who were dissenting, including Sonia Sotomayor, as but one, who challenges that this is not the final word in terms of the way this might go back up to the courts. Is there any chance that there could be a turn of events?

MYSTAL: No. I mean, look, this is technically, they're removing a temporary injunction --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MYSTAL: -- made to stop racial profiling by a Joe Biden-appointee judge at the district court level. But Kavanaugh made it very clear in his decision today that when this gets back to the Supreme Court on the merits, the six Republican justices are most likely going to rule in the same racist way.

Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, says that the Constitution prohibits exactly what the government is attempting to do here. She says, and I'm quoting her, "sees individuals based solely on a set of facts that describes a very large category of presumably innocent people."

That is what the government is doing. That is what Kavanaugh said is okay. And there's very little chance that when this comes up on the merits, these Republicans are going to change their mind on the Supreme Court.

COATES: Mark the calendar. It was September 8th. Elie Mistal -- Mystal, excuse me, thank you so much.

MYSTAL: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, the fear and consequences of the looming ICE raids in Chicago. Here firsthand, the impact it's having on one of the communities most at risk. Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: You have to follow the law where it leads, even if it leads in a place where the majority of people don't want you to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Justice Amy Coney Barrett's message for America tonight as she takes on her critics from both sides of the aisle.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the Homeland Security Department says its immigration enforcement surge in Chicago is underway. ICE is calling it Operation Midway Blitz. And arrests are happening, according to local officials. Five, so far, including a flower vendor and a person waiting for a bus. We've reached out to ICE for more information about the arrests, but have not heard back.

This Truth Social post from the president stoking fears of what's to come. It's an AI-generated image of Trump from the movie "Apocalypse Now" with the caption, Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of War. Now, Trump says Chicago should be begging him to send in the military.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And I don't know why Chicago isn't calling us saying, please give us help. When you have, over just a short period of time, 50 murders and hundreds of people shot, and then you have a governor that stands up and says how crime is just fine, it's -- it's really crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He's talking about a possible federal crime crack down there. So far, the current operation is focused on immigration. Still, communities in Chicago are concerned.

And one leader joins me now. Jennifer Aguilar is the executive director of the Little Village Chamber of Commerce. The Little Village neighborhood in Chicago is often described as the Mexico of the Midwest. Jennifer, have you heard of anyone being detained since this operation began? And how -- your people in your community, are they preparing for possible raids?

JENNIFER AGUILAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LITTLE VILLAGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Yes, we did hear, like you mentioned, of a flower vendor that was taken in one of our southwest neighborhoods here in Chicago. And, um, our community is very aware of everything that is being reported. And the fear is real.

COATES: What is being done to try to address it, protect, educate, prepare?

AGUILAR: Yes, a lot of our community members are mobilizing to share, you know, your rights information.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

[23:25:00] AGUILAR: There's rapid response teams in our communities that are aware and very ready to respond to whenever there are sightings in the community.

COATES: I understand that the operations have impacted the economy of the little village. But I also want to get to what's happening at schools because, you know, I'm a parent. Schools are back in session as of -- for most schools just last week. We've seen immigration arrests at or near schools in other states. Is there a fear the same could happen in Chicago? And if so, how is the community reacting?

AGUILAR: Yes, there's definitely a fear that -- that schools would be a target. As -- at the beginning of the year, we did see an incident in Chicago where there was, uh, ICE presence at a school.

COATES: Hmm.

AGUILAR: So, that's definitely our fear. And in our business corridor as well, uh, we don't see as many people visiting the corridor as we usually do. As one of the city's busiest commercial corridors, we've definitely noticed, um, the causes and the results of this fear mongering.

COATES: This Sunday is an upcoming parade. It's the annual Mexican Independence Day parade. And I think they're still going forward with that despite the threats of the raids. Why is it important to move forward with it despite what might stoke fear?

AGUILAR: It is very important to move forward with our parade because it is a 54-year tradition. It is a tradition that has been longstanding in our community. And it is important more than ever to remind ourselves of the contributions that our community brings to this great city, state and nation. And if we were to cancel it, that would only demoralize our community further and increase the fear. And that's why it is so important for us to move forward.

COATES: Jennifer Aguilar, thank you for joining.

AGUILAR: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, men are from Mars, women are from Venus, Gen Z edition. Harry Enten standing by with a revealing new poll about America's zoomers and the dramatic difference of opinions when it comes to having kids. Plus, the question tonight, are Democrats the ones who are holding out, backing Zohran Mamdani? Are they the ones making a mistake? Might they be right? We'll talk about it with David Hogg next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Democrats have been trying to make up ground with young male voters ever since the last election. It started by blitzing podcast after podcast with the hope of targeting a younger audience. You might even recall some Democrats posting videos of themselves bench pressing. Is any of it working?

Our chief data analyst Harry Enten ran the numbers on where Gen Z actually stands. Harry?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Hey, Laura. Look, Generation Z has big differences with the rest of the electorate and it starts off with the gender divide. And, oh, my goodness gracious. Take a look here. Let's start off simple. Party I.D. margin. We'll look amongst Generation Z. Look at this. Among women, it's plus 19 Dem. Look at men. Completely on the opposite end of the table. We're talking about plus 18 Republican. That's a 37-point gender gap. My goodness gracious.

Compare that to all others. There's a gender gap, but it's about half the size at only plus 20 points because women, yes, they lean Democratic, but only by seven points in the margin. And yes, men lean Republican, but only by 13 points in the margin.

But the gender divide goes even deeper than that when we're talking politically speaking because take a look at the women who voted for Kamala Harris versus the men who voted for Donald Trump.

Get this: Generation Z, important to your own view of success, having children, look at this, among men who voted for Trump, 34% say having children is important to your own view of success. That ranks number one on the list of attributes. Compare that to female Harris voters. Get this: Only 6%. Only 6% say, important to your own view of success, having children is. That ranks last on the list of attributes.

Now, compare this to this question or this attribute. Important to your own view of success, again, looking at Generation Z, having emotional stability, among male Trump voters, only 9%. It ranks last. Compare that to female Harris voters. Thirty-nine percent say having emotional stability is important in your own view of success. That ranks third. Significantly higher on the list.

But there is one thing, Laura, that men and women agree upon, and that is, get this: Generation Z, important to your own view of success, a fulfilling career among male Trump voters, it's very high, at 30%. It ranks third. And among female Harris voters, it's 51%. That ranks number one.

I guess making money and having a fulfilling career, it crosses gender and political divides, Laura. Back to you.

COATES: Harry Enten, thank you so much. Well, joining me now is David Hogg. He's a Democratic activist and co-founder of Leaders We Deserve. He's also a former vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. David, welcome.

You saw those poll numbers from Harry. And there's also a new NBC poll that's showing 47% of Gen Z men approve of Trump while 53% disapprove. Now, that's a much tighter gap when compared to Gen Z women, 74% of whom disapprove of Trump. Should Democrats be concerned about that? DAVID HOGG, DEMOCRATIC ACTIVIST, CO-FOUNDER OF LEADERS WE DESERVE, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Look, there's a lot of work to do. But what I would say is in those polls, one of the things that we are -- aren't talking about is how united, uh, both Democrats that are younger on the left and the right are on addressing the cost of living.

[23:35:06]

COATES: Hmm.

HOGG: Uh, it's safe to say that Gen Z is economically cooked, and we are looking for answers right now. And they are looking for that, uh, for anybody who's really ready to speak to them, whether that's, you know, in the place like New York City with a candidate like Zohran or just finding anybody who can actually give them something different to say maybe our future can be better off than our parents because right now, for a lot of us, it doesn't feel like it's going to be that way, and the numbers back that up.

COATES: When you look at, say, Mamdani, for example, do you think that what his platform is -- is appealing to those outside of New York City proper as well? Does it mean it's transferable?

HOGG: You know, I think there's lessons to be learned specifically around just listening to voters and mobilizing people that traditionally haven't been mobilized before. We saw in his campaign record turnout of 18 to 24-year-old voters. He got 85% of young men to vote in that election for him.

So, you know, when it comes to talking about how do we win back young men, I don't think there's any single one of us that's going to have the perfect answer on that. But I think talking to somebody who won 85% of them in places as diverse as New York City would be a good place to start.

COATES: So, when you hear about the poll, we mentioned that male Trump voters ranked having children as being most -- as being the most important indicator of success. Female Harris voters ranked that among the least important. We think about what you've just talked about in terms of economic prospects and trajectory. How do you reconcile this? What do you think that Democrats should be seeing?

HOGG: You know, I think there is -- so, one thing that we need to be looking into with this in particular is the fact that, you know, uh, the traditional gender roles that I think a lot of younger conservative men think of when they talk about having kids, it doesn't disproportionately fall on them because they're thinking that their presumably wife is going to take care of everything.

And a lot of those women are thinking about the real economic costs that come with childcare, that come with the career costs, that come with so many of the other factors that come with having children.

So, I think it's just a difference in perspectives for both of them in terms of the real economic, uh, backsliding that a lot of women are going to face and the challenges they're going to face because of the enormous cost of living, let alone having children in this economy.

COATES: And I always say having kids is more about cute shoes and baby names. A lot more than that. I'm sure people will find that out in their own time as well.

But David, you made waves a few months ago when you suggested primary who you called ineffective Democrats. You have since endorsed Zohran Mamdani for the New York City mayor. Listen to what his opponent, the former governor, Andrew Cuomo, told our own Wolf Blitzer earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CUOMO, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I think, uh, Mamdani would be his dream as mayor because then it wouldn't just be President Trump, it would be Mayor Trump. He would just bigfoot Mamdani, which he's doing in cities all across the country, by the way. He has already said that Mamdani is a threat to public safety. And he would just step right over Mamdani. Mamdani is a stooge for Trump because he wants to take over New York.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What's your response?

HOGG: Fascinating. You know, if Zohran is Trump's, you know, top candidate, he certainly is not acting that way considering the fact that he just spent -- Trump just spent the better part of a week and a half trying to clear the field in order to help Cuomo win. And both Trump and Cuomo are backed by a lot of the same billionaire donors that are supporting both of them at the same time.

So, I think if Zohran really is that kind of top candidate, that dream candidate that Zohran was talking -- that Cuomo was talking about, uh, certainly, Trump is not acting that way.

COATES: Why don't you think there are more people who are in Democratic leadership, who are endorsing Mamdani at this time?

HOGG: Because I think that we are insanely out of touch with the American people, to be honest with you. We spent the past election spending $2 billion, telling voters who told us the president is too old and prices are too high, that no, he's not, and no, they aren't.

And when they brought up that they had real concerns about the U.S.'s involvement with what's going on in Israel, we said, we are not -- essentially, we're not going to talk about that.

And when you tell voters not to believe their eyes or wallets and you continue to do that, you're going to lose them. And it seems like a lot of the party still has not caught up with that at this point.

But what we're seeing is there's real ground to be gained with voters who traditionally have not been mobilized, right?

This is -- it's so much of a cliche in politics to say young people don't vote, but then we find somebody like Zohran who does get them to vote and completely upsets the political system and turns it on its head because he gives young people something that we've not had in a long time, frankly, on the left or the right, which is a vision, a real vision for the future of this country that is not defined just off of what we are, not as a party, but on what we are trying to fight for, what kind of future we're trying to build, not just the politics of the pragmatic but a politics of the necessary, for young people to not just survive in this country but actually have the same shot or even dare to thrive in this country.

[23:40:05]

COATES: We're voting in New York about a month away. We'll see what happens. David Hogg, thank you so much.

HOGG: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, what would Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett do if Donald Trump called her about a case? And what does she think about the attacks that she's facing from the left and from the right? Well, the correspondent who asked Justice Barrett those very questions and more will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: I'm nobody's justice. Those three words from Justice Amy Coney Barrett encapsulate how she views her job on the Supreme Court bench. She says she's not beholden to President Trump because he nominated her nor is she swayed by partisan politics. Rather, she says her focus is on the law.

And in her new book, "Listening to the Law," she tries to explain to Americans how her principled view of the law guides her decisions. Of course, this book lands at a time when the Supreme Court faces intense claims of political bias.

A recent poll found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the Supreme Nine. Now, mind you, that's one of the lowest ratings ever for the court. But Justice Barrett believes that's due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what the court does.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARRETT: Well, there's a disconnect between what happens inside the court and what people think happens inside the court. We're not deciding cases just for today. And we're not deciding cases based on the president, as in the current occupant of the office. We're deciding cases about the presidency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: USA Today Supreme Court correspondent Maureen Groppe interviewed Justice Barrett about her book. And Maureen joins me now. Glad to have you here, Maureen. Thanks for being here.

You know, she was nominated by Trump, as you know. She has faced plenty of criticism over the course of her tenure from both sides. And she told you, I want to read this. "Throughout history, presidents have been disappointed by what their justices with those appointments have done." How does she view her role in the court?

MAUREEN GROPPE, SUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT, USA TODAY: Well, you mentioned her book, and her book is called "Listening to the Law," and one of the reasons she wrote the book is to try to convince people that that's what she and the other justices do. They listen to the law when they're making their decisions. They don't make their decisions based on their own preferences or based on the politics of the president who appointed them.

COATES: Surely, she's aware that there are those who are skeptical about that being truthful. Does she address that?

GROPPE: Right. She says that that's what she's trying to -- trying to dispel. And she's trying to explain in her book how she makes the decisions, how the court decides which cases they can take. And, in fact, the court, uh, doesn't get to pick -- can't just weigh in on anything they want to. And so, she explains that.

And she -- she tries to talk about ways that people might -- might be expecting too much of the court. Expecting the court to do things that's not in their lane, as she would put it.

COATES: I mean, the final backstop. So, most people view it and thinking about the ultimate arbiter between the different equal branches of government. But there's also this fascination about the palace intrigue and what happens behind the scenes, the dynamics at play. She talks about there being able to have, on the one hand, differences in ideology and still a friendly dynamic. That seemed to be important to her. Why?

GROPPE: Yeah. Well, that's -- yeah, you're right, that was a point that she really stressed. And at the end of this last term, there's a lot of attention put on this back and forth that she had with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the decision in which the majority said they had limited and made it harder for lower court judges to block some of the president's policies.

And there is -- Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Justice Jackson wrote a solo dissent. And they were both pretty sharp.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GROPPE: And she -- she has previously called herself a one jalapeno gal in terms of her writing style. And so, I asked her why she turned up the heat in this case, and she said, well, I am usually a one jalapeno gal, but I'm from Louisiana, so I like little tabasco now and then. And she thought that because Justice Jackson had been so forceful in her comments that that deserved a forceful response.

But she quickly added after that -- but the words are just the words on the page. She tried to make the point that, you know, that they get along.

COATES: Hmm.

GROPPE: That even if they can have these sharp disagreements on the page, that it doesn't affect their personal relationships. And she talked about how the things that they do to foster collegiality such as when Justice Jackson joined the court, it was Justice Barrett who hosted the welcoming party for her. She knew that Justice Jackson is a big fan of Hamilton's. She got a Broadway performer to perform at this dinner that was just for the justices and their spouses, for example.

COATES: Wow, wow. That's fascinating to think about that, in a very good welcoming party. But she has not got the welcome wagon when it comes to reversal of Dobbs, Roe v. Wade in particular. And she has gotten a lot of criticism as have many of the justices who signed on to that opinion. And I want you to listen to how she described and discussed that decision. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARRETT: I think what you have to ask yourself is, what rights really go without saying that are so firmly rooted in the minds of the American people that everyone will agree?

[23:50:00]

I think the main message of Dobbs, I think the main message of that portion of the book where I discuss that, is that those decisions are not the Supreme Court's to make.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: How does she square the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade with what many believe might be a forthcoming topic for the Supreme Court, and that is gay marriage?

GROPPE: Well, the -- there are some on the court who -- who, um, would like to -- did not like that decision. But she does not -- she's not one of those who has written about that separately. And in -- she pointed out in her book that unlike abortion, she says there are other fundamental rights that have had longstanding support that she said abortion does not have. And she listed, for example, the right to marry.

So, she's not -- uh, she's very careful about not saying how she would rule if an issue would come up before her again, but that is a right that she emphasized in the book. It does have a longstanding support that she did not see that the nation has had for abortion.

COATES: We'll see if she's dancing on a pinhead or not. Thank you so much.

GROPPE: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Still ahead, it's a one-of-a-kind jazz experience that is changing lives. And I simply cannot wait for you to meet the incredible woman and kids behind it. My Champion for Change is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All this week, we're recognizing Champions for Change, men and women using their talents in areas like business, medicine, and music to make life better for others.

My champion, Melissa Walker, is doing just that. She empowers young people to develop life skills, foster creativity, and cultivate community through America's homegrown art form, jazz.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN: Cool. Ready, go.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: Growing up was tough. Music was really like the main thing that helped me.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: Music can allow you to feel things.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: I was one of those students that really needed Jazz House to give them a future.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: Jazz was the one place in society where I was celebrated for being Indian.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MELISSA WALKER, FOUNDER, JAZZ HOUSE KIDS: When you come to the Jazz House, you see who matters most, everyone.

COATES: Melissa Walker founded Jazz House Kids back in 2002 to try to bridge the gap in music education.

WALKER: Over 50% of the young people here, their families need some level of support.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WALKER: And for us, it's making sure kids have an instrument, they have a bus, they have tuition assistance.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Part of our mission is to make sure that those doors are swinging wide open.

COATES: Hi.

WALKER: Can we visit you?

COATES: Can I hear a little bit of it?

WALKER: We allow far too many young people --

(MUSIC PLAYING)

-- to not have access to the very things that would unlock their greatness. My greatest reward is seeing lives changed and transformed.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: Playing the saxophone has helped me in real life, with school, with friends.

UNKNOWN: I think people just need that one person to like leave them and push you forward.

UNKNOWN: I was able to, you know, have direction and make it to college.

(LAUGHTER)

WALKER: Jazz just improves and boosts their achievement. You have to have that focus, set goals, manage your time, be able to make real- time life decisions.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: My son, Adrian, is a saxophonist. My daughter, Sydney, plays the trumpet. I have seen within them the confidence, the persistence, the improvement across other subjects in school by being able to use the skills that they learn through music.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

I want to take you back to when you were a kid, when you met jazz. Something was ignited within you.

WALKER: Well, I grew up in a family that loved music. It was rhythm and blues and it was soul music. But when I heard the music of Billie Holiday, it was that pain, that emotion in that music. And that really became a journey of exploration for me.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: The intergenerational --

WALKER: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- communication that jazz provides is stunning. WALKER: I always think of jazz as the only place where you can get an eight-year-old and an octogenarian on this stage together doing something productive. The guiding principle here at Jazz House is to be the best human that you can be. And if we can do that and do it together, which is what you do on the bandstand --

(MUSIC PLAYING)

-- you're now watching democracy in action.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

[00:00:00]

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COATES: Be sure to tune in Saturday at 10 p.m. Eastern for the Champions for Change one-hour special. Hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.