Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Kirk's Accused Killer In Court As New Evidence Revealed; Patel Gets Into Shouting Matches Over Epstein Files, FBI Firings; Conservatives Outraged Over Bondi's Call To Prosecute "Hate Speech." Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 16, 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: Tonight, four people are in custody in England after this stunt projecting video of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein on Windsor Castle. Trump is set to visit there tomorrow on his state trip to the U.K.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Charlie Kirk's accused assassin in court. The stunning text to his roommate and what they revealed about his motive. Plus, where can you hear the words stupid, liar, fraud, disgrace, coward, and buffoon all in under 60 seconds? Why congressional hearing with Kash Patel talking about Epstein. And did I say hate speech? The attorney general, Pam Bondi, backtracks on comments on hate speech after an uproar even inside MAGA world. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, seven felony charges with the prospect of the death penalty. That's what Charlie Kirk's accused killer is facing right now as he sits in jail without bail. He made his first court appearance a short time ago, and we heard him speak to the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE TONY GRAF, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT: State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Could you state your name?

TYLER JAMES ROBINSON, CHARLIE KIRK MURDER SUSPECT: Tyler James Robinson.

GRAF: Thank you for being here, Mr. Robinson. I'm Judge Graf.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that was all he said. He sat emotionless during the hearing, even when he was read facts about the death penalty. And even though Robinson was silent, man, the counts against him speak volumes. The most severe, aggravated murder. Among the others, obstruction of justice, witness tampering. We also learned some new details about Robinson's alleged motive. Much of it was in, by the way, his own words, including a note to his roommate and romantic partner who was transitioning from male to female.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF GRAY, ATTORNEY, UTAH COUNTY: The roommate received a text message from Robinson which said, drop what you're doing, look under my keyboard. The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated -- quote -- "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And then there was a flood of text messages after that statement, including several Robinson seemed to confess. His roommate messaged this after reading the note we just referenced. "What? You're joking, right?" Robinson responded, "I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still. To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry to involve you."

His roommate asked, "You weren't the one who did it, right?" Robinson said, "I am. I'm sorry." His roommate asked why. Robinson texted, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out." When he was asked how long he had been planning the attack, he replied, "a bit over a week, I believe." And at one point, Robinson told his roommate, "delete this exchange."

Now the county attorney also read out several messages where Robinson messaged his roommate about the rifle linked to the shooting, further suggesting that he wanted to keep the attack somehow a secret.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAY: I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. I worry about prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. How the "F" will I explain losing it to my old man?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We also got the clearest picture yet of Robinson's political views, a source of heated speculation between the left and the right. So, today, the prosecutor revealed what the suspect's own mother told investigators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAY: Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transit -- transitioning genders.

[23:05:04]

This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's go now to CNN's Ed Lavandera who is in Orem, Utah. Ed, it was quite a press conference today. Details, allegations, the text messages, seven felony charges. Robinson's parents were the ones who actually turned him in. And now, we're getting more specifics about how that all happened. Walk me through it.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, we had been hearing so much in the days -- in recent days about how the father was the one that confronted him about the shooting.

But from what we learned today, it was actually Tyler Robinson's mother who appears to have first noticed the images that investigators were releasing of a possible suspect or a person of interest, and she believed that it looked like her son. She took that to her husband, and they kind of agreed. And from there, she actually messaged her son asking him where he's at, to which he responded that he was at home sick and that he had been at home sick the day before.

These messages were coming out on Thursday. Remember, it wasn't until the day after the shooting that authorities released images of person -- people of interest or a person of interest. And then that kind of cascaded into the father then asking for a picture of the gun, which you've heard and we've reported belonged to or was a gift to him from his grandfather or at least had been passed down through the family.

And the -- Robinson didn't respond to all of those until the father, you know, eventually called him, and then convinced him that he needed to turn himself in. Robinson said that he'd prefer to take his own life. But between the mother and the father and the family friend who was a retired sheriff's deputy, they convinced him to turn himself in, and they all walked in together into the sheriff's department in southwest Utah to turn himself in. That's how it all ended.

COATES: Fascinating to think about the wherewithal of the parents to then demand to have a picture of the gun. Obviously, not able to provide one because as the text messages seem to indicate, he had abandoned whatever rifle was given to him from his grandfather. That's all part of the case they're trying to build against him. But then there's speculation about those bullets, the engraving that was on the bullets. What did they say about that today?

LAVANDERA: Remember, when we started first hearing about these engravings, there was a lot of speculation as to what it might mean if there was -- you know, if there was some political motivation from it. But in a text message that Robinson had sent to his roommate, he wrote this, according to prosecutors, remember -- quote -- "remember how I was engraving bullets? The effing messages are mostly a big meme. If I see 'notices bulge UWU' on Fox News, I might have a stroke."

Uh, so, obviously, those are what he described as memes from gaming culture. We've heard from authorities that -- that Tyler Robinson did spend, you know, a lot of time online in gaming situations. So, you know, there has been a lot of speculation as people are trying to figure out exactly what all of this means and how it might lead to the motivation for carrying out this attack.

COATES: And yet those text messages giving a lot of insight, even more than what was written on those actual bullets. Ed Lavandera, thank you so much.

I want to tap more into this because the psychology behind this, I find so fascinating, and how they're going to build this case further. And with me now, criminologist Casey Jordan, former FBI assistant director for the Criminal Investigative Division, Chris Swecker, CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams, as well here.

Casey, these text messages, so compelling in building at least --

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Yeah.

COATES: -- probable cause case for why this person is being held. Of course, not yet reasonable doubt. We're not at that stage. But these texts are a matter of fact. They are casual. He apologizes. He says why he did it. Quote -- "I had enough of his hatred." That he'd been planning this for about a week or so. And remember the timeline. These texts started the day he allegedly murdered Charlie Kirk. So, tell me about his mindset from the tone that you're reading from these texts.

JORDAN: Well, it's really fascinating that we're finally getting this information, if you will, from the proverbial horse's mouth. Now, we know exactly what was on his mind from these text messages so that we can kind of end all the conjecture about him being, you know, radicalized in the deep web and, you know, trying to interpret all the meanings on those bullet cases. I mean, the bottom line is he did this out of a sense, I think, of love for --

COATES: You know, I'm going to hold for a second because I want to make sure that I can hear every word you say. It's so important. We're trying to unpack the profile. And as a criminologist, we need your insight, Casey.

I'm going to go to Chris for a moment, um, because the suspect's mother, the suspect's mother, not only did she identify him essentially from the images released.

[23:10:02]

She talked to her husband about it. They both collectively questioned, had this plan to try to figure out how to corroborate where he was. They did not believe him, asked for a weapon picture as well.

And then the suspect's mother, apparently, explained to authorities that over the last year, he had become more political, started to lean more left. I'm paraphrasing from what they said today, becoming what they called -- quote -- "more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented." There has been so much speculation about the why, his ideologies.

But tell me what the investigators might be using. Would this actually shape their case more than, say, his own statements about hatred or having committed the crime according to these texts?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION: Yeah, I mean, it's more of a totality of the circumstances, situation. What the mother said, what was written on the bullet casing is about catch, anarchist. That's one of the more concrete etchings on the bullet casings. The others were memes, as he said. But that one seemed to have some meaning to it, that had some political bent to it.

What -- you know, the mother seemed to be -- seemed to be sort of general -- general -- I would generalizing --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SWECKER: -- about what his political beliefs were. And it seemed like, well, he turned left, we're a right-wing family. What -- I think what's most extraordinary about this is something you pointed out, and that's it must have been absolutely gut-wrenching --

COATES: Hmm.

SWECKER: -- to do -- to make that call about her own son, knowing that the death penalty is on the table and knowing full well that, uh, they may well become witnesses against their own son at a trial, if that political beliefs part comes into play and, you know, some of the other things that he might have said around the dinner table.

COATES: Obviously, first and foremost, Elliot, the family, the immediate family, so gravely impacted by the death of their loved one. The reverberation throughout the community, including the collateral damage of other families involved, including the suspect's own, he points rightly out.

This is now a death penalty case. They had 60 days to decide whether to do so. The D.A. in this case essentially said, I independently came to conclusion that I wanted to do the death penalty. You yourself have had to try death penalty cases. I want to lean on your mind for this.

Um, the latest DOJ statistics, they show that the average timeline of the death penalty process can average 22 years. That number might stun a lot of people. But the reason I think it's so impactful here is everyone is thinking about, well, if, if this case is open and shut, could he plea to just being to saying I'm guilty to try to avoid the death penalty? He'd lose all appellate rights if he did, right? Which means he would not have that maybe a decade or more in prison. It would be more immediate.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right. And so, absolutely. So, people should get out of their minds the notion of there being a quick disposition of this if, in fact, there is the death penalty. The president has even said, you know, we should get it done and have it done quickly. I believe the president said that. They just take a long time to try to appeal, to argue, and we're talking a measure of years.

Now, certainly, he has an enormous incentive to strike a deal, but I don't think prosecutors do. And I think --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WILLIAMS: -- you know, there's such political and social support for a death sentence in this case that I think you'd have a hard time getting prosecutors to agree to it.

Now, if the victim's family were to come forward and say, we are fine with this individual spending the rest of his life in prison and not getting the death sentence, then, you know, perhaps, prosecutors might have an incentive there.

But really, I just think, given all the political drama around this, I think it can be a really hard press to see this not end in a death sentence.

COATES: It's an astute point, especially given the fact that people -- you know, given the family being impacted immediately. But then people might turn to a more recent case as well in terms of the Idaho murder and realize that the prosecutors made an independent decision of what maybe the other families wanted in totality --

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

COATES: -- reminding people that they are acting on behalf of the jurisdiction, not the individual victim. And yet the idea of using even the absence of leverage for a quick disposition --

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

COATES: -- which saves a ton of resources, which might seem very callous, right? To think about that. Describe a little bit more about the calculus.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. You know, we talk about -- resource is a lot of things. It's -- money is a resource. Time is a resource.

COATES: Emotion.

WILLIAMS: Energy is resource. But that's the big one, Laura. And you said it, emotion. Trials and particularly death penalty trials, murder trials strain communities, strain people, force the country to have to relive a horrific act and families have to relive a horrific act. And quite often, families don't want that. They -- you know, they would welcome the disposition and just make the whole thing go away.

And so, yes, trials are costly, capital C, not just in money, in all sorts of other factors.

[23:15:00] And there is a huge incentive, you know. And, again, you're putting the person in prison for the rest of his life, which is not a nice place to be, you know, in a high-security prison somewhere in the country. So, there are factors and reasons to go both ways here.

COATES: And, you know, one thing, Chris, that is sticking in a lot of people's minds, it's not only watching this, you know, via WebEx, period of time where he was read his, you know, charges against him, he showed no emotion at the mention of even the death penalty.

He talked about in the text messages that he hoped to always keep this as a secret which is really, for some people who were watching this and thinking about it, runs counter to what we have seen from a number of criminals who try to get notoriety out of the horror of their crimes. He didn't seem to advocate for that particular aspect of it, at least in a public setting, as far as we know. He seemed to think he could have gotten away with this, but for a couple things. What did that say to you?

SWECKER: Yeah, he didn't want to get caught, obviously. I mean, he went to great pains to not get caught. He was hoping to retrieve that rifle and call it a day and, you know, maybe, you know, get to his old age with that secret. That -- that -- you know, that disintegrated pretty quickly.

But it does -- you know, I look at the age of this individual. He's 22 years old. You know, how did -- how did he get to where he is? And why are young people, you know, at this age getting to the point where they feel like violence is okay? And, you know, as a grandfather of some teenagers --

COATES: Hmm.

SWECKER: -- I worry about stuff like that. I mean, is it stuff they're being exposed to? Is it stuff that they -- you know, I don't think this spontaneously combusts out of nowhere inside a young person. I think there's some influences somewhere that they're drawing on. And, of course, there's always the role of mental conditions and mental illness.

So, I think there's a combination of that here. I'm not a behavioral scientist, but I think this is one of those cases for the behavioral scientists to delve into this. He's kind of telling us what his motivation is in a couple of -- in those texts, and I'm sure there's other material that the investigators are looking at. They've kind of claimed up, finally, which is a good thing, I think, for the fairness of the trial coming up.

COATES: The prosecutor was very clear on wanting to have this be a fair trial, obviously, with the presumption of innocence, even in spite of all that was detailed today. And I should mention, at today's hearing, there was also a protective order that was put in place on behalf and at the request of the now widow of Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk. It just goes to show you, again, the continued reverberation and the fear that this has created even for this family as well.

Thank you, everyone.

Up next, a shouting match on the Senate floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in United States Senate. You are a disgraced to this institution and an utter coward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that's, apparently, what happens when the FBI director testifies to Congress in this world we're in. And there's more where that came from. Plus, brand-new comments from President Obama just in, speaking about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and political violence more broadly in this country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATEL: If you want to work on bringing this country -- it's my time, not yours.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): My God. My God.

PATEL: If you want to talk about --

BOOKER: -- fighting this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Yeah, it was a lot of that. When Kash Patel, the director of the FBI, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the hearing got tense, and that's the understatement of the year. And there was a lot of shouting on a lot of things.

But one of the key issues that came up over and over again was the purge of the FBI that Democrats say has been politically-motivated. It's a purge that Director Patel defended.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATEL: The only way, generally speaking, an individual is terminated at the FBI is if they have violated their oath of office, violated the law or failed to uphold the standards that we need them to have at the FBI.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): So, those who say that they've been fired, because of working on investigations into President Trump, are lying or misrepresenting?

PATEL: Well, those matters are alleged in litigation, which is ongoing, so I can't comment on those specifically.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): The best information is, yes, you've taken suggestions and directions from the White House in firing qualified agents.

PATEL: Any termination at the FBI was a decision that I made based on the evidence that I have as the director of the FBI, and it's my job, and I'm not going to shy away from it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, national security attorney Mark Zaid, who represents three former FBI officials who were suing over their firings. Mark, welcome. That was quite the hearing. Director Patel defended the firings and saying that it was his decision, he's the one making the decisions about firing, not the White House. Does that actually square up with what your clients have experienced?

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Thanks, Laura. Watching today's hearing makes me glad that I'm the lawyer on the other side not having to deal with the politics of this situation.

Look, you know, we will have this day in court against Director Patel, who is the first-name defendant and who took responsibility for the actions of firing these three distinguished agents, including the former acting director preceding him.

There was no substantive ground. There were -- there was no due process provided. There were no reasons of any merit that were given. These were political hit jobs that are very clearly being dictated either up the chain in the Department of Justice for from the White House.

[23:25:05]

I'm pretty confident that the evidence is going to reflect that. And as he talks about morale in the hearing, the morale at the FBI is not one of optimism, it is one of discussed when it sees its leaders that have been guiding it for years just thrown to the side.

COATES: Well, that's simply unnerving. We rely on the FBI and the morale goes hand-in-hand with where, I think, you perceive as our national security and our protection. So, I want to note that.

But you mentioned the former acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, one of your clients. He detailed some of the questions that he had been asked by a White House representative during a vetting call. Some of those questions include: Who did you vote for? Do you agree that the FBI agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago, to include the rank-and file, should be held accountable? When did you start supporting President Trump? Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?

So, how important in that particular example, in the case you're trying to make, the idea that if it's Kash Patel, who he says is making these decisions based on the criteria for serving honorably within the FBI's ranks, how significant are these questions in undermining or supporting what he said?

ZAID: Well, I would say it undermines, it goes to what was at issue in his confirmation hearing, about, is there a politicization of the FBI? Are politics coming in? Is there retribution against or retaliation against those officials who were assigned to work on cases involving Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump, whatever other case, Peter Navarro, et cetera?

You know, I was here months ago when we were representing, you know, all the FBI agents and the support staff because we felt and were concerned they were going to be fired by then Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove because that's what they were trying to do, compile a list of everyone who had worked on January 6 matters.

I mean, we've never seen anything like this. There was discussion at the hearing about polygraphs and whether there were loyalty tests. That has been a rumor going around. He denied it. I don't know which is the truth or not, but the rumors have been that there have been loyalty questions. I've dealt with FBI polygraphs now for almost three decades. I sued them back 25 plus years ago about their polygraph policies.

Those types of questions are not asked of anyone in the federal government as to where your loyalty lies. They are used for counterintelligence purposes, lifestyle issues, about drug use, et cetera.

What we're seeing now is a destruction of the FBI, regardless of the statistics that Kash Patel was throwing out left and right every second he could. This is destroying the goodwill of the FBI to serve our country in a manner that it was not only designed to do, is built up to do over the last couple of decades, especially.

COATES: An ominous warning. Mark Zaid, thank you so much.

ZAID: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: The hearing, you know, it got especially heated when Patel faced questions about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. In particular, there was this exchange. You've probably seen clips of it. Senator Adam Schiff and him going at it. Adam Schiff incredulous at Patel's suggestion that the Bureau of Prisons -- the Bureau of Prisons somehow independently decided to move Ghislaine Maxwell to a prison camp.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): You want the American people to believe that? Do you think they're stupid?

PATEL: No. I think the American people believe the truth, that I'm not in the weeds on the everyday movements of inmates.

SCHIFF: Oh, you're not in the weeds?

PATEL: What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform, and combating the weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Patel also told the senators that there's no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself. Meanwhile, we learned exactly what the former attorney general, Bill Barr, told the House Oversight Committee during his testimony.

Now, according to Barr, he had only two talks with the president about Epstein. One was around the time of Epstein's arrest. And Barr says Trump told him that he had broken off with Epstein long ago and that he had actually pushed him out of Mar-a-Lago. And the other conversation was when Barr called him to tell him about Epstein's suicide. Barr says that Trump appeared stunned and told him -- quote -- "How the hell did that happen? He's in federal custody."

Joining me now is Mimi Rocah, former assistant U.S. attorney for the SDNY and the former D.A. for Westchester County.

[23:30:04]

Mimi, we're learning a lot from this testimony and the hearings that have actually taken place. I want to focus on what Bill Barr also said, that it was unusual in his testimony for someone like Todd Blanche, the number two in the attorney general's -- U.S. attorney's office -- excuse me, the attorney general department, to go and interview Maxwell as a member of DOJ.

So, is Kash Patel's suggestion that the Bureau of Prisons independently deciding to move her, is that believable, to use that past, the smell test?

MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: One hundred percent, no, Laura. I mean, I heard that and I -- I -- I can't believe that that is the excuse or the defense that they're using. I mean, they really couldn't have thought of something better than that.

I mean, that just sounds like an outright lie. It would be -- it would defy all odds of coincidence to think that they happened to move her to a place that she, under the regulations, should not go because of her type of conviction for child -- as a child predator, you know, days after this interview. So, it -- it just defies any believability.

And the idea that Kash Patel also kind of in the same breath said, I'm not in the weeds, I mean, if you are going to even try to believe the idea that he didn't know she was moved, well, you should have known. I mean, that's your job. And how have you not looked into it since then? So, the whole thing just does not make sense at all. And it's part of this cover-up.

COATES: On the point, our own Kaitlan Collins asked Todd Blanche about his discussion with Maxwell. Listen to what said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: When you met with her, did you find her to be credible?

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's an impossible question to answer. I met with her for two days. To determine whether a witness is credible takes weeks and weeks and weeks. I asked her questions that I believe all of us wanted answered, and she answered them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The thing is, Mimi, you've been a trial attorney. We don't ask jurors to take weeks and weeks and weeks to assess credibility. We ask them oftentimes in the moment precisely to watch and observe firsthand how they're speaking, what they're saying, to sort of have their guts tested against their own common sense. And yet we're hearing for the number two of the DOJ, who met with her for two days out of his very busy schedule and is punting. What's your thought?

ROCAH: I mean, I saw that live, that -- that portion of the interview that Kaitlan did and my jaw was on the floor. I could not believe, again, that the deputy attorney general didn't have -- he couldn't answer the question. I mean, you saw him pause and symbol over a very simple straightforward question, did you find her credible? He didn't want to give the answer, which I give him a tiny bit of credit for not just saying, yes, I found her credible, but, you know, he -- he knew that that would, again, bely believability because it's so obvious that she lied.

And to your point, not only is two days plenty of time to assess one's credibility, but this wasn't done in a vacuum. I mean, it's what she said over those two days compared to depositions, trial testimony, documents. I mean, there was plenty. And he was actually giving her opportunities to try and explain things away, and it was quite obvious she was not being truthful, and yet she still got moved to that prison.

COATES: The prison camp, you mean? Mimi Rocah --

ROCAH: Prison camp, yeah.

COATES: -- thank you so much.

ROCAH: Thanks.

COATES: Ahead, new comments from President Obama coming in just a few moments ago. He is speaking up about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, trying to take down the temperature. Will America listen? Andrew Yang is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, President Barack Obama, in his most extensive remarks to date, denouncing political violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination. Quote -- "There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The essential premise of our democratic system is that we have to be able to disagree and have sometimes really contentious debates without resort to violence."

He went on to say that while he personally did not know Kirk, he -- quote -- "was generally aware of some of his ideas. I think those ideas were wrong, but that doesn't negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family."

With me now, the former Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang. He is a co-founder of the Forward Party. Andrew, welcome. We're hearing from the former president of the United States. I'm wondering, lowering the temperature, will it have an effect on Americans who seem to be those who are involved in the political blame game? Will it persuade them at all?

ANDREW YANG, FOUNDER OF FORWARD PARTY, FORMER 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's always helpful for someone to come out and denounce political violence, particularly if they have as massive a reach and platform as President Obama.

[23:39:54]

Unfortunately, when I talk to people who monitor online chatter and threats, the polarization is only continuing to rise and feeding into the fear that many officials have of both parties, really, that political violence is rising and not falling. I think President Obama has a special role to play. I think President Trump has a particular role to play because there's really no one with the level of influence as the sitting president.

COATES: An important point. I want to read to you one other thing that he said. The former president said, "Whether we're Democrats, Republicans, independents, we have to recognize that on both sides, undoubtedly, there are people who are extremists and who say things that are contrary to what I believe are America's core values."

He went on to say, "But I will say that those extreme views were not in my White House. I wasn't embracing them. I wasn't empowering them. I wasn't putting the weight of the United States government behind extremist views. And that when we have the weight of the United States government behind extremist views, we've got a problem."

So, tell me, Andrew, what do you think about the way the current White House has been treating this moment? Are they meeting it? Are they aggravating it? What do you think?

YANG: Unfortunately, I think that there have been messages out of President Trump and some of his leading officials that have kept the temperature high or maybe even been inflammatory as opposed to trying to reduce the sense of unease and unrest that many feels.

You know that Charlie Kirk was someone with personal relationships with many people who are in this administration, and I understand that's a very, very difficult weighty blow. I also mourn for Charlie Kirk's family and friends. But at the same time, if you are in office, you do have a responsibility, in my view, to let people know that political violence is wrong in every quarter and should be denounced by everyone who's in power or in office.

COATES: You know, the former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was pleading in a post on X, saying, "I know that social media shows us the worst of humanity and a few people celebrating a death will get more attention than hundreds of respectful people. Don't let these companies and the rage influencers that profit from them convince you the worst of us are the most of us."

Very poignant words. And under Section 230, of course, you and I have talked about this before, social media platforms, they're not liable for what users are posting on their platforms. They're essentially saying, hey, we are a sidewalk, we let people talk on that sidewalk, we don't necessarily regulate the speech, we cannot do so. Is there an appetite now for that to change given this assassination and just the fuel that is behind some of the most horrific comments?

YANG: I agree with Governor Cox of Utah who said that human brain is not designed to witness some of these images and be able to process it in a way that's not really corrosive and harmful. There are children who are watching some of these videos and being impacted by them in ways that we can only imagine.

This era, unfortunately, is contributing mightily to the polarization because we're on these platforms and being served these images that Governor Schwarzenegger points out don't necessarily represent either the views or the experiences of the vast majority of us. It's pushing us into corners and is making things worse, not better.

It's one reason why we should be logging off our phones, looking up, touching grass, doing all of those things, and encouraging others to do the same because these platforms don't have our interests at heart.

COATES: Interestingly enough, the Utah prosecutor, the aggravated murder is in part because it was done in the presence of children. Andrew Yang, thank you.

YANG: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Next, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, tries to do some cleanup in aisle three after sparking anger by saying that she'll target speech that happens to be protected by the Constitution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Plus, Trump targets "The New York Times" with $15 billion defamation lawsuit. Could the case backfire?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, ABC NEWS: What do you think of Pam Bondi saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that -- I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: She would probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they'll come after ABC.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Hmm. That was President Trump today, combated after ABC's Jonathan Karl asked him about a topic that's on a lot of people's minds. Why did his attorney general say that she's going to target hate speech when the First Amendment provides pretty sweeping protections for free speech as long as, of course, it doesn't incite violence and some few exceptions?

Well, here's Pam Bondi's comment that has people up in arms, even people, by the way, in her own party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BONDI: There's free speech, and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I thought she was trying to talk about hate crimes.

[23:49:58]

But she herself is clarifying her comments, telling Axios -- quote -- "Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right. My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others."

Joining me now is Attorney Ken Turkel, who is a representative, successfully, of Hulk Hogan in his defamation suit against Gawker. Ken, good to see you. I want you to break down for our audience with all of your expertise this distinction that Bondi is making and has been conversing about between hate speech as a category and the inciting of violence.

KEN TURKEL, LAWYER: I think that everybody is becoming an expert on speech. We have epic numbers of defamation cases. The internet with 230, you mentioned 230 in the last segment, is allowing people just to speak freely with those sorts of repercussions to the platform, right? It's like having a newspaper that can't get sued when the writer writes something bad. So, I hear hate speech all the time. I see it used improperly all the time, almost like it has become part of the culture around speech.

I don't think Attorney General Bondi meant to misspeak into the area of constitutionally protected speech. In full disclosure, I went to law school with her. And, you know, you just -- it's almost like I -- if I try to correct somebody every time they use that wrong, but what they meant was hate speech that incites violence and loses its protection, you know, I think that her correction was a fair correction.

At the end of the day, right, I didn't take those comments as I heard them to mean like we're going to give away constitutional protection for like Skokie speech in 1980, the Skokie case, right? Nazis --

COATES: Where there was a Nazi parade (ph).

TURKEL: Right. Right. I just don't -- I don't see it that way. I think the correction was fair. But these are tough times with what happened, all right? And there's no doubt that everybody agrees that we shouldn't be using violence to target people because we disagree with what they say. And I think talking about speech that breeds violence was -- you know, if she used the wrong vernacular, fine. I don't think she used it in a way that she meant, though, something other than that.

COATES: That's why they always say attorney statements are not the evidence, only what goes into court. That's a key example of that. But let me ask you this. Let me turn for a second to what's going on with "The New York Times" because you know the president is suing them for 15 billion bucks, alleging defamation, calling the paper a virtual mouthpiece for Democrats.

"The New York Times" responding in a statement, saying, "This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting." Do you see any merit behind this lawsuit? And if so, what do think he has to prove to prove that merit?

TURKEL: You got to dig hard, 85 pages.

(LAUGHTER)

Look, I didn't see merit in the Stephanopoulos case at all. Okay? I may have talked about that one. I didn't see tons of merit in "60 Minutes" case, but maybe a little more in Stephanopoulos. They settled those numbers. I never get my cases. They don't come out and offer that kind of money.

And I always question why, particularly Stephanopoulos, with rape versus sexual abuser, like, how do you try that to a jury? That's the truth. Sexual abuse, not rape. Yeah, I am befuddled by these cases. Okay? I didn't see merit and it's a hard complaint. I don't know if you've read it. It's so long.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TURKEL: There are so many factions (ph). The first half is basically a testament to his life and his history. The back half is a mishmash of opinions, really. And there's an interesting allegation like in paragraph 113. They couch their statements as opinions, but they expect the readers to read them as fact. I don't understand that. You have to have approvable false fact. Opinions don't count, rhetoric doesn't count, hyperbole doesn't count.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TURKEL: They literally alleged that. I don't know what it means. And then you've got public figure if they're sourced, Laura. I don't know how they're sourced because I can't really tell from reading. You know, I've read the book --

COATES: Sure. Right.

TURKEL: -- articles. But, you know, public figure if you're sourced. And you have a reason to believe. The source asks credibility. You have no (INAUDIBLE) reaching the backstop at that.

COATES: Hmm. I do --

TURKEL: A lot of what they say is your failure to do basic journalistic policies and ethics. It doesn't persuade me very much. You know, $100 billion grand value and 15. Dr. Evil numbers. That's what I call them.

COATES: We will see.

TURKEL: Fifteen billion.

COATES: We will see how it all plays out and whether this case has any legs or the discovery period is what rules the day. Ken, nice to see you. Thank you so much.

Up next, Robert Redford, he starred in more than 50 movies. Look at that face. But which was America's favorite? Harry Enten breaks it down and remembers Robert Redford only in the way he can after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR, DIRECTOR: When last was I proper and dignified?

JANE FONDA, ACTRESS: All the time. You always dressed right, you always look right, you always say the right thing. You're very nearly perfect. REDFORD: It's a rotten thing to say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's Jane Fonda and Robert Redford, of course, in "Barefoot in the Park," the first of Redford's many leading roles. And while Jane was speaking in character from a script, a pretty apt description showing why he was one of the biggest stars of his generation. Because, of course, his career, it really had hit after hit after hit, like his iconic turn as the "Sundance Kid."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL NEWMAN, ACTOR: All right, I'll jump first.

REDFORD: No.

NEWMAN: Then you jump first.

REDFORD: No, I said.

NEWMAN: What's the matter with you?

REDFORD: I can't swim!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Or his, of course, betrayal of journalist, Bob Woodward, in "All the President's Men." Just a few years later, he would win his first Oscar for directing Mary Tyler Moore, of course, in "Ordinary People."

[00:00:01]

And who can forget that final home run in 1984's "The Natural?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: It's spinning way, way back up, high into the right field! That ball is still going. It's way back, high up in there. He did it! Hobbs did it!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I love that movie. Redford passed away today at the age of 89 at his home in Sundance, Utah.

Thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.