Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Shutdown Nears End As Trump Shrugs Off Economic Woes; U.K. Stops Sharing Intel With U.S. Over Boat Strikes; Trump Judicial Nominees "Dishonest" About 2020 Election. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired November 11, 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]
KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AUTHOR: And I think for a Pope who's wrestling with the questions of sexuality and sex orientation, LGBTQ people and people of color, he needs to see that.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Scott?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: There's a new movie out called "Soul on Fire" out of St. Louis. It's a story of a young boy who suffers catastrophic burns over 100% of his body. It's about his recovery. It's about his friendship with the St. Louis Cardinals announcer, legendary Jack Buck. But it's truly an inspirational story from middle America. And I know he's a baseball fan, so I think he'd love it.
PHILLIP: All right. Guys, this is a good list. I like it. Thank you very much, everyone. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, from 'I can fix it' to 'you imagined it.' President Trump dismisses the economic concerns America say they're feeling, calling the affordability crisis a con job. But could that denial cost him politically? Plus, the U.K. cuts the cord on some intel sharing with the United States over concerns about being complicit in strikes against drug boats. Will other allies follow suit? And new scrutiny on Trump's judicial nominees over this simple question not a single one of them will clearly answer. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
You know what? I'm going to tell you how you feel. No, no, I'm not going to even bother asking you how you feel. I'm going to make some assumptions, some generalizations, and I'm going to tell you how you should feel about your own life, because I certainly know better, certainly better than you, and certainly about how you spend and earn your money. Now, how crazy do I sound right now? Completely bonkers.
And yet, presidents keep stepping on this rake, telling voters they're wrong about their own lives, especially when it comes to the economy. And given what happened to President Joe Biden, you might have thought President Trump would know not to do this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?
JOE BIDEN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will you take any blame for inflation, Mr. President?
BIDEN: Take any blame for inflation? No.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Why not?
BIDEN: Because it was already there when I got here, man.
UNKNOWN: Has the U.S. beat inflation, Mr. President?
BIDEN: Yes, yes, yes. I told you we're going to have a soft landing. We're going to have a soft landing. My policies are working. Start writing it that way, okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Snapping at reporters, dismissing questions about costs. It became one of the biggest reasons Biden lost the public on the economy. The gap between what he was saying and what people were feeling, feelonomics. But while Biden tried to downplay the economic suffering, Trump is taking it a step further. Pain? What pain?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It was a con job. It was a con job. Affordability, they call it, was a con job by the -- by the Democrats. The reason I don't want to talk about affordability is because everybody knows that it's far less expensive under Trump than it was under sleepy Joe Biden. And the prices are way down.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Is this a voter perception issue of the economy or is there more that needs to be done by Republicans on Capitol Hill or done in terms of policy?
TRUMP: More than anything else, it's a con job by the Democrats.
INGRAHAM: And why are people saying they're anxious about the economy? Why are they saying that?
TRUMP: I don't know that they are saying that. I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we've ever had.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Good question, Laura. So, apparently, in Trump's economy, if you are struggling with groceries or with the rent, the problem isn't prices, it's you.
Let's pretend just for a moment that what Americans are feeling about the economy isn't real. Let's pretend that consumer sentiment is the worst it has ever been. Literally, let's forget that for a moment. It is the worst it has ever been since it was first measured in 1951. Let's toss aside multiple polls that show that voters blame Trump for worsened economic conditions. And you know what? Let's even ignore the ones where more than 75% of independents disapprove of the Trump economy. Throw all of that away.
And let's just look at the economic data we have from the president's own government. Prices in general? They're up overall. Things were 1.7% more expensive in September than they were in January. Grocery prices, specifically? Up 1.4% between January and September. A few products were cheaper like eggs, but far more groceries got more expensive than less expensive. Inflation? Well, that has been taking up for five straight months. September's data showed it's at 3%, the highest since Trump took office.
[23:05:00]
So, it might leave you wondering, why has he been saying all of this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Inflation is dead.
Under my leadership, energy costs are down, gasoline prices are down, grocery prices are down, mortgage rates are down.
Prices are down. We have virtually no inflation. Everything is going good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. Well, instead of ending inflation, he may end the very program that has been keeping health care costs from rising even higher, because here's where there's another real difference between Biden and Trump. You know those Affordable Care Act subsidies at the center of the shutdown fight? The one signed into law and then extended under Biden, but not included in the deal to reopen the government as soon as what, tomorrow? Well, Trump has made it clear, he does not see them as worth protecting.
And we're now less than eight weeks away from a decision point. Either Congress extends those subsidies or they expire. And you know what happens if they expire? Well, 22 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums shoot up. So, on one side, Americans are already showing they're feeling financially squeezed, and on the other, a president who says, that squeeze? A con job. Now, most of his party is refusing to budge on extending the relief that helps keep costs down. Con job.
I want to begin with an outspoken critic of the compromise to end the longest ever government shutdown, Democratic congressman from California, Mike Levin. He says that he'll be a hard no on the bill to open the government tomorrow. Let's ask him specifically why. Welcome, congressman.
REP. MIKE LEVIN (D-CA): Thank you.
COATES: We know there's been a lot of pain, there's been a lot of fight, there's been a lot of frustration. People want the government open but not at any cost. What is your cost?
LEVIN: Well, you laid it out really well in your open. I have spoken with literally dozens of my constituents whose health care premiums are doubling or tripling or worse. I spoke to a 62-year-old retired teacher who is going to have to take social security early to make up for the $700 a month he's going to have to pay in extra health insurance premiums. I spoke to a working mom with a husband and two kids who's going to have to pay $55,0000 a year for health insurance and is worried about bankruptcy because of medical debt. The stories go on and on, Laura.
And the republicans have done absolutely nothing to address any of this and this awful bill that they're sending us tomorrow. And so, I'll be a firm no. I hope that the overwhelming and a number of my colleagues in the House, the Democrats, will stick together because this really doesn't solve anything and they're totally in denial about this health care crisis that they have created.
COATES: That won't be enough in order to stop it from passing, right? What is the -- what will you do if it does?
LEVIN: Well, we're going to have to have a discharge petition. Already, Leader Jeffries, and all credit to him and our House leadership for sticking together through all of this, he has said we're going to have a discharge petition, meaning we're going to have to have 218 members of Congress sign, and that'll force a vote. But even --
COATES: Do you have those votes?
LEVIN: I hope we do, Laura. I would say, if you look at the Republicans who said that they would support at least a one-year extension, I don't think that's enough.
COATES: Jeffries wants three.
LEVIN: Exactly right. So, I'd like three as well. But even if we could get 218 votes for a one-year extension, that's a start, I'd like to see it 218 for three. Get that vote up or down. Put everybody on the record. And look, here's the thing. The Senate, you know, Thune is now promising they're going to have a vote --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LEVIN: -- in December. But even if you get 60 in the Senate, there's absolutely no guarantee Johnson will actually hold that vote absent, being forced to via discharge petition. So that's the mechanism we're going to have to use. By the way, it's the same mechanism we're using to compel the release of the Epstein files. So, it's going to be an interesting December in the House of Representatives. COATES: Grijalva says she'd be that final vote to do just that. This is, of course, a very different issue in the sense of if there's no trust even to keep the government open under the promise, there'll be a discussion later about the ACA, can you really suggest that there's going to even be a fruitful conversation or realistic one about a three or a one-year extension?
LEVIN: I think there are certain number of Republicans that are at least open to it and have said they would support it. And we've got to try, Laura.
COATES: Are they privately supportive, and then publicly showing that they don't want to do it? I mean, this is the frustration for every voter.
LEVIN: Yeah.
COATES: They hear about Republicans or Democrats in some spaces were privately there on your side.
LEVIN: Yeah.
COATES: And publicly, mum is the word.
LEVIN: There are handful that are publicly for it and have said that they would support at least to one year. There are many others that are privately for it because they know it's going to hurt their communities.
[23:10:00]
The ACA actually has a higher per capita number of people in Florida and Texas than it does in my home state of California. But these stories are real. And if I'm hearing them, presumably, any member of Congress worth anything is hearing them, too. That, of course, presumes that they're actually listening to their constituents, Laura.
And I don't know where these Republicans have been for the last 54 days. I don't know if they've been hanging out at Mar-a-Lago at the Great Gatsby party. I don't know where they've been. They sure haven't been in Washington, D.C. because just about every week, I've tried to come back to D.C. and have conversations with my colleagues across the aisle, I'm on the Appropriations Committee, so there's a big appropriations element to this bill as well, we've had no meetings, no discussions, not even exchanges electronically with a lot of these folks.
They have been told by Mike Johnson not to work with us, not to speak with us, and they're completely subservient to Trump. I would say, Mike Johnson, as you look at the history of the House of Representatives, will go down as historically the weakest speaker in the history of the House, when you contrast that with Nancy Pelosi, who'll go down as one of the all-time greats.
COATES: And yet, this is the longest shutdown in government history. He is at the helm on the House side. You've got the Senate. Obviously, Republicans control that. Senator John Fetterman, he says that the collateral damage to everyday Americans regards to what you're talking about and what the principled arguments are being made, that that was a bridge too far for him. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): I think my party crossed a line of now putting 42 American -- excuse me, 42 million Americans with -- with their SNAP benefits, um, and making flying less safe and that kinds of chaos, and not paying our military. I mean, that was a red line for me that I can't cross as a Democrat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He's blaming your party.
LEVIN: With all due --
COATES: Do you agree?
LEVIN: With all due respect to Senator Fetterman, there was money for SNAP in a contingency fund, $6 billion of which at least 4.5 was sitting there, and the Trump administration did everything possible to prevent that money from going to people in need. They actually used hunger for leverage, including the hunger, we're on -- its Veterans Day today, of over one million veterans on SNAP. That's disgraceful, Laura. And, you know --
COATES: Even beyond SNAP. What about federal workers, air traffic controllers? This is the frustration that people are -- I mean, in the Beltway --
LEVIN: Absolutely.
COATES: -- it's huge. But outside --
LEVIN: I'm -- I'm frustrated, too. What frustrates me the most about some of these federal workers, these are our congressional staffers, each one of us members of Congress. We've got staff who work for us. And members of Congress, by the Constitution, got paid this past Friday, unless they opted out, which I did. I'm trying to get to the bottom of which members of Congress took the pay. If you think about it, here at CNN, let's say if the boss took their paycheck and everybody else got nothing, how would that make you feel? That's what some members of Congress did last Friday.
COATES: Not to mention the American public who did not receive their paychecks and many federal employees in food lines and the collateral damage of those who are in need of the resources by that breadwinner in their family.
Let me ask you because you've said that it's time for Senate Democrats to move on from Senator Chuck Schumer's leadership. Leader Jeffries, once again, is refusing to say what he feels about those particular calls. Listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We're focused right now on pressing the case and addressing the Republican health care crisis. We'll be before the Rules Committee. In moments, we'll have a family conversation as House Democrats. We're strongly opposed as House Democrats to this reckless Republican effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Should Schumer survive politically?
LEVIN: Well, first, let me say Leader Jeffries did a tremendous job in keeping us all united during this difficult time. And for whatever reason, either because Leader Schumer wouldn't keep his Senate Democrats united or couldn't keep them united, in any event, what happened was unacceptable. And what happened is we all in the House, we hung together for seven weeks --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LEVIN: -- and all we were asking is for Senate Democrats to stay in that fight with us, day in and day out, for the American people, for health care for millions and millions of people who are at risk of losing their health insurance. And, unfortunately, eight Senate Democrats decided not to do that. You'd have to ask them the reasons for that.
I can tell you only, if I were in the Senate, I would say it is time for new leadership. That will be up to the senators to ultimately decide which direction they go.
COATES: We will see what happens, especially tomorrow. Thank you so much for joining.
LEVIN: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, Republicans appear to diagnose a political problem with Trump's second term and what they see as a betrayal of America first. My panel is going to debate it ahead. Plus, the U.K. fed up with America's strikes on alleged drug boats and now taking a dramatic step to withhold intelligence. The fallout for their decision is next.
[23:15:01]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, some U.S. allies are drawing a line in the sand. New exclusive CNN reporting revealing that one of America's closest allies, United Kingdom, is no longer sharing intelligence with us or with U.S. officials about the suspected drug trafficking vessels. Why? They're concerned about the U.S. military strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Sources say the U.K. does not want to be complicit in these attacks and believes they are illegal.
[23:20:02] That's not all. The president of Columbia is also ordering the suspension of intel sharing until the boat strikes end. Are others going to join them? That's the big question.
Here with us, former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer. As senior counsel to the House Intel Committee, he led the committee's oversight of intelligence community counter-terrorism issues. I'm so glad you're here because this idea of our own allies distancing themselves, we're also hearing that Canada has also done so over these strikes. So, how problematic if others follow suit, let alone who has already done so?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Well, look, obviously, the United Kingdom has a great deal of intelligence in that region. Canada being one of the Five Eyes partners is critical to our civil intelligence collection globally. And Colombia has long been a strong partner to the U.S. Plan Colombia was one of the biggest efforts that we undertook over the course of decades to eliminate or significantly reduce cocaine trafficking in the region.
So, these are important partners to the fight that we're taking, that the president is taking against drug dealers in the region, the fight against Maduro and his support of drug trafficking in the region as well. So, these are important allies and them getting off the bus and not sharing intelligence is hugely problematic for us.
COATES: Is it more than symbolic? Will it translate to problems for our own security?
JAFFER: Well, it could make it harder for us to identify the drug trackers, identify who's engaged. At the end of the day, truth be told, we've got very significant signals intelligence capabilities, we've got good human in the region. So, while the losses are important, it's not the end of the world. We'll still be able to undertake actions if we want to. And I think we'll still have good visibility into who we're going after.
COATES: It's the 'why' for me. I've already talked about the idea of how we, as a nation, have due process, and I'm not seeing the proof in these strikes visibly. Why are they doing it? It's because they say, in part, it's illegal. What impact will that have?
JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, part of the thing here is that the U.S. government and President Trump's White House has made the decision that these drug dealers are no longer going to be treated like criminals. It's the same decision we made after 9-11 when it came to terrorists, this idea between intelligence information and law enforcement information, between treating terrorists like criminals instead of national security threats, which they are.
The president has made that decision on drug traffickers. Rightly or wrongly, he has made that call. Congress isn't stopping him from making that call. So, for all --
COATES: We have no transparency or eyes into it. That's part of their frustration.
JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, the president has indicated he has authorized covert action in Venezuela. If that's true, that means he has produced a finding, that means the House Intelligence Committee at a minimum has oversight.
Now, look, if Congress wants oversight, they can demand it. They're in the middle of a shutdown or coming out of a shutdown. They can demand oversight. They can hold hearings. They can require the president to and testify. If he doesn't send people, they can hold up funding. They choose not to do that. That's Congress not enforcing their own power.
COATES: Well, we'll see if they do. Reuters is reporting that Venezuela, you spoke about it, is planning to stage guerrilla-style warfare if the U.S. attacks in part with decades-old Russian-made equipment. What does that tell you?
JAFFER: Well, it tells me that Venezuela knows they can't stand up to the U.S. Military if it took a fight, right? It means that they're going to retreat back. They're going to melt into the woodwork in a lot of ways like the Iraqi military did and try to sustain a guerrilla war. That, by the way, is a very effective way to fight a large nation. We see it in Ukraine. We see it around the world. We saw it in Iraq.
And U.S. forces took a significant amount of casualties from guerrilla forces. Military retreating in, partnering with civilians, and then conducting, you know, asymmetric attacks. That's a really dangerous situation for us to walk into.
You know, we've had a success in other Latin American nations going in and replacing the government. It hasn't always worked out for us in the long run, but we've been able to do it. Venezuela will be a very different fight as it's clear that at least some significant portion of the regime elements are thinking about and planning for how to fight the U.S. in a long, protracted war. It's not a war that President Trump, I think, would want to fight in the long run.
COATES: Our military, the most lethal, they say, in the world, but are we stretched too thin with all of these different factors?
JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, we're supposed to be able to handle two large contingencies globally at the same time. We have starved our military with the personnel and equipment and upgrades that they need. It's true that President Trump and Congress did put in a significant chunk of money in the reconciliation bill, but that's one-time money. We didn't make a generational level commitment to our military and our intelligence community, frankly, to really be able to fight these wars long-term.
And yes, we are stretched very thin. We're addressing contingencies around the globe. And, by the way, China is seeing what we're doing. They're thinking about making a move on Taiwan. They are seeing us stretched thin as well.
COATES: God bless our troops. Jamil Jaffer, thank you so much. JAFFER: Thanks.
COATES: Up next, the Trump team blaming Joe Biden for any concerns about the economy, but has that excuse been worn out with voters? Harry Enten looking into the numbers for us. And later, we'll debate the newest line from President Trump that has some of his diehard supporters in an absolute panic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Do have to bring in talent. When a country --
INGRAHAM: Oh, we have plenty of talented people here.
TRUMP: No, you don't. No, you don't.
[23:25:00]
INGRAHAM: We don't have talented people here?
TRUMP: No, you don't have -- you don't have certain talents and you have to -- people have to learn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, who is to blame when it comes to the economy? Million- dollar question. Ask the Trump White House and they say it's the last guy's fault.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: We inherited a mess. It was the worst inflation in 40 or 50 years.
[23:29:58]
And I think what the president was very frustrated about is -- you said everyone started talking about it -- that after he took office, where was the discussion during Joe Biden? Because during the Biden era, it was complete gaslighting. There was a vibe session.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: An argument there for many voters who blame President Biden for waiting too long to deal with rising prices. But that was 2024, and it is almost the end of 2025. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is here to tell us who voters blame tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey there, Laura. Look, Donald Trump might be trying to downplay voters' concerns about affordability, but I'm here to tell you, that is a ginormous error. It may be an error that goes down in political infamy. Why do I say that? Well, the reason Donald Trump was elected was to fix the problem of inflation. Right back in October of 2024, who was more trusted in inflation? It was Donald Trump by nine points over Kamala Harris. But look at where we are today. Donald Trump is underwater with the Titanic when it comes to inflation. His net approval rating is 26 points underwater. My goodness gracious.
Now, I know, Donald Trump, when things aren't going his way, wants to pass the political buck. He might try and throw it back at Joe Biden's face, the former president. That, simply put, will not work. The American people don't buy it because get this. More responsible for the current economy, Trump or Biden? We're talking 54%. The clear majority of voters say Donald Trump is more responsible for the current economy than just 21% who say Joe Biden. I will note, I've seen this in poll after poll after poll. More folks saying Trump is responsible than Biden.
Now, of course, it's one thing if voters don't like the state of the economy, but it's another thing when they don't think that Donald Trump actually gives a hoot. And we see that in the polling because take a look here. Trump attention to lowering costs, not enough. We're talking about three in four Americans, 75% overall, who say Trump is not paying enough attention to lowering costs. And even among Republicans, that solid Republican base who oftentimes approves of Trump's job by 85, 90%, 57% of them say that Trump is not paying enough attention to lowering costs.
Now, we're talking about Trump. He, of course, at least constitutionally, can't run for another term. But his Republican Party is up in the midterm elections. They should be scared, SH, blank, blank, blankless. Why do I say that? Because we just had a test of this. We just had a test of the economy in the off-year elections in New Jersey, in Virginia. And get this. How economy first voters went in 2025? Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat in New Jersey, get this, she won them by 33 points. How about in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat? She won economy first voters by 27 points.
If these numbers hold and Donald Trump continues to try ignore a problem that Americans very much think we have in terms of cost of living affordability, well, it might be adios amigos, goodbye for that House Republican majority, and I dare say the Republican Senate majority as well. Back to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Adios. Goodbye, Harry. Thank you. I want to bring in my political insiders tonight, former Biden deputy Pentagon press secretary, Sabrina Singh, and former senior communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, T.W. Arrighi. Glad to have both of you here. Let me ask you, T.W. How much longer can the president, Donald Trump, keep blaming his process? I mean, we're at the end of 2025.
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Yeah. Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. I know he likes to say, we'll solve it overnight, but that's not the reality when you're talking about changing the economy, especially after four years of economic mismanagement.
Look, cost of living is a multi-legged stool here. It's not just one factor that drives down prices. Yes, we have done a lot of great regulatory changes in domestic oil production to bring the cost of energy down a bit, and it will go down further. We also had massive tax cuts that were enshrined in the big beautiful bill. That's going to take a while to get -- to get going.
But also, we need better paying jobs. We need to bring wages up to make these costs more affordable. So, how do you do that? Well, we have new foreign investment coming into this country through tariff policy. We have new markets being opened up for people. We have a new competitive regulatory environment that the president has put in place that will pay dividends down the road.
I know he likes to often talk in immediacy, but that's not the reality. I think what you will see over time is an improved economy, better paying jobs. Donald Trump will look good when this is all said and done.
COATES: Well, the voters see tariffs, and they sum it up with, there's tariffs and I'm paying more. And then I hear the president with Laura Ingraham saying that there's not even skilled employees here in the United States that would be able to give the dot. Actually, I'll play what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: And does that mean the H1-B visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration? Because if you want to raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands --
TRUMP: Well, I agree, but you also do have to bring in talent.
[23:35:01]
When the country --
INGRAHAM: Oh, we have plenty of talented people here.
TRUMP: No, you don't. No, you don't.
INGRAHAM: We don't have talented people here?
TRUMP: No, you don't have -- you don't have certain talents and you have to -- people have to learn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What's your reaction hearing the president say that?
SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: I mean, who -- who are you talking about? I mean, he's the president of the United States. He represents the American people. And he's, in that same sentence, insulting the people that he's supposed to represent by saying that they don't have the skills and talent needed for the jobs that he wants to create in this country.
I think, you know, this is where the Trump policies are really coming to ahead of that. He put in place these very strong immigration policies. And as a result, now, they're sort of backfiring on some of the things that he wants to implement.
I think, at the end of the day, what Harry was outlining is very clear, that the numbers are just not there for the president. His approval ratings are so low. Just look at what he has done. I mean, look at the big beautiful bill. Look at the tariffs that he has put in place. Look at the erratic way that he's governing this country. People are just not feeling it in their pocketbooks. They're feeling a lot of hurt.
And then, of course, with the government shutdown and premiums, you know, going to expire at the end of year, people are feeling more hurt under this president than under the previous administration. And as much as, you know, Republicans want to spin it, it is November, it is 2025, it is President Trump's economy now.
COATES: Well, Trump is actually blaming tonight Republicans on messaging, usually a critique that Democrats often experience, your messaging is all bad. He's saying that the Republicans are not selling his economic policies enough. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Are Republicans not selling it?
TRUMP: Yes, Republicans don't talk about it.
INGRAHAM: So, they need to do a better job on Capitol Hill.
TRUMP: Yeah. The Democrats give false talk and the Republicans -- and I say it all the time. Republicans have to talk about the fact that prices are down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that really the issue?
ARRIGHI: Well, it's always the economy is stupid in the election. And this past cycle was no different. The economy was the number one issue.
COATES: But that's not his point, though. He has gone beyond that. As you know, he's talking more about why are you not helping the American people to be in line with what I think they should feel about the economy.
ARRIGHI: Well, I see in the polling in some of these battleground states that components of the big beautiful bill are absolutely popular. No tax on tip, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. That is popular. And when you talk about that or talk about Democrats voting against that, that does resonate. But there is no doubt about it that the -- we spent too much time talking about issues that weren't front and center of voters' minds.
Winsome Earle-Sears ran a number of ads that had nothing to do with affordability. They had to do with social issues.
COATES: The Virginia Senate governor.
SINGH: You had multiple other candidates on the ballot, whether it's New York, Virginia, New Jersey, that -- I mean, Donald Trump, you know, agenda was clearly infiltrated in those campaigns. And they were talking about his policies. And yet, it was deeply unpopular, and voters rejected them last Tuesday. And not just like by marginal points. I mean, handily rejected Donald Trump's policies.
So, I take your point, but also, you know, I think the numbers are showing that voters and Americans are just moving away from policies that are hurting them right now, and I think the government shutdown is a perfect example of that, too.
COATES: Let me ask you because Democratic lawmakers seem to think, Sabrina, that voters are going to blame Republicans if the ACA subsidies are not extended. There's already a trust issue. We've heard from at least one congressman tonight about this very notion. And that would be part of that affordability message that Democrats are speaking about and President Trump called the con job the Democrats are promoting.
But voters also appear to be furious with Chuck Schumer, obviously the minority leader in the Senate, as well. Where do you think voters are going to come down on the decision to possibly reopen the government based on the ACA not moving?
SINGH: I think voters, majority, come next year are going to remember health care premiums going up and paying more for health care costs than they're going to remember Chuck Schumer. At the end of the day, is this a deal that House Democrats want to accept? No, and you heard Congressman Levin speak about this earlier on your show.
But I think the -- when you control every single lever of power in government, you control the House, the Senate, and the White House, the buck stops with you to keep the government running, and that is what voters are going to remember. And I think, frankly, Democrats have done an incredible job of staying disciplined when it comes to health care. We're going to keep doing that next year because we're going to remind voters where we stood when it came to fighting for them.
COATES: Well, voters are going to remember at least the renovation process of the White House. They're going to have a final product possibly by the midterms. Who knows? Trump actually gave a tour of some of the renovations that are happening at the White House, including a sneak peek of the East Wing ballroom and what it might look like. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is the equivalent of what I do with the ballroom. I built many ballrooms and many buildings. And that's my greatest strength, actually. I might as well do this. So, this room was in terrible shape. This was done by Jackie Kennedy. We took it. I restored it. I put in new chandeliers.
[23:40:00]
They had lanterns that were terrible. To come to the Oval Office, you had to go through this room. It was an embarrassment, okay? And I took it down and rebuilt it. Same as she had it, but at a much higher level.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: T.W., do you think any voters truly care as much as he seems to think they do about this versus the government being open?
ARRIGHI: Am I surprised that a builder is excited about renovating the White House? No, I'm not surprised. Do I think the average voter --
COATES: Surprised the president is thinking about it now?
ARRIGHI: We -- look, I -- if anyone is walking and chewing gum at the same time, given what he's doing in foreign policy, what he's doing all over the world, the man is doing a thousand things at once. We haven't seen a president move this fast. Adding construction into the mix to be his little hobby is not a massive surprise. And I, for one, think it is -- and I'm a big history guy, but I think it's way overblown, like the outrage over this ballroom. I think it could actually be quite a great addition.
But, look, the shutdown shouldn't have happened in the first place. Number one, this deal that the Democrats took has been on the floor since mid-October. October 16th, John Thune made this rough promise that they took.
Health care is a massive concern for people across the political spectrum. I see it in the numbers in different states. I feel it, and I hear it. However, what they are doing and causing so much pain across this country without doing the responsible thing and just having the debate on it, which was on the table since October 16th, 24 days now, we've done nothing about it, I think is irresponsible, not a way to do business. And look, we do have the majority in the Senate, but we don't control the Senate.
SINGH: You control every single level of government.
ARRIGHI: No, we don't control.
SINGH: You are in -- you have the White House, from -- each end of Pennsylvania Avenue is controlled by Republicans. I'm sorry.
ARRIGHI: If we nuke the filibuster, then --
SINGH: -- keep the government open.
ARRIGHI: If we nuke the filibuster -- SINGH: It is your responsibility.
COATES: Hmm. Something is so pleasant about a good civics lesson. Sabrina, T.W., thank you both. Up next, it should be a simple question for anyone, let alone someone nominated to be a judge. Who won the 2020 election? What happened on January 6th? Turns out their answers aren't so clear at all. And my next guest warns it's an effort to rewrite the history that he had a front row seat to. The former prosecutor who led the DOJ's January 6th task force will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, you know the number one way to tick off a judge in a courtroom? Do this. Do not answer a yes or no question with either a yes or a no. It is a sure-fire way to lose all of your credibility. Which is why the next story is so ironic, let alone infuriating.
We've all watched these confirmation hearings, right? The nominee takes an oath, reads a prepared statement before senators begin to hammer them with questions that, frankly, sound more like speeches. It's no wonder that senators would keep the mic, though, because the nominee's answers are rarely satisfying on the very subject that would give you the most insight into the kind of judge they would actually be. They will typically refrain from giving a direct answer to questions on unsettled legal matters. Totally normal, I admit it, because you want them to maintain their impartiality. That's on legal matters.
What about strictly factual yes or no question? Like, did Trump lose the 2020 election? Well, a new report from the group Demand Justice looked at written Senate questionnaires from all 27 of Trump's judicial nominees this very year. And you know what they found? None of them have outright denied that Trump lost the 2020 election.
Not only that. Each nominee gave nearly identical answers, repeating phrases like, Biden was certified as the winner in 2020, Biden served as the 46th president. And yet, not one mention of the phrase, Biden won.
That's not all. The nominees were also asked point blank, was the U.S. Capitol attacked by a violent mob on January 6th? The most common response, that January 6th was a -- quote -- "matter of political debate," that it would be inappropriate to comment.
Now, a handful of nominees, they did condemn violence towards law enforcement, but none of them even acknowledged the fact that the House and the Senate were broken into.
Joining me now, one of the leading January 6th prosecutors who resigned over Trump's decision to pardon the rioters, former assistant U.S. attorney, Greg Rosen. I have to tell you, that's shocking for so many reasons, even if you know that nominees don't always give good answers.
GREG ROSEN, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Uh- hmm.
COATES: That's a trend startling, to say the least.
ROSEN: I think that you hit the nail on the head in terms of dissecting what this is and what this isn't. This isn't a judge or a future judge trying to determine whether or not this is a legal issue or some sort of constitutional interpretation issue. It's a question of fact.
[23:50:00]
Look, politics is politics, crime is crime, but you would want your judges to be able to distinguish between the two. And I think that what you're seeing right now is a stunning indictment of not only the current political environment, the executive branch, but also Congress.
And when you step back and you look at the forest from the trees, what you have is, potentially in earnest, judges who are not willing to commit themselves or future judges who are not willing to commit themselves to things that we all saw with our own eyes on January 6th, 2021.
And it raises a threshold concern about the partiality of what we're getting. Not to say that they can't be good judges, but it does raise concerns about the entire process from the get-go.
COATES: I mean, these would be Article 3, which means they would serve lifetime tenure --
ROSEN: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- which usually would sell -- tell you that they do not have to bow or think about how you feel about them. They get that robe no matter what and they stay there. So not to answer the questions at this point. And they could be the -- quote, unquote -- "fact finders" one day in a trial or otherwise that doesn't bode well for the confidence the American people would have and they need to have in a judge.
ROSEN: Not at all. So, when you are thinking about your future judge and you're going into a courtroom, you want your judge to be able to talk facts and law. And if they're unwilling or unable to talk about facts, I think that tells us two things. Number one is, why are they speaking the way they are? Right? Why are these applications designed? And to be clear, this is something that exists across the political spectrum, right? You want to get your judicial nominee --
COATES: Yes.
ROSEN: -- in and out the door with least controversy as possible. But the fact that nobody can speak to the violence they saw on January 6th or what was horrific, what was a horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol that day, that was universally condemned on day zero, and that every American understood to be a crime scene. A crime scene is stunning.
COATES: And yet, we know that judges, they should not comment on political matters. We know there's separation of powers. We get that. But to suggest that these particular topics ---
ROSEN: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- are political controversies, are political issues, are political debates described in January 6th, no, they're not. Not the core matters. Whether a mob attacked the Capitol, that's just a matter of observation.
ROSEN: I continue to, years later, be completely baffled by this idea that what we saw on January 6, 2021 was some sort of political event. I want to be clear, as a prosecutor, right, you know this, our job is to take the evidence, determine whether or not it meets a certain threshold, and then prosecute the case if it exists. No one, not a single person, prosecutor, agent, investigator, you name it, thought of this as some sort of political endeavor. They saw a crime scene, they investigated the crime scene, and they investigated, you know, things that were observably horrific.
You know, Officer Daniel Hodges basically getting his skull bashed into him in the lower west terrace of the U.S. Capitol. Officer Mike Fanone essentially getting tased into a heart attack. These are real things that happened. And the fact that there might be judicial nominees who are unwilling to talk about those facts raises the specter of concern as to who their -- who are they sort kowtowing to and why are they talking like this? Again, not to say that they can't be good judges at the end of the day, but raises some really difficult concerns about the whitewashing of history.
COATES: It absolutely does. I want a judge definitive who can decide and be so unapologetically. We'll see. Greg Rosen, thank you so much.
ROSEN: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, how the DOJ is getting involved in the aftermath of a chaotic protest outside a turning point USA event. Plus, it's the hottest new country act on the billboard charts, but wait till you find out who or what is behind it.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here in the nation's capital. It's time to chat with our friend and, of course, host of "The Story Is" on CNN, Elex Michaelson, out in L.A. Hi, Elex. How are you?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Laura. Great to see you. COATES: Good to see you. So, you've probably heard that there is this new artist topping the billboards country music charts. But what if I told you he's not even real? I mean, the name, first of all, is Breaking Rust. It's a great name. It's completely A.I.-generated and so is the new hit song called "Walk My Walk." Listen to this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
COATES: First of all, I like the song. But would you have known --
MICHAELSON: Good song.
COATES: -- it was A.I.?
MICHAELSON: Would not have known that it's A.I.
(LAUGHTER)
Sounds like it could be Jelly Roll or it could be anybody, right? I mean, it's a --
COATES: Right?
MICHAELSON: Yeah. And, you know, last night on "The Story Is," we did a story about Xania Monet, who's a leading gospel artist on billboard, who also is A.I. So, this is a thing.
COATES: Are you -- are you real, Elex? Are you an A.I. figure by imagination? What's going on?
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: I don't know. Yeah.
COATES: You -- you exist, right?
[00:00:00]
I don't want to talk to myself. You -- you're real. Please. Am I going crazy?
MICHAELSON: I think so. Yeah. Maybe that's how we get some more sleep, Laura. We just have to create A.I. versions.
COATES: Is that all we had to do? All right, well, tell me, who's coming up who's real on your show later?
MICHAELSON: We got lots of real guests, including Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the US, who's now investigating UC Berkeley. A really interesting case. I'd be curious for your thoughts on. But that's among the many topics on "The Story Is."
COATES: All right. Well, see you soon.
