Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Prepares For High-Stakes State Of The Union Address; ICE Whistleblower Speaks Out; Critical New Detail About Nancy Guthrie Suspect Revealed; Laura Coates Interviews Epstein Survivor Danielle Bensky; Author Accused Of Poisoning Her Husband. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 23, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Congresswoman?

REP. MARILYN STRICKLAND (D-WA): So, somewhere in his speech tomorrow, Donald Trump is going to say that he is entitled to an Olympic gold medal.

(LAUGHTER)

We gave -- he wanted Nobel Prize badly. Didn't get it. FIFA actually manufactured a medal and gave it to him. So, somewhere in his speech, he is going to say something about deserving a gold medal.

UNKNOWN: I'll make sure that Texas --

UNKNOWN: And more tariff taxes on Americans we're going to hear about.

STRICKLAND: Exactly.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Thank you all. Speaking of the president's first State of the Union address of his second term, do be sure to tune in to CNN for in depth coverage and analysis tomorrow. CNN coverage starts at 8 p.m. right here. You can watch on CNN or on the CNN app. Thanks to all people for being here. Thanks to all of you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a debate over the State of the Union. The polls say one thing. Trump says another. Can he bridge the gap tomorrow? Plus, a man who helped train ICE cadets coming forward to blow the whistle on a training program he says has been gutted, even going as far as to accuse the agency of lying. He'll be my guest tonight. It is the image we were all wondering about. Why was the suspect in Nancy Guthrie's abduction not wearing a backpack in this photo? The chilling answer revealed tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, the State of the Union is, well, not exactly going the way Trump wanted. On the eve of his big speech to Congress and the American people, his polling is in the tank. His agenda taking real hits. And that so-called mandate looks weaker than ever. But he says everything is going great. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have a country that's now doing well. We have the greatest economy we've ever had. We have the most activity we've ever had. I'm making a speech tomorrow night and you'll be hearing me say that. I mean, it's going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. So, that part at the end, yes, he's right, they've got a lot to talk about. But the whole greatest economy we've ever had thing, well, Americans are saying no. Straight up. Poll after poll shows Trump's approval on the economy underwater, including this one. Just 39 percent? And not just a vibe, it's in the data. GDP grew only 1.4 percent, 1.4 in the last quarter of 2025 compared to 4.4 in the third quarter. And inflation, a far cry from greatest ever. It's at 2.4 percent. Still above where the Fed wants it, although it is down from this time last year.

Americans are clearly feeling it in their wallets. And for Trump, affordability meant -- went from what he called a hoax to what he now claims he solved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You notice -- what word have you not heard over the last two weeks? Affordability. Because I've won. I've won affordability.

The one thing that they don't say anymore is affordability because I fixed a problem that they created.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The idea that it's fixed just isn't jiving with a huge number of Americans because the one topic they want to hear tomorrow more than any other, by a massive margin, I might add, is the economy and the cost of living.

Even Trump's own economic agenda, well, that's hitting a wall. The Supreme Court just knocked the legs out from under his emergency tariffs, ruling them illegal, six to three.

And then there's the number two issue Americans want to hear about. Can you guess? Immigration. Well, Trump's polling on that isn't much better. One survey puts his approval on immigration at 38 percent. The majority of people say he has gone too far at sending federal agents in cities like Minneapolis. We saw the crackdown, of course, up close. Chaotic, dramatic, and tragic scenes, including when officers shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The administration announced a federal drawdown in Minneapolis a few weeks later.

Look, if there's one thing we know about the president, it's that he almost never admits to a setback. So, tomorrow night, spoiler alert. Don't expect him to give an inch on two of the issues he thinks play best for him. The real question is, will he move the needle for most Americans who aren't feeling it or will he just tell them how he thinks they should feel?

Leading off our conversation tonight, Republican and founder of Endeavor PAC, Tiffany Smiley. Also, digital journalism creator at Under the Desk News, V Spehar. Glad to have both of you here. Let me begin with you, Tiffany, because, look, these were two issues the president was winning on, he thought, in the election and, frankly, initially in his first term and now.

[23:05:00]

But these are now weaknesses for him. He's going to double down tomorrow night, it seems. Should he double down or is there room to admit some shortcomings?

TIFFANY SMILEY, FOUNDER, ENDEAVOR PAC: You know, I think he's going to make a case to the American people. And the fact of the matter is that things are getting better. Gas prices are down. Grocery prices are down. Things are trending in the right direction. So, this is President Trump's opportunity to make the case to the American people. And the poll numbers that we saw, you know --

COATES: Why isn't that kind of like the Biden feelonomics? Like -- I know what you're saying.

SMILEY: Right. And that didn't work.

COATES: Here are --

(CROSSTALK)

SMILEY: That didn't work. But Trump is trending in the right direction. And, you know, we need to remember that he passed the historic No Tax on Tips Act, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, increase in child credits. So, that's all going to start coming back to the American people as they start to file their taxes. And I think --

COATES: Should they have the patience, though? I mean --

SMILEY: They will. But I think we'll see a significant shift in those numbers.

COATES: We've got patience. They're asking the American people to have patience again.

V SPEHAR, CREATOR, UNDER THE DESK NEWS: No. We can't. We can't. I hear from people all the time who are like soccer is due, dance lessons are due. All of these, it's going to happen someday. It has been the way that Trump has carried people in his base all of this time.

He's excellent as a campaigner. He's not as good as an executor because when it comes time to fulfill those promises, he -- it's not there, it doesn't happen. Just like all the tariffs are going to pay for all of these wonderful things, your lives are going to be incredible, well, now, maybe he's going to have to pay those tariffs back. We're hearing more pressure from California and Illinois, saying those tariffs were a tax on the American people. Now that the Supreme Court has found that they were executed unlawfully, how are we going to get that money back to the American people? And he's freaking out about it. And now, he's putting 15 percent tariff on stuff.

COATES: Yes.

SPEHAR: It's a game for him.

COATES: But V, the voters still trust the president more than Democrats with the country's main problems. What does that say about the Democratic Party then, that even in spite of what you've articulated, there is still the idea that I think I still trust Trump more on some things?

SPEHAR: I do not blame them. I got to be real here. I mean, I vote left. I voted for Biden. I'm (INAUDIBLE). All that kind of stuff. But the Democratic Party has not found who they are. They say vote for us because we're not Trump and that carried them for a little while. Maybe that carried us through Biden.

But what is the Democratic Party offering truly in terms of values, in terms of policies, in terms of understanding what working people are going through? I think they still have time to figure that out before the primaries come up. But we're going to see that play out.

SMILEY: Primaries are here.

SPEHAR: Well, I mean for 2028.

SMILEY: Oh, yes.

SPEHAR: But I think in 2026, what you're seeing is regular folks come out of the woodwork who have never been a part of the democratic establishment or politics at all and say, I got to do something because I don't feel like anybody is there for me. So, I think there's a big opportunity for Working Families Party and other folks who aren't associated with capital "D" Democrats to say, maybe we can do something different this time.

COATES: Can Trump reach those very people tomorrow? I mean, he talks about the economy and approaches it in a way that is unrecognizable to the working-class family in this country and suggests that they're getting their feelings wrong. It doesn't just alienate them, it actually undermines his credibility probably fatally. Can he reach them?

SMILEY: Yes. I think Trump's speech tomorrow --

SPEHAR: No.

SMILEY: Trump's speech tomorrow will be energetic. It will paint a picture of hope and a vision that our children's future will be better. That's something that the Democrat Party just simply cannot do. And again, once the tax credits start coming back, once money starts coming back to the American people, they will remember that speech in matching with the money that's starting to come back into their pockets.

And I think it's going to be very, very positive for the president. When you can paint a picture and give people hope, that goes a long way. And then when you can turn around and deliver on it, let's not forget that President Trump came in with the highest inflation in my lifetime. So, he had to take an aggressive approach over this last year.

And I do believe that those poll numbers will look significantly different in six months heading into the midterms.

SPEHAR: Friend --

COATES: Let's talk about aggressive -- go ahead.

SPEHAR: When he says that everybody who's not MAGA Republican is a radical left lunatic, he continues to isolate people and other people. I don't think you can reach the left or the progressives when you are constantly making fun of them, when your social media is constantly making fun of them through A.I. videos --

SMILEY: Well, that's the Democrats --

SPEHAR: -- and different kind of stuff.

SMILEY: -- for acting crazy.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Don't undermine your credit label statements like that. I was listening to a one-part tip on the economy.

Let's talk about the aggressive aspect of it because there's always the policy and then there's the tactics that are at play. When you talk about that disconnect, I think about immigration. I mean, people may have been all on board with the idea of having an aggressive -- quote, unquote -- "policy" in controlling the border. But they overwhelmingly disapproved of Trump's tactics when it comes to immigration.

I'm from Minnesota. I've witnessed firsthand what happened there as well. And that's but a barometer of other states as well. How can Trump attack that issue with credibility tomorrow? Because that's going to be on the top of everyone's mind about that policy tactic disconnect.

[23:10:02]

SMILEY: Yes. And he'll be talking and addressing the American people. You know, you think of Laken Riley. You think of families who have had to endure pain and lost their children because of criminal illegals that had a free-for-all in this country through an open, porous border.

So, Trump did do something historic. He secured our border. And that's exactly what the American people wanted. And now, he has a job of making sure that our communities are safe, making sure that criminal illegals are out of our communities, and that law and order is restored in our country.

COATES: Has that tactic translated in what we're seeing on the air? I mean, the idea of the border versus what's happening internally in states far from Mexican border. I mean, you can't think of state farther than Minnesota, for example.

SMILEY: Well, every state in United States.

COATES: That's true of Minnesota. It's Canada. What do you think?

SPEHAR: I think it's -- I think it's optimistic, perhaps, of you to think that people are going to ride with him on immigration when they're not. Two American citizens were killed. There are American citizens that have been deported.

We're hearing about women who are pregnant at Dilley Detention Center down in Texas, which Biden closed and Trump reopened. And when Representative Castro or Crockett try to go in to do congressional oversight, they say, oh, there's no pregnant women here, must have had a doctor's appointment today, can't bring you to those areas.

The thing that used to work that doesn't work anymore is that there was a small amount of people who could control campaigning. And what was seen on the news and now we see it on social media, we see first- hand stories of families who were affected by poor immigration policy or by this widespread raiding of our neighborhoods.

When I watched what was happening in Minnesota, that looks like Rochester to me, that looks like any town. And you see people coming up and trying to be community defenders to say, we want our streets to be safe, we want to be America first, we want to be the greatest country.

SMILEY: Are you saying community defenders who assault police officers and ICE agents?

SPEHAR: No, I'm not saying --

SMILEY: That's what happened.

SPEHAR: OK, girl, and they shot two American citizens. I'm saying community defenders and local police officers are saying that the way that ICE has been running rogue, especially under Greg Bovino, who luckily has now been replaced, was not working. That's Tom Homan's own word. It wasn't working.

COATES: I'll be curious to see how he threads that needle between talking about the importance of the border control and also the tactics that are used in line with the Fourth Amendment at the very least. I have someone coming on the show later to talk about the training program in ICE. Stay tuned for that.

But let me ask about Kash Patel, the FBI director. He has taken a lot of flak for his celebration in the locker room. You see it right now with the USA hockey. Of course, women and men both taking home the gold. So, that's an amazing thing. But this administration has been facing a lot of questions on their priorities. Good look or overblown?

SPEHAR: Couldn't agree on this one. It's cringe, Tiffany. Come on.

SMILEY: No, no, no. Listen. I think it is funny people say Kash Patel got caught, you know, celebrating with the U.S. hockey team, got caught celebrating America?

SPEHAR: No.

SMILEY: I mean, we were all --

COATES: That's not -- that's not -- my question is not whether he's celebrating. Everyone is celebrating.

SMILEY: It's amazing.

COATES: It's the first one --

SMILEY: It's amazing for America.

COATES: My question is about the financial priorities. And, of course, he didn't get there on his own private jet. He is at the expense of taxpayers. He's not there for other business.

SMILEY: He can reimburse that.

COATES: My question is --

SMILEY: He can reimburse that and --

COATES: Wait. Tiffany, I'm going to finish my question. I'm not asking if he's going to reimburse. I'm asking you, how do you -- should it be taken seriously or is it overblown for the FBI director to have taxpayer dollars get him there? Is that a good look or not?

SMILEY: I think this is overblown. He was clearly over there meeting with European security officials. And if he was doing good work and helping America, that's great. And if the hockey team invited him into the locker room to celebrate this historic moment for America, I think it's a win. We won't be talking about this tomorrow. There are too many other more important things going on in this country.

SPEHAR: He was partying with the hockey team while Nancy Guthrie is still missing. He was partying with the hockey team while the Mexican drug lord was being taken out, something --

SMILEY: Believe me, he's working weekends, nights.

SPEHAR: Working weekends --

SMILEY: This was a time for America to celebrate.

SPEHAR: And so was it when the women won. And did they make such a big deal about that? No, they didn't. So, I mean, this is the president who says we're (INAUDIBLE) on and on about women's sports and protecting women's sports. Doesn't make that same phone call to the women's hockey team who won, beating Canada in overtime, same exact situation.

Makes this cringey gesture-maxing call over to the men, being like, I think I have to invite the women. I don't want to. Like it's a joke, it's terrible. And you cannot pretend like that looks good for anyone. My dad is a Republican. He thought it was weird, too.

COATES: I do have the sound. I want to make sure everyone knows what you're talking about. What did the president say? Tell me. They're coming. Wait for it. Cliffhanger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP (voice-over): I must tell you, we're going to have to bring the women's team.

(CHEERING)

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP (voice-over): You do know that. I do believe I'd probably would be impeached. OK.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We'll see what happens next. I, of course, huge fan of "Heated Rivalry." Wondering why there aren't any more memes about that. Tiffany Smiley, V Spehar, thank you all.

SMILEY: Thank you.

SPEHAR: Thank you.

[23:14:58]

COATES: Up next, an ICE whistleblower who trained cadets coming forward to reveal what's really happening during training for new agents. A system he describes as defective and broken. And just wait until you hear some of what he has to say. You know, he's in studio with me to share it all next. And later, it has been a mystery within the mystery of a mystery. Why did the suspect in the Nancy Guthrie case appear in a photo without a backpack? I have a new chilling answer for you tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RYAN SCHWANK, ICE WHISTLEBLOWER: ICE is teaching cadets to violate the Constitution. And they were attempting to cloak it in secrecy by demanding that I lie about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:20:01]

COATES: An extraordinary rebuke against ICE agents by a man tasked with training them. A former ICE lawyer is blowing the whistle on what he says is deficient, defective, and broken training. Ryan Schwank served as an ICE lawyer since 2021.

But today, he told a congressional forum hosted by House Democrats he's troubled by changes. He says in the last year, ICE has shortened training for recruits, removed certain training courses, and eliminated some exams to graduate training, all to add more than 10,000 new officers to its ranks. He points to changes like this in the ICE training manual. It reveals a training program was cut from 72 days last year to 42 days this year.

A spokesperson for ICE disputes that and tells CNN -- quote -- "No training hours have been cut. Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction.

Schwank resigned from ICE earlier this month. He joins me now for an exclusive interview along with his lawyer, V.P. and senior counsel at Whistleblower Aid, David Kligerman. Glad to have both of you, guys, here. Ryan, just reading through all those changes that ICE made to training recruits, why do you think that ICE shortened training and removed some lessons?

SCHWANK: I think the fundamental reason behind that is that ICE wanted to get as many people through the program as possible with the fewest number of people failing out. The goal was to have as many officers out there as they could get. And it didn't really matter what got cut on the way to doing that.

COATES: Now, they dispute that, of course. You've got ICE saying they didn't shorten training. The acting ICE director, Todd Lyons, said the meat of the training has not been removed. Not sure that inspires lot of confidence at the meat of the training. But do you buy that?

SCHWANK: No, I don't. And you can say the meat of the training is left. If there's no bones to attach the meat to, then the meat is useless.

COATES: What do you think is the necessary component that should be still there that is lacking right now?

SCHWANK: I think it's a great question. So, there are a few things. First, the officers are not being taught their basic constitutional duties. So, what we teach them about the Fourth and Fifth Amendment isn't tied back into their role as law enforcement officers where they would understand how to apply it in the field in a way that is meaningful.

COATES: So, Fourth Amendment search and seizures stops and the idea of Fifth Amendment due process, etcetera?

SCHWANK: So, we teach that at a very, very basic level to the officers. But remember, law enforcement is all about what happens in the quarter second, the split second where they have to make decision. And if what you're teaching them is so bare bones and cut back, they don't have the tools in their hands that they need to make decision in a split second the right way.

And that goes also to use of force. We've cut use of force training back significantly. And what that means is they don't know. Hey, am I allowed to walk in or out of this house? Am I allowed to arrest this person or enter this vehicle? And if they resist, what kind of force am I allowed to use?

We're not teaching them the way they need to be taught. We're not teaching them in a way where I'm confident that when they're in the field, they'll make the decisions that a normal law enforcement officer who went through a proper program would have made.

COATES: Senator Blumenthal said that you were one of two anonymous whistleblowers who disclosed the DHS memo we talked a lot about here on the show, telling ICE recruits that they could enter homes with an administrative, not a judicial warrant which, of course, runs counter to the Fourth Amendment in part. Can you describe a little bit about -- did you teach recruits that? Do they believe that through training?

SCHWANK: So, in the training program, we were instructed to tell the recruits that they could use these administrative warrants, these -- essentially permission slips they write (ph) for themselves, I think is the best way to describe it, to go in and make a person either come out of their home or use force to go into the home to remove them. And every instructor in the legal program was told to teach this.

When I was asked to teach it, when I had the classes where this material comes up, I would tell the cadets, this is what the policy is. If you're going to follow this, you need to understand that the law -- there's no case law to support this.

COATES: Who set that policy?

SCHWANK: That policy was issued by Todd Lyons.

COATES: The one who's saying that there's -- the meat of the training has not been removed. Interesting to think about that. Let me ask you on this, David, because, you know, he's a whistleblower. There comes with that level of risk even to be public in their position. Can you describe a little bit about the risks of even coming forward?

DAVID KLIGERMAN, VP AND SENIOR COUNSEL, WHISTLEBLOWER AID: Absolutely. People like Ryan are incredibly brave to do this. At whistlebloweraid.org, we see a number of folks who are willing to come forward, and we hope that courage is contagious. But the challenge is, particularly when we see the inspector general being gutted like at DHS, hopefully, a GAO audit that's going on will reveal the extent to which that is broken down, the Office of Special Counsel being dismantled, all the protections that usually exist in the system for folks to go anonymously are gone.

[23:25:06]

In fact, they've been turned against whistleblowers, and they've been used as the eyes and ears of the administration. So, the last recourse left is to do what Ryan has done to other brave whistleblowers, to go to Congress, to go to those in Congress willing to listen. But that comes at great risk. It's not the same as going anonymously through your own agency. But we need people like Ryan to come forward and share their stories. Otherwise, we're simply not going to know what's going on.

COATES: Why did you choose to speak out, Ryan?

SCHWANK: Because I had a duty to do so. I took an oath to the Constitution. That sounds kind of trite in the modern era, but if you really believe in what the United States is as a country, then you have to believe in what the United States is, which is the Constitution.

We are not a country defined by our land borders or by who our ancestors are. We are defined by the common agreement that we will live by this set of rules, the Constitution. And if you work for the federal government, you take an oath to uphold that document. And I could not do that in my role without coming forward.

COATES: Ryan, thank you for coming forward and speaking with us today.

SCHWANK: Thank you.

COATES: Thank you both.

KLIGERMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, it's a new detail that's changing our understanding of Nancy Guthrie's abduction. And it has everything to do with the mystery photo of the masked man without the backpack. An explanation has finally emerged and it just makes this whole case even stranger.

And later, you can almost guarantee that Trump won't talk about the Epstein files tomorrow at the State of the Union. It doesn't mean the country won't be reminded of the scandal in real time. One of Epstein survivors who will be at the State of the Union tomorrow will be my guest tonight. Hear her message to the president next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Breaking news in the search for Nancy Guthrie two weeks since the FBI released a series of chilling photos and videos showing the first glimpse of an armed masked man approaching Guthrie's front porch, images authorities said were captured when Guthrie was taken from her home in the middle of the night.

Now, tonight, a source telling CNN the picture you see on your screen where the suspect appears without a backpack was taken on a different night, not when Guthrie disappeared.

The Pima County Sheriff's Department is saying in a new statement, there is no date or time stamp associated with these images. Therefore, any suggestion that the photographs were taken on different days is purely speculative.

With me now, retired NYPD detective David Sarni. David, good to see you again. I mean, what does this tell you, that the suspect had checked out her home at least maybe once before her abduction?

DAVID SARNI, RETIRED NYPD DETECTIVE: Well, it's significant for the fact of that reason. When you look at this photo, still, you're trying to get a feel, making sure it is the same person. You know, we can't see, is very blurry. But I always -- one of things I look at is I look at shoes, I look at the attire. Very similar in appearance to the original, the person we had covering the camera. So, that's something -- it's significant for the fact that it appears now, there was more to it than just a random act.

COATES: Does this inform or reinforce the theory for you that this was a targeted kidnapping or a robbery gone bad?

SARNI: You wouldn't do a surveillance or a recon again unless you're attempting to do something later on. You know, I've always been like, why that night? Why that Saturday night?

And if this video or this still shows it was prior, this seems more planned than a random act of a burglary gone bad because when you talk about burglaries, you're going to talk about people finding a place of access, quick access, and go in and go out. This doesn't seem to be the way, given the fact an abduction took place when that person entered that house.

COATES: Now, to be clear, we learned through sources about the idea of maybe two separate dates. This was not publicly announced. And as you saw, the sheriff maintains it is all speculation. But if true, why would investigators have withheld that detail from the public of this being more than one occasion?

SARNI: I don't know if they got this still prior to. So, we don't know how they obtained the video. I know it was the FBI that got this still, and then put it out into the public forum. We don't know what the answers are to that.

But I'll tell you this: It is significant for that fact. And I will tell you, the FBI and anyone investigating is looking at that still and seeing if it is one and the same person. You're looking at the attire, very similar.

But again, I always look at shoes and things. And I can't tell if the shoes are the same. But this seems to be more targeted and a little more frightening in the sense that this was an idea that someone decided to take her out of her house.

COATES: It does also give, if it's a different date, another data point to look at the area and possibly get and generate more leads. We will see. David Sarni, thank you so much.

SARNI: Thank you very much. Take care.

COATES: New fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files. Another top British official has been arrested. Peter Mandelson, the former U.K. ambassador to the United States, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He's accused of giving Epstein market sensitive secrets when he served as business secretary in the late 2000s. Mandelson has not publicly commented on the allegations and previously apologized for his association with Epstein.

His arrest, as you know, comes days after the former Prince Andrew was arrested on the same charges in the Epstein probe.

[23:35:01]

Both arrests are examples of judicial accountability happening overseas. But here at home, just a handful of resignations. In fact, President Trump hopes to turn the page on Epstein tomorrow when he gives his State of the Union address. But the convicted sex trafficker will loom large over the speech because Democrats have invited several Epstein survivors to Congress to watch Trump's address.

I'm joined by one woman who will most certainly be there, Danielle Bensky, who will attend as a guest of Senator Chuck Schumer. It's good to see you again.

DANIELLE BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Thank you.

COATES: I'm glad to know that we have an opportunity to converse again. It's important. And I'd like to get your reaction first to the arrest of Peter Mandelson. I mean, this is yet another person. Now, of course, in London, it's not a charge-associated, but it is an arrest.

BENSKY: I think yes, definitely like Andrew. I think we had hoped to see something linking them both to the Epstein files and to this particular case. But I think survivors in general are just so grateful for the level of accountability that we're seeing in the U.K. and across the world. We are seeing Norway. We are seeing people step down, you know. I mean, what we're seeing is just the cracks in the foundation.

And I think that other countries are really taking this seriously. I know we've talked to the special rapporteur of the U.N., and we're talking about that this is becoming a crime against humanity, right? And that there's going to be an investigation from the U.N., right? So, we're seeing this everywhere except here. COATES: Why do you think that is?

BENSKY: Such a good question. I wish I had answers for that. I think we -- I hope that the U.S. will follow suit soon. And I think that, you know, we have a lot to answer for. And I think, honestly, it makes our country look very foolish to not be investigating everything thoroughly.

COATES: We do have at least -- I mean, there was another person who resigned here in the U.S. today. We're talking about the longevity expert. Pete Attia resigned from his role as a contributor for CBS News. He was mentioned more than a thousand times, I understand, in emails with Epstein, and also exchange personal and sometimes lewd messages. But he has not been accused of an actual crime. Do you view these resignations as a step forward or sweep under the rug?

BENSKY: I think they're definitely a step forward. I think we have so many tiers of co-conspirators in this case. And I think that the treatment or the justice -- the form of justice is not going to look the same for all of these different people, right? And so, I think when you're seeing these resignations, it is a little bit validating for survivors, but we just have to keep pushing.

COATES: You will be tomorrow at the address. What message do you hope your presence sends to the president of United States who, frankly, may not even mention the Epstein files tomorrow.

BENSKY: Yes. I mean, I have to say, you know, he just saw all the survivors' faces on the wall. And that messaging "stronger together" is so authentic and so real. I've spent some time with them over the last few days. And it's like all of us as a collective. We are so strong. And I think we're not going away. And I think that that is the messaging.

I'm very grateful to Senator Schumer for bringing me. But I think, you know, we are -- we are a unit. And it's beyond us. It's all survivors. We're getting messages from people from the 1950s, from the 1980s, like people that have been through horrific things and just say like we need to change this and move forward. And so, I think having that power and understanding that we are there on behalf of so many more and just saying we're not -- we're just not backing down. We're not going to.

COATES: You spoke in the past about the frustration that people have placed the burden on survivors to do more, to reveal more, to take by the reins. Congress has seen the files. And yet people are looking at many survivors and saying, if you've got names, you should say them.

BENSKY: Yes.

COATES: Is that fair to you?

BENSKY: Oh, no. Not at all. I think, you know, there are definitely -- there are two buckets, right? There's like the safety issue and then there's the defamation of it. And nobody should have to go through that. And we are consistently being asked like, OK, just walk up there and see the names. But that doesn't do anything for anybody. We need a formal investigation. We need to go through due process. So, hopefully we can -- we can do that soon.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Do you feel being so public has compromised your safety? Do you feel differently now than you initially became public about your experience?

BENSKY: Yes. I think it ebbs and flows. You know, after the Bondi hearing, I was feeling really low and vulnerable because I felt like I was moving back into that 17-year-old version of myself where I wasn't seen. And I know a lot of us felt that way, right? It was like we just felt like ghosts.

So, I think I felt really susceptible to things and was sort of like always looking over my back and just feeling like very on guard. But I think that being around the survivor sisters really does quell that because we are so public together.

[23:40:01]

And I really feel like, you know, if I fall down, someone is going to help me right back up, and we're going to be able to pass that torch together.

COATES: We will see you tomorrow at the State of the Union address. Thank you for being here.

BENSKY: Thank you so much.

COATES: It is always nice to see you.

BENSKY: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, it's the trial I spend most of the day covering, and I want to tell you about it because it's a wild one. A mother who wrote a book to help her kids cope with their father's death, well, she's now on trial, accused of killing him with drugs. But why? And how come her defense team sounds so confident she'll be cleared? I'll unpack it for you next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATHY NESTER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: After four years of investigation and five weeks of this trial, you know what you're never going to hear? Is how that fentanyl got inside of him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: All right, this is a case that's like ripped straight out of the pages of a crime thriller. A woman publishes a children's book about grief following her husband's death. She says to help her three sons cope with the loss of their father. But just one month after that book comes out, she's arrested and later charged with his murder.

Kouri Richins now faces up to life in prison for allegedly poisoning her husband, Eric, with a lethal dose of fentanyl. And the motive? Well, according to the prosecution's opening statements, she was having an affair, she was in overwhelming debt, and she needed the money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD BLOODWORTH, PROSECUTOR, SUMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: The evidence will prove that Kouri Richins murdered Eric for his money and to get a fresh start at life. More than anything, she wanted his money to perpetuate her facade of privilege, affluence, and success.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what's the defense arguing? Well, for starters, the prosecution has no evidence of how fentanyl got into his system, suggesting that Eric's family just needed someone to pin all of this on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NESTER: Now, you're going to hear that Eric Richins's family simply could not accept that. They needed someone or something to blame for losing someone they loved that wasn't Eric himself. And that's totally understandable. No family ever wants to believe that behind closed doors, someone they love is using drugs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Kouri Richins has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Joining me now, GiGi McKelvey, host of the podcast "Pretty Lies and Alibis," along with former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani. Glad to have you both here.

Gigi, I'll begin with you because according to the account that Kouri herself gave investigators, around 9 p.m., she brings cocktails to her husband's bedroom before going to sleep in her son's room because he had a night terror. Then around six hours later, she finds her husband dead when she returns to their bedroom. Prosecutors say she poisoned him. What does the defense want the jury to believe really happened?

GIGI MCKELVEY, PODCAST HOST: I really think their big tactic is going to be to try and dirty up Eric Richins and say that he had a drug problem. They have alluded to that in hearings and even today in opening statements when mentioning that he had some THC. Looked like it came from a dispensary. But he had some that were in plastic bags, and we don't know where.

I think that's really where they're going to go with this. Don't know how it's going to fall with the jury. But, you know, I mean, you have to consider, and I hope the prosecution really hammers in on, he was running a successful business. Was he ever high at work? Bring in some character witnesses to show this. But, yes, I mean, that's really all they have to work with. Like she said in the opening, they can't say how that fentanyl got in Eric's system, and I think that's what they're going to run with the whole trial.

COATES: And, of course, to point out, there are two charges, at least. There's attempted murder, aggravated murder, and also aggravated murder because they claim that she tried to poison him on Valentine's Day as well.

Neama, let me go with you on this because at one point, Eric's sister testified that on the morning of his death -- by the way, her testimony was riveting and it was emotional and it was really, really difficult to watch at times. But she testified that on the morning of his death, Kouri told her she planned to sell the family home. Listen to how she described hearing that and the timing of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did anything about that strike you as odd?

KATIE RICHINS-BENSON, SISTER OF ERIC RICHINS: Yes. I honestly could not function. I couldn't even figure out like what was for dinner that night. I had just lost one of the most important people in my whole entire life. And she was planning on selling the house that he had just been wheeled out of, closing on a multi-million-dollar mansion. I could not wrap my head around it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Keep in mind, Kouri was a real estate flipper. So, they're talking about a deal that she was going to keep going forward with and try to flip that house as well. How will that sit with the jury?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Laura, I thought it was a fantastic way for the prosecution to start. And the conventional wisdom is you want to start strong and end strong.

[23:50:00]

And typically, in these murder cases, you have to start with the law enforcement witnesses or the family members. And I think it was the right decision, especially Katie's testimony. She described a Kouri Richins that really did not show remorse. She's talking about closing a deal literally that same day, and then selling the family home the following day. Then you add the infidelity, the financial motive, and we're going to get into all the cellphone data.

I really like how the prosecution started here. And I don't think Kouri is going to come across as likable at all, and it is only day one.

COATES: Let's talk about that, GiGi, that cellphone data, because the prosecution said that after -- that she searched things like this on her phone. Can deleted text messages be retrieved from an iPhone? Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? Luxury prisons for the rich in America.

I mean, one of the things the prosecution said in opening statements, GiGi, was that I want you to look at what happened in the days leading up to what they say was the murder of Eric, but also what she did afterwards. That umbrella, consciousness of guilt.

MCKELVEY: Yes. I mean, they found out that she had deleted. I mean, in the end, as far as we know, it was hundreds of text messages in a certain timeframe about when she started contacting her housekeeper, who ended up being the middleman, who actually got Kouri the fentanyl, allegedly, from a dealer. And so, you have all that.

The phone thing is going to be huge in this case. And it blows my mind that in one of the texts they read today, that Kouri is telling her boyfriend, I just want to lay on the couch and watch murder documentaries with you.

COATES: Yes.

MCKELVEY: Clearly, she didn't watch any where everyone says your phone is going to be seized and your internet history, whether it's deleted or not, is going to be found out. There's a lot of other searches that they didn't mention today that I'm sure we're going to get to, and they're all just as damning.

COATES: This was day one in this trial and we already saw a glimpse, Neama, of the defense's strategy where they're going to say that the family just jumped to conclusions. They just wanted someone to blame, and they pinned it on the wife. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NESTER: Nobody knew yet how he died. The sisters were telling the police Kouri probably did this. Kouri probably did this. Day one, the Richins family hired a private investigator. And you're going to see how much they paid that private investigator. And it's almost $100,000. And they paid that investigator to spend every waking minute digging up as much dirt as he possibly could on Kouri Richins to try to implicate her in Eric's death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is that an effective strategy for you, Neama?

RAHMANI: No. But as a defense lawyer in 101, dirty up the victim says a pill popper blame the family and attack law enforcement. That's exactly what the defense is doing here. I don't think it will work.

COATES: We will see. GiGi, Neama, thank you both so much. Still ahead, Harry Enten survived the blizzard of 2026. And all he got with his lousy assignment in Central Park, he got snowballs in hands and a story to share about the American victory from the storm that you haven't heard about yet. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Forty million Americans in the Northeast slammed with record- breaking snowfall in just the last day with some states seeing up to three feet of snow, prompting flight cancellations, school closures, power outages. It's also the most snow New York City has seen in over five years. So, we sent our friend, Harry Enten, to Central Park to check it all out. Harry, how are things looking over there?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Laura, 11 years ago, I stood out here, my first CNN appearance ever, and it was a bust of a storm back in 2015. This was anything but a bust, as you can see, by the giant snow piles behind me, right? I mean, my goodness gracious, we're talking about 20 inches of snow that fell here in New York City. A kid who went to weather camps dream.

But here's the thing that's so unbelievable. You go up to Providence, Rhode Island, more than three feet of snow fell. The same thing in Southeastern Massachusetts where the waves absolutely bonkers. My goodness gracious. Now, I spoke about the nearly 20 inches or about 20 inches of snow that fell here in New York City with this particular storm.

Now, there has been something making its way around the internet, which is the sixes. It turns out the sixes, there's something about the sixes, 1996, 2006, 2016, and now 2026. All years in which we had top 10 snowfalls here in New York City. I don't know what's going on. But, apparently, it's lucky number six if you're a snow hound like myself.

Now, the other thing I will note was I spoke with a lot of folks who were a bit surprised, a bit surprised by this snowfall. A lot of our colleagues, they said, Harry, we didn't see it coming. And one of the reasons that they didn't see it coming is because traditionally speaking, the European model has kicked the American GFS models behind.

But not this year. You go back to Saturday, the GFS saw the 20 inches of snow that was going to fall here in New York City, but the European model did not. It turns out when it comes not just to the Winter Olympics on our men's and women's hockey team, but when it comes to winter weather modeling, the Americans have a real step up.

Now, if you excuse me, Laura, I'm going to go hop in the snowfall as I toss it back to you.

COATES: All I heard was weather camp.

[00:00:00]

Harry Enten, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching. Polo Sandoval picks up the coverage next.