Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Claims "We Won" as Conflict Widens; Pentagon Confirms Cost of War; Epstein's Accountant Testifies; Iranian Women Soccer Players Stay in Australia with Asylum. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 11, 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]
JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: Like, did you not know? Maybe he didn't know, if you want to be charitable, but this is definitely not a hoax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: None of these criticisms seems to be facing Trump himself, though, who complimented Rogan last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think he's a great guy. I think he likes me, too. And, you know, liking me isn't important. What happens is that I think we do a phenomenal job, but I don't think we're good at public relation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, chaos hits oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, ships are left ablaze by Iranian attacks as President Trump claims we won the war, the one that's still going on. But is this real endgame leaving it to the Iranian people? Plus, they wouldn't sing the national anthem. Iranian state T.V. called them wartime traitors. Now, some members of the Iranian women's soccer team are getting asylum in Australia. And Jeffrey Epstein's longtime money man faces Congress and even dropped some names. Will he sit behind closed doors? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Ever since the war with Iran started, the world has been trying to figure out how does it end. And 12 days in, the answer isn't much clearer, is it? President Trump is saying tonight, we won, even as Iran attacks oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. If you listen to what President Trump has been saying all along, there may be a clue. Is his endgame letting the Iranian people figure it out? Because ever since tensions kicked off this year, he has spoken to them directly on camera, multiple times. Just go back to what he said during Iran's crackdown on protesters in January.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: To all Iranian patriots, keep protesting, take over your institutions if possible. And all I say to them is help is on its way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Six weeks later, the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Trump ramped up his message in those opening days of the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. I call upon all Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom to seize this moment, to be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country. America is with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, we've seen this kind of script before back in 1991 during the height of the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush told Iraqis the same thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And there's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside, and then comply with the United Nations resolutions and rejoin the family of peace- loving nations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And for a moment, Iraqis heeded his call. Once the Gulf War ended, Saddam Hussein looked weak, so they fought back. They rebelled against the regime. They were even able to take control of multiple Iraqi cities and provinces. But it didn't last long. American support never fully came. And then the regime, it retaliated, hard.
A BBC journalist who was reporting in Baghdad at the time put it this way some 35 years later: "The Iraqi regime was badly damaged by the war, but it had been allowed to keep its helicopters and they led a counteroffensive that killed thousands of Kurds and Iraqi Shia Muslims who believed that their rebellions had the blessing of the U.S. president. But they made the mistake of assuming he would intervene to make sure the uprising succeeded."
Now, there's no perfect twin in history. This is no exception. This conflict with Iran is different, obviously, from 1991. For one, Saddam Hussein was alive. Iran's former supreme leader has obviously been killed.
But he has also been replaced by his son. And now, we're learning more about that son's condition. A source tells us that he suffered a fractured foot and some cuts to his face on the first day of the conflict. An Iranian ambassador says he was injured in the same strike that killed his father and other relatives. And where is he now? Well, we haven't publicly seen or heard from him since he was appointed supreme leader. Iranian experts believe he's just as hardline as his father, maybe even more so.
[23:04:58]
And if he stays in power, a huge question is, will the Iranian people be intimidated into compliance with the continuation of a similar regime? Remember how Trump told them, we'll be there to help? Well, on Monday, he said something different.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, they're great people. They have an amazing population. It's amazing, smart, brilliant, energetic. They have a great point. I'd love to help them, but they have to be in a system that allows them to be helped. And right now, they're in a system that only allows failure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Trump has made it clear he wants this short conflict. He wants it to be a short conflict. And once the bombing stops, the people of Iran are being asked to bet their lives on the hope that this time, America will indeed be there. Should they believe?
Lots to discuss with retired Navy vice admiral, Kevin Donegan. He commanded an aircraft carrier on a combat deployment and led counter- terror operations in the Middle East. Also joining us, associate professor of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Narges Bajoghli. Thank you both. She's also the author of the book, "Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic."
Professor, I'll begin with you because the U.S. says the Iranian regime is but a shell of itself after all of the different strikes. But do you think, to Trump's point, are the conditions there for the Iranian people to actually claim power?
NARGES BAJOGHLI, AUTHOR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, today, Reuters reported that multiple U.S. intelligence reports are now saying that the Iranian regime is actually far from being overthrown and is quite strong, and they don't see any signs of it being overthrown.
In this kind of situation, you also have this war which, a few days ago, they targeted oil facilities around Tehran, and it sort of led to this really horrific acid rain that fell on the city and it can cause a lot of environmental damage and long-term damage to the population. A few hours before that, President Trump said that he -- that there might be a situation in which Iran's territorial boundaries are modified in this war.
This is leading to huge sentiments of nationalism that is rising within Iran right now because this is now being looked at as not a regime change war, but as a war on the Iranian nation. And so, it's kicking in a lot of nationalism.
COATES: I mean, multiple vessels, admiral or ports have been hit in the Strait of Hormuz. Iraq said that the two oil tankers were hit in their waters. The president is still encouraging ships to sail through. I mean, given what she's talking about in terms of the increased nationalism and the idea that there has been, you know, obviously mines placed there and beyond, is he underestimating Iran's ability to threaten that strait or the growing nationalism?
VICE ADMIRAL KEVIN DONEGAN, FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. NAVY FIFTH FLEET: Well, I'm not sure what the president's view on it is. But if you look at it through the lens of, you know, from the military side, what we see is that Iran is trying to ratchet up pressure and drive wedges between the United States and its Gulf partners and Europe and the rest because these attacks have been not only on the military basis that you've seen, they've been across the region, on civilian complexes and airports.
But what you're seeing in the strait specifically is further pressure, right? Because Iran has claimed since the 1970s, 1979, almost when they took over, that they can control the strait, right? And so, controlling the strait, as you can see, is important because if you slow the flow of oil through the strait, we have higher oil prices, and that just adds to the pressure not just on the United States but globally. So, their intent with all this is to cause enough chaos to try to get the United States to stop.
COATES: Who do you think is controlling and pulling the strings? And we haven't heard from the new Iranian supreme leader. Is that strange to you or would be the structure that would actually be deciding this sort of conduct?
BAJOGHLI: Well, the Iranian military and especially the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard, has decentralized its command structure. This goes back to partially what they learned in the 1980s in the Iran-Iraq War, but then it also goes back to what they learned in the 12-day war with Israel and then later the United States. So, right now, the military structure of Iran is completely decentralized across 31 provinces, and each unit is able to make its own decisions.
COATES: A decentralized military must be very difficult to go on the offense against. What you prepare for one, you can't expect for the other.
DONEGAN: Yes. The way that I look at it is whether it's a supreme leader or this council of three, whoever it is that's, you know, at the helm of this thing, they do have the capability to communicate to these different geographic locations inside Iran and coordinate. They can also operate independently.
[23:10:00]
But make no mistake, the IRGC is the element that's in control. It's their livelihood that would be threatened in any regime change. And I think the hardest thing for American people to understand is it's not like an army that we're used to, right? This is -- this is an organization that's embedded in the fabric of the way of governance all the way down to police stations. So, that makes it hard. It's not like what we're used to.
And they have intelligence apparatus. They have all sorts of controls to oppress the people, as we saw when they had this horrific suppression of the protesters.
COATES: Well, talk to me about what President Trump had to say and the idea that the conditions essentially are not such that he's almost into being there could be the assistance by the United States to carry out whatever change would be necessary. Given what you described in terms of how the Iranian people might be viewing either the absence or delay of help from the United States, how does that feed into the hands of the IRGC?
BAJOGHLI: Right, this becomes a war of defense against outside powers instead of a war that is simply about regime change. Again, with a country the size of Iran, which is the size of Western Europe, right? It's four times the size of Iraq.
To have a regime change operation, first of all, we've never even had that in modern history in which it's only done through aerial bombardment. You have to have troops on the ground for any kind of real sustained regime change. Iran's geography makes that almost impossible because of its mountainous terrain and how incredibly large it is.
So, this is one of the reasons that the top brass of the American military for decades now has not wanted to go into a war with Iran because it is a quagmire. It will make all the other wars -- all the other forever wars of the Middle East seem like a walk in the park.
COATES: Very ominous to hear that. And, I mean, the representatives of the G7, they're considering escorting ships when conditions somehow allow. And Iraq is actually calling for restraint after Iran struck in their waters. So, is there a coalition that could come together?
DONEGAN: Well, I think what you've seen, one miscalculation the Iranians did make was they thought their initial movements to attack the civilian infrastructure was going to -- was going to be the issue that drove this thing, you know, to get the U.S. to stop. That didn't work, so they've expanded. And part of this holding hostage, the Strait of Hormuz is part of that. So, now, you have a flow of oil slowed down going through. In some cases, completely stopped going through the strait.
So, yes, there's a way that we could restart oil, but I think what the administration is saying and what you're seeing happen with military options are the U.S. Military is specifically trying to completely degrade the capability of the Iranians to have that capability in the future. That's the idea, so that they can't play that asymmetric card, so to speak.
COATES: Yes.
DONEGAN: Now, one of the hints of this going on, if you look at CENTCOM's list of what they've been attacking, it's not just the Navy that they're sinking, they're talking about destroying the cruise missiles, the mine storage areas, all those things that the Iranians in the past have used to threaten to close the strait.
So, I don't think the military mission given to Admiral Cooper was to regime change. His mission was to defang Iran, right? Not give it the capability to attack as well as it can in the beginning of this outside its borders. And that's the mission he was given, called it dismantling their security apparatus, not overthrowing the regime, because I would agree 100 percent, that's not really a military mission with air power to overthrow a regime.
COATES: I want to talk about the ongoing military investigation that says that the United States is responsible for the deadly Tomahawk missile strike on Iran elementary school. The reporting suggests that it was a targeting mistake because of outdated intelligence. Now, CNN's Kristen Holmes actually asked the president about this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: A new report says the military investigation has found it was the United States that struck the school.
TRUMP: I don't know about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I was depressed that the Pentagon is precedent for acknowledging mistakes and civilian casualties in war. But talk about the importance of, especially within Iran, of United States military possibly addressing this directly.
BAJOGHLI: I mean, in many ways, I've heard folks in Iran say that it's impressive that the U.S. M0ilitary has said so quickly that this was probably their fault. But at the same time, the fact that, again, this was one of the first strikes that happened and it killed so many little kids, especially little girls --
COATES: Sixty-eight children, 14 teachers.
BAJOGHLI: Yes. It again really started to hit home the point from the early on that this was a war that is having the biggest impact on civilians rather than on the regime.
[23:15:03]
COATES: I know we have to go but, really quickly, Governor Gavin Newsom has confirmed the FBI alerted state officials of unverified claims by Iranian-affiliated actors about aspirations of drone attacks against unspecified targets in the state. He says there's no imminent threat, but many people are looking at what's happening domestically as well. Do you think Iran would be capable of pulling off a drone attack in California?
DONEGAN: Well, that's -- you know, I don't have the intelligence to be able to tell you if that's ongoing. What Iran has done, though, over the course of years is try to plant cells that can create terrorist acts if something like this were to occur. You know, they call them sleeper cells, and you've heard that term.
So, whether they're active and how successful at that, I know they've tried in the past to do this. But in the past, we've been pretty good and so our European allies at rooting out a lot of this. But it doesn't mean they're not there and there isn't one that could come out. You know, it's the act of what, you know, terrorist nations do.
COATES: Thank you both. Really intriguing. Narges Bajoghli and also Admiral Kevin Donegan, thank you so much. Next, $11 billion. That's how much six days of the Iran war cost, according to the Pentagon. Can Trump convince Congress and the American public to keep putting that bill? Plus, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant testifying to Congress today, going through Epstein's biggest financial transactions and naming names.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Some of the people closest to Epstein, including Mr. Kahn, were never questioned by the FBI, law enforcement, U.S. attorneys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've won. Let me say we've won. You know, you never like to say too early you won. We won. We won the bet. In the first hour, it was over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump declaring victory at Iran. Just as Republicans on Capitol Hill, well, they're expressing frustration over conflicting messages from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LISA ANN MURKOWSKI (R-AK): People kind of want to know what can we expect with this. Is this going to be a war that continues and continues? What will it cost? We're already seeing the cost in terms of lives, having lost seven service members. These are -- these are not unreasonable questions for Americans to be asking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, tonight, the only question we can answer is the growing cost of the conflict. At least $8 billion. As much the Pentagon says the first six days of the war has cost taxpayers. And that's not all. Americans have also seen a 60-cent increase at the pump, and that may rise further. Just moments ago, Brent crude prices topped a hundred dollars a barrel.
With me now, independent journalist Aaron Parnas and also former senior advisor to the Trump campaign, Bryan Lanza. I'll begin with you, Bryan, because, look, the president seems to be all over the map on how he's describing this war. Just listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): You just said it is a little excursion and you said it is a war. So, which one is it?
TRUMP: Well, it's both. It's both. It's an excursion that will keep us out of a war. And the war is going to be -- I mean, for them, it's a war. For us, it turned out to be easier than we thought.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, I wonder if the president's inconsistent messaging is going to come at a cost, not just politically, but how strategically this goes on.
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Listen, I still think he has a lot of work to define, you know, what victory looks like, right?
COATES: He said we won.
LANZA: Yes. In many respects, he has. He has taken out the head of state, he has taken out the Navy, he has taken out the Air Force. He has done those necessary things. But what happens when we decide to slow it down? Does Iran ramp up? Do they still keep firing those missiles as we've declared victory?
That becomes a larger problem because it's pretty clear we can dismantle them. We're doing that along with Israel. You have the international community that's sort of watching and seeing Iran's behavior towards in the Middle East is even getting more dangerous and they need to rein in. So, you have that function. But what do you do when Iran keeps sending off missiles? And how do you define the war is over if they keep sending missiles?
COATES: I mean, you heard that figure. At least $11 billion in the first six days. And by the way, we're on day 12 of the conflict. How is that going to set with American voters?
AARON PARNAS, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: I don't think the American voters are going to be too happy about it. I mean, the Trump administration has a responsibility to prosecute this war, to explain why they're putting Americans and American troops in danger in the Middle East and spending billions of taxpayer dollars doing so, and they haven't done it. Donald Trump himself hasn't explained why he's doing this properly. He hasn't given a plan for the day after. And right now, Americans are worried about -- can they afford health care? Can they afford groceries? And they see us spending billions and billions of dollars on defense spending overseas. And they're like, well, give me some of that. So, I don't think it's going go well for him at the polls in November.
COATES: I mean, you know, CNN's Manu Raju asked Senator Josh Hawley about maybe the impact of how this is going to undercut messaging for the midterms. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Not if Republicans in Congress acts. I mean, Republicans in Congress need to do something. We need to pass legislation that would cap the cost of prescription drugs. It is the president's call for.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you don't -- if you don't do that --
HAWLEY: I would recommend that.
(LAUGHTER)
RAJU: Why?
HAWLEY: Well, because I think, in general, people don't like it when you do nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:24:56]
COATES: I mean, an important point, but the idea of talking to your point that capping prescription drug costs and beyond, people are going to see the connective tissue between what priorities of spending this administration has articulated and what their every needs meet. I mean, I see a disconnect.
LANZA: Well, listen, I think at the end of the day, like I said, the president still has an opportunity to fill in the gaps of what's going on in Iran. He does have the terms, had to define victory just because of the nature of who American as a superpower is. And whether victories in six weeks or with victories in two months, there's going to be a tremendous amount of, you know, it if it's up to him, there's going to be tremendous amount of goodwill of success --
COATES: And not to discount the cost? I mean, you said nearly six weeks.
LANZA: No. Listen, I think --
COATES: Eleven billion in six days?
LANZA: You know, what would be the cost if Iran had a nuclear weapon and sent it to Israel, the United States? I guarantee you, it's more than $11 billion, right? So, I think if he makes those connective tissues, it's like we can talk about the $11 billion, maybe it's in $20 billion, but the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon is actually -- is an unfathomable cost to the entire world. You know, he can make those cases.
But I think if he can find a solution, sort of a way where Iran says no more, you know, let's have this conversation, maybe we don't do, you know, weapon -- we don't do any nuclear weapons for the next 10 to 15 years, we do a pause, I mean, that's a win for the president, and the American people are going to say, you know what, it was worth the pause. It was worth the sacrifice of a short-term economic losses while the president solved a long-term issue that puts us in a much safer position.
COATES: Is that the right messaging for Republicans that will convince voters?
PARNAS: No, I don't think so. I mean, I think the issue the president has is he says it's an excursion on one hand. An excursion to me is something that you do on a cruise ship. And then a war on another hand, which, if you go by the Constitution, you have to get congressional approval for. He has done neither of those things. He doesn't have an accurate message.
The White House press secretary says she's not ruling out a military draft for people. I mean, when they say these things, whether or not they're true or not, at the end of the day, that average American voter cares about whether they can afford gas tomorrow, whether they can afford to get groceries for their families. The longer they spend talking about what's happening overseas, you're going to -- most Americans will just tune it out and will just not trust what the administration is saying.
COATES: You both have talked about the economy. Normally, the president is not saying that's his number one priority right now. He talked about making the Save America Act, which would include voter I.D. requirements, his top priority, and that it will guarantee the midterms. Is that the right priority order?
LANZA: My experience in politics is nothing guarantees the midterms, right? So, I'm glad the president is optimistic about this bill. But the midterms are always going to be an uphill battle. And we knew that the day after he won the election into 2024 because the midterms are always a challenge for the president in power. I'm glad he's optimistic.
Listen, his number one priority is to move this country in a direction that he feels is under good economic stewardship and foundationally strong as a democracy. He sees a lot of these absentee ballots. He sees a lot of these things taking place in these states as a true threat to democracy.
And there are some people who see it the same way. I think if you ask, you know, the vast majority of the people in this country, they want vote I.D. I think it is 80 percent. Even the majority of Democrats want this. And so, some of it is commonsense. And to him, it doesn't make sense why we can't have it.
COATES: I wonder how the voters will feel. They will be asked to bubble in or circle in something. Bryan and Aaron, thank you so much.
Up next, Jeffrey Epstein's longtime accountant testifying in front of Congress today, facing questions about how Epstein got his money and how he spent it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: These were the five people that transferred significant sums of money to Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Plus, why hasn't the DOJ charged anyone else in the Epstein files? And why new charges may never come?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Three and a half million files later and some key questions still linger. How did Jeffrey Epstein amass his fortune? And do his finances show any proof of a crime? That's what lawmakers on Capitol Hill tried getting to the bottom of today as they questioned Epstein's longtime accountant and co-executory of his estate, Richard Kahn.
Now, Kahn testified that he never saw any unlawful activity in the years he worked for Epstein, saying -- quote -- "We track the expenditures as meticulously as possible, including gifts by Epstein to women and men. The gifts represent a very small fraction of Epstein's spending. I did not see them as red flags for abuse or trafficking."
He wanted to say he only learned about the extent of Epstein's abuse after he died. And Kahn has never been accused of wrongdoing. And as for how Epstein made his money, Kahn told the committee it was his impression Epstein was a tax advisor and financial planner.
With me now is attorney James Marsh, who represents survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, including Maria and Annie Farmer. James, welcome back. I mean, this is someone who managed Epstein's money for years. Do you think that Kahn's testimony -- do you believe that him seeing no red flags, well, were incredible?
JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTS ACCUSERS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: I think his testimony strains credulity. I think for people out there who happen to get me on Wednesday, which is my accountant day, right? What does your accountant do for you, right? In a typical business environment, your accountant knows more than your spouse, your children, anyone else in your firm. They are responsible for reviewing all of your books, your expenditures.
[23:35:00]
They pay your vendors. They pay your employees. They have to categorize all income and expenditures to take proper accounting for it. So, accountants, you know, in general, know much more about you probably than anyone else.
And what I found with the nature of accountants is they love to ask questions. They love to find out, what is this payment for? How does this need to be categorized? Who is this person? Is this person a client? Are they a vendor? Where did this money come from? Is it income? Is it this or that? So, for him to say, you know, geez, we're categorizing the gifts, but we really had no idea about anything else, that really is a stretch, in my opinion.
COATES: Some could argue that accountants only ask questions they want to know the answers to, right? And that could very well be part of where their inquiry ends, but we'll see. Chairman James Comber says that Kahn testified there were five clients who paid Epstein the most, and one of them being former notorious Secret owner, Lex Wexner, who, as you know, has testified. Another one is Leon Black, who has been asked to testify. How important is it for the community to speak to everyone that Kahn named, particularly given what you say strains credulity?
MARSH: They're going to get the same answers from every single person they question. I mean, I appreciate what Congress is doing, and I think these questions need to be asked, but none of the people that are testifying have any incentive to tell the truth, right? They can do two things. They could take the Fifth. That wouldn't look good, right? We all know what that is. You are a criminal prosecutor. Or they could say, well, you know, I knew some things, this wasn't very clear to me, I did my best, we tried to -- you know, I knew.
And I heard this story today that -- I think it was Leon Black who said that Jeffrey Epstein stole $100 million from him. So, we got Wexner that he stole money from. Now, you've got Black claiming that he stole money. Are we really going to believe that Jeffrey Epstein stole $200 million from two people, and they never pursued it at all? That also strains credulity.
So, I don't think we're going to get anything of any practical use from these people. I think they have too much invested in this case. They have too much to lose, nothing to gain by telling the truth. And, you know, the worst they could do is plead the Fifth, and you know how that's going to look. So, this doesn't surprise me at all, Laura.
COATES: Well, I wonder if you think this is all an exercise in futility and if so, how you get to the bottom of it ultimately. You know, we learned from court documents, James, that J.P. Morgan flagged more than a billion dollars in suspicious transactions Epstein made between 2003 to 2019. We know their records have been subpoenaed. We know more people are going to be deposed. So, what questions do you want answered about Epstein's finances that would ultimately move the credible needle?
MARSH: I think what's really important and what I always like as a lawyer is documentary evidence, right? It's very hard to hide from the documents. Certainly, when we get all of these transactions, we get the books, we get, you know, the bank statements, a lot of these is in the files, but it's going to take a real concerted effort by some real professionals to go through all these transactions, you know, tease them out, find out where they were from, where they went to, who was making them, where the money was flowing.
I think it's -- you know, questions for a six or seven-hour deposition are nice. You're going to get pretty standard answers there, no big revelations. But I think the documentary evidence and the additional documents that they're going to release may have some of the answers to exactly how Jeffrey Epstein was able to commit the crimes he did for so long without detection and seemingly unlimited funds which, apparently, he stole from all these very successful men who never raised any claim or lawsuit or criminal complaint against him in the 20 years they were working with him.
COATES: James Marsh, thank you.
MARSH: Thank you. Thanks for having me on.
COATES: As more and more information comes out about Jeffrey Epstein and the people surrounding him, there are more and more calls for more and more prosecutions. But my next guest says don't bank on that happening any time soon, writing -- quote -- "Americans should brace themselves for the very real prospect that there will be no more credible criminal prosecutions in the United States in the wake of the Epstein files release."
Former federal prosecutor and senior writer at "Politico" magazine, Ankush Khardori, joins me now. His latest piece is titled "Why DOJ Hasn't Charged Anyone Else from the Epstein Files." A really interesting piece and it begs the question for so many people who they will say there should be more of Epstein's associates who are charged. The word "should," though, is not the consideration of the DOJ. They've got a burden of proof, and they've got a lot to do to get there in terms of how to present it. So, what should be the calculus that you say, no, there won't be anymore?
ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SENIOR WRITER AT POLITICO: Well, look, I think there are two large obstacles here. One is a practical one. Trump Justice Department has said that they're not investigating.
[23:40:00]
They don't think there's anything else to investigate, even if you wholly think that they're wrong. As a practical matter, the Justice Department is the body that has to investigate. Second, though, I mean, I think as the files have sort of been out there for more than a month now, we've gotten some insight into the line prosecutors thinking in the course of the investigation.
And, you know, I think, you know, what we have seen is not evidence of like an international child sex trafficking operation in the way that I think many people anticipated, but rather a more discreet set of misconduct tied to Epstein and Maxwell, where the prosecutors attempted to try to assess whether there were some co-conspirators, but came up short in terms of evidence, issues with the credibility of certain witnesses, lack of proof, that sort of thing.
So, at least, for the moment, I think the sort of state of play is that I don't think there's really a compelling case built around sex crimes, at least.
COATES: Well, normally, the credibility of a witness is obviously going to be questioned. But in this instance, people are questioning the credibility of the DOJ, whether they have investigated aggressively enough, whether their sweetheart deals were somehow a manner of trying to cover something up or be dismissive where they otherwise should have lean in. How does that play?
KHARDORI: Well, look, I think the sweetheart deal is kind of its own thing worthy of examination, sort of what went on around there. But by the time where, you know, in 2019, when Epstein has killed himself, a whole new team of prosecutors is working on this case in Manhattan.
And, you know, it's always possible for prosecutors to miss things or to have to invest less time in a case than they would prefer to. As you and I both know, prosecutors have a lot of work to do and a lot of things on their plate and any time you spend on one case is a time that you're not spending on another case.
One of the areas that it does seem where prosecutors didn't have time to run things down was in this area of financial -- of the financial transactions and where all of Epstein's money came from and whether there was any impropriety around that. I think for a variety of reasons, it's not obvious to me that that will prove to be a fruitful line of inquiry for Congress.
COATES: Why?
KHARDORI: Well, look, I think people overestimate how easy it is to do a follow the money investigation, particularly when you're dealing with a high-net-worth individual or a multinational corporation with banks all over the world, transactions coming in and out. It's not a simple matter of just like calling up J.P. Morgan or whichever bank it is and telling them, give us the bank records. You have to get records from all of the banks and all of the transactions and sort of try to trace them. That can be a years-long process in the best of circumstances, depending on the cooperation of foreign governments.
COATES: But do you -- I mean, I know there is deference, obviously, to the limited resources of the DOJ. I'm keenly aware, as you know. But people thought that the files would contain evidence of a so- called client list. And, of course, there was evidence of a giant national ring. It didn't come from nowhere. In part, people are looking at the administration, comments that were made during campaigns, the stunt A.G. Bondi actually pulled in terms of those binders. I mean, do they deserve some of the blame here in terms of why there has not been the aggressive prosecutions?
KHARDORI: Well, look, they definitely deserve blame for the situation that we are in currently as a country confronting this as a society. None of this would be even occurring right now if it weren't for the fact that Trump and his vice president and his FBI director and until recently, deputy director, spent years sort of building up these conspiracy theories, talking about them, and then they tried to come into office and sort of pretend like they were going to shut it down very quickly after this brief period in which they did give influencers these bindings.
It was a mess. It was a mess. And they do own most of the responsibility for where we are, right, regardless of whatever criticisms you might have about the law or the Justice Department's conduct in the intervening years.
COATES: So, you see this as an exercise of discretion as opposed to an exercise of failure?
KHARDORI: Yes, I don't see evidence of malfeasance or sort of rank ineptitude. It does seem to be a matter of the line prosecutor's discretion. And I think, you know, absent that evidence of malfeasance or ineptitude, we're talking about a set of considerations that every prosecutor has to balance, which is how far you take a certain case versus another case.
And that's a perfectly reasonable discussion and debate to have. It's just not a discussion about a cover-up like a decades-long cover up nor is it a discussion about why we didn't get to the bottom of an elaborate international sex trafficking ring, which were kind of two of the questions this was supposed to resolve for us.
COATES: I'm going to read the best article. It's really comprehensive in your theory of that. Thank you so much, Ankush Khardori.
Next, with a war raging at home, the women of Iran's national soccer team are forced to make an excruciating decision, whether to return home or not. We're live in Australia with an update.
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Defect and leave the country you've called home or return to a war zone that just labeled you a traitor. That's the choice that the Iranian women soccer team had to face. It all started when the team did not sing their national anthem during their game in Australia last week. The players themselves never actually explained why. But Iranian state media came to their own conclusion, calling them "wartime traitors." Their supporters urged Australian officials to help them. Even President Trump asked Australia to keep off for them asylum.
Well, tonight, we're told six members of the team decided to stay. It was originally seven. But one of them changed her mind at the last minute and joined the rest of the team who flew out today.
[23:49:56]
Iranian officials have accused Australia of taking their players hostage and have claimed that nothing will happen to them upon their return.
Joining me now from Melbourne is Beau Busch, one of the leaders of the international players Union for soccer players known as FIFPRO. Well, thank you so much for being here. I just -- I want to take the audience back to how exactly this escalated. When exactly did you and others start to worry about their safety?
BEAU BUSCH, PRESIDENT, FIFPRO ASIA/OCEANIA: Thanks so much for having me on, Laura, to talk about this. This is something that's hugely important. These young women have been through such a challenging couple of weeks and it continues to be incredibly difficult for them.
I think, obviously, like the rest of the world, it was in January when we started to witness this incredible suppression of peaceful protesters in Iran. We know that the Iranian regime has a long history of repression of athletes and any sort of dissidents. So, we became incredibly concerned around all football players in Iran, but also noting that the women's team was due to come over to Australia to play in the women's Asian Cup.
We rode to FIFA and the AFC in early February, expressing our concerns. So, that's when we started to really bring it to the attention of the authorities because we did foresee at that time it could be really difficult. And then, obviously, things have deteriorated further with the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes.
COATES: You know, I mentioned six members of the team ultimately decided to stay and take asylum, the asylum offer. The others did not. Do you have any understanding of how those decisions were made?
BUSCH: Yes. So, incredibly difficult for them. One of the biggest challenges here is that we really haven't been able to establish direct contact with the players. That's very rare for a trade union to be unable to seek individual instructions from players, to provide them with independent legal advice, and that's something that really needs to be addressed ahead of any other major tournament into the future.
What we know is that the Australian government, as a result of pressure put on by many across the world and in the Australian football community, became involved after their last game. They started to reach out and try and engage with the players independently. The Australian Home Affairs, the minister for Home Affairs, ensured that every player at the airport before they departed met with immigration officials to understand their rights, to ensure they had sufficient time to be clear around them, to speak to people back home.
So, we're satisfied that towards the end, the Australian government did everything within its power to make everybody aware of their rights, and that those seven players elected to do it to remain in Australia, and then, subsequently, one of them returned home.
And what's really been important throughout all of this and what we've really been campaigning for is agency for these young women so that they could actually have a degree of choice, noting just how difficult that must have been for them to stay or to choose to go home.
COATES: This was obviously front-page news in Australia. Frankly, it was around the world. And one headline I saw called the ones who stayed -- quote -- "brave new Aussies." What's the plan to help support the ones who are staying? And is there any way to ensure -- do you even know whether the ones who returned are safe?
BUSCH: Yes. So, I think in relation to the ones that are staying, we've been fortunate, through FIFPRO, to have had the honor really to support the Afghanistan Women's National Team players when they fled Kabul, when the Taliban came back into power. They were given asylum here in Australia. They were kept together as a team. We were able to support them through FIFPO with mental health support, ensuring that they remained as a team, participated in local competition here as well. So, we've got a lot of experience of supporting them, and we would plan to absolutely do the same along with the Australian government to ensure these young women are supported with all of the possible resources of FIFPO.
And then in relation to the players that have gone back, like everyone around the world, we're incredibly concerned about their safety and their wellbeing and that of their families. We're calling on the Asian Football Confederation and FIFA to ensure that they put all possible leverage on the Iranian authorities to ensure that every possible measure is in place to keep these young women safe.
COATES: Beau Busch, thank you.
BUSCH: Likewise. Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, the one issue 8 and 10 Americans agree on and one they say has gotten completely out of control. I'll see if you agree, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it is time to check in with Elex Michaelson on the West Coast. Elex, good to see you. I mean --
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.
COATES: -- the numbers are in and Americans are fed up with tipping culture. You got 8 and 10 say it is so out of control. Half say they only tip out of pressure and not for good service. Can we agree it's gone a little bit too far? They turn that little thing around and say it's going to ask you a question.
MICHAELSON: OK, here's my thing. Love paying a tip for great service a waiter that works really hard --
COATES: Yes. MICHAELSON: -- somebody that goes out of their way. If I'm doing self-service, why am I tipping?
(LAUGHTER)
Why aren't I getting a discount? I should be tipping myself. If I go up to the register, I've got to do this whole thing. But then I also feel, what else is unfair is that everybody at the restaurant or other places aren't getting paid enough.
COATES: No.
MICHAELSON: But, like, we shouldn't be guilted for that. Their owners should be guilted for that, for not paying their customers enough.
COATES: You know what? I feel like Larry David just -- was in your head for a second because he said it's only fitting that we hear from the original. I don't know. I call my friend in my head himself. Listen.
[00:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: So, everything all right?
LARRY DAVID, COMEDIAN: Yes! Good job.
UNKNOWN: Thanks. Because you didn't leave a tip. And usually, when I've provided excellent service, my customers like to tip me.
DAVID: Well, there is an 18 percent tip included. Generally, I do leave an additional tip. But you know what? I'm kind of protesting the additional tip. I don't care for it.
UNKNOWN: You're protesting?
DAVID: Yes. Let them charge me 20 percent. Let them charge me 25 percent. I'd rather be charged a 30 percent, tip included, and have to add up 18 percent to 20 percent to 25, whatever.
UNKNOWN: It is not that much.
DAVID: It is hard to get to 2 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: That's it. That's all I had to say. This is Larry David. Have a great show.
MICHAELSON: Yes. It's too much math.
COATES: Too much math.
MICHAELSON: All right, Laura Coates, thank you. Have a good night.
