Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Artemis II Crew Holds Press Conference from Space; Confusion Erupts Amid Fragile Ceasefire Between U.S. and Iran; Some GOP Lawmakers Question Ceasefire Deal; DOJ Says Pam Bondi Won't Testify in Epstein Probe. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 08, 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]

UNKNOWN: -- communications. We should be regaining them here.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): We lost your video and handheld mic audio stream. We are troubleshooting.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): All right, Jenny (ph). We see the issue, and we're correcting it. We probably need both 30 seconds, and then we should be streaming again.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Copy. Sounds great. Thank you.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Coates. We are listening in right now. We've been hearing from crew members of the historic Artemis II mission to the moon as they begin their return to the earth. They're having a little bit of difficulty communicating. Oh, they're back. We see them. Let's hear what they're going to say about the takeaways from this mission and what they've learned.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): -- video and the handheld mic seemed to be back up, too. And Victor should repeat his answer over their PAO (ph).

VICTOR GLOVER, PILOT, ARTEMIS II: OK. The -- the -- the thing we saw that really surprised me the most is we -- we trained to view the eclipse from the far side of the moon or after going beyond the far side of the moon. We saw great simulations made by our lunar science team. But when that actually happened, it just blew us all away. I mean, you heard the reaction real time.

But it was the fact that we trained for it. And it almost was a thing that we were -- I don't want to say unhappy about, but launching on April 1st meant the far side wasn't as illuminated as we were hoping. And so, you know, that -- that thing seemed to be a consolation and it was one of the greatest gifts of that part of the mission.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK. We'll come back here in the room to Andrea. Go ahead.

ANDREA LEINFELDER, SPACE REPORTER, HOUSTON CHRONICLE (voice-over): Hi. Andrea Leinfelder of the Houston Chronicle. I'd like to hear about life inside Orion. Christina, in the fall, you said the capsule would feel bigger in microgravity. Does it feel bigger? And at what moments do you find that you're bumping into your crewmates and what tips will you be giving to future crews?

CHRISTINA KOCH, MISSION SPECIALIST, ARTEMIS II: Wow! We have loved living in Orion. And, in fact, we've all said that sometimes you can forget where you really are because we're in this small -- the small space that just gives us everything we need.

But the answer to your question is yes, it is bigger in microgravity. And yes, we are bumping into each other 100 percent of the time. A phrase that you often hear in the cabin is, don't move your foot, I'm just going to reach for something right under it, or, you know, can I get there? My goal is to get over there. And we're constantly moving around, whether it's to complete a task, to just eat, you know, to look out the window, to take a picture. Everything we do in here is a four-person activity, but it's also really fun.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK. We'll take our next question from Will. Go ahead.

WILL ROBINSON-SMITH, SPACE REPORTER, SPACEFLIGHT NOW (voice-over): Thank you. Will Robinson-Smith with Spaceflight Now. It's good to talk with you all. Victor, I want to go to a comment that you made a couple of hours into lunar observations. You said, and I quote you here, "The terminator is calling to me." What was it about the observation of the terminator specifically that was so captivating for you and the rest of your crew? Thank you.

GLOVER: One being 3,500 miles from it. I mean, that's -- it was so big. And now, it wasn't an image on a screen but it was all of the things we had talked about in training, the terrain, how you can see features based on how high they are above the surface and how low things were. And there were -- there were holes that, you know, craters that appeared to just be endless bottomless pits, and then peaks that seemed to be -- I couldn't tell how high but you could just really get a sense of the relief down on the surface.

[23:05:01]

And to look down on it from so close was or over at it from so close was just -- it was hard to describe. You know, when you -- when you are in an airplane flying back past, you know, Flagstaff, you're looking out the window trying to, you know, identify meteor crater or looking out trying to find the Grand Canyon, and this was the same thing. But imagine if you had seen meteor crater or the Grand Canyon for the first time.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Our next question is from the phone bridge, from Loren Grush with Bloomberg.

LOREN GRUSH, SPACE REPORTER, BLOOMBERG: Hi. So great to talk to you four. You know, the world has been watching along with your journey with such enthusiasm and joy. Do you have any sense or feedback of how your mission has reached the masses back on Earth? And does that influence you at all when you speak and narrate your journey? REID WISEMAN, COMMANDER, ARTEMIS II: Thank you for this question. You know, we have had -- I'm going to answer it a little bit differently than it was asked. But I'll get -- I'll get there in a second. But we have had a chance, the four of us. We've had two opportunities each to have very brief video chats with our families. And I will tell you, first of all, the four of us are now forged in a friendship that is very unique, and we will cherish this, this bond that we share, for the rest of our lives.

And then one of the neatest things being a crewmate on this spacecraft has been is not being in the family conference, but hearing your crewmates giggling and crying and just gasping and listening and loving their families from afar. Family is so important to all four of us, and that has been amazing.

And when I got to talk to my daughters, Ellie and Katie (ph), for the first time, like I just couldn't even speak. I was just so overjoyed. I was crying. I mean, it's just -- it is an amazing experience.

But what also came from that is that is really our source of news on planet Earth. And those -- those family members have been our source of how the mission is going from the public perspective. Obviously, they're all biased, although most of our kids are teenagers. So, maybe they're not quite that biased, but they're biased.

But what we had really hoped, and we said it a lot before, I mean, we really are here to serve NASA, to serve our two nations, Canadian Space Agency, NASA, and the international community. And we're here to serve for Artemis III. But what we really hoped in our soul is that we could, for just a moment, have the world pause and remember that this is a beautiful planet and a very special place in our universe, and we should all cherish what we have -- what we have been gifted.

And I think for the folks that decided to tune in and it sounds like it was quite a few, this has happened. And for that, we are eternally grateful.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Our next question is from Noah Haggerty with the Los Angeles Times.

NOAH HAGGERTY, ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE REPORTER, LOS ANGELES TIMES (voice-over): Hey, great to hear from you all. You had 40 minutes of a pretty profound solitude. You were, you know, farther from Earth than any humans before you. No means to communicate with Earth. It really just the poor view, the spacecraft, and the moon. Can you talk us through what that moment felt like?

WISEMAN: Well, Courtney (ph) is running this press conference, and she knows I always speak the truth, sometimes with little bit of embellishment. But I will tell you exactly as it went. When we watched that Earth eclipse behind the moon, wow! I'm actually getting chills right now, just thinking about it. My palms are sweating. But it is amazing to watch your home planet disappear behind the moon.

You could see the atmosphere. You could actually see the terrain in the moon projected across the earth as the earth was eclipsing behind the moon. It was really -- it was just an unbelievable sight. And then it was gone. It was out of sight.

And we took a moment here. We had a lot of scientific work to do right there. That was probably the most critical lunar observations for our geology team. But the four of us took a moment. We shared maple cookies that Jeremy had brought. And we took about three or four minutes just as a crew to really reflect on where we were, and then it was right back into the science. And it is a surreal feeling.

But -- but we had a lot of work to do, too. And I think that kept our focus. And so, it's only come like later and we still haven't even begun to reflect on this mission. We had a little bit of a light work day yesterday, and we were starting to journal and reflect a little bit. And there's a lot that our brains have to process. Human minds should not go through what these just went through. And it is a true gift. And we have a lot that we just need to think about and journal and write, and then we'll get the full feeling of what we just went through.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): We'll take our last question here in the room. Go ahead.

REBECCA MORELLE, SCIENCE EDITOR, BBC NEWS (voice-over): Hello, Artemis crew. This is Rebecca Morelle from BBC News. Now, you're almost home. What will you miss most about being in space and what won't you miss at all?

[23:10:00]

KOCH: Well, first of all, thank you for that question. I will miss this comradery. I will miss being this close with this many people and having a common purpose, a common mission, getting to work on it hard at heart every day across hundreds of thousands of miles with a team on the ground.

This sense of teamwork is something that you don't usually get, like, as an adult. I mean, we are close like brothers and sisters.

UNKNOWN: Hundred percent.

KOCH: And that is a privilege we will never have again. I have to say I don't think there's anything I would say I won't miss or that I'm just ready to be over because this whole thing is a package. We can't explore deeper unless we are doing a few things that are inconvenient, unless we're making a few sacrifices, unless we're taking a few risks, and those things are all worth it.

UNKNOWN: All right, that's, unfortunately, all of the time we have for today. Reid, Victor, Christina, and Jeremy, you have captivated the world through this mission. We're all watching, we're all cheering you on, and we can't wait to welcome you home in a few days. Thanks for joining.

GLOVER: It was great hearing your voice again, Courtney (ph). Take care.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Integrity, this is Houston ACR. That concludes the event. Thank you.

COATES: I want to bring in CNN's Ed Lavandera at Johnson Space Center in Houston and former Navy SEAL and NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy. He knows all four of the Artemis II crew members. That was really so interesting to hear them share that powerful, the emotional reflections about their flight. Ed, talk to me a little bit about what were the takeaways from this mission. They listed a number of things in terms of setting the future teams up for success.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think one of things I took away the most is that this is a crew of astronauts that is still trying to figure out the magnitude and the profound experience that they've been through trying to process all of that, make sense of it, figure out how it has changed them or will change them in the future.

You almost had a chance here in the last 25 minutes to get a sense of how they're going through that process even as they've been on this long journey back from the moon still, what, almost 48 hours away from being here. So, that was really striking to me.

And what really also stood out, Laura, is that before the event started, we could see on the feed the astronauts getting ready for this. They seemed to be in such amazing spirits. We saw Reid Wiseman just laughing. You can't hear him, but you can just hear him. There was -- something funny was going on inside that capsule. But you could hear him just laughing or feeling just laughing really intensely. You know, so, you can just tell that they're having the absolute time of their lives up there.

But, you know, they are getting ready, Laura, for the most difficult part of this, the most risky part of this, and that is the re-entry, coming back to Earth. Remember, this is a test mission. Obviously, the re-entry, considering they're going to be going up to 24,000 miles per hour, the capsule reaching temperatures on that heat shield of almost 5,000 degrees, you heard Victor Glover there say -- quote -- "We need to get back."

They have a treasure trove of experience and data in their brains and things that they need to communicate. They are desperate to get back here on Earth so that they can continue sharing all of what they've experienced and learned over this -- over this mission.

COATES: I mean, Chris, that was one of the points that Victor Glover raised when he was asked about re-entry, that he had been contemplating the re-entry since, what, 2023. Here we are in 2026. Can you walk us through what the steps are? We are talking about re-entry. Talk about the significance and really why this is such a critical and albeit dangerous component of this mission still.

CHRIS CASSIDY, FORMER NAVY SEAL, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT: Yes, Laura. Great to be with you. And it's probably the central test point of this entire mission. Life support, communication, of course data collection and the science around the backside of the moon, all amazing and important. But there's no more critical piece of equipment than that heat shield and to survive the re-entry and, as I mentioned, the intense temperatures that the capsule will feel. So, that is a huge milestone before them.

And the mission is not over until you get on that ship. So, we'll all be watching intently during the whole re-entry process, the splashdown, the recovery, and then seeing their four smiling faces.

[23:15:04]

And Ed hit it right on the nose. You can just sense the camaraderie and the cohesion and the sense of esprit de corps and pride for both nations that is going on inside that capsule right now. And I'm with you at that 20 -- that those minutes before the press conference told me more about this mission than almost anything I've seen so far.

COATES: What I loved is watching them talk about the camaraderie, describing themselves as almost siblings. But I had to say my heart just danced when they talked about their lifelines to their families, calling home, wondering if their teenage kids thought it was as cool as the rest of the world. You can imagine what they might say, Ed, to their parents.

There's also the idea of just those 40 minutes. One of the L.A. Times reporters said the profound solitude, Ed. And they talked about the weight of seeing the beautiful planet disappear, and the chills, the palms sweating, even trying to describe it today.

LAVANDERA: You know, I've been saying for the last few days, listening to these astronauts describe this, I feel like NASA and these astronauts need to release some sort of album, a compilation of the words that they've used to describe what they've seen on this mission because I think it would win a Grammy Award.

I mean, the descriptions, the way they've talked about things, I know the scientists here at Johnson Space Center have been incredibly excited about that because I think scientists and geologists talk about rocks in this very technical kind of way.

So, they've been telling us that they welcome the way they've been describing all of this and everything that they've seen because it's almost as if one -- it's like us describing it in layman terms. So, it's infinitely more helpful, it sounds like, to the scientists here at Johnson Space Center. So, if anyone can nominate these people for a spoken word Grammy nomination, that would be fantastic.

COATES: That's a great idea. I mean, maybe Pink Floyd wants some royalties, too. I don't know. Just guessing about that. Chris, let me ask you because part of what they're talking about was the lunar simulations and really how they just didn't even do it justice. They had trained, they had seen simulations, they had expectations of what one might see, and it paled in comparison.

And I just wonder, from your perspective as an astronaut and thinking about the critical nature of the mission, including going forward, trying to make sure that mankind goes even further with their scientific quest here, describe why it can even be overwhelming to such trained, intelligent, expectant astronauts the beauty of outer space. CASSIDY: Yes, you know, space flight is unique in that you can't go there to prepare for it. You must train in environments that are analogous to it in different ways. Laboratories, big pool, capsules on the ground. And the amazing engineers do a fabulous job of creating simulations that are very accurate.

But it comes a point where the individual astronaut has to fuse all those environments into their brain pre-flight and have a mental image of what you're about to see when you get there. And what we just heard in that press conference is despite all of those magnificent training environments, it still couldn't come close to capturing the magnitude and the awe of seeing the moon.

And I love how Reid described, when you went around the terminator, you could see the terrain of the moon embedded on to the silhouette of Earth, and then it disappeared. And I could see that crystal clear as he was describing it. But even those words didn't do justice for all of us.

So, I can't wait to see the treasure trove of pictures that are going to be released upon their return. Just so, so cool. Huge step in our nation's effort to get a permanent presence on the moon. Fabulous mission. Fantastic by all involved, ground and in space.

COATES: So well said. Ed Lavandera, Chris Cassidy, thank you both.

Up next, back on Earth. The breaking news on Trump's fragile and confusing ceasefire with Iran. Can the deal hold up? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is looking fragile. And when you make an agreement, it's probably a good idea to make sure everyone knows what they're actually agreeing to. Take this point. Is Lebanon part of the ceasefire? Pakistan, which brokered the truce, originally said that it was. Iran thought so, too. But the Trump administration says, nope.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire. That has been relayed to all parties involved in the ceasefire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon and it just didn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, misunderstanding or not, Iran seems to be acting on it. After Israel carried out major strikes against Lebanon, Iran now claims oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been halted. And tracking data shows no ships passing through. Now, it's not entirely clear what's going on because the White House says Iran has given assurances that the strait is reopening.

But the issue over Lebanon, well, that's not the only problem. Iran's parliament speaker is accusing the United States of violating two other parts of the 10-point plan, at least the 10-point plan he's referring to specifically.

[23:25:03]

He says Iran's airspace was violated and that the United States is denying Iran's right to uranium enrichment. And the American response to all of that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: He talked about an attack that allegedly happened on Iran and how that was a violation of the ceasefire. Ceasefires are always messy. What we have been very clear about is that we want to stop the bombing, we want our allies to stop the bombing, and we want the Iranians to do the same thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The president's red lines, namely the end of Iranian enrichment in Iran, have not changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right. So, what's going on? Did everyone get the same memo? It sounds like maybe not. I mean, not literally. This ceasefire was based on what Trump called a workable 10-point plan. But J.D. Vance says three different 10-point plans have been floating around.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: The first 10-point proposal was something that was submitted, and we think, frankly, was probably written by ChatGPT. That immediately went in the garbage and was rejected. There was a second 10-point proposal that was much more reasonable, that was based on some back and forth between us, between the Pakistanis and between the Iranians. That is the 10-point proposal that the president was referencing in his Truth yesterday. And then, frankly, I've seen a third 10-point proposal that's even more maximalist than the first 10- point proposal that's been floating around various social media channels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And he had a theory for how those other plans got out there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: You have some crazy people at the fringes of the Iranian system who are leaking anonymously either for propaganda purposes or because they're embarrassed or because they don't like what happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That doesn't change the fact that it's Iran's parliament speaker who's pointing out some of these issues. He's not a fringe guy, right, as Vance put it. One Iranian outlet says he's going to lead the Iranian delegation during negotiations in Pakistan. And guess who will be there for the American side on Saturday? Vice President J.D. Vance.

Let's start out with White House and foreign policy reporter for Politico, Eli Stokols, and senior fellow at "The Washington Institute" and curator of "The Iranist" on Substack, Holly Dagres. Glad to have both of you here.

I'll start with you, Holly, on the -- seems to be many plans that are floating, three different plans floating around. ChatGPT, referenced by the vice president as a possibility. I mean, agreements getting lost in translation. Iran is launching projectiles in the Gulf. Israel is launching strikes on Lebanon. Hezbollah is firing back at Israel. Can we even call this a ceasefire given all that?

HOLLY DAGRES, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE, CURATOR ON SUBSTACK: Technically, Laura, it doesn't seem like it's really a ceasefire. And I think it's noteworthy that, you know, the U.S. and the Islamic Republic are both saying two very different things.

But the only one that I really think we should be trusting at this moment is the prime minister of Pakistan, who has been actually laying out very publicly who is involved in this. And one of them was that allies in the region and that Lebanon would be not -- would be part of the ceasefire. And clearly, they've all been struck during this past 24 hours since the ceasefire began. And so, I think that's something we really need to emphasize on in this moment.

COATES: You know, yesterday, there were thoughts that there was a lag time between when the word would get out of the ceasefire and then compliance with the ceasefire and the timing still not entirely clear.

But one thing that is clear is the strait is closed. Eli, I mean, opening the strait had been a key point of whatever ceasefire discussion was going on. And for the White House, how much leverage now does Iran have given the fact that they've been able to not only physically barricade and close it, but they have retained control they didn't have before?

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE AND FOREIGN POLICY CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, it has been Iran's biggest point of leverage throughout the conflict and it continues to be. This was Trump's number one condition for accepting the ceasefires, that they would open it for two weeks as a goodwill gesture.

What I think is interesting today is that, you know, the White House's Karoline Leavitt was asserting there has been an uptick in traffic, although it hasn't been visible to people who are tracking it. The White House seems, despite all the kind of talking past each other, to want to kind of have its blinders on and say everything is fine, everything is fine, it's just a misunderstanding.

I mean, we've seen this president blow things up. I don't mean that literally, but I mean take a deal of the fragile negotiation and just say, forget it, it's not happening, and move to, you know, plan B quickly, sometimes less than this.

And what we are seeing here is that they are maintaining this commitment to the talks. The announcement today that the vice president is going to Islamabad this weekend to lead will be the highest-level talks between the U.S. and Iran in 47 years. That to me was the most serious -- significant sign that the administration is serious. They want to push this forward.

[23:29:57]

And they are not going to let these really serious sticking points and maybe disagreements over the plan, whether Lebanon is included or not, sort of, you know, derail this, at least not at the moment, and that does tell me that the president is eager for the diplomacy to work, at least for now.

COATES: I mean, the Strait of Hormuz is a hell of a sticking point to negotiate on. I mean, Holly, long-time Putin advisor, Dmitry Medvedev, he posted on social media the following: It's not clear how the truce between Washington and Tehran will play out. But one thing is certain -- Iran has tested its nuclear weapons. It is called the Strait of Hormuz. Its potential is inexhaustible. Your thoughts and observation?

DAGRES: I mean, he's not the only one saying that. There are some analysts in Washington saying, why do they need a nuclear weapon when they have the Strait of Hormuz? I would push back against that and say that, yes, for a long time, Iran analysts here in Washington and former U.S. officials that have been riffed from the administration that had expertise on Iran have been saying that, you know, they were going to close the Strait of Hormuz if another war breaks out and that is what's going to be a pressure lever.

That being said, I think we still have 400 kilograms of highly- enriched uranium that has not been accounted for. I think what the Islamic Republic has learned in this moment is that they could -- if they had their ability and capability, they would want to go for a nuclear weapon because it would deter them from a future conflict. And I know that the president was hoping for a Venezuela scenario. What he really got was a North Korea one, which is a rump regime that's more hardline and repressive. And I think in the future, if they could, they would go for that nuclear weapon.

COATES: I want to focus on the Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Eli. I mean, the U.S. and Israel say that Lebanon is not part of the deal. Pakistan, who was key in mediating, to your point, Holly, this two- week ceasefire, says that Lebanon is part of the deal. What part does Israel play in all of this?

STOKOLS: Well, Israel was sort of the lead actor in launching this war by many accounts. And, you know, the president talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu after agreeing to the ceasefire. But it's unclear if he gave him the full readout of what he had agreed to or if he even understood that.

I think, you know, I've spoken to Arab allies from some of the Gulf states today, and their biggest concern about this holding is this belief that Israel wants to sabotage us. They do not want this to move forward.

COATES: Because?

STOKOLS: Because Israel wants to decimate Iran. They want to go further than Donald Trump is comfortable apparently going with this conflict. And that is the fear that a lot of Arab countries have right now, is that the Israelis either aren't going to go along with it or that, potentially, the president is not communicating to him what Iran believes the United States has agreed to.

And so, there is, obviously, a discrepancy there. I think, you know, look, if Iran is saying that the strait is going to close if Israel continues to bomb Lebanon, it's pretty straightforward for Prime Minister Netanyahu what he needs to do if he wants to scuttle the peace talks.

COATES: That would speak volumes about our relationship with Israel, certainly. Eli, Holly, thank you both so much. Still ahead, the White House with a new defense of Trump's threat to wipe out Iran, one that's not landing well with some of MAGA's top voices. And later, new claims of an Epstein cover-up as the DOJ makes a major move to stop the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, from being questioned under oath.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The fine points of the ceasefire, well, they're still being ironed out. But many Republicans worry the deal may give Iran way too much leverage in the negotiations. Senator Lindsey Graham is one of the biggest supporters of the war, but he said the ceasefire -- quote -- "has some troubling aspects." Some House Republicans were quick to point out that they should get to vote on any plan and not every point is going to fly with them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): No one in Congress has agreed to their 10- point plan. So, no one is going to be OK with that kind of continued tax by Iran on ships going through the strait. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Here's the concern: The government is still in place. And we should be negotiating for a position of strength, not a position that's good for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in someone who had to make a similar decision a decade ago when he voted against the Iran nuclear deal. Former Colorado Republican Congressman Ken Buck joins me now. Congressman, welcome. I'm curious how you would assess President Trump's handling of the war right now.

KEN BUCK, FORMER COLORADO REPRESENTATIVE: Well, he's at a sticking point. He either goes and puts boots on the ground and finishes the job and has real regime change and make sure that there is a moderate government, which is going to be very unpopular among Republicans and most Americans, or he finds some kind of compromise face-saving move where he can get out of this. But there is no good answer at this point that that the president finds himself in.

COATES: Let's talk about a potential compromise because it would obviously require there to be negotiations where there's trust for both sides. President Trump says that the U.S. will work together with Iran to dig up their uranium, but Iran wants to keep enriching uranium. Square that.

BUCK: You can't. It's very clear that in three or four years, Iran will have rebuilt its navy. Iran will have rebuilt its missile program, and it will be going forward with its nuclear program, peaceful and otherwise.

[23:40:06]

And so, the idea that we can trust this group of leaders in Iran is just -- is folly. And I think this president knows it, but I don't think he has many options.

COATES: Well, you have criticized in the past that very point. The idea under President Obama's nuclear deal, it was on the issue of trust. It was also the idea that it would allow Iran to keep its nuclear capabilities intact. Well, now, there seems to be even more uncertainty of the unknown around the nuclear program. Would it have been better to keep that original deal and renegotiate that?

BUCK: I don't think you can negotiate with people who you don't trust. And we fundamentally don't trust the leadership in Iran. They just murdered 30,000 of their own citizens, innocent, unarmed citizens. This is not a government that cares about international sanctions or international popularity. So, the answer has got to be something much stronger than an agreement that Iran can walk away from. COATES: So, what would that look like in this two-week interim where there is this stated ceasefire happening? If there's no trust in terms of being able to think they have credibility in negotiations, how does the United States, having now entered into this war and really initiating it, how does it get out of it with more than it started with?

BUCK: One of the challenges, I think, President Trump has is he has never been a consensus builder. He has always been a maverick, and he moves at his own pace in his own way. The real answer to me is that there is an international consensus. And international consensus is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, that we will find ways to make sure that doesn't happen, and that has to be a program of U.N. or other inspectors on the ground making sure. And if they don't allow that, then they are violating the ceasefire and this gets started all over again, unfortunately, unfortunately.

COATES: What some, frankly, many are calling unfortunate, and that's being gracious, has been Trump's threat to kill Iran's entire civilization if there was no deal reached. It upset a lot of people, including some of Trump's own supporters. Listen to this, congressman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, SIRIUSXM TALK SHOW HOST: I don't know about you, but I am sick of this (bleep). I'm just -- I'm -- I'm sick of it. Can't he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the president, I -- 3D chess, shut up. (bleep) shut up about that (bleep). You don't threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We're talking about civilians just casually in a social media post. This is completely irresponsible and disgusting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, I'm partially to respond to the criticism more broadly. The White House today said to just -- quote -- "focus on the results, not the rhetoric." Do you buy that? Did his threat go too far?

BUCK: I spent a lot of time in D.C., and I don't focus on anyone's rhetoric. And I think that President Trump's rhetoric does go over the top and is something that does not help the United States in trying to build a consensus and trying to make sure that the world understands what our priorities are in this conflict.

And so yes, I think that the criticism of President Trump is fair in that sense, but I also think that if in the end, Iran is no closer to a nuclear program and we have verification that it will not gain a nuclear weapon, the results are more important than the rhetoric that he used.

COATES: So, the end would justify the means?

BUCK: I'm sorry?

COATES: The end would justify the means then? BUCK: Well, I don't know what the means are. In this case, the means are a war, a conflict, a lot of dead people, which is terribly unfortunate. But the ends of not having a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands is paramount and is an absolute priority in U.S. foreign policy.

COATES: Congressman Ken Buck, thank you for joining.

BUCK: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, a sudden move by the Justice Department to block Pam Bondi from testifying about the Epstein files. It's got Democrats and some Republicans outraged tonight. So, what is the House Oversight Committee planning to do about it? I'll ask Congressman James Walkinshaw that and more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, one Republican has a message for the former attorney general, Pam Bondi. The innocent don't run. That's a quote from Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who led the push to subpoena Bondi for a deposition on her handling of the Epstein investigation. Bondi was supposed to show up next week before the House Oversight Committee.

But tonight, the DOJ says that since Trump fired her, she doesn't need to come. Here's how the DOJ framed it to Chairman James Comer, saying -- quote -- "Because Ms. Bondi no longer can testify in her official capacity as Attorney General, the Department's position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear."

[23:50:02]

And we should note, technically, Bondi is still supposed to be working at DOJ to help the acting A.G., Todd Blanche, transition into the role. A spokesperson for the committee says it's not a done deal, that they're working with Bondi's personal counsel to schedule a deposition. The Democrats like my next guest say if she doesn't show up, they will move to hold Bondi in contempt.

I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, welcome. I mean, why do you believe the DOJ does not want her to testify?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Well, it's clear that the DOJ failed to comply with the law. The Epstein Files Transparency Act was very clear. The files -- all the files had to be released with a narrow category of redactions allowed. They missed the deadline to release the files. They still haven't released two and a half to three million files. And they illegally redacted thousands of files.

And they don't want her to testify because we would ask her questions about that. Who made the decision to illegally redact certain files? Who made the decision to stop releasing files before the law was fully complied with? What conversations, if any, took place with President Trump about those decisions? They don't want her to answer questions like that. I think it's quite clear.

COATES: It's striking because there have been a number of people who have had very high-profile roles, including a former president of the United States who have had to answer questions. You're talking about officials who talk to your committee like the attorney general, Bill Barr, Alex Acosta, obviously, the person behind the sweetheart deal in Florida, others. Even Hillary Clinton did her deposition as well.

So, talk to me about how the survivors are feeling about the prospect of the DOJ trying to get her not to comply with what they say is no longer a relevant subpoena because they say you must have met her official capacity even you said Pam Bondi.

WALKINSHAW: Well, I think it's another betrayal of the survivors who have courageously and continuously called for transparency and accountability, and that's what we're fighting for and pushing for.

Look, the legal argument that because she's no longer attorney general, the subpoena is no longer valid or doesn't apply to her is laughable on its face. The purpose of the subpoena is to get information relevant to our investigation. That information is in Pam Bondi's head. It was in her head before she was fired. It's in her head today after she has been fired. She needs to show up on April 14th to fulfill her legal obligation, comply with the subpoena, and answer our questions under oath.

COATES: Contempt is always, you know, one pathway to do so. There are obviously different ways. There's the civil contempt, a much more lengthy procedure involving a judge. There's criminal complaint -- criminal contempt referring it back to her very own department, or sergeant-at-arms taking her into custody. What is the likelihood of any of those mechanisms working when DOJ is probably certain not to refer her or to prosecute her in some way?

WALKINSHAW: Well, I think with this DOJ, certainly the avenue, the contempt avenue most likely to succeed would be the civil avenue which, as you pointed out, would go to the courts and could lead to the imposition of fines, including fines levied each day that she fails to appear and comply with the subpoena. I think that's a very valid and possible option.

We might also choose to pursue that criminal contempt option and put DOJ in the position of refusing to prosecute and move forward. I think that would highlight again for the American people the extent of this Trump administration cover-up of the Epstein files.

COATES: There have been those who have commented and that they believe that you were fine with the Clintons obstructing their subpoenas, that was the phrasing they used for seven months, and voted against holding them in contempt, telling you to relax. Don't touch the grass was part of the tweet about you. But talk to me about why this is distinguishable from your decision to not try to hold them in contempt.

WALKINSHAW: Well, actually, I voted to hold the Clintons in civil contempt. I didn't --

COATES: Not criminal.

WALKINSHAW: That's right. I didn't support a criminal contempt because I don't think that would have got us the outcome that we wanted to, which was to have a conversation.

I do think it's important to separate Bill and Hillary Clinton here. And I said this throughout that episode. Hillary Clinton had no information. Zero, zip, zilch, nada about Epstein. No relationship. The only reason she was forced to participate in the deposition is political purposes. Chairman Comer wanted a Hillary Clinton scalp to put up on his wall. I think he failed. Republicans look ridiculous in that.

Bill Clinton had a relationship with Epstein. Legitimate questions were asked in that deposition. I think it was fruitful. I'm glad that it happened. I supported civil contempt to help ensure that it did happen. Chairman Comer set the precedent here.

[23:55:00]

If you don't show up on the date and time he sets, he moves forward with criminal contempt. I'm sure he's going to do the same for Pam Bondi if she doesn't show up on the date and time he set, which is April 14th.

COATES: If you can't get Bondi, are you going to ask for Todd Blanche? He is now the acting attorney general.

WALKINSHAW: Well, I believe we can and will get by, whether it's this year or next year. But Todd Blanche, at some point, I think, will have to answer questions as well. Attorney General Bondi delegated to Todd Blanche a lot of the day-to-day authority around the Epstein files, perhaps some of the decision-making around those redactions, as he has said. And based on what we hear from Pam Bondi, we might want to ask him questions as well.

COATES: I certainly think you'd ask about his visit to see Ghislaine Maxwell. Well, that's just one thing.

WALKINSHAW: That's right. Yes.

COATES: Congressman James Walkinshaw, thank you.

WALKINSHAW: Thank you.

COATES: Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)