Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Posts New Warning for Iran; Melania Trump Puts Epstein Scandal Back into the Spotlight; Mystery at Sea; Artemis II Prepares for Splashdown. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 09, 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]

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: -- money. But people want to fix now, and then they wait too late, and then they get sick.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, I can't wait to see all the things that you subjected yourself to --

SWISHER: Yes. You look very healthy.

PHILLIP: -- for the rest -- thank you. I try.

SWISHER: (INAUDIBLE).

PHILLIP: I don't know. I haven't done any of these tests. So, hopefully, it's good.

SWISHER: Yes.

PHILLIP: I don't know. Kara, thank you very much. Great to see you. The all-new CNN Original Series "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever" premieres this Saturday, April 11th, at 9 p.m. on CNN and the next day on the CNN app. And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump puts Iran on notice over the Strait of Hormuz, and it's just two days before critical negotiations. Could a blocked strait block a deal? Plus, the statement no one was expecting from the first lady, Melania Trump, who spoke from the White House about Jeffrey Epstein. Did Trump know she's going to make an announcement? And the Artemis crew gets ready for splashdown at 25,000 miles per hour. That's all tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, walking into negotiations is hard enough. Walking into negotiations when the proposal itself is still open to interpretation, well, that's entirely something else. We're now less than 48 hours away from high stakes talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan. Vice President J.D. Vance will lead the American delegation.

But before anyone even sits down, both sides are accusing the other of failing to live up to the proposal that's on the table or at least whatever deal each side think is on the table. Exhibit A, President Trump's post tonight saying Iran is doing, in his words, a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing oil through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have. Exhibit B was only about an hour after that -- hour before that. He scolded Iran over a report that they're charging fees for tankers. And if they're doing it, they better stop.

And the reality is, right now, the strait is barely moving. Only a few ships have passed through since the ceasefire was announced, even though the United States says it's officially supposed to be reopened.

Now, as for Iran, the official representing their delegation in Saturday's talks is putting the entire situation this way: Time is running out. With an hourglass. He says Lebanon must be part of the ceasefire.

But Israel is still striking Lebanon. And the president says he told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, cool it. He gave this statement to NBC News. "I spoke with Bibi and he's going to low-key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low-key." Well, is your head spinning yet? Netanyahu says that he is ordering direct talks with Lebanon, but it's not clear if this was the low-key Trump had in mind.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL (through translator): I want to tell you, there is no ceasefire in Lebanon. We are continuing to strike Hezbollah with force, and we will not stop until we restore your security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, the table is set in Islamabad. But the terms? Well, that depends on who you ask. With me now, former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller, and the senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Behnam Ben Taleblu. Glad to have both of you here. I'll begin with you, Aaron David, because you brokered peace agreements during your 25 years at the State Department. Where does this supposed ceasefire stand as we speak now?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: You know -- thanks, Laura. It's great to be here with you and Ben. Look, my record is largely unsuccessful, but I would argue to you that I've never really seen a negotiation quite like this.

I just made three basic points on why we need to keep our expectations under control. Number one, there's no trust or confidence. And as a track record, clearly in terms of Iranian perceptions, that the United States is an instrument of negotiation. So, that's a problem.

Number two, a successful negotiation depends on shared urgency. Both the parties need to be at least under some sense that there is an urgency to conclude these negotiations. I think the Iranians are in no hurry. They think they're winning, and they detect on the part of the Trump administration a real risk readiness to conclude a deal.

[23:05:00]

They know the president wants out. He wants out on the cheap and the Iranians, I suspect, are not going to let him out.

And then, finally, you have the reality of the issues on the table: Proxies, limits on ballistic missiles, and nuclear issue. I mean, there will be a real heavy lift. And, again, two speeds on this, Laura, slow and slower.

COATES: Well, Behnam, I mean, thinking about the sticking points, one of them being Lebanon, that's a key sticking point in the ceasefire deal, you've got Netanyahu saying that he has ordered direct talks with Lebanon, but then Lebanese officials say that they have not been invited to talk to Israel in D.C. That's happening just next week. So, I mean, is there even enough goodwill between Israel and Lebanon to initiate any negotiations in good faith, given how much of a sticking point this really is?

BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF IRAN PROGRAM, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, excellent question. And great to be with you in studio, Laura, as well as with Aaron. I think you hit the nail right there on the head, particularly in your opener, which proposal, which kind of framework is setting the table for these kinds of negotiations, and to whom was Lebanon promised.

You know, the Iranians and the Pakistanis are saying that America had made that promise. The Israelis and Americans first said no, that they were actually disconnected, two totally separate theaters. I think this gets at the Islamic public sensing an opportunity. Again, I think they have lost on the battlefield, staying alive. Survival is not victory, even though some are keen to make it victory for them. Victory is something else.

But now, they're keen to try to make President Trump pay a high price at the negotiating table when they couldn't extract an even higher price on the battlefield. And this is a strong suit that even the president and the vice president, who is headed to Islamabad, has actually said that these guys may not win on the battlefield, but they do win at the negotiating table.

And the fact that America already has said what President Trump said, which is to go low-key on Lebanon. Then, of course, you have the State Department saying that, oh, there will be negotiations allegedly between Israel and Lebanon, the government in Beirut, here in Washington next week.

All of these signals that the Iranians touched a nerve, that the Iranians understood that America wants some sort of agreement, wants some sort of deconfliction deal. And now, they raised the price and brought Lebanon in.

COATES: Well, they hit a nerve, and they also control a chokehold, being Strait of Hormuz at this point in time. Aaron David, the president says that he asked Netanyahu, here's that phrase again, to be more low-key on Lebanon. Israel just launched new strikes against Hezbollah today. The official expected to lead the Iranian delegation this weekend is warning that time is running out. So, I mean, how does this impact any peace talks given the ongoing nature of the conflict?

MILLER: I mean, look, the president has tremendous leverage over Benjamin Netanyahu largely because 2026 is going be very important year for the prime minister. The government goes to term in October. He's vulnerable and not terribly popular. He needs President Trump's support.

So, if the president pressed prime minister, he has begun to do that, but I'm not sure he's willing to bring that kind of pressure on the Israelis until he has a much greater sense that the Iranians are serious about the one quid pro quo that he really needs to get out of this, and that is a relaxation of the managerial regime that the Iranians have imposed on the strait. That's, it seems to me, critically important.

Iranians have deployed a powerful weapon geography. And they've deployed it in a way that not only bad for the United States, it has held the international community, the global economy hostage. So, if the Iranians give a sense that they really are prepared to open up the strait for a cessation of hostilities, then I think a phone call from Trump and Netanyahu is going to be, look, we got to de-escalate in Lebanon, the broader issues here always go back at some point, but we got to get this deal done.

Right now, these negotiations between the Israelis and Lebanese, assuming they happen, are largely performative. They will be at ambassadorial level. Being United States, maybe next -- maybe next week, maybe not.

COATES: OK.

MILLER: The real conversation on Lebanon will happen between the prime minister and Donald Trump.

COATES: Another conversation interests me, Ben, and that's the president telling NBC that he's very optimistic about the successful prospect of these peace talks. And he's discussing almost that the Iranian leadership is performing one way in the public eye, and then behind closed doors and private talks, much more reasonable. Do you think that's the reality?

TALEBLU: Well, there is precedent for the Iranian government saying one thing and doing another. In fact, there's a 47-year-long precedent of that. But at the same time, when it comes to America and the war, these guys, believe it or not, despite the military defeat that has been imposed on them, they still think the fact that they're able to get America to express this level of eagerness for a deal, that they can try to milk this.

The problem here that they're going to run into is that they love to play for time, be it on the battlefield or at the negotiating table.

[23:10:02] COATES: Why?

TALEBLU: Because they think that time is a weapon that they can use to extract more concessions, to increase the political pressure on whoever they're shooting at or negotiating with.

But in this case, they haven't learned that President Trump is impatient, both at the negotiating table and on the battlefield. And if they try to, you know, do what they've done in the past, which is to say one thing publicly, say another privately, they will cause this kind of confusion that you see right now existing over the status of the strait, existing over the potential inclusion of Lebanon in a ceasefire, and existing over the missile and drone war still over the GCC countries.

And when they're after that confusion, I think Donald Trump is going to react very, very differently than your run-of-the-mill American president. And it's there that the Iranians will overplay their hand and potentially lead with their chin.

COATES: He already is performing differently. Aaron David Miller, Behnam Ben Taleblu, thank you both so much.

And as you heard, the president is enraged about the status of the Strait of Hormuz tonight. So, I want to get some perspective on what's actually happening there. Sal Mercogliano is a former merchant mariner and now a maritime historian at Campbell University. He's also the host of the YouTube show "What's Going on with Shipping?" Well, you are the man to ask the question about, Sal, because the Iranians say the strait is open, but it sounds like the U.S. thinks the strait is closed. So, what's the status? Are ships actually going through it?

SAL MERCOGLIANO, MARITIME HISTORIAN AT CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY, YOUTUBE SHOW HOST: Well, thanks for having me, Laura. No, ships are not going through it. What we're seeing happen is basically what we've seen happening over the past month. Very few ships coming through. The few that are coming through are largely Iranians ships or link to Iran in some way. The big announcement today, obviously, was the formalization of that toll booth that Iran has set up between Larak and Qeshm islands and announcing that the center of the strait, the normal traffic pattern which I sail through many years ago, is now closed and off limits.

COATES: You know, Iran also released a map of the strait, claiming that part of it has mines, and they're creating alternative routes that are within their territorial waters. Is that enough to reassure the tankers that they could go through knowing that they're identifying areas that are perilous?

MERCOGLIANO: Not really. I mean, one of the problems traveling through that region in the past has been harassment by the IRGC of shipping. It was very common to get called on the radio or have their vessels come out. A lot of fear talking to mariners just recently about having to go through those straits, being harassed by the IRGC, and actually going into Iranian territorial waters. You're putting the vessel really at the exposure of the Iranian government. And I think for a lot of mariners, they were looking forward to heading out. I mean, there are a lot of ships starting to move toward the straights. But, again, what they need to do is get some sort of guarantee of safety, and safety by the Iranians is not really what they want.

COATES: Of course, that instability is one of ways that Iran can control without physical control, right? That's part of the entire premise of their leverage at the moment in time. The president is telling Iran tonight to stop charging tolls, to your larger point, tolls to cross the strait, and saying -- quote -- "They better stop now." Now, there is maritime law that governs the strait technically. I don't know where in that technically we're going to follow it, period. But is Iran even allowed to charge these tolls assuming they want to honor maritime law?

MERCOGLIANO: No. You're exactly right, Laura. The U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea, which unfortunately both Iran or the United States is not a signatory to but most of the nations of the world are, specifically states that you cannot control an international strait even though part of the straits in the territorial waters of Iran and the other part is in Oman because this kind of leads into a gulf where other nations have access to. You can't close it. You can't charge a toll with it either. This isn't the Panama or Suez Canal where you have to maintain it, dredge it, and use pilots.

So, this has been a really big issue. And there's fear that if Iran sets this precedent of charging a toll through an international strait, other nations may do it.

COATES: I assume they're even willing to pay it. Sal Mercogliano, thank you so much.

MERCOGLIANO: Thank you.

COATES: Next, the first lady, Melania Trump, stunned, I mean just about everyone with a rare and sudden statement about, of all things, Jeffrey Epstein. The big question, why now? And what does she want from Epstein's survivors? Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury from the committee investigating it all will be with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: First Lady Melania Trump, did she make a stunning statement today or what? I mean, it caught everyone off guard and threw the Jeffrey Epstein scandal right back into the spotlight because, for the first time, she spoke publicly about the convicted sex offender and denied having any type of relationship with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach. To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:19:58]

COATES: And from the White House, she went a step further and blasted online rumors connecting her to Epstein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I have never had any knowledge of Epstein abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity. I was not a participant, was never on Epstein's plane, and never visited his private island. I have never been legally accused or convinced of a crime in connection with Epstein sex trafficking, abuse of minors, and other repulsive behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, President Trump has called the Epstein scandal a hoax. But today, it was the first lady encouraging Congress to keep investigating.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in one of those investigators now, New Mexico Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury. She sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman, thank you. First, I have to ask because I think many people who are watching today were thinking what triggered this. What was the event that precipitated this statement? What is going on as to the why now? What did you make of this statement by the first lady, a rare one, at that?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): I mean, the whole thing is so bizarre from day one. The entire thing has been so bizarre with Donald Trump and his entire constellation of associates, including his wife and the Epstein scandal. You know, I think my initial reaction was I didn't even understand what her statement was meant to convey. Obviously, she is trying to dissociate herself from Jeffrey Epstein.

COATES: And yet people are still wondering the underlying question of why now and whether this has triggered your committee to want to hear more from her. Has your committee ever wanted to hear her testimony and do you think that she expects this to be in lieu of that? STANSBURY: I mean, in all of our conversations within the committee, there has never been a moment in which we, in any of the conversations I've been in, have called for Melania to testify. But, certainly, we would like her president, her husband, to testify in front of the committee, and I think Democrats on the committee have been very clear about that. You know --

COATES: Well, congresswoman, hold on. Even with conversations, I want to hear your two things, but even when there are conversations around --

STANSBURY: Yes.

COATES: -- having the former first lady and secretary of state and Senator Hillary Clinton testify, there were never discussions even among your other colleagues about having the current first lady testify?

STANSBURY: Not in conversations that I've been in. I mean, certainly, I will say this, that the committee wants to hear from anybody who has information about Epstein, but her name is not at the top of the list. There is a whole list of perpetrators who committed crimes against women and girls. There's a whole list of co-conspirators. There's Donald Trump, who is named by Jane Doe in the files. She was not at the top of the list that we were currently looking at deposing. And so, I think this makes her statement all the more strange.

COATES: The first lady did call on Congress to let survivors testify in public under oath, but some survivors did push back, saying they have -- quote -- "already shown extraordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports, and giving testimony. Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility, not justice." Congresswoman, do you agree with them?

STANSBURY: You know, I'll just say this. I was actually on a call with the survivors just moments after she gave that statement, and one of the survivors said that they felt personally offended by her statement because they felt like it was essentially saying that the survivor -- it was on the survivors to come give public testimony and it's on them to tell their stories again to the American people.

And the entire point of this case is that there has been a miscarriage of justice for decades. The U.S. Department of Justice has failed to investigate and to prosecute these cases. We've called for public hearings hundreds of times. We've asked for Comer to bring the attorney general in front of the committee. He has yet to produce. Former A.G. Pam Bondi, who is now trying to get out of it.

[23:25:01]

We want to hear from Todd Blanche. We want to hear from anyone who has been involved in covering up this case. I think that what the survivors are trying to say here is we gave sworn statements, we talked to the FBI, we lived our trauma to see these individuals prosecuted who committed crimes against us. And so, they want to see prosecutions. They want to see the Epstein files turned into Epstein files.

And while we appreciate that the first lady is weighing in and asking for public hearings, absolutely, we need public hearings, but the people that we need in front of the committee, if the survivors would like to testify publicly, absolutely, we want to hear their stories. But many of them don't want to testify publicly. They've already told their stories to law enforcement. We want to hear from the law enforcement who have yet to prosecute these cases.

COATES: Whom she did not mention in her statement today. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, thank you.

STANSBURY: Thank you so much.

COATES: So, did the president know the first lady was about to do this? And put the one story he doesn't want to talk about right back in the spotlight? New reporting and insight on that from a former White House insider is ahead. Plus, the war within the war. Trump and his former MAGA allies now locked in a vicious back and forth over his handling of Iran. Is it a fight he can win? We'll debate it, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I'm certainly clear that this new Donald Trump is somebody we shouldn't support, and I'm not. So, I'm energetically opposing him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, did he know or didn't he? A source tells CNN President Trump knew First Lady Melania Trump intended to deliver remarks today, though the president told MS NOW the surprise statement that he did not know anything about it ahead of time.

I want to bring in former Trump White House deputy secretary, Sarah Matthews. Chief Washington correspondent for the MeidasTouch network, Scott McFarlane, is also here as well. Glad to have both of you. Of course, this is a strange day, I have to tell you, when I turned on the television and saw the first lady discussing this. I mean, as someone who knows firsthand, Sarah, how the White House press shop work, is it reasonable to think that the president did or did not have a heads up that that was going to happen?

SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: If I was a betting woman, I would put money on the fact that the president did not have a heads up and neither did the White House press team.

I think that Melania Trump is someone who just does what she wants to do, and it's Melania's world. And so, I think that she went out there and she was thinking, everyone is talking about this story. It's like when something embarrassing happens to you and you think, oh, everyone is thinking about it, everyone is talking about it, and then you acknowledge it, and everyone is like, actually, no one was thinking about it until you just said it.

I think that's what happened here. I think that in her mind, she wanted to address this because she thought it was this big story even though she wasn't really largely attached to the conversation surrounding Trump with the Epstein files. And so, she wanted to go out there and try to clear her name.

But what I thought was most notable was that she made no attempt to defend her husband at all during that press conference. But I do think --

COATES: Well, she did say that they had overlapped in circles, trying to state that the presence near Epstein would have been, you know, coincidental.

MATTHEWS: Yes. But I do think that it wasn't this big defense of him --

COATES: Yes.

MATTHEWS: -- and it seemed like more solely focused on clearing her own name. And I think that kind of also shows that maybe she didn't give her husband a head up there because I'm sure he would have wanted her to defend him more forcefully in the press conference.

COATES: Or say nothing at all as she has been trying to get the story out of the news. But you have been talking to Epstein survivors and following this story very closely as well. What have they told you about the first lady suggesting that they testify publicly? They've been on the Hill. They've been advocating for months and months and months. I mean, years.

SCOTT MCFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH: One Epstein survivor, Danielle Bensky, texted to say, that was just bizarre. Because you know who else didn't know this was coming? The Epstein survivors, and the members of Congress who have been championing transparency on this, and the attorneys representing the Epstein survivors.

If there is a desire by the first lady for the Epstein survivors to be heard, I mean, what if like to have been heard before she spoke because yes, they're keen on talking to Congress, but there are some concerns there about would there be some legal exposure involved with that, is the setting in the environment and the topic correct.

And the first lady need not tell Congress what to do. From Congress's perspective, they know what they want to have hearings on. They don't need the White House's authorization to have a hearing on this. And there's a sense here, least among the survivors, that if you're going to pawn this off on Congress to have a hearing for the survivors, you are disclaiming any responsibility for putting out the records you still have yet to put out from the files.

COATES: And, of course, not looking at this in a vacuum, it was just a day and a half ago that the Department of Justice is saying they don't want to make Pam Bondi available for subpoenaed testimony in front of Congress. We'll talk about that more.

But, Sarah, I mean, I heard Melania Trump's former top aide, Stephanie Grisham, say that Melania does everything strategically. Was there a strategy, you think, here that is advantageous to Trump more broadly, let alone Melania Trump?

[23:34:58]

MATTHEWS: I really don't think that there was much strategy behind this because if you're looking at it, we were all joking how Trump started this war with Iran to distract from the Epstein files. And we stopped talking about the Epstein files largely because --

COATES: He made that point at one -- yes.

MATTHEWS: And then now, it has been reinjected back into the news cycle because of this press conference. And I think, too, choosing to do this big press conference also made it feel like this big production, which kind of felt silly because I feel like she could have just simply put out a statement when these stories were coming out and it wouldn't have been this big thing that we are still talking about.

And so, yes, I do think there is a strategy in the sense that maybe she was preempting something. Maybe there's a story about to drop that is going to link her potentially to the Epstein files and she had a heads up and wanted to preempt it. But, to me, I think that this just comes off as self-preservation. I think that she was only thinking really about herself and not about how the impact would be on her husband and putting this news story back into the news cycle that he does not want to be talking about.

COATES: Well, one thing the president has been talking about, he unleashed a string of insults against MAGA influencers in nearly 500- word posts for opposing him on the war in Iran. He says Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens and Alex Jones -- quote -- "have one thing in common, low IQs. They're stupid people. They know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too." He's also going after "The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board" and, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene as well. He says they're all the opposite of MAGA. The list I just given you seems synonymous for many people thinking about MAGA.

MCFARLANE: It would be a new fight to be with MAGA, a new fight because he already raised all these expectations among his most ardent supporters that, by this time, he would have arrested and jailed all those people who rigged the 2020 election, which wasn't rigged, or the people who staged January 6th, which wasn't staged, and he hasn't made those arrests. So, he raised expectations, and then he confounded those expectations and disappointed some subset of his supporters. He has found a new front now in Iran to disappoint his supporters.

And to the point Sarah just made, if the first lady is trying to preemptively diffuse a journalistic bomb that's coming on the Epstein files, I know a lot of good P.R. practitioners whou would say, you don't diffuse a bomb by calling attention to the bomb that's about to come and land on you.

COATES: That's a good point. I mean, also, there's a lot of pushback on the president in general, the area that he wants to be talking about, which is Iran. Listen to all that has been compiled. This is a sliver, frankly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: There will be nothing like it. Open the effing strait. How dare you speak that way on Easter morning to the country? Who do you think you are?

MEGYN KELLY, SIRIUSXM TALK SHOW HOST: The president -- 3D chess -- shut up. (Bleep) shut up about that (bleep.) You don't threaten to wipe out an entire civilization.

ALEX JONES, CONSPIRACY THEORIST, RADIO SHOW HOST: How do we 25th Amendment his (bleep)?

UNKNOWN: The problem is to get the 25th Amendment is harder than impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, how do you measure the backlash and sort of quantify with an eye towards the impact on elections among supporters of Trump? Well, you don't really hear lot of Republicans on the Hill who are speaking out.

MATTHEWS: Yes. That's what's so interesting is, when Trump put out that statement threatening to annihilate, you know, the entire Iranian civilization. The strongest pushback that he got from the right was from these far-right influencers.

And whether you want to say that they're doing it because they're being authentic to the MAGA principles and values of, you know, Trump saying that he wasn't going to get us into another endless Middle East war or if they're just doing it because they smell blood in the water and they want to get out ahead of him because he's this lame duck president, I just found it astounding that on the right, you didn't have the politicians coming out and condemning him largely. There were not many of them.

And many of them have just fallen in line, including the vice president, J.D. Vance, someone who said that he was adamantly against regime change in Iran and now has to go out there and sell this war to the American people. And it's largely unpopular. And I think that's why you're seeing these far-right influencers now coming out and feeling the courage to be able to attack the president because they know that the American people are unhappy with him starting this unnecessary war.

COATES: Quickly, Scott, you're on the Hill every single day, are you hearing Republicans grieve in private and gripe in private and just silent in public?

MCFARLANE: Democrat Seth Moulton, military veteran, says that's exactly what's happening. The Republicans are saying behind closed doors, we thought this was a good idea, but it's not. We haven't heard that declaratively in public. There has been an awful lot of silence from an awful lot of Republicans on those social media posts from Trump about blowing up the civilization.

COATES: Sarah, Scott, both thank you so much. An update ahead on a mystery at sea that's been getting national and international attention. American woman vanishing in the Bahamas after her husband says she fell off their boat. The husband denying any wrongdoing. But tonight, he is in police custody. And his stepdaughter is speaking out, next.

[23:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARLI AYLESWORTH, DAUGHTER OF MISSING AMERICAN LYNETTE HOOKER: He was important in my life, and I don't want to believe that he did something like this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, there's a mystery tonight that's getting a lot of attention. So, I want to walk you through what's going on. Brian Hooker says that his wife fell off their boat in the Bahamas. The police say he is a suspect in her disappearance. Now, this all started Saturday night. Brian Hooker says that strong currents carried away his wife, Lynette. He says he couldn't reach her, and he drifted for hours in the water until he reached land where he then alerted authorities. But Lynette's daughter doesn't seem to be buying his story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYLESWORTH: Why wouldn't he drop anchor and look for her? Why did he paddle the other way? If my -- if my significant other fell into the water, I'd be freaking out and going after him.

[23:45:02]

Like, I wouldn't just buy. I'd be out in the middle of the ocean with you. At least we'll be, you know, alive and together. Someone would look for us eventually. But just -- just doesn't make sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Lynette's daughter also alleges that her mom's marriage was turbulent and at times violent, and that her mother confided that Brian Hooker choked her, an allegation CNN has not been able to corroborate. Brian Hooker has not been charged with anything as of now. His lawyer tells CNN he -- quote -- "categorically and unequivocally denies any wrongdoing, including allegations made by Lynette's daughter."

I'm joined now by private investigator TJ Ward, who worked on the 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba. TJ, glad to have your experience here because Brian Hooker's lawyer told CNN he has been interviewed as a witness, and he is cooperating with the police. The police told Reuters he was arrested as a suspect. So, what kind of scrutiny, do you think, he's under right now?

TJ WARD, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WHO WORKED WITH NATALEE HOLLOWAY FAMILY: Well, you have to understand, when somebody goes missing or is a death in a case, when you have a significant other, the first thing they're going to look at is that significant other. And they're going to take and look at him. They're going to look for somebody else that may be involved with him. They're going to look at bank accounts, computers. They're going to look at anything that might tie him in to what's going on.

And the mere fact that there's family members saying he was -- had violence and so on and so forth and there were problems in his marriage, that probably brought law enforcement to bringing him into custody and taking him. He hasn't been charged yet. But these are things that they're looking.

One of the good things about this case in the Bahamas is that the United States government is now involved and looking for the wife and so on and so forth. And so, these are things they're going to corroborate.

And I would love to have an opportunity. I have a system called Layered Voice Analysis. It's a 21st century truth technology with law enforcement use and corporate security. I'm the only private investigator licensed to use it in the United States. And it's 95 percent accurate. I would love to be able to sit down and talk to him and see where he's telling the truth and where he's not telling the truth.

COATES: That would be very intriguing to think about that. Obviously, the police are looking into that. As you mentioned, they're going to at least examine and consider the credibility of any allegation of violence in the past.

WARD: That's right.

COATES: But even if those allegations are proven true, as you and I both know, they can't necessarily prove that there has been an intent to kill, but it will be part of an overall discussion. Lynette's family says that they want -- they want a thorough investigation, of course. They want to know what happened. And I want to play a little bit more from her own daughter. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYLESWORTH: I just want to know the truth. I don't want him to be in trouble. I don't actually want -- I just hope this was a freak accident, but I don't want it to just be swept under the rug. So, I like to just know. And I don't want anything bad to happen to him. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, when it's a family member, you mentioned the idea of a spouse or somebody who's present on the scene where somebody has gone missing, there's going to be heightened scrutiny. Do you think that there's even more scrutiny when it's a family member or is there more of a benefit of the doubt extended? What do you think? What has been your experience?

WARD: I think it's -- I think law enforcement is going to take it very seriously, to look at allegations of that, that may have happened. The whole situation about, you know, I think that the boat key and her going in the water, then him going in the water, and he say she was caught in a wave and so on and so forth, all this needs to be looked at. They'll look at weather conditions to see if there really was that traumatic situation that he claims there was. So, there's a whole lot of things that are going on here.

COATES: Right.

WARD: And you have to take consideration that this is a case in the Bahamas. So, they know and they've worked on cases like this, people falling off boats and people have drowned and so on and so forth. So, if she's in the water and they find her, this may be a good thing for them to, you know, after the fact, if something has happened, to see how and how she died, if there were any marks on her or any trauma, so on and so forth. So, this all is going to take into consideration. And I believe that with the United States Coast Guard being in there, there's a good chance they will find her, and then we'll get answers and find out exactly what transpired.

COATES: The agony of the family is in as they wait. TJ Ward, thank you.

WARD: You're very welcome.

[23:49:57]

COATES: Under 24 hours now until the splashdown for the Artemis II crew, perhaps the most dangerous part of the mission yet. All this as America gets ready to welcome home NASA's newest stars, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR GLOVER, PILOT, ARTEMIS II: We're going to come into the atmosphere at about almost 40 times the speed of sound, and then we will slow down to a 20-mile an hour touchdown into the Pacific.

[23:54:57]

If it was a ballistic, we could get up to as high as 9, 10G's, which is what you pull in a fighter jet, but we could be doing that for several minutes, for eight or nine minutes. And so, the G profile is going to be pretty sporty. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's one way to put it. We're now about T minus 20 hours from the Artemis II cruise splashing down in the Pacific to cap off their 10-day journey to the moon and back. And here's more of what that return is actually going to look like. Their capsule could reach a whopping 25,000 miles per hour, and the surface heat could hit a scorching 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. So, what will that feel like for the four astronauts inside the Orion?

Joining me now is former NASA mission specialist, Astronaut Jose Hernandez. So glad to have you on. I mean, just hearing those numbers, unbelievable. When you went to space in 2009, you returned on the space shuttle. You glided in, you landed. This crew is splashing down in a capsule, really. What is that going to be like inside of that? And how do they prepare?

JOSE HERNANDEZ, FORMER MISSION SPECIALIST, NASA: That's correct, Laura. It's a bit sportier than coming down with a shuttle. You come in with much more energy and you sort of do -- it's not a ballistic entry, but you sort of -- you skip the atmosphere a couple times before you come in and you do that to bleed off energy. And you could kind of think of it as when you throw a rock in the water and it skips, it's losing energy along the way, then it finally comes in.

And they're going to pull 4 to 6 G's on the way down, and then the parachutes are deployed, and then lo and behold, they slow down quite a bit where they land on the ocean, and they wait for the Navy and NASA ships to rescue them.

You feel pretty bad when you come back, 1G re-adaptation. And so, being in the ocean with those waves, I kind of feel sorry for them because they're going to say, hurry up, Navy, get us out of the ocean.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I can't even do a roller coaster. What you just said blew my mind. I can't even imagine. No wonder people talk about the peril involved. I mean, during the unmanned 2022 Artemis I mission, the heat shield took unexpected damage during reentry. And NASA has made changes. And they're confident, they say, that the crew is not in danger.

But some astronauts do feel differently. You have Charlie Camarda, who says NASA should never have launched Artemis II. The agency does not understand well enough the chances that the heat shield might fail. I mean, that's very daunting. We've all fallen in love with these astronauts and all that they've done. Do you share these concerns?

HERNANDEZ: Not as bad as Charlie, not to the point of saying, hey, we can't launch because if we were worried about this every time, we would never send humans into space. Space is not trivial. It's dangerous. We believe we mitigated the effects of Artemis I by reinforcing the heat shields. So, we believe it's safe and our crew is going to be OK. I believe they're going to be OK. COATES: We can't wait to see them touch down. The Artemis II crew, I mean, they have been receiving praise all across the country. I mean, it's a big and a positive moment at a time when here on Earth, look, things feel really uncertain and the escapism is at an all-time high. So, why do you think this mission has captured so much attention?

HERNANDEZ: Well, I think it has captured so much attention because it has been over 53 years since we've last been out. And you recall, when we went to the moon back then, you look at the history books, we went because of political reasons. We want to beat the Russians to the surface of the moon. Our technology wasn't as well developed as it is today. Now, it makes sense to go back, establish a long-duration lunar base, so we can test technologies that we are going to need to go to Mars and beyond. So, it's going to be a test bed, Laura.

COATES: The crew, they answered questions from members of Congress tonight, Jose. They were asked about what the next generation should take from this mission. Listen to what Victor Glover had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLOVER: I hope this mission is giving you something that you can take and put in your pocket or in your heart and mind that you keep with you. But it's not because we want you to see what we've tried to show you. It's because we want you to take this and build a vocabulary to explain the world to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What an inspirational message. What do you think?

HERNANDEZ: Well, you know, I love what Victor says. I'll tell you something, Laura. You know that last mission Apollo 17 back in 1972 December? Imagine a 10-year-old kid holding on to the rabbit ear antennas to improve reception, watching the black and white images, and then going outside and seeing the moon almost full.

[00:00:01]

That was me. That's what inspired me to become an astronaut, Laura. So, imagine how many kids were inspiring seeing Victor there, seeing Christine, seeing the rest of the astronauts there. I think it's great.

COATES: Me, too. Jose Hernandez, thank you. And hey, everyone, don't miss CNN's special coverage tomorrow when the Artemis II astronauts return to Earth. That's going to start at 7 p.m. Eastern on CNN or the CNN app. Thank you all for watching. Here comes Elex Michaelson with "The Story Is."