Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

U.S. Blocks Strait Of Hormuz After Talks With Iran Collapse; Swalwell To Resign From Congress Amid Sexual Misconduct Claims; Trump Claims Jesus-Like Image He Posted Was Him "As A Doctor"; Husband Of Missing Woman In The Bahamas Released After Days Of Questioning. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 13, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Now, it is not immediately clear when either resignation will ultimately take effect.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, Trump tries to flip the script on Iran, blocking the Strait of Hormuz in a bid to get it reopened. The big question is, will it work? Plus, Congressman Eric Swalwell set to resign from the House in disgrace after mounting sexual assault allegations. And now, the director of the FBI is weighing in. And Trump feuds with the pope? The Trump social media post has created an outcry over an A.I. image depicting the president as Jesus. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, what do you call it when talks don't end with the deal that you wanted, but the fighting doesn't fully resume? Well, apparently, you might call that a blockade. President Trump is upping the ante in the Strait of Hormuz. He is sealing off Iranian ports backed by U.S. Military firepower. He is threatening to blow up any Iranian ships that come near it. And he says, America may not be going at it alone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is it your anticipation, Mr. President, that other countries will assist in this effort to blockade Iran --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Yes, other countries are going to also --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Which countries, sir?

TRUMP: We don't need other countries, frankly. But they've offered their services. We'll let it -- we'll let it be known probably tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: We've heard something similar before. A few weeks ago, in fact, Trump claimed other nations would help escort ships through the strait. But at the time, he didn't name any. And he ended up railing against NATO allies after they didn't budge on actual military commitments.

Either way, the United States has some serious force it could use. The Navy has at least 15 ships in the region, and this blockade seems intended to crank up the pressure on Iran without somehow blowing up the two-week ceasefire.

Now, tonight, we're learning negotiations don't appear to be completely sidelined even though both sides did leave Pakistan over the weekend without a deal. Sources say that Trump is open to resuming in-person talks if -- if he thinks Iran is ready to submit to his demands. And the Vice President, J.D. Vance, is suggesting that Iran has not abandoned the negotiating table.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: As the ball really is in their court, we've made clear we're willing, again, to be accommodating, and we've made clear where we absolutely need to see the nuclear material come out of the country of Iran.

What we figured out is that they were unable, I think the team that was there, one that was unable to cut a deal, and they had to go back to Tehran, either from the supreme leader or somebody else, and actually get approval to the terms that we had said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The devil, apparently, in the details. Tonight, a source is telling CNN that during talks this past weekend, the U.S. asked Iran for a 20-year suspension of uranium enrichment. And the Iranians responded with a proposal for a five-year suspension. Now, we're told the U.S. has rejected that offer. So, if a deal is possible, there's still plenty of daylight, 15 years of daylight, at least.

But he asked the president, he is still insisting he is, in his words, sure a deal will happen. Unless, well, it doesn't.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. And we agreed to a lot of things, but they didn't agree to that. And I think they will agree to it. I'm almost sure of it. In fact, I am sure of it. If they don't agree, there is no deal. There will never be a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, I want to make sense of the 45th day of the Iran war with my experts who are here with me now, CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk, he was the Middle East and North Africa coordinator at the National Security Council during the Biden administration, and Alex Vatanka, who is senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Glad to have both of you here.

I'll begin with you, Alex, because the U.S. and Iran, they are still abiding by the ceasefire. Two weeks, it's supposed to last. The president says that Iran wants a deal. How does this blockade, though, impact the efforts to get there?

ALEX VATANKA, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Look, if you want to get Iran's attention, this is one way of doing it. And the United States right now doesn't want to go down the path of military escalation. This is probably one of the better options you have to get Iran's attention. But look, end of the day, this blockade, it's early days to judge when it's going to be very effective in terms of really doing damage to the Iranians.

[23:05:00]

And it's certainly not going to happen in the course of days or weeks. Just to give you an example, Iran has about two months' worth of exporting of oil in tankers around the world. So, they've kind of prepared for this. But, again, I want to go back. If you want to put pressure on Iran, this is actually not a bad way of putting pressure on Iran.

COATES: I mean, they have leverage with the strait. This removes that leverage if it's blockaded and they can't be making the money they've been making so far.

But you have had experience, Brett, in negotiating with some of the same Iran officials who were in Pakistan over the weekend. I am curious given that both sides seem to be open to a second meeting in person or otherwise. What would you advise happen during a second round of talks?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, if you step back a week ago, we're in a major war. And here we are. We just had the highest-level meeting between the United States and Iran since the 1979 revolution. So, keep that in mind.

The Iranians showed up as they always do. They know they're a weaker power. They understand negotiations. A negotiation that leverages, as you were just talking. They want leverage. They can come in. They're holding hostages. They take shots at our troops. Here, they came into Pakistan, and they basically said, we're controlling the Strait of Hormuz. I know you Americans think that for a ceasefire, we're going to open the Strait of Hormuz. We're going to control it. Our ships will go through and ships that we say will go through. That's what they were holding on to. And they think that puts great pressure on the United States because of the economic pressure.

And I think it was smart to flip the script. We sent two destroyers through the strait during those talks. That's a very important symbolic move. And then I think it's good you walk away from the talks. Hey, you have our offer, we're going to walk away, and then you announce this blockade. It's not really a blockade. It's basically saying, Iran, your ships are not going to move, and we're going to work to open the international strait, so you're not going benefit from this current status quo. Now, it's a high-risk play, but kind of resets the table.

And then today --

COATES: Describe why it's so high-risk because -- what is the risk of the Iran's reaction?

MCGURK: Well, high risk for two. Number one, it could really bottle up the strait. Nothing could get out for some time, and that's going to increase economic pressure. But Iran could choose to contest the blockade militarily. So, they could take a shot at our ship, they could take a shot at Gulf infrastructure, then we're back in the military conflict. Now, I think we're doing a lot to deter that.

But what is so interesting here, Laura, is that these talks are still ongoing. And when I assess, you know, where are we in a negotiation, I always go back to first principles. Is there a zone of a possible agreement, a ZOPA? And if what is just reported is right, that we say 20 years, Iran says five years, you're in a ZOPA. Now, whether or not that's -- those are the right parameters we should ask for? But that means we might be working our way here towards an end game.

And this pressure on Iran in the strait will bite. It will start to bite. And China also. It has China's attention because those oil tankers were going through that Iranian corridor, which is now shut. So, you know, let's see. Let's see.

COATES: Yes.

MCGURK: Right now, the ceasefire is holding. It goes until April 21st. Let's hope it holds. It might be extended. And these talks will be going on behind the scenes. So, I don't think it's a bad spot.

COATES: I mean, that's -- the 21st is Tuesday, next Tuesday, by the way. So, we're not talking about a lot of time to be able to get back to the negotiating table, decrease that daylight between the 20 and the 5 for the Iranian enrichment.

Then you got the U.K. prime minister, who is saying the country will not join in in any blockade which, of course, is always better to have. You know, greater numbers to have that show of force, perhaps. Other European allies are saying the same. So, can the U.S. possibly pull the strategic aspect of a blockade off alone?

VATANKA: You know, to be honest, at this point, I agree with Brett, this is a good move, but it still has to prove itself as a mechanism to actually deliver it in end of the day.

I mean, let me give you one example. The Chinese that get 90 percent of the oil from Iran, if they decide that they're actually going to escort some of their tankers in and out of Iran with their military muscle, and they have military capabilities in the region, not obviously anything like the United States, this isn't something they have done in the past, but they could. They could demonstrate that they actually don't want the United States to, you know, decide everything in this instance. So, that creates its own question, given the United States president is going to be going to China soon. So -- and I would point out another thing. So much of the focus is on the south which is, historically, where Iranian trade gets in and out. But there is plenty of opportunity for the Iranians to redirect their trade going elsewhere.

So, in the long term, what does that mean for the coalition building, which you really need to do if you're Washington? Has the real work been put in that effort to get the Turks, the Central Asians, others to come board if you really think this is a long-term strategy? Probably right now is not the case. Right now, put pressure on Iran to the next round of talks in the next few days or weeks.

COATES: How is that being communicated to China? Are they --

MCGURK: I don't think China is going to contest this. I think this gets China's attention, not in the immediate term, but they need the oil that comes out of the -- out of the Gulf.

[23:10:00]

They thought they had a good deal with Iran because Iran had this corridor, which we're now shutting down. And they're -- and they're looking -- they want that summit to be a big success on May 14, 15 when President Trump visits. So -- and China can put pressure on Iran. That is a big pressure card on Iran. So, again, we'll see --

COATES: Would the pressure be heated, though?

MCGURK: It would be basically telling Iran, do the deal. We want a deal. We want this over before President Trump gets to Beijing, so do the deal. I'm sure we're talking to the Chinese, too.

But, you know, on our allies, now is the time to get ships through that strait. There's a ceasefire like we just did with two destroyers. It takes a long time for ships, of course, to get there. It's difficult to build these naval coalitions. Done them in the Red Sea. The Brits and the French don't ever want to work together. They built separate coalitions. It's really hard work. But what we're hearing from London is that they're prepared to come in and help once the war is over. That doesn't really make much sense. I mean, now is the time to come and try to help open the strait.

COATES: Well, it would make sense. They believe for themselves. They don't support being involved quite yet. Should they make a different decision based on what is ahead?

MCGURK: I'm old-fashioned. I believe in coalition building. Any time we're about to get involved in military operation, we should do the legwork to bring our allies on board. That was not -- that did not happen here. I think that's deeply unfortunate.

But it is in the interest of the world to get the Strait of Hormuz open. It is not open because of Iran. I mean, Iran is holding this. They're threatening to attack ships that go through it. So, yes, I think we should try to get our allies through. The president said we might hear more tomorrow. I'm a little doubtful of that, but we'll see. But it's in the interest of all of our friends to get that Strait of Hormuz open.

VATANKA: Right. Very hard to disagree with that. But I do want to go back to a point about was this message proper and do countries in the region believe the United States is going to stay the course on the issue. One of the reports I saw talking about the Saudis already, asking the United States not to do this because they're fearful the Iranians are going to retaliate and the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, are going to be hit first. So, they're obviously having questions in terms of where this is going.

And then you have the issue of Bab el-Manded. The Houthis in Yemen have kind of stayed out of this mostly in the course of the war. We had a senior Iranian official last week say, to the extent this is worth anything, saying if we ask the Houthis to shut down the traffic in the Red Sea, Bab el-Manded, they will do it. If that's true, then, again, a lot of the oil will be stuck in the Red Sea. So, you have a double whammy situation, both a Persian Gulf bottleneck and one in the Red Sea. So, again, a lot of questions there for me, at least.

COATES: Extraordinary collateral damage to the impact of this decision. We'll see what happens. Brett and Alex, thank you both so much.

MCGURK: Thank you.

VATANKA: Thank you.

COATES: Next, not one, but two congressmen announcing their plans to resign from Congress over sexual misconduct allegations. They've done so today as another accuser of Eric Swalwell speaks out for the first time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLY SAMMARCO, SWALWELL ACCUSER, DEMOCRATIC CONTENT CREATOR: Eric Swalwell is responsible for Eric Swalwell, not the media and definitely not the women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Plus, President Trump finds a new way to offend his own supporters, posting A.I. slop depicting himself as Jesus as he picks a new fight with the pope.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Three days. That long it took for -- from CNN's exclusive reporting on Friday night, the resignation of one of the most high- profile Democrats in Congress. This very evening, California Representative Eric Swalwell is stepping down from his seat amid sexual misconduct allegations from former staffers. Swalwell is strongly denying the claims. Tonight, he said -- quote -- "I will fight the serious, false allegations made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make."

Swalwell had already spent his campaign for California governor. And today, he learned the House Ethics Committee will be investigating. CNN's Pamela Brown was one of the first to report on the accusations. Tonight, she got explosive reaction from one of his accusers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMMARCO: I think that it was 100 percent the right thing for him to do. I think it should have been done even sooner, but I'm glad that he did it. I don't think that putting him back into a congressional office would have been good for anybody. And I don't think those women in his office or on Capitol Hill in general should be around him for one more day. So, I am glad that they won't have to endure that and it's over for them. He never should have run for governor to begin with, knowing what he knows. And nobody else is responsible for what happened to him. Eric Swalwell is responsible for Eric Swalwell, not the media and definitely not the women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, how did this unfold so quickly? CNN's Elex Michaelson has the story tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eric Swalwell is resigning from Congress, saying, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make. And -- quote -- "It's wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties." It represents one of the fastest and most dramatic falls from grace in recent political history.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): These allegations of sexual assault are flat false.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): On Friday night, Swalwell posted this while facing sexual assault allegations.

SWALWELL: I've certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past. But those mistakes are between me and my wife.

MICHAELSON: By Sunday night, Swalwell suspended his campaign for California governor after a former Capitol Hill intern and junior staffer spoke to CNN's Pamela Brown about interactions with the congressman in 2019. She was interviewed in shadow out of fear, she says, of professional consequences.

UNKNOWN: He pulls out his penis and instructs me to give him oral sex.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): In September 2019, after a night of heavy drinking, she says she woke up naked with Swalwell in a hotel room with no memory of what happened.

[23:20:04]

UNKNOWN: I know that we -- there was sexual contact because when I woke up in the morning, I could feel that there was.

MICHAELSON: Why do you want to be governor of California?

MICHAELSON (voice-over): Last November, Swalwell gave me the first T.V. news interview of his campaign for governor.

SWALWELL: I want to be its fighter protector.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): The former presidential candidate, House impeachment manager, and frequent online troller of President Trump.

SWALWELL: Dumb, dumb Donnie got it wrong again.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): Quickly became a favorite on betting markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Let me say how proud I am to support you, Eric.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): Senator Adam Schiff and nearly two dozen members of Congress endorsed his campaign. All of them swiftly and publicly asked for Swalwell to drop out after allegations came to light on Friday.

ELIAS DEBAIE, ATTORNEY FOR REP. ERIC SWALWELL: The congressman categorically denies any misconduct took place.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): Swalwell's lawyer joined me exclusively Friday night to respond.

MICHAELSON: Is he saying that he cheated on his wife, but didn't do anything illegal?

DEBAIE: I'm not going to get into the details of that.

MICHAELSON (voice-over): Over the weekend, Swalwell's own staffers urged him to drop out of the race, some urging him to resign. He did both. This is a look at polling in the California governor's race before the Swalwell scandal broke. The race to lead the nation's most populous state is now upended. And the previously lower polling candidates hope voters will give them a second look. Super PAC supporting San Jose mayor, Matt Mahan, says it raised $10 million this weekend.

MAYOR MATT MAHAN, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA: The Democratic Party has got to lift up people of high integrity who have a track record of results.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAELSON (on camera): Ballots are mailed to all registered voters on May 4th. The last day to vote is June 2nd. Laura, the question is, what happens to Swalwell's seat now, right? Well, the governor of California cannot appoint a replacement by law. He can only call for a special election. And even if that happens, the earliest there could be a new member of Congress is September. So, that seat is going to be open for a while.

And in terms of Swalwell and his future, an interesting post that just came up from the director of the FBI, Kash Patel. Let's put this up on the screen. He said -- quote -- "Eric Swalwell has maintained that none of the allegations against him are true, and now that he's resigned, we would welcome him to sit down with the FBI and share any information he has. We also encourage and welcome any person with relevant information to speak with us."

We'll see if Swalwell does that. We know that more Swalwell accusers are expected to hold a press conference tomorrow, Laura.

COATES: Elex, we'll see you on "The Story Is" at the top of the hour. A lot more news ahead on that. My next guest actually helped lead the "Me Too" movement when she became a congresswoman. She opened up about the harassment that she experienced while she was a congressional staffer as she helped pass a bill that ended forced arbitration for survivors of sexual assault.

Former California Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier joins me now. Congresswoman, thank you for joining us this evening. I mean, it's pretty remarkable to think about all that has transpired in the last just 48 hours, although Swalwell took over your district after you retired, and I'm curious what you have thought about these allegations and the decision to resign.

JACKIE SPEIER, FORMER CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it's the right decision to resign. The real problem for me, the heartache, is that we transformed the process by which victims could approach the offices within the House to charge when they've been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted. We changed it so they were represented by attorneys, that they weren't subject to mandatory mediation, that they weren't subject to cooling off periods, and that rather than the taxpayer paying the settlement, it was the member, and we required mandatory sexual harassment training for members and staff every single year.

To think that that system isn't working as robust as it is because these women were afraid to come forward, it is really tragic. And I really implore my former colleagues in the House to drill down on this and find out why and fix it because members like Eric Swalwell come to Congress, they get inflated, they feel like they're untouchables, and this conduct continues to happen. They can't keep their zippers up.

COATES: Texas Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales also stepping down after facing sex harassment allegations as well. I wonder if you see the connection based on what you've described as the result of what ought to be coming to Congress to help the people. But it sounds like you see this as an indication of people helping themselves to power, to exploitation, and capitalizing on that power.

[23:25:08]

SPEIER: Well, some of them obviously do. I mean, the case of Tony Gonzales is so tragic. I mean, he has an affair with his staffer. She then commits suicide. And the powers to be in Congress allow him to stay and serve out his term. This is conduct that in the private sector, if any of these individuals had conducted themselves this, they would be fired.

And the Congress has got to get more serious about how to take these people out. We tend to turn a blind eye until there's something -- where there's fire instead of when there's just smoke.

COATES: Well, now, the ethics investigations that would have transpired will now go away once they actually resigned. Now, is there a world where you think that ought to change to have full transparency, even in spite of resigning, that there is future deterrence?

SPEIER: I think that it's not working. So, the Ethics Committee typically, and I served on one of the subcommittees while I was in Congress, it's laborious, it takes a long period of time, there's depositions. Meanwhile, these individuals continue to prey on interns and staffers. I think there's got to be a better way of moving them out instead of allowing them to stay, finish a term or use the system to their advantage because, frankly, that's what happens.

COATES: Well, the advantage is one that seems to be shared across the party, particularly when there is a very small minority or small difference between the majority and the minority. And I wonder, given the political ramifications of this, and we are setting aside for the sake of this conversation the allegations, which deserve to be flushed out even further, but he was also one of the frontrunners in the California governor's race, he dropped out of that race on Sunday. One Republican candidate doesn't think that his resignation will actually help Democrats ultimately win the race, though. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE HILTON, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: The incumbents in California, the Democrats who run everything without any constraint, the record is not great. Let's put it that way. We've got the highest poverty rate in the country, the highest unemployment rate, highest cost of living. And so, it is obviously time to change.

And so, whether it's -- whether it was going to be Swalwell, and I agree that it looked like the machine was getting behind him, whether now it's Tom Steyer or Katie Porter, I really don't think it matters because we need some balance in California, we desperately need change, and no Democrat can provide that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know California politics very well. How does Swalwell's resignation from this race impact the chances for Democrats to become successful at becoming the next governor?

SPEIER: I think that the numbers suggest that the likelihood of a Democrat becoming the governor in the end of the year is quite high. But if they stumble, if there are, you know, skeletons in their closets, I mean, who knows? That's what's interesting about politics. There's always the unpredictable. But I would say that those who are in the race now, I mean, it's always been kind of a weak group because there wasn't like a frontrunner until, frankly, Eric got into the race in November, and then he started gaining a lot of traction. So, there's going to be movement. I think Steyer is going to benefit from it. I think Porter is going to benefit from it.

COATES: Are you supporting one candidate over the other?

SPEIER: I haven't endorsed anyone yet.

COATES: Do you intend to?

SPEIER: I'm thinking about it. Yes, of course.

COATES: Anyone you'd like to share?

SPEIER: Well, I'm not going to announce it tonight, for sure.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Well, we'll wait to see. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, thank you so much.

SPEIER: Thank you, Laura. Great to be with you.

COATES: Thank you. Up next, the president picks a fight with the pope. Then he posts a picture depicting himself as Jesus. This is the actual news. And now, Vice President J.D. Vance, who's also Catholic, is weighing in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I certainly think that in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, this is the picture seen around the world today. Let's examine it as a doctor would. Posted by President Trump to his own social media site late Sunday night. We've got bright light, bright golden light radiating from his hands onto a sick man. A woman prays next to them. The president wears a white and red robe. And above them, bald eagles, fighter jets. Now, what does this remind you of? Not this, I bet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I did post it. And I thought it was me as a doctor. And it had to do with Red Cross.

[23:35:00]

There is a Red Cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So, I -- I -- I just heard about it. And I said, how did they come up with that? It's supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Doctor. OK. Well, maybe as pretty much the rest of world sees it. It's a picture of President Trump as -- well, reported to be Jesus. Now, the backlash, it was swift. And so was the removal of the post, even though the president is not apologizing for it.

Joining me now is Father Dave Dwyer, host of "The Busted Halo Show" on SiriusXM. Father, thank you for being here this evening. You know, sometimes, you just --

FATHER DAVE DWYER, HOST OF "THE BUSTED HALO SHOW", SIRIUSXM: Good evening, Laura.

COATES: Good evening. You can't make some of these things up --

DWYER: Right.

-- when you hear this, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: But, I wonder, are you and were you insulted by the image posted by the president? I mean, what are you hearing from other members of the church?

DWYER: Well, I've certainly heard people that are offended and rightly so. One of my reactions, and I think many inside the church, including I would dare say even Pope Leo, would be I would prefer it if people were as offended by some of the moral atrocities that are going on.

What Pope Leo spoke out against on Saturday, the fact that we're trying to integrate entertainment and religion by justifying war is completely unconscionable, that's what he's offended by. I mean, I'm glad that there's some uproar. I wish that the uproar was also about some of the more reprehensible things that are going on in the world.

COATES: Well, let's go there, father, because just a few moments before posting that image, the president criticized Pope Leo, telling him to -- quote -- "focus on being a great pope, not a politician." Vice President J.D. Vance, a noted Catholic, taking up a similar message today. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: We certainly have a good relationship with the Vatican, but we're also going to disagree on substantive questions from time to time. I think that's a totally reasonable thing. I certainly think that in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of, you know, what's going on in the Catholic Church, and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: One could argue that was exactly what the pope was talking about, matters of morality.

DWYER: In fact, that's morality.

(LAUGHTER)

Morality, yes.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Go on, father.

DWYER: No. No, Laura, you hit it right on the head. I would concur with Vice President Vance that the pope should stick to morality. And what the pope has been saying consistently, really since the very beginning of his pontificate, is that we need to, in every possible way, work towards peace, work towards dialogue, work towards reconciliation because war, as he put it just on Saturday at a global peace vigil that he held from St. Peter's, enough, enough of this war. Enough of everything that focuses so much on us, on greed, on selfishness. Enough of this. All of that is about morality.

In fact, the catechism of the Catholic Church says that indiscriminate destruction of entire cities, not even just nations, but cities or areas of people without -- without conscience is a -- is a violation of the law of God and should be, it says in the catechism, it should be unequivocally denounced. Well, that's what Pope Leo has been doing.

And -- and I find -- I'm not surprised what Vice President Vance says. I've heard it from a lot of people. I've heard it from parishioners when I say something in the pulpit, and they say, hey, you priests should stay out of politics. You know what I find, Laura? At least, anecdotally, 100 percent of the time, people say that when it's not their politics that is being preached about.

COATES: Really profound and one perhaps not unexpected. I want to play for our audience to give greater context because here's how Pope Leo himself responded to all of what transpired.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO XIV, HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BISHOP OF ROME, SOVEREIGN OF THE VATICAN CITY STATE: I have no fear of neither the Trump administration nor speaking out loudly about the message of the gospel. And that's what I believe. I am called to do what the church is called to do. We're not politicians. We're not looking to make foreign policies, policy with the same perspective that he might understand it. But I do believe that the message of the gospel, blessed are the peacemakers, is the message that the world needs to hear today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I was particularly struck by his idea of the perspective when it comes to foreign policy. Obviously, a term normally associated with politics. But certainly, the idea of the gospel, his interpretation of how it applies to the interrelationship between countries, people, communities, humanity.

[23:40:00]

How do you think he handled his reaction and the perhaps growing rift with President Trump?

DWYER: Well, that was an off-the-cuff remark on the plane. What he had said in much more crafted language over the weekend at a prayer service where he and probably others helped put together language of a homily and of an official statement, what he really decried was when people use religion and particularly Christianity to justify war. And he says, stop dragging God's name into this business of death. God is the author of life.

And so, in reacting on the plane, in fact, the reporter was telling him what the president had tweeted, and said -- you know, he said, you have bad foreign policy. He said, you're weak on crime. And he said, you're afraid of the Trump administration, which is actually the first time that Pope Leo has ever even said publicly the name of the president. He said, I'm neither afraid of the Trump administration nor of speaking out boldly.

So, I've heard a lot of people saying, well, now it's a spat, they're going back and forth. There's a very different -- difference between what we would call in the church ad hominem, attacking the person, and talking about policies and morality.

COATES: So illuminating. Father Dave Dwyer, thank you so much.

DWYER: Sure.

COATES: Well, the president famously almost never retracts anything. He told CBS News, "Normally, I don't like doing that, but I didn't want to have anybody be confused. People were confused." Well, people weren't confused. They seemed to be offended. Here's just a sampling of comments of people who usually do back the president. "That picture is looney tunes." "There is no context where this is acceptable." This is blasphemous." "Would not be tolerated for any other religion."

There was one high-ranking Catholic in the administration who says he was not offended by the photo, Vice President J.D. Vance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: I think the president was posting a joke. And, of course, he took it down because he recognized that a lot of people weren't understanding his humor in that case. I think the president of the United States likes to mix it up on social media. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. With me now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton and Democratic candidate for Congress in Massachusetts and former senior aide to President Biden, Dan Koh. I'm not going to make either of you defend or justify or anything like that, but I am going to talk to you, Shermichael, about the fact that this post, it did hit a nerve with a lot of people.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, yes.

COATES: And even people who normally back the president, who -- who are not ones to suggest that everything should be viewed through the same lens, and it only was not funny to them. I wonder what you make of Vance's attempt to sort of control the damage from it.

SINGLETON: It's interesting because you see a growing number of younger conservatives becoming Catholic. We've reported on it. A lot of other outlets have reported on this.

And I think from the vice president's perspective, as I look at this as a strategist, I presume he's going to run in 2028. You have this conflict with Iran that I don't think helps him really at all, to be quite honest with you. And now, you're having the vice president who's a devout Catholic having to go out and try to explain the politics of this. I think it falls flat for a lot of people. I saw it. I certainly didn't think the president looked like a doctor, maybe Dr. Jesus, if you remember the old Christian Baptist hymns from the South.

But sometimes, it's OK, Laura, to say, look, I put it up, I probably shouldn't have, I made a mistake, I apologize, I took it down. That's simply it. And we wouldn't be talking about this story if it would have happened that way. And I think, sometimes, just having a little humility just doesn't hurt.

COATES: We would still have talked about it even with the apology. Yes, yes, but I'm keeping it 100. I just spoke to a priest. Thank you very much.

(LAUGHTER)

Dan, I want to read for you what conservative commentator Erick Erickson wrote in response to people who believe that Trump didn't know. Quote -- "If the president didn't know that was depicting him as Jesus, I'd think that is bad too. I mean he's either lying or really clueless. Constantly excusing him when he does this stuff just creates a feedback loop for him to never learn and keep doing it." Do you think that this backlash and the fact that he did -- it was removed, it was, is that making him think twice?

DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I don't know. But look at the legacies of these two people in the last 50 years. In the 80s, the pope was ordained while Trump was calling for the execution of five people of color that were later exonerated. In the 90s, the pope was doing missionary work in Peru while Trump was sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll. And in the 2000s, the pope was in Rome while Trump was bragging about grabbing women by the you-know- what. One kneels before God while the other one kneels before Putin.

I think that there's no comparison between these two and even MAGA is seeing what this president really is.

COATES: You know, certainly, if these were candidates to assess, everything you listed would obviously be top of mind for people to think about that.

[23:45:04]

But I do wonder about the fact that instead of weighing necessarily the pope, they are weighing President Trump's own cognitive abilities, his own decision making, and his judgment. Now, there have been calls for him as being unhinged to possibly be removed from office.

And I wonder, from your perspective, Shermichael, the fact that he was so invested in even going after the pope, in light of all the things that, frankly, the president is grappling with, the current war, why do you think he was fixated enough to even say something? Because it invites the very scrutiny that Dan is speaking of. It invites the continued conversation about his, at least, emotional priorities.

SINGLETON: Look, it's not -- it is in the president's nature to go after people, particularly if they're prominent and they say things about him that he just doesn't like. I mean, we know this from the first term. People put that into their calculation when they voted in November.

But when you look at midterms now, let's just look at the enthusiasm gaps between both sides. You have -- Dan here is running for Congress. You look at the enthusiasm on the Democratic side. It is through the roof.

On our side, it's a bit suppressed. You look at independence because electoral policy is a math game. How can you turn out not only your side, but a percent of those people in the middle to sort of give you that electoral advantage to ultimately win a race?

COATES: Will this have long-term consequences --

SINGLETON: Well, it's not that -- it's this one singular thing. I think it's a lot of things where people, particularly independents, said we voted because we wanted a better economy, we didn't like the Biden years, we wanted some cleanup with immigration, we didn't want all of the other stuff, we're just going to stay home and vote for the other side, and I think that's what the elections have shown us.

COATES: We'll see what post Roe v. Wade will indicate with this particular population of voters. Shermichael, Dan, thank you both so much.

Ahead, an update on that mystery in the Bahamas where an American has been held for days after he says his wife vanished into the sea after falling off their boat. Well, tonight, police have consulted with press prosecutors and have reached a decision that I'll tell you about next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TERREL BUTLER, ATTORNEY FOR BRIAN HOOKER: I am happy to see that justice is really working in this country. They had no evidence, and they had no choice but to release him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He's out. The husband of missing American, Lynette Hooker, was released without charges tonight after days of questioning by authorities in the Bahamas. Just hours ago, Brian Hooker was seen leaving the police station where he was quickly hounded by a swarm of reporters. He didn't take any questions. But tonight, there's still a lot of them, like, where is Lynette Hooker? And what happened the night she went missing?

Her husband told police that she fell overboard due to strong currents, that he quickly lost sight of her, and that he drifted at sea for hours because his boat lost power.

Now, Lynette's daughter is speaking out tonight, telling CNN -- quote -- "As long as there has been a thorough investigation into all the facts, then I'll have to live with the fact that it's an accident, but I don't think this is the end." Now, Brian Hooker has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

I'm joined now by attorney Ben Chew. Glad to have you, Ben, and your insight because his lawyer says there was no evidence, and they had no choice but to release him. But what kind of evidence would they have needed to even try to bring charges against him there?

BENJAMIN CHEW, ATTORNEY, CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR JOHNNY DEPP IN HIS DEFAMATION TRIAL: Well, Laura, lawyers often make the distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence with the suggestion some people have that circumstantial evidence isn't as probative. In this case, there's an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence of foul play here. What they need, I think, to put the last piece of the puzzle, if they can find it, is the body. And if and when they find the body, I think, then you'll likely see charges.

COATES: If there's any sign physically of foul play. But this very well could be something, as he has seemed to say (INAUDIBLE). He was taken to custody for questioning last Wednesday. And those questions lasted for days, did not result in any charges. Why do you believe they questioned him for so long and came up short?

CHEW: Well, I think they were trying, obviously, to find a chink in the armor, to find some inconsistencies in his story. And they may have been hoping in the interim period for some physical evidence to emerge, maybe finding the body, seeing if there was anything, any weight on the body, anything like that.

But, as you know, jeopardy does not attach here. So, he's not out of the woods. The knock on his door could come at any time. So, he's not resting easily until this is resolved.

COATES: Very good point. I want to shift gears and talk about the president's lawsuit against "The Wall Street Journal." You have expertise, particularly in this area, because he sued the paper after they published a lewd birthday letter to Epstein with his signature. He says he did not write that letter, by the way.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit against "The Wall Street Journal" without prejudice. They could re-bring it. It gives an opportunity to refile. Now, the judge said they failed to show the paper acted with what's called actual malice. Explain to our audience a little bit about what the standard would be for them to defame a public figure like Trump.

CHEW: Well, Laura, this takes us back to law school in the cases of Iqbal and Twombly, which for your lay audience means just that when you are alleging actual malice, which is knowledge, you know, that the paper knew or should have known that this allegation was false, you have to have some facts to support it.

[23:55:03]

You can't just have the conclusory allegation that "The Wall Street Journal" did so with knowledge. You have to have some facts.

COATES: Like?

CHEW: The plausibility standard, like the Fox News case. I was involved in one of those cases where there was -- there were actually emails and texts from Fox News employees admitting that they knew that there had been no vote switching but, nevertheless, persisting with this story for business reasons. They didn't want to lose news share to Newsmax and other competitors.

Here, there is not a scintilla of evidence that was cited in the complaint that "The Wall Street Journal" knew that the allegation was false. And their lawyers are very experienced. So, if there had been evidence available to them, they would have alleged that.

COATES: A discovery has already taken place, right?

CHEW: Yes. And they have none. And it's a very interesting trick box. This is not a controversial ruling. Any federal judge would have made the same ruling. They have a certain period of time to amend the complaint. The trick box is this: If they come back with conclusory allegations, the case gets dismissed this time with prejudice. If they have actual allegations that prove not to be true, then they can be sanctioned and their client can be sanctioned.

COATES: Wow, that is a trick box. Thank you for sharing. Ben Chew, thank you. And hey, thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)