Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Touts Iran Progress; Mamdani Announces New Tax On Ultrarich; Penn And Teller Warn Supreme Court Of "Investigative Hypnosis." Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 17, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A quick programming note. This weekend, two new episodes of the CNN Original Series, "Eva Longoria: Searching for Friends," Sunday at 9 p.m. And tomorrow morning, catch our Saturday "Table for Five" show at 10 a.m. Eastern. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, is a deal within reach? President Trump talks about a potential agreement to end the war. But the question is whether Iran is on the same page. Plus, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has a plan to tax the rich. Good policy or a fast way to drive money out of New York City? Kevin O'Leary and Bill de Blasio are going to debate it. And why a world-famous magician is wading into a Supreme Court fight? That's tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, cautious optimism needs to be balanced with critical scrutiny because the president today made it seem like a deal with Iran is on the one-yard line. He has gone an immediate tear after Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz was open. He told CBS, Iran has agreed to everything. He told Axios, expect a deal in a day or two. He posted on Truth Social, Iran has agreed never to close the Strait of Hormuz again. And then he went on stage at an event in Arizona and talked up all the progress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Iran has just announced that the Strait of Hormuz is fully open and ready for business and full passage.
(APPLAUSE)
The USA will get all nuclear dust. You know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white powdery substance created by our B2 bombers, those great B2 bombers, late one evening. But we're going to go in together with Iran. We're going to get it. We're going to take it back home to the USA. Very simple.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He's making it sound like the best, simplest deal ever, like the U.S. is getting everything it wants. And look, if this is indeed the case, that would be real progress. One might even say spectacular. But contracts 101, well, you got to have a meeting of the minds, right?
As of tonight, Iran is suggesting there is no done deal. Iran's foreign minister says the strait is open. Only a handful of ships have actually passed through. And whatever progress may be happening in terms of a deal, you know, we still haven't seen any official details on paper. Iran isn't quite making things sound quite as rosy as the president of United States is.
One of the country's negotiators says the president made seven false claims in an hour. He isn't saying which ones. He also points out the strait won't remain open as long as the U.S. keeps up its blockade or it will remain open as long as the U.S. keeps up its blockade. And Trump says the blockade isn't going anywhere until any agreement is 100 percent complete.
Now, as far as the nuclear dust goes, one senior Iranian official is telling CNN that any notion that they've agreed to send enriched uranium to the United States is a non-starter. That official even pulled out the lingo thrown around by the first Trump administration, here it comes, alternative facts.
Now, it's not clear if all of these is just Iranian spin or if public comments are getting ahead of the private negotiation. So, if we had to try to separate out the signal from the noise, where does that leave us? Well, it does look like fresh talks are about to happen. Iranian sources say negotiations will take place in Pakistan on Monday. The White House has not confirmed that yet. But you heard Trump's optimism.
And as far as the actual details of any potential deal, here is what we're learning: The administration is weighing whether to unfreeze $20 billion in Iranian assets. Sources say one proposal would involve Iran turning over its stockpile of enriched uranium in return. But that might be a tough sell for Trump's own party because if memory serves, Republicans and even Trump himself, they slammed President Obama for unfreezing Iranian assets as part of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
[23:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK TODD, NBC MODERATOR, JOURNALIST, PODCAST HOST: What deal can you come up with that wouldn't give Iran money?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: OK. I would --
TODD: Wouldn't give them sanction relief?
TRUMP: I would have told them up front, by the way -- TODD: No sanction relief?
TRUMP: -- we will never give you back your money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's get right to senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo, and senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Behnam Ben Taleblu. Glad to have both of you guys here as we're sorting out yet again the specifics of what is really happening and what is to be. Marc, I mean, Trump says a deal is coming. Iran is talking about alternative facts. So, I mean, how close is the U.S. to reaching a deal with Iran?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: I can't answer that. But what we can say is they are negotiating. They weren't really before. And you talked about separating the signal from the noise. The signal is that both sides are talking. And the noise is the specifics they're talking about. If a person believes all of the specifics and the hardline positions that Donald Trump is taking now will remain through the end in a deal, it's just not true. And the same thing with Iran. Now, the question is, ultimately, what is too much for each side? And that we really don't know yet.
COATES: You report, Marc, that the administration is considering releasing $20 billion --
CAPUTO: As for uranium, yes.
COATES: Well, they're saying $20 billion. Unfrozen. They are unfreezing assets in exchange for Iran's enriched uranium. President Trump, I mean, he long criticized President Obama for releasing billions in Iranian funds in 2015, memory serves. How do they reconcile -- how does this administration reconcile that now?
CAPUTO: Well, Barack Obama didn't expend the might of the United States military bombing and missile striking Iran and killing many of its leaders and destroying its industry and bringing its economy to its knees. Donald Trump did. So, the difference between Obama's deal and Donald Trump's proposed deal is Donald Trump's came with a whole hell of a lot of weaponry, death, and destruction meted out in Iran. Obama didn't do that. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but that is a huge if.
COATES: It is. And Behnam, I mean, the president is continuing to claim that the United States will be involved in retrieving Iran's nuclear material, nuclear dust they're talking about. Is that -- is that realistic and what would that even look like?
BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF IRAN PROGRAM, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, let's just say it's going to be very, very complex if that is the case. To get Americans on the ground or to have this be an IAEA mission where the Iranians dig it out or there's a joint venture to dig it out, this goes way, way, way down the rabbit hole and we have to pump the brakes on that. The Islamic Republic says that this stuff is not leaving Iran. We even have the deputy -- the foreign ministry spokesperson today say that this is as sacred as Iranian soil itself, which tells you all you need to know, that even after a conflict, this is the stuff that they're still interested in keeping.
So, this is a regime still very interested in flirting with that potential nuclear option. Down the line, this means that even post- war, we need to get serious about counter-proliferation policy against the Islamic Republic. We are nowhere out of the woodwork yet, and that's why I don't even like the word "peace" being applied to these peace talks.
COATES: That's interesting. You're nodding your head. You seem to agree?
CAPUTO: Yes. There's a very real possibility that we're looking at a long-term Cold War here where the strait reopens nominally to traffic in two different lanes, an Iranian lane and an Omani lane, essentially the international lane, the people who don't want to pay the Iranian tolls. I'm not saying this is definite.
And there has been discussion in the Trump administration, the Trump White House, about a phrase that you hear frequently applied in Israel called mowing the grass. That periodically, the United States and perhaps Israel might have to come back and bomb and bomb again to mow the grass and cut down the Iranian military capability. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but that's sort of that Cold War scenario that we could be looking at.
COATES: Let's talk about the Lebanon ceasefire. President Trump is declaring Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer, they are prohibited from doing so by the USA, enough is enough. First of all, how critical, do you think, that would actually be in reaching a deal between the U.S. and Iran? And I wonder what Netanyahu makes of this prohibition.
TALEBLU: Well, you know, the most important war in the Middle East is not the shooting war, it's the narrative war, and that's the war that the Islamic Republic is trying to say it won right now.
Before the negotiations, you had the parliament speaker, Ghalibaf, come out and try to link Iran to Lebanon, ceasefire for ceasefire. Post negotiations, you have Araghchi, the foreign minister, coming out and saying the same thing, contingent ceasefire for contingent ceasefire. So, they're now playing a game of chicken between these ceasefires.
If past is prologue, I think the Israelis will retain the two things that they had in the November 2024 ceasefire which is one, that they don't have to withdraw, and two, that they reserve the right to respond or preempt.
And I think the president can probably artfully square the circle in terms of language between him and Bibi, X posts, but the real clock, the 10-day clock, for Lebanon, for the Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire, is what will the Lebanese government be doing to try to prove that hey, we can do something in the fight against Hezbollah as well.
[23:09:59]
You know, this is the actor that the president wants to bring to the states to meet with the Israelis, just like the ambassador came to meet with the Israeli ambassador via Marco Rubio just a few days ago. What happens with central authority in Beirut is going to be critical to actually extending this ceasefire and trying to get a win, which is what the president wants.
COATES: How do you think this sitting with Bibi Netanyahu?
CAPUTO: Oh, not necessarily very well. That's something that, apparently, when he -- when his, you know, his party had found out that Donald Trump had summarily commanded this without really consulting him, there were a lot of people who were upset. But this is Donald Trump. He's going to try to box in Bibi because there are different times that Netanyahu has boxed in Trump. So, they have a brotherly relationship but, sometimes, they squabble like brothers.
COATES: Let's talk about the blockade because it remains in place, as we know. The president says it will end when a deal is signed. And then you've got the reverse saying it will be an impact here, and that is the new leverage. Does the president see the blockade as the most effective bargaining chip?
CAPUTO: It's among them. The most effective bargaining chip for the administration is all of the U.S. weaponry there because that's what makes everything else serious. And you can't have a blockade without the threat of military action. There's the old communist saying that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and the United States has lots of guns.
COATES: We have tape and hearing from the president of the United States just moments ago speaking. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: So, we're going to be knowing very shortly. But we're talking over. I expect things to go well. Many of these things have been negotiated and agreed to.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sir, what was the good news that you have 20 minutes ago?
TRUMP: Having to do with Iran.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Can you tell us anything about --
TRUMP: No. But you'll hear about it.
UNKNOWN: What are you going to say --
TRUMP: I'll just it is something that should happen and something that only makes sense to happen. And I think it will. We'll see what happens. But I think it will. UNKNOWN (voice-over): Have you agreed to sanctions? Do you really believe that everything has been --
TRUMP: No, we haven't.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): No. You told me earlier that everything has been agreed to. Iran has been saying something different. So, what has been worked out --
TRUMP: Well, they got to say something different because, you know, they have people that they have to cater to also. I really don't have -- just doing the thing that's right. I'm just saying it like it is. We have a situation. I think that is going to be very beneficial. And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, and that supersedes everything else.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you personally the one that's making these negotiations?
TRUMP: I guess. I mean, I have people -- I have people representing me, but I'm the one that makes the decision.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sir, in the strait --
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, there have been reports that the Pentagon is preparing for military action in Cuba. Are those reports true? Is Cuba next?
TRUMP: Well, it depends on what your definition of military action is.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Would it look like Venezuela or Iran?
TRUMP: It really does. It depends on what your definition of military action is, as Bill Clinton would say.
(LAUGHTER)
You understand that? No. Not a lot of people don't understand that.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: What are you planning on the event tomorrow? What are you planning --
TRUMP: Well, we have something tomorrow. And it's a little bit of a surprise. I think it's a very positive thing, something I feel strongly about. Somebody is coming to the White House. He is very good, very smart, very caring, a person that cares a lot about the country and beyond. And so, we're going to have a news conference tomorrow, a little unusual, Saturday morning.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is it about Iran?
TRUMP: No. Well, it will be. Ultimately, everything is about Iran, I guess. It all morphs into Iran. You're going to be asking questions. But the Iran thing is just going well. Tomorrow is unrelated, but you'll be probably -- I think it will be a form of a news conference, and I think it's going to be something very good for our country.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Would you say at the White House when this all does end?
TRUMP: Sure. I mean, we'll have a party. It would be great. Hey, we've been pushed around by Iran for 47 years. But not anymore.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): When you say that Iran has agreed to turn over their nuclear dust --
TRUMP: Yes.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): -- what does that mean? Are they destroying their nuclear material?
TRUMP: No.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): They're turning it over? Can you walk us through?
TRUMP: We're taking it. We're taking it. Very simple. We're taking it. Yes, with Iran. We're going in with Iran.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Does that mean U.S. --
TRUMP: We're taking it. We will have it. I don't go up with something. We'll take it after the agreement is signed. After that. There's a big difference. Before and after. BC. It's before and after.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sir, in the strait, are there going to be --
TRUMP: After the agreement is signed. It's a lot different than before. We would have taken it. If we didn't have an agreement, we would take it. But I don't think we'll have to.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sir, in the strait, are there going to be restrictions and tolls managed by Iran for ships and vessels passing through?
TRUMP: No. No way. No way.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Not at all?
TRUMP: No.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): No restrictions?
TRUMP: No.
UNKNOWN: Mr. President --
TRUMP: I say no restrictions. Yes, no restrictions. You can't do the tolls. No, they're not giving tolls.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE) Mr. President.
[23:14:58]
Anna Paulina Luna is pushing to have the Save America Act linked to FISA and the FISA --
TRUMP: Well, I think she's great. And I would love to see that. The Save America Act is so important, so good. It's voter I.D. You know, basic. Basics about a democracy, voter I.D., birth place. You have to -- people born in the United States vote. We have no transgender (INAUDIBLE) no transgender mutilation of our children. (INAUDIBLE). Women sports now --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Just hearing from the president of the United States as he is alerting the world that there will be some sort of a news conference tomorrow. But really important, he had heard 20 minutes ago some very promising news. He did not share what it was. He remains vague on the details.
He also addressed the fact that Iran is saying something different about agreements that he says were made between Iran and the United States, alluding that they were trying to save face by catering to people that they are also beholden to.
He talked about nuclear weapons superseding everything else as the main issue in all of these, and that although he has representatives who will be representing his interests in the United States, he ultimately makes the final decision.
Let's talk about the statement from the president United States, Marc, where he is talking about the no restrictions and no tolls and still the optimism there.
CAPUTO: That's just it, is one of Donald Trump's negotiating techniques. And one of the ways he approaches his governance in general is this power of positive thinking idea. And so, right now, Donald Trump decided today. And there was some reason for it, that he was going to communicate positivity as if there's positive momentum. And to a degree, Donald Trump is trying to will this into reality. I'm not saying it's going to work, but that's largely what he's up to.
COATES: Well, talk to me quickly, Behnam, about the idea that he is saying they're going to take the nuclear weapons and they'll do it with Iran, with them, and that they're not going to just hand over, they're going to take them. Is that realistic?
TALEBLU: It depends if the Iranians actually agree to it. If the Iranian position in private is the Iranian position in public, then it's going to be absolutely not. It will be, again, a contest of wills, who will budge first.
But, ultimately, this is not going to be the only issue or the defining issue when it comes to making sure the Islamic Republic does not get a nuclear weapon. We still have that 800-pound philosophical and practical gorilla in the room, which is enrichment. Is there a delay in enrichment? Is there a moratorium? Will the president hold the line on zero enrichment?
You know, last year, the Europeans actually helped bring about Trump's term one views on enrichment at the United Nations. Zero enrichment. Secession of enrichment is now the international position. Trump's military action last year has paused or terminated enrichment in Iran after two decades of U.S. failure. Would he budge on that in a bid to get the -- quote, unquote -- "dust" or the uranium hexafluoride? Who knows? But these are the things that we have to know about in advance of negotiations, allegedly Monday.
COATES: I want to hear about the how this would actually get done. Marc, stand by. Behnam, thank you so much. The U.S. is looking to clear minds from the Strait of Hormuz. And the president says it's going to be a team effort. Iran, with the help of the USA, has removed or is removing all sea mines. Thank you.
And my next guest knows exactly how to do this. Former Navy explosive ordnance disposal officer Tom Sauer is over at the magic wall. Tom, well, I am glad that you are here because of this big question of, what do these mines look like? And I just would love for you to walk us through what it would even take to safely remove them.
TOM SAUER, FORMER NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL OFFICER: Sure. Thanks for having me, Laura. So, this is an example of some of the mines that we're likely to see be find in Iran. Now, keep in mind, as of a couple hours ago, no mines have been found yet. Nothing confirmed. But we do suspect that there may be a dozen, maybe more. Even in recent days, there might have been some more surreptitious mining by the IRGC Navy.
But the main types of mines you're looking at right now that we're thinking about are moored mines, right? It's tethered by a cable or a chain that's anchored to the seabed floor, and then it floats, it's buoyant, and it rests just below the water line typically so it's hard to see, and it's detonated by either contact as it gets hit by a ship or it has a magnetometer, a giant metal detector on it, whereas if a ship comes near it, it would detonate.
Those can be very sophisticated. In fact, you could even have a ship counter on these mines so that it won't detonate on the first ship that goes past it, it might not detonate till the sixth, seventh, or 20th ship that goes past it.
And also, you have bottom mines that are meant for more shallow water, generally speaking, that also can be set off by a magnetometer or a large chunk of metal or acoustic. It has microphones, hydrophones that would listen for a ship. And you can also have those same issues with setting off a ship that you've made at the first ship, the sixth ship. We'll see.
So, these are like really the main threats that we're thinking of. Now, keep in mind, the United States Navy and U.S. Central Command got left of splash.
[23:20:00]
We destroyed 99 percent of all their facility, of all their mine facilities and mine laying facilities.
COATES: Well, talk to me about the vessels or the equipment you would need. And now that we know what we're talking about, what do you need in the minesweeping mission to rid the seas of this and make it safe?
SAUER: We have an incredible inventory that's led primarily by Navy EOD officers, which is my former line of work. It's my family's business. So, what we do primarily, you see unmanned underwater vehicles, part of expeditionary mine countermeasures. We are currently doing some searching right there. It's a little more low visibility. It's less -- it's less out in the open and it's less intense. We're searching, we're hunting for mines, right? We're looking for anyone that's out there.
You also have Surface MCM. We have some of our littoral combat ships. And we also have two of our Avenger class minesweepers, the USS Chief and USS Warrior, that are on their way as well coming from Japan. And we also have airborne MCM, which are helicopters, both like that, and also the very large helicopter that would tow sweeping and mining equipment. They're on their way from a very large ship, the USS John L. Canley, which is an expeditionary support base that's on its way from the Indian Ocean right now.
COATES: So, the president has suggested that this is going to be a team effort. What role will the United States, what role will Iran play?
SAUER: Great question, Laura. I can tell you one thing right now. The United States Navy does not ask permission to operate in the Persian Gulf or anywhere around it. The United States Navy is the most powerful navy in the world. And anything that is in the air or floats near it right now is doing so because the Navy is allowing it to do so. So, we don't need Iranian permission to clear the strait.
Now, if they want to provide some information to us saying yes, we laid some mines here, here, and here, and we'll go get them, it's not easy task. And it's not an easy task for the United States to pull any mine, even our own.
I doubt the Iranians have any capability whatsoever because, if you remember, we destroyed their entire navy. All that they have left are these little (INAUDIBLE) boats, which are like speed boats, where they might have kicked a few mines over the side in middle of the night and where we missed them. So, it's going to be a United States effort. Maybe we'll see some of our partners. But we'll see what happens.
COATES: Tom Sauer, thank you so much for your explanation.
SAUER: Thanks so much for having me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I probably would not vote for J.D. Vance. I don't know where I'm at right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Political trouble for the vice president as he faces pressure to land this Iran deal. And now, we're learning the president is starting to ask questions about 2028. And later, Mayor Zohran Mamdani puts the ultrarich on notice with a new tax proposal that's sparking a major fray (ph).
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): There are a whole lot of people that saw that and picked up the phone and called a realtor and said, get me the hell out of here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMIAH, TRUMP SUPPORTER: I think, ultimately, he is a populist president. So, I think the war isn't a populist issue. So, hopefully, we're able to get out of that. Hopefully, we get back to affordability, right? I think we voted for -- like you saw the stickers all the time, right? We're OK with mean tweets as long as we get low gas prices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Young Trump voters at a Turning Point USA event hoping the president turns the page on the war and fast. The political fallout from the 40 plus day war has been widespread. Gas prices have surged to $4.17, which put added pressure on Republicans heading and running into the midterms. Trump has even had some of MAGA's loudest voices online questioning and attacking him. He got into a war of words with the pope, and he went on to post and delete an A.I. image of himself as Jesus.
Marc Caputo is back with me. And that's just the last week, I should mention, as well in terms of things.
CAPUTO: Last few days.
COATES: Last few days. Marc, it's still unclear whether the damage has been done or something has been set in motion ahead of the midterms given what younger voters and voters more broadly do want. I mean, how certain is the White House that this gas crunch, this idea of short- term pain, long-term gain will satisfy voters?
CAPUTO: I can't speak to what they truly think. I can only tell you that with us, with me, with the press, they only communicate positive thinking. As we talked about earlier --
COATES: The administration.
CAPUTO: Right. They are not going to. And I think the right word here is not acknowledged, but admit that the midterms, when it comes to the House, are probably, not definitely, almost all but lost. Now, the question is, can Democrats also take the Senate? Still up in the air. But the conventional wisdom, the polling, history, the trends, the circumstances strongly indicate that the Republicans are going to lose control of the House. They barely control it, anyway.
COATES: The former senator, now vice president, J.D. Vance, he has taken a central role in a war that he was at one time skeptic about. Now, obviously, I don't think it's the strangest thing in the world that a vice president would fall in line with what the president is saying, at least publicly in terms of the negotiations and beyond. But how has this conflict impacted the vice president?
CAPUTO: It has made things more difficult for him. If you look at his polling, he's really upside down in his approval ratings. And J.D. Vance is constantly sort of walking this tightrope that Trump is at times twanging and twinging. You just mentioned the Christ or the Trump as Christ-like healer post that he made. And then he gets in a fight with the pope. President Trump does. Just weeks before, J.D. Vance announced that he was going to be writing a book about his conversion to Catholicism.
[23:30:00]
And the next thing you know, the president is attacking the pope. And now, J.D. Vance essentially has to go along with an attack of pope. Difficult way to launch a book, but that's one of the things that makes working in Trump's administration a little difficult. He's always creating news.
COATES: You know, if you want to be cynical about the position that Vance has been put in from the president of the United States or the timing in his comments around the pope, I mean, sources tell CNN that the president is actually asking around and asking advisors to rank J.D. Vance's performance. But he still appears confident that his skills will benefit the negotiations and lead to the end of the war. You also have Marco Rubio taking a bit of a backseat in the talks. And it's no surprise that both have political ambitions likely to be the president of the United States. What do you think about this shift behind the scenes of who is now in the spotlight?
CAPUTO: This is just Trump being Trump as far as him like, hey, how do you think J.D. is doing? How do you think Marco is doing? Like that is the stuff that Donald Trump as president and as private individual -- he likes to do that. Sit around and basically talk about his team. And for him, politics is a team sport. And obviously, he's the star quarterback.
So, it's a difficult position for Vance to be in because Vance wants to run for president. And desire in politics can often be used to put you in awkward positions and to leverage your power against itself. Marco Rubio has the advantage where he doesn't really want to run for president. He doesn't really want to run for vice president. The likeliest scenario, I'm not saying definite, is it's a J.D. Vance as presidential candidate with a Marco Rubio as running mate ticket. But that's right now, however many months before the midterm. That could change.
But Rubio has not communicated a strong desire to run. And by not having that strong desire to run, by not worrying about his political future, he's able to do more of his job with less attention on him and --
COATES: You mean, his jobs?
CAPUTO: Jobs as national security advisor and secretary of state.
COATES: Right. An archivist.
CAPUTO: What's that?
COATES: An archivist.
CAPUTO: An archivist. Is he still an archivist? I can't remember.
COATES: He was. I'm making a --
CAPUTO: Yes. He's going to get another job soon enough, anyway. But that's the thing. We're joking about just how much work he's doing, not what his political desire is. So, Rubio, in that respect, is in the catbird seat because he benefits from low expectations.
COATES: Marc, thank you so much.
CAPUTO: Thank you.
COATES: Really fascinating. Up next, tonight, Mayor Zohran Mamdani getting on Trump's bad side with a new move to tax the rich in New York City, a plan that has gotten 50 million views and a lot of people fired up, including my next two guests, the former mayor, Bill de Blasio, and Kevin O'Leary, live with me to debate all of it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: To tax the rich or not to tax the rich? The debate has been supercharged by the New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who just stirred the hornet's nest with a new plan that has lit up the internet. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we're taxing the rich. I'm thrilled to announce we've secured a pied-a-tierre tax, the first in New York's history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million, whose owners do not live full-time in the city, like for this penthouse, which Hedge Fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million.
This Pied-a-tierre tax is specifically designed for the richest of the rich, those who store their wealth in New York City real estate but who don't actually live there. But even so, they're able to reap the huge financial rewards of owning property in, dare I say, the greatest city in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well the Trump-Mamdani bromance might be at risk here because the president, well, he's not smiling right now, saying -- quote -- "Sadly, Mayor Mamdani is destroying New York." Trump wrote, the tax, tax, tax policies are so wrong.
Again, just to be clear, we're talking about luxury second homes that aren't lived in for most of the year. The actual percentages haven't been worked out. But if we use the math from a similar 2019 proposal, let's assume that a one percent tax on a $10 million property is what's at stake here. That would mean an extra $100,000 a year that the owner would have to pay.
And people have a lot of strong opinions about this, including my next two guests who are here to debate it tonight, former New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, and Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful, Kevin O'Leary, chairman of Leary Ventures.
Kevin, I want to begin with you because I take it you're no fan of this particular policy. You replied to Mamdani's video on X, calling this -- quote -- "the best commercial I've ever seen for Miami Beach real estate." You sure?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: Yes, it is. I think what happens here, and it has been going on for a few years in states like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, is when you tax people past 50 percent pretty well in any tax bracket as they move towards retirement into their 50s and 60s, they ask themselves, what's the reason I would stay here when I can go to Tennessee, Texas, Florida? And that's what has been happening. There's lots of data that shows that.
But this particular tax, on the pied-a-tierre, a place you stay when you're in New York instead of a hotel, is interesting. Let's ask ourselves without the rhetoric and the politics. Does this make sense?
[23:39:54]
So, you've got someone who spends $5 million or more, does not really use the place but still pays maintenance, so supporting employees in the building, and property tax, but doesn't put any burden on the city services whatsoever. So, I guess, to make it clear, how stupid a tax is this? Because you would want more people doing this, investing their capital in New York, not using any of the services of the city whatsoever, paying property tax all day long even though they don't live there, paying for maintenance in the building. This is the stupidest policy I have ever seen in real estate. COATES: Mayor de Blasio --
O'LEARY: I believe --
COATES: -- I want to get you to weigh in on this because you've been the mayor of New York City. It's clear that Mayor Mamdani is focusing less on the property tax income and instead what the tax could do for the goals he has for the city, child care and other things. What is your response? And do you think this will lead to a mass exodus or help New York's working class?
BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I absolutely think they'll help the working class. Look, there's a reason that video got 50 million hits. Because people are looking for fairness and justice. The wealthy have not been taxed at the level they should have for years and years now. In fact, Donald Trump has given them a massive tax break.
So, let's be clear. Wealthy folks continue to do better and better and get less and less tax put on them. This is a breath of fresh air. But here's also what it means practically. People invest in New York City because it is a value proposition. It is an amazing city, but it's amazing in large part because the city government provides all those services and makes it a place that works for people. That costs a lot of money. So, in fact, this is an act of fairness.
These are folks, in many cases, extremely rich folks, who have made their money and are parking it in real estate in New York City while they continue to make even more money. It's exactly right to say if you're benefiting from New York City, in fact, they are benefiting from all these services in New York City, they're not paying a lot toward it, pay your fair share. Your property values are going to continue to go up. It's a fine proposition.
And, by the way, a lot of people have run away from New York City, but still come back for under 180 days a year so they don't have to pay personal income tax. They're cheating the system in effect. This is a way, at least in some of those cases, to get people who basically are using a lot of New York City services to pay something, at least.
COATES: Well, mayor, Mamdani called out Ken Griffin specifically in this video. I want to read to you what CNBC's Sara Eisen wrote, saying -- quote -- "Ken Griffin employs thousands of people in New York City and is planning to build the tallest office tower on Park Avenue, investing billions more and creating thousands more jobs. Making him feel unwelcome and demonizing him seems risky."
This seems to be the larger point that Kevin is making. What is your response?
DE BLASIO: I don't think people who are making vast amounts of money are making decisions based on, you know, what their feelings are at that moment. The reason he wants to build that huge tower in midtown Manhattan is because it fits the model of his business, which continues to make him ultrawealthy. So, this is not uh demonizing him. This is saying you need to pay more to help the city that's helping you get rich.
I mean, let's remember, Laura, every single rich person has benefited from the lot of services from government, in many cases from government contracts and policies that help them get rich, and a lot of them we know find ways to evade paying the level of taxes that they should right now, even though it's way too low. They don't even pay those taxes.
So, it's not a personal front to Ken Griffin. We're using his example because it's so egregious that any one man could pay over $200 million for a single apartment when most Americans, most New Yorkers are struggling to make ends meet. Ken Griffin is going to build that tower, and he's going to continue to make tons of money in New York City. I assure you.
COATES: Kevin, what's your reaction to that notion? Because there have been some who are very complimentary of Mamdani's tactic and others who feel that this is vilifying wealth.
O'LEARY: Mamdani is still in his honeymoon period. He has only been there for a few months. It's amazing that his only policy moves that get lots of exposure, it's smart because he's pretty savvy at social media, is to think of new ways to tax people. He doesn't talk about efficiencies, execution skills to try to run the city any better. That's not what he's doing. He's saying, look, I'm going to get you a lot of free stuff. We know for certain that he's going to try his free food program in Harlem soon.
What I think is going to happen to him and many others that have tried the strategy of money for nothing and chicks for free is the weight of the policy finally breaks down. You know, it doesn't work. You can't get stuff for free.
[23:44:57]
And actually, selecting one element of the population for being successful and taxing them more than other people under the concept of their fair share is not fair enough is basically un-American. That's not the American dream. That's not why people come here.
COATES: Kevin, a new Pew poll found that 61 percent of people say that they are bothered a lot by the feeling the wealthy don't pay their fair share in taxes. Among Republicans, 41 percent feel that way. You believe this is going to backfire economically, but will it politically?
O'LEARY: Well, actually, the rich people pay all the tax. Eighty percent of the tax in America is paid by 20 percent of the people.
COATES: Well, they don't pay all the tax. I get the (INAUDIBLE), but they don't pay all the taxes. A lot of people pay taxes.
O'LEARY: My whole point is everybody in New York should get a free copy of "Atlas Shrugged." That's really a --
(CROSSTALK) -- basically explains why this -- it doesn't work. You can't make -- you can't milk a cow that leaves. Every rich cow is going to walk out of New York and go to Florida. And I'm kind of pissed off with that. It's ridiculous.
DE BLASIO: Laura --
COATES: Mayor de Blasio, go ahead.
DE BLASIO: The greatest period of prosperity and shared prosperity that this country knew really was during the Eisenhower administration and then the years thereafter. And during the Eisenhower administration, the wealthy paid the highest level of taxation in the history of this country. It actually helped the government to fund research to create more transportation and infrastructure. It helped the whole country to thrive.
What's happened, really, from Reagan till now is just a constant reduction of taxes on the wealthy. And it's not surprising, Laura. That polling you referenced, the American people have really gotten fed up. Even a lot of Republicans, as you said, do not want to see wealthy people get away with paying much less than they should. So, let's be clear. This is actually not only good politics. It's good policy because the money it generates will allow New York City to be more effective. And I guarantee you, a lot of people can prosper when New York City is able to provide those services to everyone.
COATES: This is the beginning of what will be a very long debate. Kevin and Bill, thank you so much.
DE BLASIO: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Up next, why are world famous magicians who admit they know nothing about the law writing to the United States Supreme Court about a death penalty case? Penn Jillette of "Penn & Teller Fame" will join me to explain, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And you are feeling no pain.
UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE). Before we do this, let's make sure (bleep).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Whether it's on stage or their hit series "Penn & Teller: B.S.," the iconic magic duo Penn and Teller built a career, calling out what they think is B.S., be it conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or in the clip you just saw, hypnosis. But this is not just about entertainment anymore because Penn and Teller are bringing their latest act all the way to the Supreme Court, this time calling B.S. in what's known as investigative hypnosis. They just filed an amicus brief asking the court to hear the appeal of a death row inmate, one named Charles Don Flores.
Flores was convicted of murder in 1999 and has since maintained his innocence. His conviction relied on testimony from a woman who identified him after being hypnotized by an officer, supposedly to jog her memory.
Penn and Teller point out Flores did not match the original description of the perpetrators that this woman gave before being hypnotized. There was no physical evidence tying him to the murder. And someone else even confessed to the crime. But Charles was nonetheless charged as an accomplice under Texas law based on that woman's testimony.
Let's talk about all this with one half of Penn and Teller. Penn Jillette, welcome. Penn, I'm really glad you're here.
PENN JILLETTE, MAGICIAN, ENTERTAINER, AUTHOR: Hi. How are you?
COATES: I'm good. I mean, people hearing about this case for the first time. It's mind blowing to hear the facts. And I'm curious how you first learned about Charles's case and what made you decide to get involved in writing an amicus brief.
JILLETTE: Well, I want to first say that I have a very strong bias. I'm as anti-death penalty as one could be without being you. And I've been very against that. But that's not what I'm talking about. That's just my bias. And I also do not know whether Mr. Flores is innocent or guilty. I have no information on that. But this is one case where a person who is a magician and a Vegas performer and has worked carnival actually may have something to say that's actually important.
Hypnosis, we did a show, as you said, B.S., about it, and it's a very difficult subject because there are some states that could be called hypnosis that I don't understand. What's being done here is what I would call stage hypnosis, which is a magic trick.
[23:55:02]
And you get someone under a stressful situation be on stage in Vegas in front of a few thousand people or being at a police station being asked about a murder. And then you can -- you can guide people very easily and change their memories.
One of the things I do nightly, and I'll be doing in a couple hours here in Vegas, is telling people stuff that did not happen. And one of the tricks you use in magic is to recount what happened incorrectly. Remind them of things they didn't know. Remind them of things they saw that they didn't see. And you make those changes.
And because memory is not a video recorder, memory is fluid, every time you bring up a memory, you're recreating it and adjusting it. And people who work on stage know that. Maybe not intellectually, but certainly viscerally.
And I believe that what that police officer did to that woman in that room is precisely what I do on stage in the magic show every night. And that is very bothersome, that someone could be put to death based on the cheesy tricks that I've spent my life doing.
COATES: I want to play for our audience because we actually have video of the hypnosis session. I should say, many states, they have banned testimony from witnesses that do involve hypnosis, including Texas back in 2023. The problem in Charles's case is that the law does not apply retroactively. But again, here's the video, the actual video of the hypnosis session. Listen and watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Just relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Being very relaxed. Can you tell how long his hair is? If he has it neatly cut? Neatly trimmed?
UNKNOWN: I see it to his shoulders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, after seeing that and knowing that the witness originally told police officers that she had seen two white men with long hair in the scene of the crime and knowing that this defendant on death row is Latino, short hair, what did the Supreme Court need to know about the possibilities that were unleashed in a hypnosis technique like this?
JILLETTE: Well, I don't think you really need much of an expert to see that he's changing the situation. People desperately want approval. And you have someone that is, and I don't need to make a false comparison, but a police officer is in a position of authority. And a person on stage talking to someone in front of thousands of people also has a kind of authority. And I believe they overlap very, very much. And once she has changed her memory, she can't go back and access the original.
And I believe that's the mistake that people make. They think that if they remember something, they're remembering it at the time. And if they remember something, they're not remembering it at the time, they're remembering it now. And it's a very important distinction that we feel part of our career on.
COATES: What's so fascinating about what you've described is that the person who has been influenced through hypnosis actually believes that they are telling the truth.
JILLETTE: Well, you're also -- we're both using the word hypnosis loosely. I don't want to speak to deep clinical psychological hypnosis, which the jury, so to speak, is still out on. I'm talking about this police officer does not know what he's doing. He's doing stuff from movies. He's doing stuff that I do. And that is not -- that is no -- no place whatsoever in our legal system.
I believe, and I -- forgive the humors here, I believe you could put me in a room with that woman, and I could talk to her for half an hour, and I could get her to honestly believe that she had experienced things that were different. And we have the evidence right there in the recording. She says one thing, and then she changes it. What more do you need to see?
COATES: And yet, there's a man on death row in the Supreme Court weighing that very point.
JILLETTE: Yes.
COATES: Penn Jillette, it is so compelling to hear. You describe at least the stage hypnosis. Thank you so much.
JILLETTE: Thank you. Thank you so much.
COATES: Well, thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
But first, a quick programming note. Kara Swisher is diving into the booming longevity industry, becoming both reporter and test subject as she explores anti-aging, biotech, A.I. and more. CNN Original Series, "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever," premieres Saturday at 9 p.m. on CNN and the next day on the CNN app.
