Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Self-Contradiction And Mixed Signals Are In Spotlight; Laura Coates Interviews Rep. Nancy Mace; DOJ Alleges Voter Fraud; Trump's Labor Secretary Resigns; Singer Charged With Murder. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 20, 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: Tonight, another high-profile exit from President Trump's cabinet. The White House announced that Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is stepping down and taking a job in the private sector. A source told CNN a watchdog investigating a complaint that she was having a sexual relationship with a member of her security team and accusation of professional misconduct were happening at the same time. And her lawyer has called those allegations against her absurd.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, tonight, the whiplash over the Iran war goes into overdrive days before the ceasefire is set to end. Is Trump's running public commentary preventing a deal? Congresswoman Nancy Mace joins me tonight to weigh in on the president's wartime strategy and the fallout over the culture of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. Plus, the newest head-scratcher over Trump's bogus election fraud claims. Now, his DOJ is demanding 2024 ballots from a state he won. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, forgetting the deal President Trump wants with Iran, it was never going to be easy. But the way it's playing out in public is making it even harder. One minute, we're told the Strait of Hormuz is open. Then it's not. We're told a deal is nearly in hand. Then it seems no one is on the same page. We're told new talks imminent. But Iran says, not so fast. And in the latest twist, Trump is tonight insisting the Iranians will come to the table.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (voice-over): Well, they're going to negotiate. And if they don't, they're going to see problems like they've never seen before and they're going to negotiate. And, hopefully, they will make a fair deal and they will build their country back up. But they will not have -- when they do it, they will not have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the signals, they're all over the place. And just to get a sense of the whiplash, all you got to do is look at the last few days. Friday, Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is open. Trump plays it up, saying Iran has agreed to never close the strait again. Fast forward, 24 hours later, Iran shuts it down, blaming the U.S. for breaches of trust. How about Sunday? Trump threatens to blow up Iranian bridges and power plants again, declaring, no more Mr. Nice Guy. The same day, he says U.S. forces attacked and seized an Iranian- flagged cargo ship after it tried to bypass the U.S. blockade. And today, Trump is saying it's highly unlikely that he will extend the ceasefire that is set to expire on Wednesday, even though he previously said he considered it.

And Iran isn't even confirming new talks. Instead, a top Iranian negotiator is saying that Trump is trying to turn the negotiating table, which is in his own imagination, into a table of surrender.

Now, all of these is unfolding over social media, it's unfolding in the press. And Trump has made more than 15 Iran-related posts on Truth Social just since Friday morning. A lot of them walls of text. And that's not counting all the statements he has made to news outlets. And there are many.

Now, some Trump officials are telling CNN the public play-by-play is actually hurting talks. But we're getting a sense of why he seems to be doing it. Remember this post? Of course, you do. It's his Easter Sunday message where he demanded Iran, in his words, open the effing strait, and wrote, at the end, praise be to Allah. Well, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that an advisor asked the president about it. And apparently, the president told him, he said he wanted to seem as unstable and insulting as possible, believing it could bring the Iranians to the table. It was a language, he said, the Iranians would understand.

I will begin with senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Max Boot, and geopolitics analyst Bobby Ghosh. Glad to have both of you here. I'm going to begin with you, Max, because just given the last few days, do you see any evidence that this strategy to seem unstable and speak the universal language or things that Iran will understand and making these public claims -- is it working?

MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW AT COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, COLUMNIST AT WASHINGTON POST, AUTHOR: No. And remember, this whole madman theory actually dates back to Richard Nixon.

[23:05:00]

He had the idea that he would act unstable and crazy and scare North Vietnam into making a deal with the United States. And guess what? It didn't work for Richard Nixon because, basically, the deal he signed was very one-sided in favor of North Vietnam.

There's no sign that it's working in Trump's favor today with Iran. He just basically sends off these conflicting signals, which make the Iranians and everybody else wonder where the heck is he coming from?

And basically, by writing so much on social media about how a deal is imminent and how he thinks the war is about to end, he is signaling desperation. He is telling the Iranians he is very, very eager to end the war. And that's not the posture you want to go into when you're in this tough-nosed negotiation.

And just the whole idea of giving this play-by-play as the negotiations are going on in public as to what's going on in private, it's not helpful. It's not productive. I mean, if you remember the last time we had a successful negotiation with the Iranians was during the Obama administration. Do you remember President Obama tweeting all the time, like every five minutes, about what was supposedly going on behind closed doors? Of course not. This is not how you would achieve a successful diplomatic resolution. So, it's basically screwed up 10 ways this Sunday.

COATES: Bobby, obviously, Max does not believe this is political manifestation of trying to get and will what you want to happen. And there are those who say that it's undermining those behind the scenes diplomacy by showing weakness as opposed to alerting what's actually going on. I mean, the Iranian top negotiator says that Trump is turning the negotiating table into a table of surrender. Now, that could mean that he feels that the demands are DOA and completely unacceptable to them, but it could also mean that he is trying to impose a will he does not have. What do you think?

BOBBY GHOSH, GEOPOLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, AUTHOR: Well, the Iranians know how to do brinkmanship. They showed again, as was talking about, the negotiations with Obama, which ran for several years. They did a lot of this. They, you know, would come to the table, and they would say, nope, nothing is working, we're going to leave. And then, they would be persuaded to stay at the table.

There were many more players involved then. The great powers of the world were involved in those negotiations. And as he points out, there was nobody constantly changing their mind while their conversations were going on. The Iranians understand brinkmanship, and they're not going to be -- you don't kid a kidder, and they're very good at this kind of kidding.

The changing of Trump's mind while the negotiations are taking place often confuses his own people. If you are Steve Witkoff or Kushner or Vance, you've left Washington with one set of instructions, along the way, presumably, you're on the phone with the president, you're getting another set of instructions. You sit down at the table and the guy across the table from you say, have you seen your president's latest tweet or latest social media post? And there's a pretty good chance you haven't. That is no way to conduct these kinds of negotiations.

And to the madman theory that Nixon tried and failed with, the world is a much more complicated place now that it was then. The stakes are far greater than it was back then. The markets are much more connected, and we can see the mayhem that takes place in the stock markets and energy markets every time the president posts something on social media. This is absolutely not the way to do it and it wouldn't work with anybody.

Let me be clear, nobody at the other side of the negotiation table is going to buy this and least of all the Iranians because, as I said, you can't kid a kidder. They know how to do this.

COATES: There are questions as well as to who ultimately is behind the Iranian side of negotiations and with whom they are actually negotiating and whom the buck stops.

But Max, I mean, the president renewed his threat of broad attacks on Iran's infrastructure, as we've talked about, I mean power plants and bridges, if no deal is reached. He has also said that it's highly unlikely, his words, that he would extend the ceasefire agreement beyond Wednesday, again, if there is no agreement. Do you think that Iran believes him with respect to this and the ongoing threat with Iran? Do you look at this as the boy who cried wolf?

BOOT: I think they look at it and see that he's desperate for a deal. And I don't think they take his threats as seriously perhaps as they should because he has made these same threats a number of times before.

COATES: But I'm packing for a second.

BOOT: Yes.

COATES: I've heard you say this before. The idea of him being desperate to have a deal --

BOOT: Yes.

COATES: -- and end the war, have a nuclear deal, why do you believe that that undermines his ability to negotiate effectively?

BOOT: Well, because the Iranians know that they have leverage over him and they know they have leverage over the entire world because they control the Strait of Hormuz.

[23:10:00]

And the longer they control the Strait of Hormuz, the longer the energy crisis around the world goes on, the higher inflation gets in the U.S., and the lower Trump's approval numbers. So, they have a potent source of leverage.

Now, to be sure, we have leverage over the Iranians, right? Because we've caused tremendous damage with this US-Israeli bombing campaign. And at the moment, the U.S. Navy is also blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

COATES: Is the blockade effective to you?

GHOSH: Well, yes. But Iran has much higher pain threshold than the United States does. And they have far more to lose from a bad negotiated outcome than the United States does, and they're aware of this. And they don't have a democratically elected government. They don't have to worry about opinion polls.

So, if you're ruling, if you're part of the ruling clique in Iran, you don't care how much pain it is causing the people there, you don't have to worry about the price of gas at the pump, you're just trying to get the best deal for your regime with a guy at the other side who, to Max's point, is plainly signaling a sense of growing desperation by his unpredictable and quite wild responses on a day-to-day basis, sometimes on an hourly basis.

COATES: There's desperation, as you talk about. There's also a fundamental mistrust that's happening here between both sides, probably warranted in many respects. What do you think needs to happen to bridge that trust gap for negotiations to become productive, assuming the president's strategy is effective in getting them to the negotiating table?

BOOT: I think they need to pare down the agenda because, as Bobby was reminding us, it took a long time to reach the last nuclear deal with Iran, more than 18 months. It's not going to happen overnight in Islamabad. And you should not hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage to negotiating into all these disagreements that the U.S. and Iran have had over many decades.

So, what my suggestion right now is they should negotiate a much more modest open for open accord where we agree to lift our blockade of Iranian shipping and they agree to lift their blockade of all other shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Get the Strait open, get the oil flowing, help the world economy, and also help the Iranian economy and buy some time to do the lengthy negotiations you need to do to actually possibly reach an accord at some point down the line on the nuclear issue. But right now, you know, keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed is a ticking time bomb.

COATES: Are you optimistic about what's supposed to be tomorrow's talks or at least traveling to the talks in Pakistan that the Vice President, J.D. Vance, would convey or be able to effectively convey either that message or one that persuades the Iranians to remain at the table until the end of a deal?

GHOSH: Well, first of all, someone has to take away the president's phone.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Well, that's not happening.

GHOSH: And until that happens, nothing. You can be confident about nothing. You can be -- you can predict nothing. J.D. Vance can't predict what's going to come next. So, never mind anybody else at that negotiation.

So, the Pakistanis are confident that negotiations will take place. Not tomorrow, the day after, but pretty soon. They're the only people who are hearing consistently from both sides. So, let's take that at face value.

We know both sides want negotiations. They don't want this war to go on either side. And neither do any of their friends. The Chinese and the Russians are telling the Iranians, end this. Our allies are telling us, end this. So, there's plenty of reasons for the negotiations to take place.

COATES: Is there a reason that you would extend the ceasefire for that very reason?

GHOSH: The Pakistanis are again saying that they expect the president to extend the ceasefire overnight. So, if he doesn't do it overnight, he may do it a couple of days later.

And also, let's be clear, even if the ceasefire doesn't end, even if the ceasefire technically ends, that doesn't mean the bombing starts right away. There can be a great period between the deadline ending and the actual resumption of kinetic action from either side. So, I would not cling too tightly to that deadline.

Logic suggests that negotiations will take place. But what comes at the negotiation table depends very much on the mood of the president at any given moment, and that, really, is completely unpredictable.

COATES: Max, Bobby, thank you both. So, is Congress OK with Trump's now open-ended debt timeline? And what about his strategy so far? I'll ask Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace those questions and much more, next. Plus, is Congressman Cory Mills the next member to get expelled? The new push tonight to try and force him out over misconduct allegations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the White House had a visitor dropped by today to discuss the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. As you know, he has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for attacking Iran. This comes ahead of the anticipated peace talks this week. At times, Graham has influenced what direction Trump should go. But my next guest recently told me Graham should go ahead and stay out of the Situation Room.

Joining me now, South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman, thank you for being here. I want to talk more about what we have discussed. But the president posted today -- quote -- "I am under no pressure whatsoever, although, it will all happen relatively quickly! Time is not my adversary." Realizing, of course, it took years to finalize a 2015 nuclear deal. Congresswoman, are you concerned that this could really drag on or are you OK with that prospect?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, right now, what I'm seeing in the Middle East is that things are moving rather quickly right now. I do believe that Trump has some runway here.

[23:20:02]

And he has done a good job so far. One of the concerns that many of us had in Congress was on having troops on the ground. He has done all of these without troops on the ground. Now, you know, any time someone shoots a missile or a Shahed drone or whatever of the Strait of Hormuz, the place is going to shut down. But he has a second delegation going to the Middle East now to negotiate a deal with Iran.

I think all the pieces are on the table to get done what he needs to get done. I don't believe it will take years. I'm hopeful that it will be days and weeks. But it's also going to take every partner in the Middle East, including the Gulf states, including Israel, to sign on board for whatever agreement the Trump administration comes to secure peace in the Middle East. I think that they will do it.

COATES: Do you have confidence then that -- excuse me, congresswoman. As you know, the president's post threatening to obliterate Iran's entire civilization received swift backlash. "The Wall Street Journal" reports that Trump made that post because he thought appearing unstable of sorts would help negotiations with Iran and maybe even scare them to end the war.

Based on what appears to be optimism that you have with respect to the strategy he has employed so far without having boots on the ground, do you find that strategy that he has employed to be effective? Do you support it? And do you think that it will lead to an effective nuclear deal?

MACE: Well, I think, right now, that leadership style has been effective with Iran to many people's surprise. I will tell you, the culture in the Middle East is when you are attacked, you have to respond with even greater force. And so, otherwise, you're not respected, you're seen as weak in that particular culture, particularly in wartime. We're talking about strategy and tactics and military, et cetera.

So, I think that's probably part of the thinking, and I can't speak for the president on this, is to show strength in that regard. He has done that verbally and also done that by all of the bombs and missiles and everything that has been used on the ground in Iran so far. Right now, I think the chips are on his side of the table right now, and we're seeing his administration go to work. And I'm very hopeful at this moment that this will not drag on for much longer.

COATES: Well, one could argue, given the logic you have just described, that Iran would respond to the statements and the strength that the president has exhibited in kind, which could lead to the prolonged aspect of the war.

But let's turn to the Financial Times reporting because they report that economists are warning that Americans will feel the economic impact of the war even after it ends, whenever that may be. And economists say, congresswoman, that higher prices could actually last until the end of the year and possibly longer than that. Do you have confidence that he has a handle on not only the war, but also the repercussions with the economy?

MACE: On the war and also oil prices, as I've seen last week, have dropped down. But I'm running for governor. I'm the leading candidate for governor. When the war broke out, one of the things I stated was that we should not pay fuel taxes in the state of South Carolina.

I'm working very hard to reduce the state income tax down to zero over the next two to three years and put out a plan to do that because affordability and cost of living to every single American right now with the Iran war or without the Iran war, even previously Iran war breaking out, was a top concern for constituents and voters alike across the state of South Carolina, across the country.

So, that's something that I am deeply concerned about and something that I've been fervently working on at the federal and the state level.

COATES: Does the president's actions undermine the ability to make that successful at the state level?

MACE: Well, there's no doubt that there's a cost to war. And when we're talking about a $1.5 trillion ask for the Department of Defense spending, there are going to be a lot of questions about that. And what that spending looks like, what cuts have to be made to make that, and how do we ensure the costs of goods don't rise? For example, suspending the Jones Act doesn't help American jobs. It has actually hurt American maritime workers.

And so, you know, I try to take a look at this from a very high level, but also a very 10,000 foot level to ensure what other things can we do like no taxes on medicine, no taxes on groceries, no taxes on gas during this time period to ensure that as things go up, if inflation is going to hit, that we have mechanisms in place to make things more affordable for every American regardless of what's going on overseas in the Middle East and war or no war.

COATES: Well --

MACE: It's very important for our leaders nationally.

COATES: I -- let's talk about your perspective as a member of Congress because when I spoke to you last month about the war, you are quite adamant that the president needed to come to Congress and ask for authorization to go to war. We're now seven weeks into it. He has yet to do that. If these ceasefire talks fail, should the president go to Congress and seek that authorization?

MACE: I believe that he should. And in previous administrations, they've come to Congress to declare war, they've come to Congress to get authorized use of military force.

[23:25:02]

Those things have happened, whether it was Pearl Harbor, whether that was in 2001 and 2002 with Iraq and Afghanistan. That has been the precedent. And there will be war powers resolutions, probably more than one, that come forward after that 60-day mark. You'll see that conversation heat back up again in Congress.

COATES: Would you vote to approve the authorization? MACE: Well, I want to -- I want to know more about what it's going to cost and what we're going to do and what assets we're going to use. I think that's very important before we go make that kind of decision. How long are we talking about? Those are all important details that need to be answered for the American people before Congress actually takes a vote.

COATES: Do you believe that the administration will offer that information for you to make that informed decision?

MACE: I hope that they do. I've been very, I would say, honest and truthful about meetings and hearings that we've had and briefings with certain Department of Defense level individuals and some of that information. It's very important that they're honest when they come to Congress and that they're truthful and they tell us what things are going to cost and they don't obfuscate or hide information because we're eventually going to find out.

And we don't want to hurt an effort that is right now being successful, we don't want to hurt that effort at all, which is why it's important that we have these briefings and that we have the best briefers come to Congress.

COATES: You just introduced a resolution, congresswoman, to expel Florida Congressman Cory Mills after he was accused of assaulting women and violating campaign finance laws. Now, he denies those claims. And now, according to NOTUS, he now is drafting an expulsion resolution against you. What's your response?

MACE: I'm not afraid of any predators. I've been taking on predators for years. And his record speaks for itself. There have been multiple reports with receipts, with information, with data, photos, videos, body cam, DD214s, all of that, and none of it adds up.

And if the standard is members of Congress, that we as a conference, we as a Congress, we as an institution, respect women, we don't beat them, that we respect employees, we don't harass them, those kinds of things, then there has to be a standard. Everyone has to be held to the same standard, Republican or Democrat alike. And I'm someone who has held my colleagues to that standard regardless of the politics, regardless of party. That needs to happen more often, not less in Congress.

COATES: It seems these allegations have been outstanding for several months, if not years. Why are you pushing for the expulsion now?

MACE: Well, I think this is the time to strike while the iron is hot. I tried to censure him and have him removed from his committees in the fall. And he decided to work with Democrats and Ilhan Omar, I believe, to cover him and to save his skin while he was facing the censorship and getting removed from his committees. We're seeing a real movement with people across the country who want to see elected officials held accountable when they've done wrong. And Cory Mills embodies many of the things that I believe are corrupt, that predatory toward women and toward his fellow members. This is not the first time that he has threatened me. And I say -- you know, quite frankly, I say, bring it on. I welcome sunshine, I welcome transparency, I welcome accountability. And the irony is not lost on me that a predator in Congress is threatening to expel a female member of Congress for exposing his lies and his corruption and his predatory behavior. The irony is not lost on me. I hope he does it, bring it on. Always a lot of money off of it. You can go to nancymace.org to support the truth, to support honesty in politics, and to expel someone who shouldn't be here.

COATES: As you know, the congressman, Cory Mills, denies the allegations against him. I'll leave it to two of you to discuss the expulsion. Congresswoman Nancy Mace, thank you so much.

MACE: Thank you.

COATES: Next, the DOJ's new effort to punish and investigate the 2022 -- 2020 and 2024 elections as Democrats now face demands to turn over ballots, this time in Michigan. Plus, FBI Director Kash Patel sues "The Atlantic" for defamation, seeking $250 million. How will he prove his case? We'll get into it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Now, if you thought the president's victory in 2024 would mean he's over making election fraud claims, you haven't been paying attention. The DOJ just sent a letter to the clerk of the largest county in Michigan, Wayne County, requesting they turn over all ballots and election materials from the 2024 election. And the reason? Quote -- "Based on this history of fraud convictions and other allegations concerning the election procedures."

Now, the DOJ didn't cite much evidence of that being the case. And mind you, Trump, he won in Michigan the very year they want records for. The Michigan's attorney general is rejecting the DOJ's request, saying -- quote -- "This request is as absurd as it is baseless."

But this is not the first step the administration has taken to re- litigate claims of voter fraud. Remember back in January when the FBI seized hundreds of 2020 ballot boxes from Fulton County, Georgia? And just last month, the FBI subpoenaed records from an audit of the 2020 election in Arizona.

[23:35:00]

Joining me now is Rick Hasen. He is an expert in election integrity and a professor of law and political science at UCLA. Rick Hasen, thank you for being here. They're demanding ballots for 2024. Again, Trump won Michigan that year. What do you think the department is trying to accomplish with that request?

RICK HASEN, ELECTION INTEGRITY EXPERT, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE AT UCLA: Well, we don't know for sure. There are a few possibilities. One is that Harmeet Dhillon, who's the head of the civil rights at the Department of Justice, there are rumors that she is being considered for attorney general. This is way to curry favor with Trump. Another reason is just, generally, that the department is trying to feed into Trump's baseless conspiracy theories about elections being stolen. Another possibility is that they're just trying to undermine people's confidence in the 2026 elections.

What I think we can be confident about is they're not really trying to do a bona fide investigation because, once again, they're pointing to either false or exaggerated or misunderstood claims about fraud in an effort to go on a fishing expedition to get these kinds of ballots.

COATES: You know, I used to work in the voting section, civil rights division, and I can't imagine this being the focus rather than the number of cases that likely are meritorious.

I want to turn to the FBI Director, Kash Patel, because he went a step further, Rick. He vowed that arrests are coming. They were related to the 2020 election. Listen to what he told Fox News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL HOST: Well, let me ask you about the mission because every time I see President Trump, he says this repeatedly, that the election was rigged in 2020. I mean, he says it all the time. We all know that. And it's almost getting lost because he says it so much. You've been at the FBI now 14 months. Have you done anything about that?

KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: I can announce on your show that we've got all the information we need. We're working with our prosecutors at the Department of Justice and Attorney General Todd Blanche.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

PATEL: And we are going to be making arrests. And it's coming. And I promise you, it's coming soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm intrigued. But, again, 2020 has been litigating the courts, it's litigating the press politically, and we haven't seen any evidence of widespread voter fraud that has been found ever. So, why this threat?

HASEN: Well, first of all, you know, again, it might be just personnel issues. Kash Patel was someone who was the subject of a story in "The Atlantic" on Friday, suggesting that he has problems with alcohol and has problems with the governance of the FBI, and this is a way to maybe prove to the boss that he should still stay in his job or it could just be bluster or, and this is the worst case possibility, is they're going to rely on false claims to try to actually prosecute people.

We've seen them try and do this with James Comey, with Letitia James, with Brennan. So, with all of these people, there's really nothing there, but it doesn't necessarily stop them from trying to bring charges.

COATES: Let's talk about what you mentioned with Kash Patel. He is suing "The Atlantic" for $250 million over an article that they published and titled, "The FBI Director is MIA." Now, that lawsuit says "The Atlantic" falsely asserts that he -- quote -- "is a habitual drunk, unable to perform the duties of his office, is a threat to public safety and" -- quote -- "unreachable in emergencies."

Now, "The Atlantic," they stand by all their reporting. The lawsuit states that "The Atlantic" acted with -- quote -- "actual malice," which, you know, is for a public figure. It means that they reported things they either knew to be false or consciously disregarded or recklessly did so, the idea that it could be false. Patel though had an interesting point that he raised when he was threatening to sue, and he suggested that the actual malice standard was becoming a layup to prove. Will it?

HASEN: Well, you know, first of all, it's really self-defeating that Kash Patel brought so much more attention to a story that was behind a payroll of "The Atlantic." And now, everybody is talking about this. And so, you know, if he's really concerned about his reputation, this doesn't seem to be the way to do it, with a splashy claim for $250 million. But this -- he would not be the first.

COATES: But it does invite discovery. It does invite discovery and risks on both sides if it does, right?

HASEN: I think a big risk to Kash Patel because one of the defenses would be truth. And so, if it turns out that he was actually so drunk that his FBI security detail couldn't wake him up, that would be important information to know.

And so, you know, I don't know how far this goes, but it also shows that we've seen some of Trump's allies, another one is Alan Dershowitz, trying to whittle away the actual malice standard. They want to make it easier to sue journalists. And if they're successful in getting rid of the actual malice standard and move to something like a negligence standard, what that would mean is that it would chill the press from doing its investigations and reporting what it finds out.

[23:39:59]

So, I hope he doesn't succeed in that. I don't think it's likely he will. But, you know, we'll see where this lawsuit goes, if anywhere.

COATES: One risk people are pointing out, and I've been thinking a great deal about is, obviously, a defense to any defamation or libel- based case is going to be about proving that you did, in fact, adhere to your standard, that you did not act with disregard for the truth or actual malice which, for journalists, might entail having to demonstrate that your sourcing was accurate now or at least that it was well-sourced and reported under an ethical standard. Do you foresee a case like this having an impact on the anonymity of sources being preserved?

HASEN: It's possible. I really don't think it's going to get this far. You know, if we're really getting into discovery, I think Patel has much more at risk than "The Atlantic" does. I heard "The Atlantic" reporter this morning on NPR, and they're standing by their story. They have the documentation. Maybe they can produce some of that stuff under seal so that it couldn't be publicly released. But I'm sure "The Atlantic," which is a very reputable publication, would not have done this without sourcing.

And if you read the article, they talk about multiple sources. They had nine sources, 12 sources for some of the claims they're making. That really shows that they've done their homework in something like this.

COATES: We shall see. Two hundred and fifty million-dollar lawsuit in the wings. Rick Hasen, thank you so much.

HASEN: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, after virtually no turnover in the beginning, another shakeup for Trump's cabinet as his labor secretary steps down amid a misconduct investigation. Plus, $3 gas until next year. How Trump's energy secretary just made a complete mess of Trump's short-term pain theory. The panel is here to debate it all, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Another Trump cabinet member exits the administration. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who is under an internal investigation into possible misconduct, steps down for a job in the private sector. This as another cabinet secretary is under fire from President Trump for saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN LEAD WASHINGTON ANCHOR: When, do you think, it's realistic for Americans to expect the gas will go back to under $3 a gallon?

CHRIS WRIGHT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF ENERGY: I don't know. That could happen later this year. That might not happen until next year. But prices have likely peaked, and they'll start going down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Maybe next year. Well, that prediction did not land well with the president. He said Secretary Wright is totally wrong. But that is not what the experts are saying because gas analysts, they warn that big relief at the pump is actually not around the corner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICK DE HAAN, HEAD OF PETROLEUM ANALYSIS, GASBUDDY: I don't know that prices have peaked. We certainly could see re-acceleration here as oil prices go up. I don't expect prices to fall below $3 a gallon until later this year. And that's still a big if that happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, CNN political commentator and former deputy assistant to President Joe Biden, Jamal Simmons, and former New York co-chair of the Trump campaign, Joe Borelli. Glad to have both you guys here. Joe, let me begin with you. The timeline for gas prices to go up or down or get better for anyone, how do you think that setting with voters?

JOE BORELLI, FORMER NEW YORK CO-CHAIRMAN, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Look, you know, oil prices, like some other things, go up like rockets come down like feathers. We saw the WTI price come down to $86 a barrel as of today. To give people context, the price of oil throughout 2022 was over $87, $88 a barrel going up to 110, 120. So, this is not as high still as it was during the Biden administration.

COATES: Do voters have that same timeline?

BORELLI: That said, that said, we still are about a two to four-week lag behind the price of WTI to what you're going to see at the pump. So, people should expect to see some prices trickle down. It's not going to be the 2.99 a gallon that we like in the beginning of the year. But at some point, over the next couple of months, you will see this lag. As the strait reopen, as countries adjust either through Saudi pipelines or getting oil from America, the prices will come down.

COATES: That's -- you know, there's a lot of contingencies in that and what might happen. I wonder if voters are falling the minutia of the up and down. But Jamal, a new NBC poll shows the president's approval has dipped down to 37 percent. That's a second term low, 37 percent. Now, the economy, that remains a top issue for voters. Foreign policy does not, though.

Some Republicans say that Democrats have only had an anti-Trump focus, and that has been their Achilles heel as to why they're not the party in power. Do you think Democrats are having a sound midterm message?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIOS DIRECTOR TO VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: First of all, anti-Trump sells. So, I think people are talking about it because voters want people, candidates who are going to stand up and push back against the president.

One thing about gas prices, and we saw this in the poll, 29 percent of people saying the economy is what they're tracking. Billionaires might track the stock market. Everybody else is looking at those gas prices every day. You pass by the station, either the one you get your gas out of or the one that's in the neighborhood, and people can tell you exactly how much they paid the last time they bought gas. It is something that people track a lot. And so -- COATES: They're hearing grunts at the pump. People -- when you go at the pump, you hear, like, ahh!

SIMMONS: Absolutely. When you see that number -- when you see that number tick up over a certain number, you're like, wow, I can't believe we're still doing this. So, being a dollar or so over what people were paying a year ago is something that voters really will pay attention to. And I think it's going to matter a lot going into election day. And we're starting to get into the season where these numbers congeal and everyone's voter I.D. or voter attitude is starting to settle in and it's going to be really hard to break it.

[23:49:54]

COATES: Joe, how the -- how can the president, forget the strategists, how can the president, who has the biggest pulpit of any Republican, frankly, how can he appeal to voters before midterms with a clear message that gives them the timeline that would give him an advantage?

BORELLI: Well, a couple of things. So, there's a consensus among Democrats and Republicans that Donald Trump is a polarizing figure. He drives people to the polls for and against him. When he's not on the ballot, that's a problem for Republicans. So, we actually need more Trump on the campaign trail this year. We need him doing his greatest hits.

You saw from that poll. You just saw that the greatest hits for Republicans -- the economy, you know, crime, immigration are still, you know, top five, top six issues for Republicans. Not as high as they once were, but still high. He's got to go back to the greatest hits album, and we need him on the campaign trail.

COATES: Do you think you want him more on the campaign? Is that good for Democrats? More Trump?

SIMMONS: Look, send him out there if you want to. I think the news is the news. I think the president said he wasn't going into war in the Middle East. We're there. The president said he was going to bring gas prices down. They're going the other way. The president said that he was going to focus on all the other prices. They're still there. And they're kind of in the game that couldn't shoot straight. It seems too much like they're making this up as they go, whether it's from the tweets and fighting with the pope.

People didn't vote for this stuff. I think the more you want to send Trump out, fine. If he's going to act the way he has been acting the last few months, I think Democrats will do fine with that.

COATES: But they are accustomed to his antics, and he won nonetheless. So, then what?

SIMMONS: Maybe that's true. It may also be true that things build up over time. And over time, they kind of get -- people get up to here with it. And what they want is for their lives to be better. And right now, that's not happening. BORELLI: You know what's polling worse than Donald Trump in these polls? The Democratic Party. So, we still have a lot of ground to go before the midterm. We still have a lot of opportunity to make up some of these poll numbers.

SIMMONS: The difference is generic Democrats now in the ballot. There are going to be some individual Democrats that are airing millions of ads, millions of dollars of ads that tell people why they should like them. That's going to be very different coming election day.

COATES: Come the arm wrestles. Jamal, Joe, thank you both so much. Next, the singer D4vd in court to face charges of murder in the gruesome death of a 14-year-old girl. And the death penalty is on the table. How investigators built their case after a year of mystery and what the singer is saying tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: He went from viral fame to a murder charge in a case that is shocking the country. And tonight, 21-year-old singer David Anthony Burke, known commonly as D4vd, has pleaded not guilty to all charges related to the death of a 14-year-old girl. Her name? Celeste Rivas Hernandez. The charges come seven months after her body was found dismembered and decomposed in the trunk of an abandoned Tesla, one that the prosecutors say was registered to David.

Earlier, an attorney for the singer said -- quote -- "The actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez, and he was not the cause of her death. We will vigorously defend David's innocence."

I want to bring in CNN senior investigative correspondent Kyung Lah, who has been following all of these in Los Angeles. Kyung, the victim here, only 14 years old. And prosecutors, they're alleging that he sexually abused her for months. Family even reported her missing three times. I mean, what do we know about their interactions and the kind of evidence they're going to bring up?

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we can really -- let's start with the complaint here, Laura. What we have here is a very fulsome complaint. Three counts. The first count of murder, second count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14, and the third count being mutilation of human remains.

We heard the Los Angeles district attorney talk about a months-long contact between these two, between Celeste and David. And it's something that CNN has been able to match and track over those many months due to social media and video that's available on the web.

I want you to take a look at this video. We're going to roll a Twitch stream. It was streamed live on January 11, 2024. It's just after 3 a.m. You can see David and Celeste. And I want you to listen carefully to what Celeste says in this video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID BURKE, SINGER: I media trained you. That's controversial.

CELESTE RIVAS, VICTIM: As controversial of raping kids? Oh!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAH: And they're joking there, right? They think it's a joke. It's important to note that David has been charged in this complaint with continuous sexual abuse of one child, not many children, as she's joking there.

But it is something that you can see with many young people, Laura. We can find pictures of them together. We have a picture of David in Celeste's hometown. So, yes, this months-long, you know, relationship is something that was out in the open.

COATES: She was found dead in September of last year. That was nearly six months ago. Why did it take so long to charge him? Well, we could charge, frankly.

LAH: Yes. I mean, if you think about the state of decomposition, this was a girl who was put into two different bags, and then stuffed into a trunk, a small trunk of a Tesla, the front of it. You know how small they are. So, the state of decomposition makes it really difficult for evidence. And that was one of the challenges that we heard the police chief talk about, Laura.

COATES: And the reason the story, I understand, blew up online is because some of the lyrics that sound eerily similar to what's being alleged here, I mean, this was the subject of an investigation that you and your team conducted. What more do you know about that?

LAH: In part because it was such a rage among young people. This is a young man who really came of age through viral videos and his number one hit.

[00:00:01]

And he was just on the cusp of mainstream fame. It was romantic homicide. And that video pictures a young girl with a striking resemblance to Celeste. And that girl is stabbed in that video by David's alter ego. It's a nod to anime. It's important to note that art is not a replica for life, and this happened two years before, you know, the relationship with Celeste. So, these are important things to note, but that was part of the fascination with social media, Laura.

COATES: Kyung Lah, thank you. And thank all of you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.