Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

White House Correspondents' Dinner Shooting Suspect Charged With Attempting To Assassinate Trump; White House Blames Democrats For "Systemic Demonization" Of Trump; Trump And First Lady Call On ABC To Fire Jimmy Kimmel Over a Joke. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 27, 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)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: As the world watch the high-stakes meeting between Donald Trump and King Charles III, the attention briefly turned to something sweeter, beekeeping at the White House. First Lady Melania Trump, she announced the expansion of the White House's beehives with a new installation expected to boost honey production.

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

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, prosecutors revealed their case against the man accused of trying to assassinate President Trump. The chilling details of the attack and the charges that could still be coming. Plus, the political blame game over rhetoric now shifting into high gear as Trump uses the shooting as a reason to push for the White House ballroom. And Melania Trump calls on ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a joke he made before the attack. Is Kimmel going to address it? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, please tell me why another assassination attempt against the president of United States of America has become another political blame game. Here we are. The finger pointing is already well underway. Accusations are flying over whose rhetoric is responsible.

And we shouldn't lose sight of who is actually being held responsible and what actually happened, and a man who is already in custody, the gunman trying to force his way into a room with many of the most powerful people in this country, dare I say world, a room with the president of the United States, a room with Cabinet officials, almost the line of succession, lawmakers, journalists, students, people, many who rushed out after gunshots rang out.

And today, the suspect appeared in court for the first time. He was in a neon blue jumpsuit. And Allen is facing three charges, including attempted assassination of the president. He faces up to life in prison.

And the evidence prosecutors laid out, it is significant. Video shows the suspect charging through a magnetometer at the Washington Hilton with a shotgun. Now, prosecutors say that just before the attack, Allen emailed his family laying out his grievances against the Trump administration. The complaint, it lays out how he traveled from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. earlier in the week. You know what? It lists what he had with him. That pump action shotgun, a semi-automatic handgun, at least three knives. The DOJ is pointing to his manifesto as clear evidence of who exactly he was targeting and who he was not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You know, you can look at it and read it and it may seem kind of la-la. But, at the end, make no mistake, he says, I am targeting the administration officials, they are my targets, I'm prioritizing from the top down the highest ranking from the lowest, and I will not hesitate to get involved in any kind of encounter with anyone who blocks me from the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, prosecutors say they expect to bring more charges. You can expect that to be the case, frankly. But that's the criminal case we're talking about, where someone will stand trial. But now, there's the political fallout, debating who is guilty because, like so many other recent acts of political violence, it took no time at all for this one to be turned into a blame game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of him and his supporters by commentators, yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party, and even some in the media. This hateful and constant and violent rhetoric directed at President Trump day after day after day for 11 years has helped to legitimize this violence and bring us to this dark moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, Democrats, they are not going to let the White House run with that (ph). They say that was pure hypocrisy. That it's Republicans who have been dialing up the temperature for years.

[23:05:02]

And they're calling up the president's own rhetoric. And not just from long ago, but his very recent rhetoric. Like saying Rob Reiner and his wife were killed because of Trump derangement syndrome or commenting on Robert Mueller's death by writing -- quote -- "I'm glad he's dead." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, he put it this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: And this so-called White House press secretary wants to lecture America and lecture us about civility. Get lost. Clean up your own house before you have anything to say to us about the language that we use.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Like many lawmakers, my first guest wants answers about the shooting and also the response. Joining me now, New York Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, who sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees. He's also a former federal prosecutor. It's good to see you, congressman.

Look, this has been a whirlwind of activity, at least since Saturday. I know that you have spoken out against political violence. But this problem, I mean, it still persists despite years of pleas to turn down the rhetoric, frankly, on both sides. But I've got to understand, what is your reaction to the White House blaming Democrats and their rhetoric for what happened on Saturday night?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): I mean, it's pretty rich given that Donald Trump's rhetoric led to January 6th. And we know what Donald Trump's rhetoric leads to because we know many times over how his followers use violence in -- when they follow him. Now, that does not excuse rhetoric that would otherwise call for violence by anybody. The point is that we do need to dial it down on all sides.

But I got to tell you, Laura, the biggest problem is not whether it's elected officials or the media or whomever. The biggest problem is online radicalization and social media. What I see in my feed, for example, is so much worse than anything you hear publicly said by anybody. And what we are seeing is the absolute radicalization online of so many people that it is incredibly dangerous. And I do think that we need to rein that in with our social media companies so that this -- that kind of rhetoric is just not promoted on the social media sites, it's not amplified and, therefore, the radicalization can be reduced.

COATES: And people are awfully brave, as you know. I use the term brave loosely when they can hide behind the anonymity of a username and a handle to say whatever they want to say consequence-free. There has also been a lot of criticism of the social media companies you talk about, but they got Section 230, congressman, where they can say, look, I'm just the form, I didn't say these things.

So, do you think there is an increased appetite for social media platforms to have greater accountability if the online rhetoric is what's really fueling the potential for violence?

GOLDMAN: Well, I would support revisiting Section 230, but you don't have to.

COATES: OK.

GOLDMAN: Because the algorithms are what amplify this hateful speech, these efforts to harass, to threaten. They -- these algorithms are the ones that use that for clickbait, and that's how it gets radicalized. We can regulate the algorithms.

COATES: I wonder if the concern is about censorship. Obviously, not the government doing this, but the social media companies. Let's turn to something that was said by the president. We've heard this for a long time, congressman. We've now heard, even since Saturday, the president and his allies saying that the shooting, well, it provides ample justification and proves the need to build the ballroom at the White House.

The Democratic Senator, John Fetterman, he seems to agree. He says that opponents need to -- quote -- "drop the TDS," that short for Trump derangement syndrome. And Republicans say they're going to put some bills forward to build that ballroom. Is there any way you would support it? And do you think that what happened on Saturday somehow justifies the ballroom itself?

GOLDMAN: I have no idea why, what happened on Saturday relates in any way to the ballroom. Obviously, it's not the reason that Donald Trump initially built the ballroom. And certainly, the ballroom that we hear about, it would not be nearly large enough to fit the crowd that was there on Saturday night.

The real issue is that this seems to be a real security failure, and that has to be looked at.

[23:09:55]

I don't know who was responsible and who was in charge of setting the security perimeter, but it was obviously too lax when you have literally the entire line of succession in that one place. And so, let's focus on the security lapse. We can also focus, as we should, on the brave officers who were able to subdue the assailant. They were able to arrest him before any harm was actually done. And they did a great job. But there was a bigger issue there and it has nothing to do with the president's ballroom for his vanity project.

COATES: Did you hear the deputy attorney general -- I'm sorry -- now the acting attorney general, things move fast in Washington, D.C., Todd Blanche? He actually defended Secret Service and law enforcement. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Law enforcement did not fail. They did exactly what they are trained to do. This was not an accident. It was a result, as we know now, of preparation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what do you think about his reaction given that the Homeland Security Committee wants to meet with the Secret Service director? You're also on that committee, I should mention. What questions do you want answered about the security response and how that man got through?

GOLDMAN: Well, I do agree with Acting Attorney General Blanche that those law enforcement officers at the magnetometers did their job and did it very well. The problem was not them. The problem is what the broader security plan was. And that's what I want to understand from the Secret Service director.

After Butler, we thought that we would get a much better and more thorough planned security perimeter for the president, especially when the entire line of succession is there. It clearly did not exist on Saturday night. There was a flaw in that plan, and I will -- I intend to ask the Secret Service director about those plans.

COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you so much.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: I want to turn to former FBI assistant director for the criminal investigative division, Chris Swecker, and former U.S. Secret Service agent, Michael Matrenga. Glad to have both of you here.

I wanted to get with you, Chris, because the administration says that law enforcement's ability to avert a tragedy was a success, right? But just hearing from the press conference, from the criminal complaint, I mean, this suspect was a guest at the hotel, armed with multiple weapons, and frankly, got incredibly close to getting at least in the proximity of that room. How do you see this?

CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION: Yes. Well, what I know about protecting, protection is that it's all about planning. The Secret Service doesn't want to fire their weapons in the line of duty. They don't want to have to confront somebody trying to bust past a magnetometer. They want to plan their way through these events to the point where they shut it down. There are no openings. There are no ways that that sort of thing can happen.

The people on the ground did exactly what they should have done. They acted heroically. They actually prevented a disaster, a mass casualty event. I doubt they would have got to the president, but he would have got to the president, but he could have done a lot of damage.

But having said that, you know, we're in a hotel, and there are finite points of ingress and egress. And you can cover those. And we know that this would-be shooter came down through a staircase that was not sealed off. You know, I'll leave it to the next guest on this because he's an expert in that area. But I think you would seal those stairwells off and make sure that they're either locked or manned to make sure that someone can't come down from inside the hotel and get to the ballroom venue.

COATES: You raised an interesting point, Chris.

SWECKER: I think the after action will talk about all that.

COATES: Let's talk about that because on the one hand, you raised an interesting point about whether the investigation will tell us, did he try other means to get into that ballroom as opposed to sort of trying to bum rush this magnetometer and failed?

But also, the idea of, look, Michael, I mean, this is the third potential assassination attempt against this president. Do the security protocols, do they need to be changed in some way or do you think that the fact that this is obviously a failure of an assassination attempt, does that indicate that the protocols are working?

MICHAEL MATRANGA, FORMER SPECIAL AGENT, U.S. SECRET SERVICE: Well, let's be clear, it was absolutely a failed assassination attempt. It was not a failure on behalf of security. Now, to the layman, it appears that that's the case because he was able to blow right through that mag checkpoint, which, you know, quite frankly, no one has actually reported accurately what that was.

[23:15:05]

It's that mag checkpoint was stood up initially for the onslaught of individuals that were arriving. Once everybody was in their seats, the president, the vice president were on stage, some of these mag checkpoints then are decommissioned or deconstructed and taken down, and then posted with armed officers, which is what you see in the process of this video right here happening.

And so, you know, to me, what I'm witnessing is an individual who had done some, well, a lot of pre-planning. This was definitely premeditated. He had obviously done some type of reconnaissance, as he stated in his manifesto. And he saw an opportunity knowing that he probably was never going to get past those magnetometers.

And I can assure you this: This individual never had the opportunity to get to the president or the vice president. There were so many concentric layers even beyond when he was stopped that -- that he would have run into. We have to consider the fact that inside that ballroom, there's technical security measures in place. There is the FBI's protective detail for Kash Patel. There's John Kennedy -- sorry -- Robert Kennedy's protective detail. There are other protective details. You have two counterassault teams in there, which would have absolutely slaughtered this individual had he come in there shooting. He would have never made it in there. That's just the facts.

COATES: I hear you. And certainly, what happened bears that out. But Chris, many people never seen the Washington Hilton. Most people will never be inside the ballroom with hell of a line of succession, to say the least. But the idea that it's held there every year, people can be a guest of the hotel. This person checked in with a gun the day before the president of the United States and many dignitaries like the Cabinet members were able to be there.

That raises some questions for people about whether either these many people in that line of succession should be in the same room or the fact that the hotel is able to be opened to the public more broadly at the time of this ballroom event. Does that factor into you to the decision of where to hold events, but also where the president and members of the line of succession should actually be?

SWECKER: It certainly does. I've heard several Secret Service agents, former Secret Service agents quoted in saying that. It's a nightmare of a venue because of the presence of all of those different public officials, people, you know, the first five in the line of succession for the presidency, which to me just ups the ante. It makes it a much more serious event.

It probably should have been declared a tier one event. I can't remember whether it's levels or tiers, but it should have been one of the highest-level events, which calls out all kinds of resources and protocols. And in this case, that didn't happen.

You know, I don't think that they would spare resources in this type of situation. I think the Secret Service applied all the resources that they thought they needed in this case. That's a massive hotel. But I still go back to the fact that -- just some basic stuff. And we'll see what comes out in the after action.

But sealing off stairwells leading, you know, leading to that upper floor, leading down to the ballroom, maybe he wasn't -- he wasn't -- maybe he didn't have a chance to get into the venue, but he had an opportunity to get close enough to do damage. And I think that's going to be the top or the subject or the thrust of the after-action report when it comes out.

COATES: Well, thank goodness for the Secret Service members and law enforcement who were there. They were obviously very capable in their roles. And thank God they saved so many lives from what could have been a far worse incident. But I wonder how they're going to correct and how they're going to learn from this for planning in what? Thirty days from now, according to president. Chris Swecker, Michael Matranga, thank you to both of you so much.

Up next, a former college classmate of the suspect joining me to share what she knew about him as investigators zero in on his alleged social media posts about the president. And later, the first lady, Melania Trump, going after Jimmy Kimmel, calling him a coward and demanding that ABC fire him. So, how will ABC and Kimmel respond? The panel will debate it tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, here's what we know about Cole Thomas Allen, the suspect charged with trying to assassinate the president. He's 31 years old. He's a brainiac, apparently, from California, a graduate of CalTech, known as one of the finest engineering schools in the country. He's got a LinkedIn profile that says he worked as a teacher as well as a video game developer.

And CNN has actually also reviewed the contents of two social media accounts that appeared to belong to him. Well, his posts in recent years shifted from stuff about video games to angrier political messages. He repeatedly retweeted posts comparing Trump to Hitler, retweeted posts suggesting the Butler attack might have been staged, and some posts even encouraging those critical of Trump to purchase guns.

I'm joined by someone who once knew the suspect at CalTech, his former classmate, Elizabeth Terlinden. Elizabeth, thank you for joining us. It must have come as quite a shock to see his name in the news for this reason. You and Allen were both part of a Christian fellowship at CalTech a little over 10 years ago. Can you describe his demeanor back then?

ELIZABETH TERLINDEN, FORMER CLASSMATE OF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS' DINNER SHOOTER: Relatively nondescript, which makes it kind of hard to say like very calm, even tempered, studious.

[23:25:04]

COATES: Did you have --

TERLINDEN: Apolitical is --

COATES: Apolitical. Interesting.

TERLINDEN: -- even a term that's in mind. So, yes, my first assumption was, when I was contacted by the news, simply straight-up mistaken identity. And then when I saw the photo, that was -- that was the point at which I went, oh, OK, they are talking about the person I know.

COATES: You say he was apolitical. Does that mean that he didn't really talk about politics at all or that he didn't show his views either way?

TERLINDEN: He didn't really care about politics. That I could tell. If anything, there was any disagreement between us on that, it was that he thought I put too much of my time towards being involved in things like phone banking for repealing the death penalty on a Sunday when I should have been at church. But it was just the fact that I wasn't spending more time in directly religious activity that he objected to. I think he would have had a similar reaction if I'd said, hey, I'm watching the season finale of my favorite show so, yes, I can't come to Bible study tonight.

COATES: That's fascinating for a lot of people given where we are now and the allegations against him and how you knew him as somebody very deeply religious. I mean, you read the alleged manifesto that investigators got a hold of --

TERLINDEN: Yes.

COATES: -- where he describes his reasoning for the attack as well as -- I mean, he had a list of potential targets. What stood out to you specifically?

TERLINDEN: Well, as you said, the religious tones of it because that's the context in which I knew him. That's most of my understanding. But the fact that he did specifically reference himself as a Christian and mentioned several Bible quotes, that -- that aspect seems to me consistent even if the rest of it was very strange and foreign.

COATES: Elizabeth Terlinden, thank you so much for joining.

TERLINDEN: You're welcome.

COATES: Well, the shooting now moves to a federal criminal case. And here to unpack it all for us, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Gene Rossi. OK, Gene, these charges, very serious, as you can imagine.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Yes.

COATES: You've got an assassination attempt against the president of the United States, you've got the transport of firearms across state lines, the discharge of a firearm. And given what they have laid out already, the number one question everyone keeps asking is about potential defenses. What could it possibly be? Because, obviously, these are just allegations until you've proven it in the court of law and beyond a reasonable doubt, right? But they've got this footage. They've got these accusations. Walk me through your brain in terms of the defenses that could be used here.

ROSSI: All right. They're not home runs. But if I'm looking at the charges, this is just a complaint, Laura --

COATES: Right.

ROSSI: -- as you know. In the indictment, it will be different.

COATES: Grand jury has to first see it.

ROSSI: Exactly.

COATES: It will be more elaborate.

ROSSI: Yes. The first defense, I'm going to attack the top count, which would be attempted assassination. For that, you need a specific intent to kill the president of the United States. So, he wrote a manifesto that said, I'm going to go after all the top administration officials from top to bottom. If I'm a defense attorney, I would argue he doesn't specifically mention President Donald Trump.

Now, John Hinckley, who almost took the life of Ronald Reagan --

COATES: At that hotel, by the way, in 81.

ROSSI: -- at that same hotel, I was in law school in March of 81, I remember like it was yesterday, he specifically following Jodie Foster's advice in his mind, he was going to kill Ronald Reagan. That would be my first defense. He didn't specifically want to kill or assassinate President Trump.

COATES: Interesting you bring up --

ROSSI: Yes.

COATES: -- Don Hinckley, though, because you know --

ROSSI: Yes. COATES: -- there was a lot to do about an insanity defense. He basically changed insanity laws in many ways. People were so outraged by the prospect of being able to use that. So, walk me through the idea of a potential insanity defense because --

ROSSI: OK.

COATES: -- obviously, someone is not in their right mind, so to speak.

ROSSI: Right.

COATES: But that's not the law requires.

[23:29:59]

ROSSI: Well, after the Hinckley case, they changed the law dramatically, and the burden is now on the defense, proven sanity, and you have to prove it beyond a preponderance. So, what you have to show is that, at the time of the crime, Mr. Allen did not understand the actions that he was taking. He didn't know right from wrong. He didn't know whether he was doing anything that was evil or anything like that. He just didn't have the right frame of mind, to put it in layman's terms.

Does he have an insanity defense? Your interview just now kind of throws that out the window. Mr. Allen is a very educated man. Brilliant, some would say.

COATES: You can be brilliant, though, and still have an insanity.

ROSSI: That's true. That's true. But the indicia of insanity don't seem present here because he wrote out -- his manifesto is probably exhibit one when they go to trial because he's sort of an architect. He wrote out his biography of what he was going to do, how he was going to do it, and when. And that's much different than John Hinckley who was mentioning Jodie Foster and all this other stuff that suggested that he was not of a well mind.

The second defense that I would use to attack the assassination charge is, did he make the substantial step to achieve his goal? He was several -- he was several layers from the ballroom. You could say he came close, but not enough to make attempt. That would be my next thing.

COATES: Yes. Well, the prosecution is going to say he got in that train. That's the attempt. We'll see. We'll see what they say. Really important to think about the defenses, even as a prosecution. Gene Rossi, thank you so much.

ROSSI: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, eight months after his suspension, the new push to fire Jimmy Kimmel. The White House putting on a full court press with the first lady leading the charge. But first, Trump weighing an offer from Iran as a new report suggests that Vice President J.D. Vance is doubting what Secretary Hegseth is saying about the war. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, it is no secret Vice President J.D. Vance was never fully on board with the Iran war. Publicly, publicly he defends it. According to new reporting in "The Atlantic," privately, it's a different story. "The Atlantic" writes, two senior administration officials told us that the vice president has queried the accuracy of the information the Pentagon has provided about the war.

And the main example they give has to do with Hegseth's statements about U.S. weapons stockpiles. Hegseth says there's no shortage, something that President Trump has echoed. According to "The Atlantic," Vance has voiced concerns about this.

And just a few weeks ago, CNN reported the U.S. has, in fact, depleted its stockpile of key missiles during the war with Iran. And sources say should another conflict break out in the future, the U.S. could even run out of ammunition.

And then there's the Pentagon's claims about the massive military successes. Iran's navy being effectively wiped out. That the U.S. maintains complete control of Iran's skies. According to "The Atlantic," Vance is trying to avoid making this personal or to create divisions in Trump's war Cabinet. Some of Vance's confidants, however, believe that Hegseth's portrayal has been so positive as to be misleading. And "The Atlantic" reports Vance's advisers told them he is not accusing Hegseth of misleading the president, and that he expressed his concerns as his own.

Joining me now, lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence, Josh Rogin. Josh, glad you're here. I mean, first of all, do you believe the Pentagon is not giving the president the full picture of what's going on in the war or is just saying what the president wants to hear publicly?

JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Right. We are at the finger pointing stage of the Iran conflict where everyone inside the Trump administration is realizing that this thing is going really badly. And especially, the ones who are trying to run for president in 2028 are trying to get out of the firing line by pointing fingers at the other people. They're sizing up Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to take the lion's share of the blame for this catastrophe.

The issue of whether or not we are running out of this munition or that munition is one thing. The truth is what has been widely reported is that there have been huge depletions of American munitions that put at risk our deterrence in places like Asia. That's pretty undisputable.

But the fact that people close to Vance are leaking that Hegseth is misleading the president, but we don't want to bash Hegseth, we just want to point out that he's misleading the president, but it's not really about Hegseth, it's just about Hegseth misleading the president, just think about that. Why are they saying that? Why now? They're trying to make sure that if President Trump realizes the truth, that this is going really badly, that everybody knows it wasn't Vance. He was against it the whole time. Everybody knows. And Hegseth was the guy who was really pushing for it. Now --

COATES: Also, voters are going to hear -- I mean, think about this. Not even just voters, but Americans will hear the ideas of depletions of munitions and missiles. You're talking about the inability, possibly, to be effective at a future event should we need so. I mean --

ROGIN: Of course.

COATES: -- that's pretty concerning regardless of who might be misleading who if that's a fact.

ROGIN: Yes. It's concerning on a number of levels, Laura.

[23:39:58]

We've got three aircraft carriers in the Middle East blockading the Iranians blockade, and we've got another blockade of Venezuela. All of our allies that I talk to in Asia, including in Japan and Korea, are looking around. They're like, oh wait, what happened to that whole pivot to Asia thing that Trump keeps talking about? I guess that's not happening.

And Xi Jinping must not believe his luck. He must not believe how lucky he is that all of Asia is now realizing that America is going to be focused on the Middle East for the foreseeable future. Not to mention the fact that Ukrainians are kind of dependent on the systems that America sends them to defend themselves. And those are also being diverted to the Middle East. So --

COATES: Does that -- does that explain in part why the president would not want to highlight this in terms of an impression by an adversary that we are vulnerable?

ROGIN: I think, for Trump, the calculation is pretty simple. Everything is going great. He says everything is going great. Therefore, everything is going great. Now, if you use your eyes, you could tell that everything is not going great. We had the German chancellor go on T.V. today and say that the U.S. has no strategy. If they have a strategy, he certainly doesn't know what it is. That Iran is humiliating the United States. The entire world is paying the price for the fact that the Trump administration doesn't know what he's doing. That's the leader of one of our strongest allies.

COATES: Right.

ROGIN: So, obviously, Trump is going to try to spin it to say everything is going great. That becomes less and less believable the more and more not only you have foreign leaders talking about it, members of the military, now aides close to the vice president warning that, hey, everything is not OK here no matter what Trump or Pete Hegseth has to say about it.

COATES: Insightful. As always, Josh Rogin, thank you so much.

ROGIN: Any time.

COATES: Next, Jimmy Kimmel addressing -- Jimmy Kimmel addressing the controversy over his joke about Melania Trump as the White House demands ABC fire him. We'll have it for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, TELEVISION HOST, COMEDIAN: And, of course, our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania. So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president and first lady were not amused by that joke from late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel two days before the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Now, they want ABC and Disney to fire Kimmel.

Melania Trump said his monologue -- quote -- "isn't comedy. His words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America. People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate."

Of course, this isn't the first time the White House has clashed with Kimmel. They also wanted him pulled off the air last year after he made a comment about Charlie Kirk's -- excuse me -- universe. Kimmel was suspended for a week but was reinstated. Here's how Kimmel addressed it tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

KIMMEL: Obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together.

(LAUGHTER)

It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination, and they know that. I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence in particular. But I understand that the first lady had a stressful experience over the weekend and probably every weekend is pretty stressful --

(LAUGHTER) -- in that House. And also, I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial it back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it because --

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in CNN political analyst Shermichael Singleton and Xochitl Hinojosa. Glad to have both of you here. You know full well that this was asked by the president and the first lady. They were offended by what he said. It did take place two years before the last correspondence that we know would, of course, would happen on that occasion.

Xochitl, what's your reaction to Kimmel's essentially pointing the finger back and saying, I think there should be a larger conversation, Mr. President?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think there has been this larger conversation over the last 24 to 48 hours about political rhetoric. And I do think it was a joke. I'm glad he was able to address it. He was talking about his age. Nobody wants anything to happen to this president or any president for that matter.

I think that probably moving forward, given the sensitivity of the political rhetoric, maybe we should just stop making jokes about the presidents moving forward when it comes to them, their age or potentially them passing away. There were a lot of jokes at the time about Joe Biden, totally get that, and his age. That's what happens when you elect 80 something-year-old presidents, right? I will say, on the political --

COATES: Is it a practical thing that is not going to happen anymore?

HINOJOSA: I think joking about age is fine. I think the potential death of a president, I don't think that we should be joking about that. When it comes to the overall narrative about this, I think one thing we need to realize is that the political rhetoric always is set and the tone is set by the sitting president of the United States. And that is just the reality of things, regardless of whether the person is a Democrat or a Republican.

And I believe we do have to take down the temperature, and we've had to take down the temperature for some time. There have been threats that have increased significantly since the 2020 election. And now, what we're seeing is we're seeing threats and people play out those threats and potential, you know, shooting like in Minneapolis and in other places. But when the president says, take it down, I agree with him, but he also needs to take it down. It does start with the president.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You know, he should have just apologized. I remember when President Biden was in office and there were a lot of questions about his age. I raised many concerns just as a strategist, just as an American about Democrats needing to be more transparent. When the president announced his cancer diagnosis, I completely changed my tune. It wasn't appropriate any longer to talk about his age.

[23:50:00]

Here's a guy who's 80-something years old. He gave his -- dedicated his life to the country and was battling something that millions of Americans battle every year. And, unfortunately, most of them don't have great, superb health care in order to defeat it. And so, I changed the tune.

I agree that the president sets the tone. I do think the president, in this particular moment in time, should continue to move forward with his words the other night. However, I don't look to the president personally. I can only speak for Shermichael Singleton here to dictate what my words should be.

Now, I've seen a lot of Democratic strategists, Republican strategists on different networks today saying, it's the Republicans' fault or it's the Democrats' fault. I could certainly do that here tonight or I could just look within myself and say, well, is this the time for that? Or can I lead by example as a strategist and say, I'm not going to demonize my friends on the other side? Sure, there are things that I can certainly point out and the same could be said here, but is this the time for that or is this a moment to have a different type of analysis that elevates beyond --

COATES: What is that analysis? Is it -- is it -- is it going beyond the idea -- I mean, the cards are all about rhetoric, right? But the conversations could also be about the prevalence of gun violence. The conversation could also be about security protocols in place. It could also be about funding for different agencies. It could be a number of things.

And, of course, this is part of what, strategically, you all will try to figure out, I'm sure, going forward to the midterm elections, of how voters will look at these issues because I got to tell you, most voters are going to look at this actual dinner as an unattainable, elitist event to attend, right? But they'll look at the larger issues of how it impacts their feelings of safety more broadly. If this remains safe, where is?

HINOJOSA: Yes. And I think that's right. And there is gun violence all across America. I was just -- I bought my daughter light up shoes and a mom came up to me and said, you probably shouldn't do that for a little girl who is going to enter kindergarten because that is unsafe in case there is an active shooter in her school. I haven't thought about that, but that is -- those are the precautions that parents take now when they are trying to send their kids to school.

COATES: And to be clear, this is not a mass shooting event. That's not trying to infer here. However, the conversations that are happening in people's homes are less, I think, about maybe just rhetoric and more of the reason you're talking about it, you don't set the tone based on the president what you're saying, and more about larger issues of the political apparatus.

HINOJOSA: Yes.

SINGLETON: Yes.

HINOJOSA: And I want to talk about how it wasn't a mass shooting. If that shooter would have been there about 30 minutes earlier, that would have been a mass shooting. People in that area are crowded.

SINGLETON: Yes.

HINOJOSA: It would have been very hard for the Secret Service to actually shoot and take the guy down without hurting anybody else. So, we --

SINGLETON: We don't know who's not with him.

HINOJOSA: Exactly. And that I -- his intention seemed to be yes, it was the Cabinet, but also to cause harm to a lot of people. And the timing was critical. The fact that he waited so long and the fact that he was delayed, he -- we -- it could have been a terrible disaster for very many people.

COATES: So, why are there so many conspiracy theories that are bound right now? Because, as you know, you -- we're often in this reality that we're in. We're often battling not just the acquisition of information, but confronting conspiracy theories who will look at what's unfolding and say, this is something else. That's a reality as well in the American political system now where people --

SINGLETON: Yes.

COATES: -- are looking at instances like this and they have their own narratives and conspiracy theories, and that adds to the conversation.

SINGLETON: I think it's a part of the subjectivist nature of today. People see things. They interpret it however they want to believe it. They say, well, this can't be true or there's more to this story even when there technically aren't perhaps more to a certain given story.

We've seen this across the board from the previous two attempts on the president's life. We've seen this when other political leaders on the other side have been attacked physically and harmed, where folks have said, well, they may have hired someone to do this for political points. I mean, it's really a bit deranged where we currently are.

But I will say this: It has really been a focal point to use rhetoric in terms of persuasion for politics, right? Like, I'm going to use my words to persuade the other side that I'm right and my opponent is wrong. Now, what we're finding is more and more people are recognizing that perhaps coercion is the better way, through force, through violence, to accomplish my means. And that to me is incredibly troubling because a democracy, any form of government, really can't sustain itself if by force is the only means of survivability versus, again, the art of rhetoric. COATES: So, how do both sides make that argument when a Republican try to make that argument, obviously, and someone goes, that's true, January 6th is but an example of this, and where were you at that point talking about these things?

[23:55:01]

I mean, it seems to me there is an inter-mountable hurdle of distrust and hypocrisy.

HINOJOSA: You're absolutely right. And I think that we have a presidential election coming up, and whoever runs for president will have to grapple with some of this. And my hope is that the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee act like adults and not like children, and are able to debate the issues without the name calling and the threats and all of that.

And at the end of the day, I think it will be similar to what happened after 2020. The American people did not want hateful rhetoric. They wanted to go back to normalcy. They wanted to go back to a president who was not tweeting all the time, celebrating someone's death. And I think that that's what you will see in whoever wins the presidency in 2028.

COATES: Shermichael, Xochitl, thank you both so much. And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)