Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump DOJ Indicts James Comey Again; FCC Targets ABC; Trump Hosts King Charles And Queen Camilla For White House State Dinner. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 28, 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]

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You appear to be a clown. Save it for the ranch. Look, if you knew how much I like to break the rules, brother, you have no idea. Wearing a hat inside is nothing.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Kmele?

KMELE FOSTER, PODCAST HOST: Exceedingly un-American. Yes. What do we got here?

(LAUGHTER)

What's with the guy wearing a baseball hat, and a cowboy hat, on the show?

UNKNOWN: Get their ass. Get their ass.

FOSTER: Wow. I mean, honestly --

PHILLIP: Anti-hat crowd.

FOSTER: Yes.

PHILLIP: That's up with that (ph).

FOSTER: Erroneous.

PHILLIP: All right. Lydia?

LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Moment of truth. Honestly, Abby Phillip, do you go out of your way to have incredibly ignorant morons on your show?

(LAUGHTER)

I think they did.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: My final word to everyone is just be a little nicer. And thank you very much for watching. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now. LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President

Trump's DOJ indicts James Comey for a second time. This time, over a hidden message made of seashells. This how flimsy is the case. Plus, Kimmel gate part two. The FCC now going after ABC with a move that even conservatives aren't sure about. And a mission fit for a king. King Charles brings the laughs, the jabs, and a message to the president and the world. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, I mean, you know it's going to be at the James Comey indictment, right? How they're able to keep a straight face while writing the indictment? I personally will never know. This time, prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina had brought charges against a former FBI director for this: An Instagram post from last May showing seashells forming the number 86 next to 47. Now, the DOJ says it's a threat against President Trump's life. Comey, he calls it nonsense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: Well, they're back. This time, about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, look, you cannot ignore the timing. This indictment came just three days after the apparent assassination attempt against Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. I mean, no one is scratching their heads about that criminal complaint. I mean, a man shows up with guns and knives and calls himself the friendly federal assassin. Not at prosecutorial reach to try that case.

But when it comes to Comey, I mean, I can only imagine the thought process here. You say it's a threat to kill the president? All right. What do you got? Shell casings? No, we've got shells, seashells.

What about a manifesto? Well, we've got a picture of the number 86 next to the number 47. And he's the one who actually wrote that message, right? I mean, arranged the shells there, right? Well, no, but he took a picture of them.

And so -- and he said that he intended for that message to convey a threat? Well, actually, he says he didn't realize 86 was associated with violence and that he opposes violence of any kind.

And he kept the picture up still? Well, no, he took it down and then said, again, he opposes violence of any kind. All right, we'll tell him to confirm his fact. You know, actually, he did. He talked to them voluntarily 11 months ago after it happened. And the serious threat, it was taken as a serious threat. Well, he hasn't been detained or anything. I mean, as ridiculous as that ham sandwich might sound to you, the fact is a grand jury indicted him.

And Acting A.G. Todd Blanche claims it's the kind of threat the DOJ cannot ignore, no matter who it's coming from.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: His alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute. You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That's not my decision. That's Congress's decision in a statute that they passed, that we charge multiple times a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. Now, proving probable cause for a grand jury, that's one thing. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, that's a whole different ocean, because 86, I mean, the phrase, that can mean a whole lot of different things.

[23:05:02]

The dictionary, Merriam-Webster that is, defines it this way: To eject, dismiss, or remove someone. It's a term that's, frankly, been around for decades. I mean, if you're in a bar, throw the guy out. In a restaurant, 86 means sorry, we're all out. Remember Agent 86 in the T.V. show "Get Smart" or the movie "The Candidate?" It was about shaving off Robert Redford's sideburns.

And yes, some words do have multiple meanings. And yes, some people use 86 in a far darker way. Technically, I think the code is 187 for that. And yes, 47 obviously refers to President Trump. But how do you get from that? How will you get from that to proving to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey had the specific intent to threaten the life of the president by taking a photo of what he says was a shell arrangement he happened upon?

Not making a reckless post because the standard in this indictment is knowing and willful. Not a stupid post, not a wrong post, but a criminal threat. And that's why this is nothing like what happened on Saturday and the eventual criminal complaint. This is a deleted Instagram post of seashells.

And, frankly, it's not even clear whether this even gets to a jury. A judge may very well hold up one of those shells and hear the echoes of vindictive prosecution. And it's not because James Comey is above the law. Of course, he's not above the law. He knows that.

And like it or not, prosecutors have the discretion, aka the prerogative, to bring the cases they want. But make no mistake, jurors can do what they want, including judging a prosecutor's choices. And it can impact the credibility of the entire department, even in totally unrelated cases, any time you ask the jurors to trust you. And if jurors believe that the weight of the federal government is being used to punish criticism or even silence it, well, we've got a First Amendment problem.

Look, truth be told, defense counsel is going to have a field day with this case. Frankly, a judge might, too. The indictment says 8647 would make a -- quote -- "reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances interpret it as a serious expression of intent to harm the president." You got 12 of those recipients? Political violence, it is no laughing matter. So, why would you bring a laughable case?

I want to start off with former top deputy special counsel to Jack Smith, J.P. Cooney. He's also running for Congress in Virginia as a Democrat. Welcome, J.P. There is a lot happening. I am curious. From your perspective, what message does this indictment send frankly to those who have been very vocal opponents of the president of the United States?

J.P. COONEY, U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE FOR VIRGINIA, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: This is a naked effort by Donald Trump and his Department of Justice to target people that they perceive to be their political enemies, to carry out a vindictive prosecution, and to chill them from speaking out against his policies and his positions.

COATES: You know, I do think this will have a chilling effect on people, knowing that the law is supposed to deter criminal conduct. But it could very well have the impact of someone saying, I could say that, but is it going to put me in the same category? I'm not the former director of the FBI. I'm just a little guy. It could impact them even more.

COONEY: Absolutely. And I can tell you from my campaign for Congress that it is. I have spoken with people who asked them to contribute to my campaign, to volunteer for my campaign, and they have told me that, look, you are an opponent of the president, and in this environment, not for politics, not for business, but because this president is so vindictive, that I am scared of actually being targeted, that I can't publicly support you.

And those people are not Jim Comey or people with means or people with profile to stand up. Those are regular people. And so, I can tell you, conduct like this is having a chilling effect.

COATES: You know, I always think about the broader Department of Justice because, as you know, every prosecutor is essentially fungible, right? They're all one another, and what they do in one courtroom affects the other.

And the ranking House Judiciary Democrat, Jamie Raskin, he believes that there is a double standard at play. Here's what he said: If Comey's post is a crime in America, then what is calling the free speech of six Democratic members of Congress seditious behavior, punishable by death? What is suggesting a former Republican member of Congress should have to face nine barrels shooting at her with the guns trained on her face?

[23:10:00] Now, Blanche, he says that the DOJ will never tolerate messages similar to Comey's. So, by that standard, the so-called reasonable recipient in the indictment, I mean, there must be a whole lot more prosecutions coming.

COONEY: Under that standard, one might think. But, you know, Todd Blanche gave a press conference today in which he alleged that this was serious conduct, that the Justice Department will not tolerate it. This happened nearly one full year ago. That is all you need to know about what motivated this prosecutor.

COATES: Tell me what that means to you. Is it means that they were trying to convince a grand jury or that the timing next to the assassination took on Saturday? What is the timing indicate to you?

COONEY: This, to me -- look, first, political violence needs to be condemned.

COATES: Yes.

COONEY: But the timing here indicates that this administration saw an opportunity to target one of its political enemies or someone it perceives as a political enemy to leverage a situation. We need to have a broader conversation in this country about exactly how we got here. And its vindictiveness like carried out by Donald Trump and Todd Blanche here. And they're thugs at the Justice Department. That's the conversation we need to be having right now.

COATES: I wonder if that conversation is happening among regular Americans who look to Department of Justice to pursue justice and can really be the only backstop in some scenarios. One thing that Comey did say was this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. He has some optimism. The good news, he says, is we get closer every day to restoring those values. I don't know if you share that optimism.

COONEY: I do share that optimism because I do believe, first, in the criminal justice system and in the court process for former Director Comey. But then I also believe that the American people -- we can see exactly what's going on here. You don't have to be a legal scholar or a judge to understand what's happening when 12 months after some seashells get laid out on a beach, James Comey ends up with a criminal indictment. People see it. We are losing confidence in our Justice Department, and that threatens public safety.

COATES: Can Congress change it? You want to be a member of it.

COONEY: So, I think Congress can do something about it. Congress can conduct relentless oversight of this Justice Department and peer beneath exactly what it is that they are doing and hold actors like Todd Blanche, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina, accountable for their decisions and their motivations.

COATES: J.P. Cooney, thank you for joining.

COONEY: Thank you. COATES: President Trump has made it clear he holds a strong grudge against James Comey. That's an understatement. You heard him say it plenty of times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination.

TRUMP (voice-over): FISA was used against me, and very, very viciously by a dirty cop. You know, we had the Comey gang. Every one of those people should be prosecuted.

TRUMP: Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it's possible I wouldn't even be standing here right now. We caught him in the act. Dirty cops. Bad people.

Comey should hang his head in disgrace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's bring in New York Times reporter Devlin Barrett. He covers the Justice Department and the FBI. And you know what? He's the author of the upcoming book, "The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice." Good timing. Let's talk about it.

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It fits.

COATES: It seems to fit. I mean, look, we just heard the president's own words about Comey. We know that there is a grudge. Do you think the defense is going to look at these -- these remarks, the series of them, the constant comments, conversations about it, and point to either selective or vindictive prosecution?

BARRETT: Sure. I think that's clearly part of how the defense will attack these charges. But I also think this brings up additional issues at the first indictment of -- Comey didn't really bring up. This brings up issues of First Amendment rights and, you know, a whole set of precedent and case law about true threats that this case seems to be clearly outside of.

COATES: We're talking a lot about the timing of this. Obviously, this is three days after the White House Correspondent's Dinner and all that took place. But it's also after Pam Bondi has been fired from the DOJ. She was criticized for not moving fast enough on his perceived political enemies. Is this the acting deputy -- the acting attorney general, formerly deputy, Todd Blanche, sort of auditioning for more permanent role in trying to appease this president?

BARRETT: Maybe. But I think the most important dynamic here is that it's very clearly understood within the administration how displeased the president was with the pace of cases like the case against Comey, like the investigation of John Brennan, the former CIA director. [23:14:58]

So, I think whatever job anyone has in the Justice Department, there is -- there is an understanding that the president wants to see these cases pursued.

COATES: Let's talk about the ballroom, interestingly enough, because the department is backing the president in his request to have a new ballroom. And just late last night, they actually asked a district court judge to lift the hole that they had placed on the construction of that ballroom. And the request reads, I get it straight out of the Truth Social post, I have to say, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is a beautiful name, but even their name is fake because when they add the words "in the United States," to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a governmental agency, which it is not. They are very bad for our country. They suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.

I mean, an appeals court, to be clear, is allowing the construction to go forward for now. So, what's the point of this?

BARRETT: So, the point is that the administration and the president are arguing that the recent apparent attempt on the president's life means that they should have the ballroom. They're trying to use this to win an argument that, so far, they have lost in court.

But, look, that, as you mentioned, that filing has a lot of what I would call presidentially suspicious punctuation. And so, it's clearly his voice in many ways demanding that the courts back off because of this recent incident.

COATES: What are you hearing from the rank and file in DOJ about what is being viewed as, you know, pursuit of vendetta, not justice?

BARRETT: The first Comey indictment was viewed as a dark day by many current Justice Department officials. The second one, I think, in some ways lands a little worse because I think the notion of the seashells thing, the notion of what 86 means or doesn't mean, it's very hard to a lot of them to find a legal connection between past cases and this indictment.

COATES: And remember, they're the ones who have to stand up there in front of a jury or a judge and defend that position.

BARRETT: And look, there's a forfeiture claim attached to this.

COATES: Yes.

BARRETT: What proceeds -- the whole idea of a forfeiture is that you're going to seize the proceeds of the crime. What proceeds were the result of posting a picture of seashells?

COATES: I guess you got to ask who sells seashells by the seashore.

BARRETT: Or superseding seashell. COATES: Look at that diction. Devlin Barrett, thank you so much. And we'll look to you and have you back on for a bigger conversation when your book, "The Department of Revenge" comes out in June. Devlin, congratulations and thank you so much.

BARRETT: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Well, the First Amendment really getting a hell of a workout today because the battle between the administration and Jimmy Kimmel has just escalated. The FCC now actually taking formal action against ABC. But this time, the network appears ready to fight back. Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, ABC HOST, COMEDIAN: I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it because --

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, Disney is standing by their late-night man, Jimmy Kimmel, as the Trump administration turns up the heat over this, what he calls a joke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIMMEL: 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: Now, Kimmel made that, what he says is a joke, before the White House Correspondents' Dinner and says it's a reference to Trump's age. But now, the FCC is challenging the licenses for all ABC stations for what it calls possible violations of FCC rules. Disney firing back, saying -- quote -- "We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that to the appropriate legal channels."

I want to bring in Emmy-winning comedian, attorney, and host of the show, "Permission to Speak," Paul Mecurio, and critic at large for NPR, Eric Deggans. Good to have you here, both of you. I'll begin with you, Eric. Is this a pressure campaign targeted at just Jimmy Kimmel or is the FCC going at something much bigger at Disney? ERIC DEGGANS, CRITIC AT LARGE, NPR: Well, I guess that would depend on who you ask. The FCC, I think, maintains that their review is part of these allegations that they have, that they're uncomfortable with Disney's diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and initiatives, and that they have some quibble with them over retransmission policies as well.

But because this action so closely follows the president and the first lady's criticism of Jimmy Kimmel's joke from last week, it has a lot of critics sort of scratching their head and wondering about the timing of it. We've seen people like Senator Elizabeth Warren already speak up and say, you know, that this seems punitive and rooted in politics.

COATES: You know, Paul, during the Charlie Kirk controversy, ABC initially suspended Kimmel for a week before allowing him to return to the show. Why do you think Disney is standing by Kimmel now?

PAUL MECURIO, COMEDIAN, ATTORNEY, PODCAST HOST: Because they lost the potential of subscribers the last time when they ignored the people that really liked it. So, it was about the money.

And to pick up on what Eric was saying, I'm one of those critics that says that this is absolutely part of a larger campaign by an autocrat basically because what we're doing now is we're moving comedy and satire from something that is what I would call protected criticism to prohibitive disrespect, right? Satire is going to go over the line. It's going to cross a line. It's going to be inappropriate sometimes. I'm not condoning anything. You have a right not to like somebody. But when we start whittling away at this, we're losing a check on power, which satire has always been, and the uncertainty leaks in.

[23:25:05]

So, this is going to be successful, I think, even if it's not, meaning if this FCC boondoggle doesn't work, you still put out that sort of oh, I wonder, right? And that's a form of censorship. And that's exactly what they want.

And then you have to ask, well, how did we get here? We have to hold a mirror up to ourselves as a society because we've become so politically divided and divisive that the Trumps are seizing on that sort of dysfunction, right? If I don't believe 100 percent of what you believe in, Laura, you're on the devil team and vice versa. How did we get here?

Ten, 15 years ago in a comedy club, if you had 50 percent people Democrats and 50 Republicans, and you told a Democrat joke, everybody would laugh. You told a Republican joke, everybody would laugh. Now, you tell a Democrat joke, half the room laughs. Tell a Republican joke, the other half laughs. So, either that or I'm a terrible comedian.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: We know it's not that. We know it's not that. MECURIO: Yes.

COATES: But Eric, I mean, to that point, even some of Trump's supporters think this move by the FCC may be a bridge too far. I mean, listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, CEO, BLAZE MEDIA: The Constitution doesn't grade comedy on a curve. It doesn't care about comedy. It's really not about even comedy. It doesn't require jokes to be funny or not funny. It doesn't have anything to do with any of that. Kimmel has the right to say these things. And ABC has the right to air it. Disney has the right to employ him. That's free speech in action. With rights come responsibilities. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do you think is making people so nervous about this moment (INAUDIBLE) conservative side, Eric?

DEGGANS: What I think is making people on all sides of the political spectrum nervous is that there's a sense that the government is targeting people that criticize the president. It's not even about saying something that's necessarily inappropriate. It's about pursuing the president's political agendas when the FCC's job is to actually uphold the public's interest.

We're supposed to be seeing decisions made about mergers, about licenses, about fines based on what is in the public interest, not in what is in President Donald Trump's interest. I think that's troubling people across all political lines.

COATES: I was going to say that, you know, Trump has two more years left, Eric, in office and can appoint two more commissioners to the FCC. That's in addition to the two that he already appointed, including, obviously, Chairman Brendan Carr. I mean, how might that impact the FCC and the First Amendment even after Trump leaves office?

DEGGANS: Well, the thing that we know about fines and actions by the FCC is that they can be challenged in court. So, even if President Trump is somehow able to create an FCC, that would go along with some of these enforcement actions that seem questionable. They can challenge them in court.

And, in fact, you know, CBS was fined something like a half million dollars over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl. They challenged it in court. And years later, they won and the fine was rescinded. So, it is possible to challenge these actions in court.

COATES: Paul, Eric, thank you. Paul, look forward to hearing what you have to say as a late show with Stephen Colbert is coming to an end. Thank you so much, both of you. Next, a mission fit for a king. His Majesty Charles III trying to heal the strained relationship between the president and the U.K. over the war with Iran. So, how do you do? We'll get into it, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING CHARLES III, KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: America's words carry weight and meaning as they have since independence. The actions of this great nation matter even more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Before we really begin, I want to congratulate Charles on having made a fantastic speech today at Congress. He got the Democrats to stand. I've never been able to do that.

(LAUGHTER)

I couldn't believe it.

(APPLAUSE)

I couldn't believe it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, it was an evening of pageantry, diplomacy, and lots of jokes at the White House tonight as the president and first lady hosted King Charles and Queen Camilla for a state dinner. The king just wrapped up a historic visit to the nation's capital where he became just the second British monarch in U.S. history to address Congress, the last being his late mother, Queen Elizabeth, in 1991.

The president at one point even said he was very jealous of the king's speech. And While the king did not criticize the administration, he did deliver a firm message reminding Congress of the values both nations hold dear. But at tonight's state dinner, the king proved that he, too, can score some laughs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING CHARLES: On this occasion, I cannot help noticing the readjustments to the East Wing, Mr. President.

(LAUGHTER)

Following your visit to Windsor Castle last year, I'm sorry to say that we, British, of course, made our own small attempt at real estate redevelopment of the White House in 1814.

[23:35:02]

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Go ahead and Google it, everyone. Joining me now, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger, along with Washington bureau chief for "The Guardian," David Smith. Glad to have both of you here.

It sounds like a nice event that they're having. David Sanger, let me ask you because the backdrop of this sort of very jovial issue and moment is that the president is not happy with the U.K.'s prime minister, particularly over what he sees as the barrier to support him in the war with Iran. Does this visit somehow grease these wheels?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: I don't think it's going to grease them very long after the king leaves town. But I thought the king was very skillful in how he dealt with this because this was a harder problem, Laura, than most royal visits come because the president wasn't simply in a policy dispute of some kind with Keir Starmer.

COATES: He called him -- he called him a loser.

SANGER: Well, yes, he has done that. He has called him worse. But the fundamental problem was that the president has said that Britain had not been with the U.S. and thus suggested the U.S. might not be with Britain in the future. He attacked NATO again, which Britain was one of the founding members, along with the United States. And so, the president had been going after the fundamental institutions.

And what happened here was that the king had to figure out a way to bolster the institutions without directly getting into a political argument with the president. And, in fact, we were just saying before we came on camera that one of his best lines at the White House came when he noted that his mother, Queen Elizabeth, had been here in the mid-50s after the Suez crisis. He said she was there to put the special back and the special relationship after a dispute in the Middle East, and then said that couldn't happen.

COATES: Well, obviously, there was the moment. Also, you talked about and you've written about discrete political jabs from the king before. He talked about not just the institution of the relationship and the, you know, the way in which the U.K., of course, England and the United States operated, but also about the checks and balances. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING CHARLES: Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases in 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, that was a moment subtle. Do you think you saw a Supreme Court justice sort of smiling?

DAVID SMITH, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE GUARDIAN: I think that was smart because he's obviously addressing Congress and Supreme Court justices, and they have reason to feel they've been marginalized over the last year or so in the Trump era. Trump was -- the king was flattering them.

This entire speech, I think the British are very happy with the way it went. He was messaging perhaps over Trump's head, direct to members of Congress and getting in those political points. He mentioned the importance of Ukraine and that produced applause.

COATES: Oh, I want to play that moment, actually. It was a really poignant one. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING CHARLES: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Only NATO allies would have appreciated that. Does that impact, do you think, the way the president approaches NATO?

SMITH: Well, it's a -- it's a gentle nudge. It's a reminder. I mean, you know, the president has been criticizing NATO so much, obviously, and critics have been pointing out, well, hang on a minute, the only time Article 5 was invoked was actually for the defense of the United States. And the king was able to make that point and, I suspect, probably not offending Donald Trump too much with it. And it played very well in the room again, along with the jokes, that general political persuasion. I think, yes, he scored some points.

COATES: There was even a point where he described his own late mother thought Charles was very cute when he was young. There were just these sorts of interesting moments, let me just say, throughout the course of this. But why do you think this particular meeting and the really the extraordinary, you know, reception that the royals have gotten here with this White House, how does this impact the relationship with the U.K. and England going forward? [23:40:01]

Is this just symbolic and ignored by the prime minister and -- or is this something that could actually be beneficial?

SANGER: I think it could be beneficial in the short term. I don't think it's going to have a big effect on the way the president thinks about Britain, the way he thinks about NATO.

Look, this is a president who dislikes the post-World War II institutions. There are, however, two institutions he liked, and they were in front of him today. One of them is the royal family, right? That comes from his mother, her Scottish background, her admiration for the king when he was a younger man, so forth.

The second is the U.S. Military, which was out in display in all of its forms, you know, everything from revolutionary war garb to the space force. And the president loves the military. It's his favorite instrument of government. And he probably thinks it can accomplish more things as we're learning in Iran than it probably can. But that was the contradiction of Donald Trump on stage today.

COATES: That's a really important point. Thank you, David Sanger and David Smith. Thank you both so much. Up next, it's all going to come down to Florida. The state's new midterm map now closer to reality with Republicans looking to chop four Democratic seats. But could the move backfire? Congressman Maxwell Frost will be my guest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's official, the next battleground in the redistricting war will be Florida. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has revealed the battle lines. The new congressional map would make the Sunshine State even more red and get rid of four Democratic-leaning districts. Republicans could hold a 32 to 4 advantage if the maps pass. It's just the latest attempt by states to control which party rules by changing the game. It comes a week after Virginia redrew its maps to give Democrats an advantage. But DeSantis says his effort to redistrict Florida has nothing to do with the nationwide battle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): This has been a longstanding issue that we've had since I've been governor. I vetoed the legislature's maps in 2022. We ended up doing a compromise map, got rid of a racially gerrymandered district in North Florida. But we still had one in Southern Florida, which I don't think is constitutional. This map removes that racial gerrymander. We are also in a situation in Florida, we've had a massive population boom.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: With me now, Florida Democratic Congressman Maxwell Frost, who also sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, welcome. As you know, a lot of Republicans are going to say that Florida's redistricting effort is no different from what Virginia did last week. You got the governor saying this is overdue because of population growth and what he's actually calling racial gerrymandering. What's your response?

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): Number one, he's the guy who wrote the map that we currently have, not 10 years ago, not six years ago, four years ago. The second thing is this situation is different than Virginia. In the early 2000s, the state of Florida had a ballot initiative called the Fair Districts Amendment, that was voted into law by both Democrats and Republicans across the state in the landslide, and that says, in the law, that you cannot draw districts to favor a politician or a political party. Ron DeSantis has done that this time, which means these maps are unconstitutional with our state constitution.

COATES: You know, the House minority Llader, Hakeem Jeffries, he believes it is actually going to backfire on Republicans, and he's even targeting eight Republican-held seats to flip if these new maps actually do pass. Do you think the Democrats could actually win those seats?

FROST: Absolutely. But, of course, first and foremost, we're going to fight to make sure these maps do not get enacted because they are unconstitutional. If they do, the math is simple. If you look at those districts that they drew and look at the 2020 vote, which I think is, you know, most accurate to what we'll have this year with the blue wave, there's about seven or eight of those districts that are R plus eight or lower, which means when we have Democrats that overperform like they will, not only could we see all four of those incumbents that they tried to draw come back, but there's a possibility that we could leave with even more districts than we have right now.

That's what happens when you try to take Democrats out of blue areas and kind of spread them out amongst the entire state to dilute their votes. You make red, deep red districts light red and light red districts in a wave year like this when gas prices are crazy high, people are seeing the president is spending all of this time in a reckless war in Iran that nobody wants, the cost of living is too damn high, everyone is struggling to make ends meet, the president is engaged in the cover-up of the Epstein files.

I mean, all these things are going to lead to an election where people are coming to vote for Democrats, and that's not going to be good for lot of these Republicans in light red districts in Florida. So, of course, first and foremost, we don't want them abstract and constitutional. But if they do this, there's going be a lot of seats in play in the state of Florida.

COATES: You know, one area that has been a cause for concern in addition to things that you have listed, which many things Republicans say are not going to be top of mind, but it's the Justice Department in particular as well and the pursuit of justice and some would say the total lack thereof. And that's why I want to turn to the new indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for this post on Instagram showing seashells forming two numbers, 86 and 47.

[23:50:03]

Now, as you know, a judge threw out the first indictment under separate consequences. You're on the Oversight Committee. Do you have concerns about this new indictment?

FROST: I do. And if you guys can put the seashell picture back, I just think it's so important for people to see that that seashell picture that you're seeing on Instagram has led to a federal indictment. The Department of Justice is trying to put federal charges and lock a man up because of this Instagram post.

That's the state of our country right now, this president, who is using the Justice Department to go after his political enemies, and it's ridiculous. I mean, just seeing that photo and us here talking about this on national news is just ridiculous and it just shows how far gone the Justice Department is right now.

COATES: I mean, as a prosecutor and trial attorney, I can't imagine having to even say what you just said, which is, please bring back up the picture of the seashells for my jury. That's not a phrase I'd want to go into court with.

But, congressman, the Oversight Committee is also going to investigate the assassination attempt against President Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner over the weekend. Your colleague, a Republican, Anna Paulina Luna, she posts on X that the shooting revealed what it's like to be a Trump supporter. You responded what it's like to be in the classroom.

You know, there has been so much focus on political rhetoric. Do you think that that focus is the only thing lawmakers should be focused on after, frankly, an instance of gun violence and the potential for extraordinary violence, something that you ran for Congress to try to address?

FROST: Yes. You know, this knee-jerk reaction to just talk about political rhetoric is something that is done to keep us from talking about the real conversation. Of course, rhetoric is important. We got to make sure that politicians and leaders are not talking about violence. But there's tough political rhetoric across the entire world and many other countries as well where we don't have these type of assassination attempts or the level of gun violence we have here.

So, my question is, do you just want to talk about the political rhetoric or do you want to talk about the means that are used to achieve political violence? Because that's really what I want to talk about, making sure that this stuff can't happen. And then you have to talk about common sense gun reform, you have to talk about gun laws, you have to talk about things that work. And that's why I made that comment. It's not just about left or right. There's extreme on both sides. You know, I was the victim of something. You know, a guy come up and punched me in the face. We saw what happened to Ilhan Omar. We saw what happened to Paul Pelosi. Of course, the attempts on the president's life. This is horrible. We have to be against it.

But we also have to talk about the fact when we have almost assassination attempts, these people somehow got weapons, and we have to talk about the guns, too.

And the other thing we have to talk about is the fact that the most common cause of death for people under the age of 18 in this country is a bullet. Where's the conversation around that on protecting our kids, on protecting people in classrooms?

So, I just want a holistic conversation to protect everyone, of course the president, but everyone, including our kids.

And you got to talk about the guns. And the good thing is that most people are with me on this. Over 90 percent of the country wants universal background checks. Most of this nation wants a commonsense gun reform, and we're going to keep fighting for it.

COATES: Congressman Maxwell Frost, thank you. Next, the race for California governor getting interesting as the candidates wrap up now their second debate. Elex Michaelson has the highlights for us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, it's almost midnight. Let's get ready to toss things over to Elex Michaelson, who is anchoring live here in Washington, D.C. tonight. Good to see you, Elex.

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.

COATES: Look, I'm excited, you'll be moderating CNN's California gubernatorial debate next Tuesday. They did have their second debate tonight. What stood out to you?

MICHAELSON: Well, this debate was way more feisty than what we saw last week. There was a lot of back and forth. Xavier Becerra, the former HHS secretary, former attorney general of California, has been rising in the polls. And so, there was some attention on him tonight, some attacks coming his way. He tried to sort of cast this race almost like he's already in the general election running against a Republican. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

XAVIER BECERRA, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: The first thing we have to do is stop Steve Hilton's daddy who has endorsed him and said that's what we got to do from becoming the next governor of the state of California. We need someone who's going to fight Donald Trump, not agree with him. And we've had the same people in charge for 16 years now.

And because it's such a disaster and such a high cost of living for everyone and the highest poverty rate in the country and the highest unemployment rate in the country and the worst business climate, all these things going wrong, they can't do anything except blame Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELSON: Remember, California has a top two system where the top two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election. But Xavier would like that to be him, and he would like it to be with a Republican because California has twice as many Republicans -- Democrats as Republicans. So, you see him potentially trying to lift up Steve Hilton there a little bit, some of the gamesmanship going on.

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: So, it's interesting to see all the different back and forth when you have that many people up on the stage.

COATES: I mean, look at the latest poll, Elex. We're only 35 days away from the primary. This suggests it's really anyone's to win.

MICHAELSON: Yes. I mean, based off of that poll, you could make an argument that at least four or five of these people could be the next governor of California. Ballots go out next week.

[23:59:58]

People are already going to be voting. So, it is remarkable in the fourth largest economy in the world, the biggest state in the country after all this money that has been spent and voters still have not made up their minds or seem so split based off of this field.

COATES: Well, you and Kaitlan Collins will moderate the next California governor debate right here on CNN. Be sure to tune in next Tuesday, 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific. Have a great show, Elex. I'll see you later.

MICHAELSON: Well, not only see me later, you'll see me soon because my favorite guest is joining as we launch "The Story Is" right now.

(LAUGHTER)