Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Supreme Court All but Threw Away the Voting Rights Act; Hegseth Doubles Down on Justification of War at Hearing; Musk Takes the Stand. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 29, 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]
NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don't even know what Buc-ee's is.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: What?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I have no idea what a Buc- ee's is.
JENNINGS: None of you don't know what a Buc-ee's is?
(CROSSTALK)
This is the political divide in America. Two Republicans know --
NAVARRO: You don't know what Folia Tropical is.
(LAUGHTER)
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: I can't get the king's name right, but I know Buc-ee's.
JENNINGS: Oh, my goodness.
NAVARRO: Do you know what a Folio Tropical is? Do you know what Versailles (ph) is? I know what --
TANDEN: I got to say --
NAVARRO: I've been to both.
TANDEN: -- whatever it is, he doesn't want to go.
JENNINGS: Buc-ee's.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Forty years ago or 30 years ago, you know what he would said instead of Buc- ee's? He would said he should have met the Hamburglar. That's what you would have said.
TANDEN: Yes.
SIDNER: Almost guaranteed.
NAVARRO: So, what the hell is Buc-ees?
TANDEN: I am the Hamburglar.
JENNINGS: It's like Costo --
SIDNER: I'll explain off camera, but it's -- it's -- it's fun.
JENNINGS: I don't know. A gas station had a baby. It's amazing.
SIDNER: That's right.
(LAUGHTER)
SIDNER: All right, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Supreme Court slices into six decades of voting protections for Black and Brown Americans in a historic decision that has just supercharged the race to redraw America's congressional maps. The former attorney general, Eric Holder, joins me live to talk about that and the seashell indictment of James Comey as President Trump uses Hollywood to try and make the case. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, today, six justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, they left the words on the paper, but they erased the meaning, the way poll taxes and literacy tests and jelly bean counting tried to negate the 15th Amendment that gave Black people the right to vote. Why? Because voting is the single most important power in a democracy, not just the act of going to the polls and filling in some bubbles. No. It's the ability to vote for your candidate of choice.
Now, you are not entitled to vote for the winner, but gerrymandering districts can mean that your power is so watered down that you never even had a chance to choose who represents you or pretends to, until Louisiana. The court struck down its map today, saying that lawmakers illegally used race to draw a majority Black district.
At the heart of the ruling was Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act that LBJ signed. And before I explain Section 2, why don't you listen to what LBJ said when he signed it into law?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNDON B. JOHNSON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American in his heart can justify.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Ensure them the right to vote. Section 2, it tried to prevent racial gerrymandering precisely because it diluted voting power. And that's now all but out the window. And already, today, we saw Republican candidates across Alabama and Georgia and Mississippi and Tennessee and South Carolina and others all push for the maps to be redrawn to benefit their party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: When did it come out? Just now?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): No, it came out this morning, but basically very much narrows the Voting Rights Act.
TRUMP: Was it considered a win for Republicans?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): A win for a Republicans.
TRUMP: I love it!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you? Because I worked in the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division, so I can tell you how instrumental Section 2 was to getting gerrymandered districts withdrawn to be fair or prevent the maps from even getting drawn in the first place. It was critical to ensuring that voting rights meant anything to minority voters.
Now, it wasn't a cakewalk but before today, you had a fighting chance to ensure that the blood, the sweat, the tears, and the indignities and the violence towards those who have the audacity to believe in equality didn't fight and legislate in vain. It understood that racism, it could be right in your face, but it could also be strategic and covert so you could prove that a district was unconstitutionally gerrymandered even if you couldn't show some smoking gun that said, you know why I'm drawing this crazy salamander or goofy shaped district? To make sure the Black and Brown voters can't gain strength in numbers. Who's right in that?
Now, if you could show that the map had that effect without those words, the map could be redrawn.
[23:04:58]
But now, the Supreme Court says, yes, you have to bring that smoking gun. It's not enough to show that Black voters were targeted or that Black voters feel the brunt of an illegal practice. Now, you've got to eliminate the possibility no matter how remote and, in the category of pigs flying, that these Black voters were targeted because they were Black Democrats. You likely have to prove that race, not political party, explains the harmful effect.
Welcome to the wink and the nod portion of what MLK and so many others fighting for civil rights had to contend with. It's also an extremely high bar that will likely be insurmountable in most cases to prove that. And the why. Why the majority did this is something you ought to pay close attention to because they said that there had been vast social change, that's the phrase, particularly in the south, that have made these considerations, considerations unnecessary.
Are we -- are we back on the flawed theory that we live in a post- racial world? Wow! Tell that to my mother, who was 13 years old when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, or tell it to my 13-year-old son, who just saw it become what Justice Elena Kagan called a dead letter.
My first guest is a longtime champion of the Civil Rights Act and has not left the fight. Former Attorney General under President Obama, Eric Holder, joins me now. And I should note, I served as a career prosecutor during his tenure in the Civil Rights Division.
Attorney general, thank you so much for being here. As you can imagine, this feels deeply personal to so many people and legally and analytically completely unhinged, frankly, to me. But I have to ask you, what your takeaway is, because there are those who will look at this and say, see, gerrymandering is bad even if it's meant to undo entrenched racial discrimination. What's your thought?
ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, I got to tell you, I take this both personally and professionally. I was 13 years old when the '65 Voting Rights Act was passed. I was the attorney general who had to deal with that first attack on the Voting Rights Act, the Shelby County case that has, unfortunately, my name attached to it.
And I've seen the dismemberment of the Voting Rights Act by the Roberts Court. And you have to ask yourself why. John Roberts, when he was a young lawyer at the Justice Department, apparently was against the Voting Rights Act. And now that he is the chief justice of the United States, he has finally reached that dream of his to really come up with a way in which he gets rid of the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.
So, I feel it's personal as well as professionally. And it's something that, I think, we have to fight. And we have to do all that we can to try to manage this crisis that we are presently in, but then come up with long-term solutions so that we put this country back on the right path.
COATES: Are you persuaded by Justice Alito's statements that the country is seeing vast social change, particularly in the south, as a reason, and what he wrote was, Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate. Is that persuasive enough to gut Section 2?
HOLDER: No. I mean, the reason that people -- Black people participate at essentially the same rate to the extent that that's true is because of the protections that you saw in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before that act was passed, you did not see significant Black voter participation. It was difficult to register. It was difficult to vote. The '65 Voting Rights Act goes into effect. You see a start number of people, greater number of people who register, who vote, who ultimately get elected.
So, you know, this notion that somehow or another, just because the nation has changed, and it has changed, we have to acknowledge that because --
COATES: Yes.
HOLDER: -- if we don't, we do a grave disservice to those who sacrificed to give me opportunities that they did not have. But the nation is not yet at the place where it should be. Race is still a factor if you look at economic factors, maternal death rates, any number of things, wealth, education. Black folks, Hispanic folks are still not doing nearly as well as their white fellow citizens. Race is still a factor in this nation.
COATES: All considerations, as you name, of why people seek representation of their choice, which some obviously know is undermined when voting power is diluted. You've called this a new low for the court.
[23:10:00]
And many are wondering, what now? Because the Supreme Court, obviously the supreme law of the land, gutting Section 5, which was the formula by which you had to determine which states could get the pre- authorization of the Justice Department before they made any changes to voting practices. Now, you've got Section 2, a main vehicle of being able to ensure that you've got voting blocks and, of course, voting districts that are fair representative. So, what does the fight look like now? Who can lead it? Is it Congress? Is it an individual litigation? What?
HOLDER: Well, I think the leadership devolves to where it ultimately always does, and that's the people of the United States. The civil rights movement, which got us the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was really a citizen-led movement, young people in particular, young Black kids, young white kids.
And so, the American people have to understand the enormous power that we have as demonstrated by the fact that, you know, they essentially kicked out ICE in Minneapolis. That wasn't because of anything other than extraordinary -- ordinary people going to the streets and using that power. And so, we've to use our power here.
Beyond that, I think we have to come up with ways in which we pass federal legislation that bans partisan gerrymandering, that bans racial gerrymandering, and that puts in place those things that were contained in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that would protect people's right to vote and make it easy for people to vote in this nation.
I don't understand why Republicans fear the very people who they say they want to lead, and why in particular they want to make it more difficult for African Americans, Hispanics to vote. You know, I think that they have become comfortable being, in terms of popular support, a minority party that has majority power. They're cool with that. They think that that's OK. They want to hold on to power at all costs. And if that means sacrificing our democracy, the ideals of this nation in the process, they're just fine with that. COATES: Well, then address some of the criticism that is out there that suggests that what has happened recently in Virginia or what has happened obviously even today in Florida, or more broadly, this tug of war about redistricting and redrawing maps and trying to get a partisan advantage. Why is that different than the Supreme Court striking down the idea to do it racially?
HOLDER: Well, Supreme Court is determining what rules should apply. What's happening with regard to this gerrymandering that's going on in all of the states was started by Donald Trump when he asked Texas to give him an additional five seats.
And then Democrats like me had to decide what are we going to do. Are we going to simply do nothing or are we going to respond to that? And so, what we decided to do was, well, you know, in the short term, we will have to do that, which is kind of distasteful to us. We're going to have to move our maps so that we meet this Republican challenge because if we don't, our democracy could ultimately be compromised forever. We deal with the crisis in that way, and then over the long term, we try to put in place mechanisms, measures, laws so that this doesn't happen again.
And I think one key difference in Democratic as opposed to Republican response is that Democrats went before the people of their states. And in California and in Virginia, the people had to vote to make the determination that they were going to change their maps as opposed to having imposed upon them as it happened in Texas and North Carolina as well as in Missouri.
COATES: And, of course, the Supreme Court has described partisan voting in gerrymandering as distinct from waste space because of Section 2 and when it actually had teeth. I mean, there has also been this debate that has gone on, attorney general, that for years, people debated whether to expand the Supreme Court. Obviously, at time like this, in the six to three decision along ideological lines, people are very angry about the ability to have six people determine and unravel six decades worth of progress. Do you think that part of the conversation moving forward should involve the composition or the numbers in the Supreme Court?
HOLDER: I think that should be a part of the conversation. And I think we also have to realize, when people say, well, you're just trying to pack the court, well, the court is already packed. Merrick Garland never got a hearing. And so, he never had an opportunity to become a justice on the Supreme Court. If rules had been followed as they normally had been, he would have been on the court. And the rule was, well, he was too -- it was too close to an election for him to get a hearing or even an interview. Well, then, Amy Coney Barrett comes along later on and is confirmed while people are in the process of voting. So, those are two seats that probably should be seats appointed by a Democratic president.
[23:14:58]
So, the criticism that in considering expanding the court is packing the court and that's something negative is again something that Republicans will criticize the very thing that they themselves did. But I think that has to be a part of the conversation.
COATES: I want to continue our conversation. I have a quick break I got to take. But I want to hear your mind about your old department, the Department of Justice, and the indictment against the former FBI director, James Comey. We will talk in just a moment. Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Former FBI Director James Comey surrendered to federal authorities today after being indicted for allegedly threatening President Trump with this image, seashells, forming the numbers 8647 on a beach in North Carolina, which the president believes was an intentional death threat against him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with --
[23:19:59]
TRUMP: Well, if anybody know anything about crime, they know 86. You know what 86 is? It's a mob term for kill him.
COLLINS: But do you really think your life was in danger? Because that's the argument.
TRUMP: You know, based on -- based what I'm seeing out there, yes.
COLLINS: Seashells.
TRUMP: The people like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: This is, of course, the administration's second try at indicting Comey. The former attorney general, Eric Holder, is back with me now. I mean, attorney general, I argued last night that this case will be nearly impossible to prove for a number of reasons, not the least of which includes trying to understand and prove that he had the specific intent by photographing these shells that they have not alleged she even placed himself was a threat to the life of the president. Do you think there is any merit to this now second indictment?
HOLDER: This is one of the dumbest indictments I think I've ever heard of. If this had been considered in the public integrity section where I used to work, it would not have gotten through an indictment review committee and even gotten to a grand jury.
I would be shocked if a judge doesn't throw this case out because it is an expression of Mr. Comey's ability -- his ability to use his First Amendment right. That's clearly what's going on here. I'd be shocked if a judge, if it gets that far, doesn't dismiss the case after the government presents its evidence. I think there's absolutely no way a jury, if it gets that far, would ever convict Jim Comey.
The notion that somehow, this was a threat that was really -- that was real, well, you have to ask yourself, why did it take nine, 10 months then to indict this case? All you had to do was just kind of look at the picture and make determination. Jim Comey went down, got interviewed by the Secret Service.
This is really -- everybody knows what's going on here. This is Donald Trump using his Justice Department, and it is his Justice Department, to get at those people he considers political foes. He tried once with Jim Comey and failed. And now, they've come back with a second indictment, and they're going to get embarrassed again.
COATES: Well, they have a grand jury that secured the indictment, and they say the investigation yielded this and they've got more to come. I haven't seen any of it. But you articulate a case for vindictive prosecution. Is that where this is going?
HOLDER: I think you've got a number of ways in which you can attack this case. Certainly, vindictive prosecution, I think there's substantial grounds to believe that. But I think also, you know, Jim Comey taking pictures of those four numbers, that's an expression, that's way in which he's using his First Amendment rights. That is not necessarily a way in which he's trying to threaten the president. Nobody really believes this. I mean, everybody understands what's going on here. And, as I said, I'd be shocked if this case is successful in in any way.
COATES: You know, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, he was pressed on a 2022 social media post by a MAGA influencer named Jack Posobiec in what he posted, 8646, presumably meant for President Biden. Now, he has not taken it down nor has he apologized. Blanche was asked if DOJ will pursue that case. Here's what said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: That's just completely not true. That's not how a grand jury does its work. They don't just look at a single image and then say, OK, yes, we'll indict, or OK, no, we won't indict. Every day, there are comments made about President Trump, threats made against President Trump. Every one of those are not -- are not indicted. It depends on the facts of every case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Sounds like he punted and trying to suggest discretion by a prosecutor. But I see a double standard. Do you?
HOLDER: Of course, there's a double standard, and he's trying to imply that there's something more to this case than the seashells that we saw in the sand. Well, we'll see. You know, he'll have his opportunity to present the evidence. I suspect there's not much more than what you saw there in terms of that picture.
I know Jim Comey. I have known Jim Comey for 20, 30 years. He's a good man. He's an honorable man. He is a dedicated law enforcement official who headed the FBI. And the notion that he would do anything to threaten the president of the United States is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. There's not going be any proof of this. This is simply an attempt to get at a foe of Donald Trump. That's all this is about.
COATES: You know what concerns me, and I suspect you share that given your position as the attorney general in the Department of Justice. I can only imagine the credibility hit and bruise that this is part of and a long running part of it. This is all cumulative. There has been a transformation that appears to be happening through this second administration. You've got pictures of the president hanging outside of different buildings. Do you look at what has been done, the mass exodus, the feelings, the morale?
[23:25:02]
Is this damage irreversible or do you share Comey's optimism that, look, in spite of the onslaught, we're getting closer to restoring the DOJ's values?
HOLDER: Well, the damage has been substantial up to date. It's going to be substantial over the course of the next two years. But that doesn't mean that it is irreversible. In fact, I think in relatively short order, you can put the Justice Department back in place by doing some rehiring, by hiring people who are dedicated to the mission of the Justice Department. Repopulating the Department of Justice means substantial numbers of people have simply left.
COATES: Yes.
HOLDER: But there is going to be a long-term hit to the credibility of people coming out of the Justice Department, either prosecutors, FBI agents, DEA agents, where the reputation of the department has been -- has been sullied by what this administration is doing. That's going to take a longer period of time for people to regain that trust in the department that existed when it was handed over to this Trump administration.
COATES: That doesn't bode well for the pursuit of justice then in the short term. Attorney General Eric Holder, thank you so much.
HOLDER: Thank you.
COATES: Next, Secretary Pete Hegseth at war with members of Congress as he lashes out against anyone who dare question or critique the war in Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies? Shame on you for that statement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth headed to Capitol Hill today to sell the Iran war to Congress, with the House Armed Services Committee hearing, well, it quickly devolved into a blame game. Democrats accuse Hegseth of misleading the public on the premise of the war, and Hegseth accused Democrats of being unpatriotic and not supporting the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Well, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated underground. They're buried. And we're watching 24/7.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Whoa, whoa, whoa.
HEGSETH: So, we know where any nuclear material might be. We're watching that.
UNKNOWN: Reclaiming my time for a quick second here. We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now, you're saying that it was completely obliterated?
HEGSETH: It had not given up their nuclear ambitions. And they had a conventional shield of thousands of missiles. They're at the weakest --
SMITH: So, Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance. It left us at exactly the same place we were before.
UNKNOWN: Why did you fire him?
HEGSETH: Ultimately, out of respect to these officers, we don't reveal it. However, I will note, it's very difficult to change the culture of a department that has been destroyed by the wrong perspectives.
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): So, you think General George destroyed a culture?
HEGSETH: There are many --
HOULAHAN: I think as if this looks to me as if you're being --
HEGSETH: -- we've gotten rid of many general officers in this administration because we need new leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My next guest knows all about the perils and the cost of war, former Illinois Republican congressman, Air Force veteran, and CNN senior political commentator Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, thank you for being here. I'm really curious to see your impression of the entire hearing today. But, you know, Hegseth called Democrats and even some Republicans the biggest adversary of this war and their defeatist thoughts. How do you think those words are heard in Tehran?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Great in Tehran. They love it. I mean, look, first off, I've actually never seen a cabinet secretary wear that much makeup to testify. Anyway, I just -- I noticed that. But, anyway, look, here is the interesting thing. So, Iran has been putting out so pretty intense propaganda. You've seen all the Lego videos, right? You've seen the memes they've put out.
And this administration -- so, information is a significant part of the war. You know, DIME, diplomatic information military economic. And instead of putting out counterinformation or counter-memes or other things to make their point, all the White House and the Pentagon has done is put out stuff attacking Democrats. So, it's like, Iran puts out these Lego memes about Donald Trump, the war department -- the war department and the White House put out stuff attacking Democrats. I mean, they're doing Iran's job for him.
And so, Hegseth goes there today, and he's performing, of course, like we always say, for an audience of one. I'm sure Donald Trump was happy. But this morning, too, Hegseth put out a Franklin the Turtle ghost to testify in front of Congress meme. I didn't understand it at first, and then I did. It's like he was going there with no respect whatsoever for Congress, the people that have oversight of the Department of Defense. And I don't understand it because in seven months, he's probably going to have different bosses and it's like he's not thinking that through.
COATES: I mean, Congress has the power of the purse. And the Pentagon also said today the war has cost $25 billion so far. And the sources say the real cost is actually close to $50 billion because that includes repairs to military bases Iran has hit. I mean, how worried should Americans be now, not just about the cost, but at the readiness of the military if another conflict breaks out somewhere in the world?
KINZINGER: Well, they should be concerned.
[23:34:58]
And I mean, the fact that an F-5, an Iranian jet that has not been supported by, you know, new maintenance or anything like that was able to pierce the veil of Kuwait and bomb a military base is actually a little frightening. And so, yes, they should be concerned about that.
They should also be very concerned about the fact that we are in a standoff right now with Iran. And you have the strait that is closed. You have a so-called blockade that lets Russian yachts through for whatever reason. But, you know, it is really causing economic damage.
And a president that puts out a Truth Social post that says in a really panicked way, Iran doesn't even know how to negotiate in a non- nuclear way, I mean, he's clearly exuding panic. And the problem is, every time Donald Trump does that, every time he negotiates like that, it emboldens the Iranian regime. I don't want the Iranian regime to win. I would love the United States to come out of this in a better place victorious. But Donald Trump is somehow committed to debating with himself in public, and it's just emboldening the enemy.
COATES: We did hear that Hegseth, he said that he fired Army chief of staff, General Randy George, because, although he was saying he wasn't going to articulate the reasons out of respect for those who have been fired, the Pentagon needed new leadership. And he went on to say the Defense Department has been destroyed by what he called wrong perspectives. What does that signal to you about how seriously he takes internal debate and dissent and these perspectives that he finds wrong?
KINZINGER: So, look, there were things that were happening in the Pentagon that I disagreed with when I was in the military. I think there was a lot of focus on things that were not necessarily, you know, just the mission.
But one thing that I loved about how the military works is we pull people in. We have one of the most educated -- I think, actually, the most educated military in the world. And that's really beneficial. That includes recruiting officers from the Ivy Leagues and from state schools like me, Illinois State University, and bringing all these different perspectives because using your brain is actually really essential in war nowadays.
I know we all want everybody to do 40 pull-ups, and that's great if everybody can do 40 pull-ups, but 99 percent of warfare right now is done in an academic way, it's done with drones, it's done with thinking things through. And when you start saying, we only want these, you know, I don't know, whatever is in Pete Hegseth's mind, we're not going to be great at war, I hate to tell them, because it's technology now that wins wars, not, you know, 40 pull-ups.
COATES: So much for the presidential fitness test. Adam Kinzinger, thank you so much.
KINZINGER: You bet. Thank you.
COATES: I want to keep the conversation going with CNN political commentator Brad Todd and CNN political and global affairs commentator Sabrina Singh. I'm not going to ask either of you about your pull-up count because his point was made. But I do want to ask you, Brad. Hegseth, he was asked about the consequences, the economic consequences of the war to which there are many. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war?
HEGSETH: I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb. KHANNA: I'm going to give you that opportunity --
HEGSETH: I would simply ask you what the -- you're playing got you questions about domestic things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Does this tactic, does it ring effective for voters who are looking at not just, you know, meeting a question with a question, but they're looking at actual numbers and their actual pocketbooks? What -- how will that land with voters?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, gas prices always affect the election.
COATES: Yes.
TODD: You want gas prices low, not high if you're the party in power. It's not going to help Democrats like Ro Khanna, though, however, because Democrats spent the first four years of the Biden administration telling us that high energy prices were essential to accelerate the green climate transition. Gas went to $5 a gallon and Democrats in Congress said, oh, this is fine, it's OK, we have to get off fossil fuels, anyway. So --
COATES: You don't think voters view fossil fuels versus war differently?
TODD: No. I think voters think the price of gas is important. And when Democrats told them that we need to have a high price of gas to get us further down the road towards green energy and, oh, by the way, you need to drive a battery car, I think swing voters are saying, no, I want to drive my truck or my van or my SUV and quit trying to make gas prices high.
Democrats were pushing gas prices high on purpose. These gas prices are up because we're trying to rid the world of its biggest terrorist threat. I think that's a big difference.
COATES: You know, it's interesting. It's a novel approach because I haven't heard people go back to that aspect of it. I've heard them talk about, obviously, Biden and the economic impact of it. But I think there is a distinct difference between how voters look at conceptual environmental concerns and actual military operations.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, it's very novel to again blame Democrats and Joe Biden for high gas prices.
[23:39:58]
But the reality is we are here where we are and gas prices are higher than they've ever been since before or when Russia invaded Ukraine. And so, yes, during the Biden administration, we did push for green initiatives. I think one could also make the argument that now is actually almost the perfect time to have some of those -- whether it's electric vehicles, solar panels, whatever it is, you name it, so much runs on oil and gas. And now, people in renewable industries and energy is looking at alternatives. So, I think, to your point, there's also the flip side.
But I think what Secretary Hegseth and in that cross with Representative Ro Khanna did today is he just really couldn't answer the questions. People want to know, how am I supposed to budget? How am I supposed to survive these next few months when gas is continuing to rise? And if I am potentially going to hear the gas could go up to $5 where I am living, I have to take account for that for my family.
And you want to hear from the secretary of defense, be honest with the American people. And that was something that Donald Trump was really good at. And I think we're losing that here, especially with that performance today.
COATES: They could have gotten ahead of it by getting buy-in from Congress in advance and articulating these points. But there was a moment, I think it was really stunning, not stunning, but interesting to me, and that was Congressman Carlos Gimenez who talked about patience. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7th, 1941. Do you know how long it took for the United States to have its first major victory in World War II, in the Pacific Theater?
HEGSETH: Number of years.
GIMENEZ: No. It was actually six months. It was the Battle of Midway. All right? It was the turning point of World War II. Could you imagine if we had the same Democrats asking then secretary of war, gee, it has been two months, OK, and we haven't won this war yet?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Patience. Obviously, something that people who know bureaucracy have to get used to. But is patience the right message for voters who might say, I'm still waiting on the premise of the war to make sense?
TODD: I think objectives are important. You know, by the way, we've been waiting 40-something years to deal with Iran. So, the Democrats are -- again, these are -- it's a binary choice in November. You have to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. And you have to ask yourself, did the Democrats take too long to deal with Iran? Yes, they did. In fact, some Republican presidents took too long to deal with Iran.
And I think the president, if he sees this through and he takes away Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon and project his power abroad using ballistic missiles and proxy forces, the voters are going to reward strength. Now, he also has to avoid chaos. Chaos is the thing that --
COATES: Of course.
TODD: -- that is his kryptonite. But voters will reward strength. They see him as a strong president. This is a great chance to show it by seeing it through to victory.
COATES: But the patience of Iran might be a lot longer than the patience of the Americans in terms of gas prices. Doesn't that factor into a military strategy?
SINGH: The enemy always has a vote. And so, when you're thinking through a military strategy, I do think Americans would have rallied, potentially, around Donald Trump had he made the case to the American people. He went in and bombed Iran just a few days after the State of the Union. He had the opportunity at that lectern to say and to outline to the American people, this is why we have to address Iran for presidents past that haven't done this for 47 years, including Donald Trump in term one who didn't do it. But he didn't.
And so, now, we are where we are. And Americans are facing not only higher gas prices, electricity bills are higher, uncertainty, the chaos of this administration. And people just want answers. And I don't think, frankly, from just a messaging perspective, this administration has failed to outline the cause to the American people.
COATES: We'll see if the voters agree. Brad, Sabrina, thank you both so much. Up next, Elon Musk gets feisty on the witness stand as he testifies in a legal showdown with the A.I. company, he says, betrayed him. But is the jury staying in his way or as a push to crush his competition? I got Kara Swisher ahead, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The richest man in the world taking the stand to testify against an AI giant, a company he co-founded. That's now one of his biggest competitors. The case has huge implications for the future of artificial intelligence. But how we got here? Well, that's a whirlwind. So, you know that company, I'm sure you've heard, basically everyone talking about, OpenAI.
Well, Musk created it with Sam Altman back in 2015. But you might not know, it began as a nonprofit. Now, Musk says they started it to benefit all humanity and focus on A.I. safety. He says he gave them $38 million in funding, but then left the company a few years later.
Now, you fast forward to today, OpenAI no longer a nonprofit. ChatGPT, a household name. And the company is one of the world's leading A.I. innovators. It's worth more than five -- I'm sorry, $850 billion. But Musk argues he was duped. He says he only gave OpenAI money with the understanding it would remain a nonprofit to build A.I. for the public good. So, now, he is suing OpenAI for $130 billion. And he summed up his argument quite simply on the witness stand, it's not OK to steal a charity. I should add, Musk is running his own A.I. company. Yes, it's for profit. It's called xAI.
Joining me now, CNN contributor and host of the podcasts "On" and "Pivot." Kara Swisher. Kara, I've been eager to talk to you because OpenAI's lawyers --
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Yes.
COATES: -- they argue that Musk is just -- he's just bitter over how successful the company became --
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: -- after he left the board. I mean, do you think Musk has a legit argument here?
SWISHER: No. I mean, he did initially. I was around during that time.
[23:50:00]
And they did start the company to put -- you know, to (INAUDIBLE) Google and Facebook and other companies who they thought would dominate. But it changed pretty quickly when they realized what was going on. And I think it's just -- I think they're correct. He's bitter that he sorts of flounced out of there, and he very clearly signed the paper saying he was leaving. He wanted control. They said no. He left and thought they were going to fail, and then they didn't fail. And so, it's -- it is there, sort of party of one. I think they're accurate in the description of it.
COATES: So, this idea of a personal, maybe grudge match for Musk because there was a lot of testy exchanges today between Musk and OpenAI's lawyer.
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: I mean, the judge even had to intervene, saying things like, can we just stop and have people stop talking all over each other? Let's everybody calm down. I mean, obviously, it was obvious in the courtroom.
SWISHER: Yes. I mean, in that case, the lawyer won because one of the things Elie Honig talked about is that these billionaires aren't used to being questioned and questioned strongly because everyone around them agrees with them violently. And so, he's not used to that, someone pushing back. And so, he had -- he's not -- he hasn't done it in years because everyone says, sir, how smart you are. Reminds you of anybody else.
(LAUGHTER)
And so, that's a problem for him. And to get him testy is really important to show his personality because already, a lot of the jury, when they were doing jury selection, says they don't like him. And he has moved from when -- when OpenAI started to a hero in tech to a villain to many people. It's not everybody, but many people. And so, it's a very difficult thing, and he's showing that on by getting agitated. He shouldn't get agitated. Of course, it's impossible for him not to because he doesn't have self-control.
COATES: I mean, he has been trying to position himself as someone who was always concerned about A.I. safety and wants to protect humanity. He actually the jury that he has -- quote -- "extreme concerns over A.I." and that "it could also kill us all. We don't want to have a 'Terminator' outcome." You buying that?
SWISHER: Yeah. Oh, that's true. We talked about it many years ago. I think it has changed because then he rushed off and started his own company, which has severe problems of non-consensual sexual images, child pornography. Twitter is a sea of disaster porn. And white supremacy and Nazis running around, and he's let them on. So, if he cares about safety, he would run his other things correctly.
But he went on off and raised money for Grok. He's doing all manner. He's in lawsuits about how they do the data centers. So, if he cares so much about the human race, he wouldn't be abusing it so much, you know. And so, I think he looks -- he looks -- maybe he has changed his mind because he was absolutely genuinely concerned, and I think still is.
There was a story today which I talked about previously in "The New York Times" about cyber experts being scared about a bio weapon being created by these companies.
And so, you know, it's terrifying. They all were concerned, but they don't care because they're in search of more money even though they're incredibly obscenely wealthy. They want more money and so -- or they want to win over each other. And that's what this is, really, a grudge match, because he was stupid enough to, you know, run out of the room because he was in a peak, and Sam Altman turned it into something he never thought he could do. And so, that's really what this is about.
COATES: I want to talk about --
SWISHER: So, we'll see where it goes. But they're competitors. They're competitors. So, that's what you have to keep in mind.
COATES: Clearly. And, obviously, the grudge match continues.
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: I want to talk about your show, "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever" --
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: -- because in this week's episode, you explore the loneliness epidemic, its impact on longevity --
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: -- social media, A.I. chat bots.
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: They play a huge role contributing to the problem. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: We know that learning and play is really, really good for the brain. It's strategy, it's that interaction, it's creativity. One of my specialties is a brain structure called the hippocampus. It's in the temporal lobe. You have one on the right and one on the left. That's really important for memory. So, you need it to remember what you put down, you know, in Texas (INAUDIBLE).
It's also important for imagination. If you're trying to get something going in your game strategy, you need that imagination to envision what that strategy might be.
SWISHER (voice-over): Games boost your brain. But the real win? You usually can't play alone. And it turns out interacting with actual humans, messy, opinionated, rule-bending humans, is what fights loneliness and helps you live longer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, I can't be antisocial if I want to live longer?
SWISHER: No.
(LAUGHTER)
You've got to hang out with me, Laura.
COATES: Done.
SWISHER: That's what I keep telling you.
COATES: Done.
SWISHER: No. I mean, it's really true. I mean, one of the things -- Elon Musk is too much online, and he has become radicalized. You can see it.
[23:54:59]
You know, he has been posting a lot of -- there is just a story about white supremacy and stuff. When you're alone and lonely, other people are the answer, not an A.I. chat bot. And, as I say, you have to say yes to my dinner invitations that I make to you on a daily basis, Laura.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Yes. Kara Swisher, thank you.
SWISHER: OK. I want you to live forever, Laura. That's all I'm just saying. (LAUGHTER)
COATES: Done. Hopefully. OK, fine, I'll come to mahjong. I love you. OK. Thank you so much.
SWISHER: Mahjong, baby. You didn't come. Mahjong. All right. Thank you. Later.
COATES: Don't keep calling me out. OK, see you later, honey. OK. Be sure to catch the brand-new episode of "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever." It's this Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern only on CNN.
Thank you all for watching. Erica Hill picks up. "The Story Is" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
