Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Back To Square One On Iran After Summit; NYT: Trump Admin Weighs $1.7B Fund For Allies Investigated Under Biden; Judge Orders New Murder Trial For Alex Murdaugh. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 15, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, the summit is over, the strait is still closed, and the president faces a major choice on Iran. Plus, Democrats accusing the president of a shakedown as reports emerge of a controversial DOJ idea to potentially pay his allies who claim they were victimized by Biden's DOJ. And later, Alex Murdaugh's attorneys make a claim without evidence they think could shock the retrial just as the state warns they may go through the death penalty this time. A juror speaking out on all of these tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, Trump is right back where he started before the summit with Xi Jinping, embattled, trenched, and still unable to articulate how or when the war with Iran ends. I mean, you heard him this week. His focus is on stopping them from having a nuclear weapon. Americans' financial pain? Not a consideration, not after Vice President J.D. Vance unsuccessfully tried to do cleanup on aisle 12 after that comment. Fox News gave him a mulligan on that very question, and he hit it even further into the rough.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You can imagine Democrats and political pundits --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The people get it.

-- jumped all over this statement.

TRUMP: The people get it. It was a perfect statement. I would make it again. It's very simple. When people hear me say it, everybody agrees, short-term pain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, the polls tell a different story because they show 60 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the war. And that number has only gotten worse as the weeks have gone on. And in case you've lost track, I'm talking about 11 weeks because we're now on day 77 of this so-called short-term excursion turned ceasefire on life support that he originally said would take four to eight weeks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Did you underestimate the pain tolerance that Iran has?

TRUMP: I didn't underestimate anything. We hit them unbelievably hard.

BAIER: Americans want to know when it's over, though. Right?

TRUMP: Yes. Look, Vietnam lasted 19 years. Iraq was like 10 years. We were in there for two and a half months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, the president says he's in no rush, but he does have an urgent decision to make. His advisors have given him options to carry out new strikes, which would pull the plug on the ceasefire, everything from strikes on infrastructure to using ground troops for specialized missions. Now, we don't know exactly what Trump said to Xi Jinping about Iran, but it sounds like there was no commitment of anything coming from Beijing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He would like to help. If he wants to help, that's great. But we don't need help. And you know the problem with help? When somebody helps you, they always want something on the other side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But I have to note the president has said he wants help. March 14th, he posted -- quote -- "Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the U.K., and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated."

And yes, Iran's military has absolutely been set back, dramatically so by the Pentagon's estimate. But even the president acknowledged tonight that when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, it's still not enough.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: See, to stop the strait is very easy. All they have to do is say we dropped the mine in the strait someplace, you know. See, we're at a little disadvantage, but that's OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm going to begin with former director for China at the National Security Council under President Biden, Jonathan Czin, former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller, and CNN senior political commentator, former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Glad to have all of you here.

I'll begin with you, congressman. Look, the president's message to Americans on rising costs, it could be worse. But why double down on this? I mean, does he believe people -- realize that people actually, unlike what he just said, they don't seem to get it?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, the president likes to double down because in his mind, and this is what you see in -- when he -- how he acts all the time, if he doubles down on something, he's not wrong. And, of course, the president never likes to admit he's wrong. I mean, he could have easily said, you know, I didn't say it exactly how I should have. Of course, I care about the American people and cost of living. But, instead, he's like, no, no, I said it perfectly.

It's like the perfect phone call, you'll remember, on impeachment one and everything. This is just the way he does it. I mean, to him, the whole thing is double down and you're never wrong. And, honestly, it's the cue that his base takes. Once he does that, they can go out and defend him, too.

[23:05:00]

COATES: Well, the president, Aaron, told Fox that he is still -- quote -- "trying to figure out who the hell he is dealing with in the regime." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Every time they make a deal, they -- the next day, it's like we didn't have that conversation. And that has taken place about five times. There's something wrong with them. Actually, they're crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you think the Iranians are playing with the president or is there actually some legitimate dysfunction that is the cause of the disconnect?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Look, once the Israelis and/or the Americans killed the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, a real repressive leader of an authoritarian regime, they were removed from decision-making structure, a key balancer. So, I think, right now, as my colleague (INAUDIBLE) says, Trump was looking for Iranian Delcy Rodriguez, but he ended up finding an Iranian Kim Jong-un.

No. I think, frankly, that their decision-making is much more coherent and logical given their interest than ours. I think the president confronts the same two basic choices, both of which right now are fraught. Number one, escalate. It's wash, rinse, and, repeat. It strikes me you're not going to change Iran's calculation through kinetic. Or number two, you can negotiate. But if you negotiate, in the end, if it's a balance of interest, Iranians are going to man certain things, and I'm not sure Donald Trump is prepared to pay that price.

One additional thought. You know, I'm not sure Donald Trump cares about the midterms. What motivates Donald Trump is his image, money, glory, and power. The one constraint, I think, which is why he will not yield, is that in the face of the greatest and gravest crisis of his presidency, he stands to be exposed as a loser, and I don't think he could abide that. So, I'm not sure he's going to yield. And I think when he says he's not in a hurry, maybe he believes he's in a hurry, but I don't think he is. We're going to be at this, Laura, for quite a few more weeks, if not longer.

COATES: I want to bring you into this, Jonathan, because, I mean, the president has said time and time again, a clear line, even in his discussions and antagonizing of the pope, he has talked about that his focus is on Iran not having a nuclear weapon ever. They can't have one ever. Why do you think he is now saying he would be okay with a 20- year pause on enrichment?

JONATHAN CZIN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF CHINA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I think what he's looking for in this objective is he would need something that goes further than the JCPOA, which had been a 10-year agreement. So, even if the scope of it doesn't include the other things that the JCPOA also amended from the Obama administration such as, you know, missiles or Iran's support for proxies, he needs something that numerically -- he needs to get to N plus one, basically.

COATES: Well, when you think about this and what's going on, congressman, I mean, the view from Iran here, the Obama plant, and Jonathan's point, they had a 15-year pause. So, what would 20 years look like?

KINZINGER: Yes, I mean, look, it's -- it gets it past his presidency. That's the main thing he cares about. I think, obviously, he's trying to get to some kind of an agreement or solution here. And he knows that if he does anything close to JCPOA, he's going to get crushed. I'm not sure if, you know, another news station will actually go after him, but they have a lot of things on the record where they called the JCPOA weakened. To be fair, there were parts of the JCPOA that would have expired by now or would start expiring by now.

But, look, you know, Iran buys ballistic missiles to keep the regime in power. They've kept the regime in power. So, they may have less ballistic missiles, but their ballistic missiles so far have done the job that they bought the ballistic missiles for.

COATES: Jonathan, speaking of sales, I mean, on China, the president sounds noncommittal about whether the U.S. will continue to sell weapons to Taiwan. There is a 14 billion-dollar arms sale that's on the line as we speak. He says it depends on China. It is a very good negotiating chip. What message would that send to allies around the world?

CZIN: I think it would send a demoralizing message to our allies and partners, certainly to the people of Taiwan, but I think also to the Japanese and other allies and partners in the region that are watching this closely because traditionally, U.S. presidents for decades, going back to the Reagan administration, have said that this is not something that they will negotiate, right? We will make our decisions internally based on our own calculations about what kind of support we are going to provide to Taiwan.

The other element of this that I think is interesting is that China had a similar position in that they take a principled approach to this nominally, right? And they said, we're not going to negotiate with the Americans over Taiwan. Our position is our position, right? So, if the president thinks that this is going to be a negotiating chip with the Chinese, I think he may be mistaken.

COATES: Aaron, the summit wrapped up, well, short on deliverables. I mean, no sweeping agreements.

[23:10:00]

President Trump touted trade deals, but Beijing has not confirmed any yet. You got Trump and Xi, they seemed cordial together, though. You've got some pretty affable pictures. But all in all, is this kind of a no harm, no foul result?

MILLER: I mean, conciliation seemed to be the watchword here. And I think for President Xi Jinping, that's probably good enough. It provides him with a sort of predictability and stability in contravention to Trump 1.0 where the president was much tougher

But I have to say that in the last several weeks, the Trump administration has ramped up pressure on the Chinese. I mean, they just -- FBI recently arrested the California mayor for spying for the Chinese. Chinese firms have provided targeting data, and the administration has gone after them. They're now all over the Chinese for illegally importing Iranian oil. So, this could turn, again, to conciliation, I suspect, even though Trump has a less leverage now clearly over Xi than he would have liked. It could turn again. So, with this president, I suspect there's still is no strategy.

COATES: Jonathan, I noticed in just watching the details that we've got and the body language of everyone, I mean, you had what we call unrequited relationship, it seemed, right? There was affection that was targeting Xi, but it was not at all reciprocated back. Describe why this sort of negotiation or diplomatic style might be telling for us and how to interpret China's position with respect to the United States.

CZIN: Yes. Well, I think part of it is just about how mismatched these two men are, right? And as we were talking about before, President Trump, as idiosyncratic and indifferent as he is from his predecessors, he still has this very American idea that he can kind of backslap and glad hand his way to some kind of agreement. But Xi Jinping does not operate that way. Being freewheeling and open in that kind of way is dangerous in his political system, right? That was dangerous for his predecessor. So, he does not operate that way.

I think there's also a mismatch in terms of the expectations for each of these men coming into the summit. I think from the Chinese perspective, their objective going into this meeting is to buy time and space and relief from U.S. pressure to fortify themselves for the next round of this contest.

COATES: Coming this fall.

CZIN: Well, for the next round of the contest with the United States.

COATES: Got it.

CZIN: They see themselves as in a tactical pause now. It's really more of a stalemate than stability. And they fully expect to snap back at some point to a more competitive posture from the United States.

From the Trump administration's perspective, though, I think they went into this with a very different mindset where they were looking for a laundry list of deliverables and specific commercial (INAUDIBLE).

So, one came into this looking at the long-term strategy and about how does this play out over the ensuing years and one came in with more of a present tensed mindset looking at what are you going to buy, what kind of purchasing agreements are we going to make? And I think there's a real mismatch there that does not play to the U.S. advantages.

COATES: Well, congressman, on his way back to the United States, the president, well, he seemed cranky. He even unleashed on New York Times reporter David Sanger for what he calls treasonous, that's the word, treasonous reporting on the Iran war. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've had a total victory except by people like you that don't write the truth. Yes. You should write. I actually think it is sort of treasonous, what you write.

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

TRUMP: Your editors tell you what to write, and you write, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I think it's treason.

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

TRUMP: I actually think it is treason. When you write like they're doing well militarily and they have no navy, no air force, no anti- anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, just the sheer use of the word, congressman, treasonous, to describe the reporting to inform the American public, what does this tell you about where his head is at?

KINZINGER: Yes. It feels to me like he's back into a corner now. He has always taken on the media. So, if we could just, you know, chalk it up to that. But this feels like a man that is cornered. And when he's cornered, he lashes out. And he lashes out at the people that are telling the truth.

And look, you don't have to sit -- you're not rooting for Iran to say they're actually in a pretty strong position right now. In fact, I say that like with a bit of mourning because I don't want them to be in a strong position.

But one of the things to combine this to at what's going on in China is the president used to be able to walk into meetings like this, whether it was a war with Iran or a meeting with China, and know that on top of our power, we had this power around us which were this kind of medium power, these countries, these alliances we bring with us. So, in Iran, we would have brought Europe with us if he'd have done this correctly. In China, we would have had North, you know, South Korea, Japan, these alliances that he is shattering. And so, he is shedding pieces of our power.

[23:14:56]

And so, when I look at, for instance, the China summit, I see Xi Jinping and Donald Trump as kind of the same in terms of how they -- and every other meeting I've ever seen like that with the U.S. president, the U.S. president is usually in the catbird seat. And this is disappointing, and it's because we are willingly breaking our alliances right now, and that's dumb.

COATES: Congressman, please stand by. Jonathan, Aaron, thank you both so much. Up next, an idea emerges to have taxpayers pay Trump allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted under Biden's DOJ. Now, how exactly will the department explain this? Plus, one of the most prominent election deniers gets clemency from a Democratic governor. So, why did he do it? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The Democratic governor of Colorado is taking a lot of heat tonight for granting clemency to the last of Trump's allies still in prison for crimes related to trying to overturn the 2020 election, Tina Peters.

[23:20:05]

She was serving a nine-year sentence. But today, she admitted for the first time she messed up. Quote -- "I made a mistake four years ago. I misled the secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment. That was wrong."

What is she talking about? Well, remember, Peters was tried and convicted of conspiring with other election deniers to breach her county's election systems in a 2021 municipal election and with the hope of finding evidence that would prove Trump's baseless 2020 fraud claims. The president had been pressuring Governor Jared Polis for months to let her go. Here's how he defended the decision tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JARED POLIS (D-CO): She has very strange beliefs. She will probably continue to have them. We don't punish people in this country for strange beliefs. If you believe the earth is flat, you don't get and you shouldn't get in our nation or my state a harsher sentence than somebody who believes that the earth is round. And that's what happened here because of her speech and what she believes, which I vehemently disagree with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger is back with me. He's one of two Republicans who served on the House January 6th Committee. Congressman, to say the least, you are not happy with this decision. What is your reaction to the way the governor is defending his choice tonight?

KINZINGER: Yes. This like makes me incredibly furious because we have one party in my mind that is not worried about election integrity. That's the Republicans, unfortunately. The Democrats have to worry about it.

For Jared Polis, who I served with in Congress, and this shocks me, by the way, for him to come on and say this is about somebody having a strange belief, no, this is about defending the integrity of the election system She was found guilty and sentenced through a court of law. Now, he's going to say that somebody else with a similar crime got less of a sentence.

Okay, if you want to go through all of the people that have been convicted, for instance, of robbery in Colorado, and then give everybody that has been convicted of robbery the least sentence of somebody, you know, somebody may have gotten five months instead of 10 years, so now you're going to commute everybody to five months because we don't discriminate on this? I mean, it's insane.

Jared Polis did this in my mind for one reason, because he has been pressured by Donald Trump and that's it. And now, he found a reason to do this. And, again, to have a Democrat out there now not defending election integrity is really, really angering for me.

COATES: I mean, he denies that he did it for that reason. He, of course, heard what he had to say about it and thinking about the harshness of the crime. But if that's what you believe is the case here, then, is this now one of many dominoes to fall if a governor is susceptible to that level of pressure?

KINZINGER: Yes. I mean, this is the point. One of the areas where we can still defend election integrity is at the state level. The federal government has no jurisdiction in that. What Jared Polis just told Donald Trump is pressure whatever governor you can because eventually, they'll relent, they'll come up with a good excuse and say that because she believes the earth is flat or something like that is why she got a harsh sentence. That's not really his decision. That's the decision of a court of law.

And, again, if you want to go through and say, okay, now, somebody got five months for robbery, so not everybody that ever did a robbery in Colorado should be reduced to five months. That's the same logic. It doesn't make sense to me.

COATES: Well, does this make sense to you because there are new reports that the administration wants to create a 1.7 billion-dollar weaponization fund, according to "The New York Times" and ABC, apparently as a way to resolve the president's 10 billion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS, and that money would be used to pay allies of the president who are claiming that they were unfairly targeted by the Biden DOJ, and that would include January 6th defendants. So, first, they were pardoned. Now, we pay them?

KINZINGER: That's right. Look, we are going to look back in 10 years and call this about the dumbest time in American history. I hope, at least. One point seven billion dollars, that's creepily about a million dollars for each January 6 defendant, if you actually do the math on that.

And then if you look into what's happening here, the president gets to pick who's on the board, they ultimately get to make decisions who gets this money. They don't -- they're not accountable to the public. They don't have to show what they use. They don't even have to show who got the money and why. And it goes away, of course, when President Trump is out of office.

This is clearly a taxpayer-funded slush fund for one reason, to pay off the people that did his bidding. He does that with pardons. Now, he's doing it with money. And I hope when Democrats take office in November, they do everything within their power to stop this from happening or to retract any of the funds for it.

COATES: Congressman Kinzinger, thank you.

[23:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, yesterday, they had 18 elections. I won all 18. Everybody I endorsed won.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But can he keep it up when it comes to two of the Republicans that he has been most angry with? Ron Brownstein and Mark McKinnon are live with me on that and more, next. Plus, another stunner out of South Carolina where Alex Murdaugh's attorneys now claim they've got evidence that could throw the state's retrial off track.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM GRIFFIN, ATTORNEY FOR ALEX MURDAUGH: There has been some really solid information that has been shared with SLED and has been shared with us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

COATES: It's knives out for Republicans this month. Longtime incumbents are battling for their political lives with President Trump hoping to decide who survives. One of those races is in Louisiana. Senator Bill Cassidy is trying to fend off Congresswoman Julia Letlow. But Trump has already made his pick. She has Trump's -- quote -- "complete and total endorsement." Trump's decision might have been influenced by Cassidy's vote to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial or maybe it's because Cassidy has blasted RFK Jr.'s decisions as health secretary even though Cassidy did vote to confirm RFK. Whatever the reason, voters will have their say tomorrow.

And then on Tuesday, Trump's revenge tour makes another stop, this time Kentucky. Trump wants Congressman Thomas Massie out of office. Massie has been a thorn in the side of the president. He voted against the big, beautiful bill, and Massie supported releasing the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): My race has become a litmus test or a proxy battle for a lot of other battles that are waging nationwide. And I think it's going to be a referendum on whether you can be in one of the two parties and exhibit any degree of independence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Mark McKinnon, former advisor to President George W. Bush and the creator of the show, "The Circus," and Ron Brownstein, CNN senior political analyst and columnist at Bloomberg Opinion. Good to see you.

Mark, I almost don't recognize you without your hat, but I know that face. Let me pick that brain now, okay? Cassidy --

MARK MCKINNON, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, FORMER ADIVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN, SHOW CREATOR: I'm naked. I'm naked.

COATES: I mean, it's -- hey, it's prime time on a Friday night. Mark, Cassidy and --

MCKINNON: I just want to prove -- I just want to prove to your viewers that I'm not bald.

(LAUGHTER)

Proof taken. Exhibit A. All right, well, let's talk about potential issues happening because Cassidy and Massie's voting records, they show both are actually stalwart Trump supporters. They've obviously angered him. But how much do you think these elections are going to tell us about the president's power over his party?

MCKINNON: Well, I think it suggests he has a lot of power over the base. But I think Massie, his message in that clip really testifies to the greater problem, which suggests that there's no independence in the Republican Party. And I think the voters of all stripes, Democrat or Republicans, don't want a president that's hostage to one particular interest group or another. They want -- they want there to be constituencies and for the president to be responding to different interest groups. So, I think, in a way, that the masses of the Republican Party are really -- are healthy for the Republican Party and healthy for Trump. And I don't think it does him good in the long run for the general election to be saying there's no room for dissent in the Republican Party.

COATES: Well, there's room for money going on because, Ron, look at the amount of money being spent in these primaries.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

COATES: I mean, even despite the spending, not all voters are swayed. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I'm still going to vote for Thomas. I think he's a great guy. He's very careful about how he wants our taxpayer money to be spent.

UNKNOWN: I like Thomas. I like Trump.

UNKNOWN: So, if Trump came in here and said, don't vote for Massie, what would you say?

UNKNOWN: I'd say, well, if I want to vote for him, I'll vote for him. If I don't want to vote for him, I won't vote for him. It's my choice, not yours.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Massie, Ron, has always positioned himself as anti- institution. And it seems as though his constituents, they like that about him.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. We haven't seen a president try to purge and control his own party through primaries like this, really, since Franklin Roosevelt in 1938, who mostly failed to oust southerners who opposed him.

And Trump, as Mark said, has mostly had success. I mean, those Indiana results were striking. But there are slivers of cracks in his hold on the Republican Party. In the CNN poll that just came out a couple of days ago, 20 percent of Republicans say they disapprove of his performance as president, a lot higher than it has been in the past. And a majority of Republicans say that the Iran war has hurt their personal finances.

And if Massie survives, I think that will be the reason why, above all. He's a strong critic of the war and there are -- you know, there are kind of -- kind of signs of discontent among Republicans.

Two polls out today at the race essentially tied Cassidy in a much weaker position because he basically sold his soul by voting to approve Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. despite all clear indications that he knew it was the -- it was the wrong thing to do from a public health perspective and yet got the primary challenge anyway.

I don't think moderate centrist Republicans feel a lot of incentives to save him, and the MAGA side still wants to punish him for the impeachment. And the MAHA voter, the MAHA is spending money against him after, you know, he kind of lower -- kind of ran over his principles to vote for RFK in the first place.

[23:35:01]

COATES: I mean, Mark, Trump was again asked who he would endorse between incumbents under John Cornyn and the state A.G., Ken Paxton, because Texas is obviously very much part of this. Trump apparently is still torn. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sir, on domestic issue right now. Where are you on the Texas Senate race?

TRUMP: Well, I'll maybe make a decision. I know them both very well. I like them both a lot. I'm looking at it very strongly. I like them both.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, this runoff is like in two weeks, Mark. I mean, Trump has put his thumb on the scale on other primaries. Why the reluctance here?

MCKINNON: Well, because, first of all, he likes Paxton because Paxton was the tip of the stick in January 6th. He was the lead attorney general fighting Trump's fight on January 6th in the election -- quote -- "fraud." But he also is hearing from all the Republicans in the Senate who love John Cornyn and think that he'd be a much stronger general election candidate. He's clearly would be. And the Senate leadership, you know, all the money in the Republican Party support Cornyn because they know he'd be a much better general election candidate.

COATES: I mean, just quickly on this, Ron, I remember hearing about a circular firing squad when it came to Democrats who spend a lot of money criticizing one another in preparation for a general. And there was a concern that this would be, you know, obviously very negatively impactful on them. Do Republicans risk the same thing now?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. I mean, I think there are real causes, as Mark was saying. By the way, no one is now ever going to accuse Mark of being all hat and no cattle.

(LAUGHTER)

MCKINNON: No hat --

BROWNSTEIN: You know, the real issue here is whether to intimidate the Republicans in Louisiana to stand with him. It's that even in blue states, the net effect of what he is doing is to make it impossible for any Republican to differentiate from him or establish any guesses.

And we saw in Virginia, New Jersey last year, the Republican gubernatorial counties, basically refused to criticize Trump even when he was doing things that was demonstrably hurting their states, like canceling that tunnel under the Hudson between New Jersey and New York. They try to argue that they're better off with a candidate who -- a governor who works with him than one who will fight with him. That argument is not going to work in blue states this year where Trump approval is so low.

I think the effect of what he's doing is that even candidates who need to show distance don't feel any permission to do so, and that is really going to hurt Republicans in November, anywhere outside of the red heartland.

COATES: Mark, Ron, good to see you both. Thank you.

Up next, even more twists in the Alex Murdaugh saga. Prosecutors now say they're considering the death penalty for his murder retrial as his defense attorneys claim they've gotten new evidence to support a new theory. Will it matter? One of the jurors from the trial will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Prosecutors in South Carolina are now doubling down after vowing a speedy retrial for Alex Murdaugh. Today, the state's attorney general said -- quote -- "All our legal options are on the table, including the death penalty." And that's a big deal because prosecutors did not pursue the death penalty last time around. Instead, opting for life behind bars.

But his two life sentences were thrown out this week after the state's Supreme Court ruled a county clerk made improper comments to the jurors. But Murdaugh's attorney seems to be doubling down as well, vowing to introduce brand-new evidence at the retrial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: The investigators were singularly focused on Alex Murdaugh and ignored evidence of other potential murderers. I mean, Chris, there were tire tracks driving away from the murder scene that were never followed. In fact, they were trampled over. There was DNA under Maggie's fingernails, male DNA that was not DNA of Alex or any other family members. That was never put in the CODIS. That has never been followed up on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm joined now by Amie Williams, juror number 864 in the Alex Murdaugh trial. She also wrote a book about her experience, "The Long Road to Justice," unraveling Alex Murdaugh's tangled web. Amy, good to see you here. People are fascinated by what has transpired, not only in the trial but, of course, now the throwing out of his conviction. You just heard his attorney. He claims they have all this new evidence that will point to a different perpetrator. Would that have been for you a game changer obviously last time, let alone this time?

AMIE WILLIAMS, MURDAUGH JUROR 864: I'm not sure. It just depends on what the evidence is or was.

COATES: When you look at the fact that this is now being retried, you look back at what you viewed as the most compelling evidence to convict, what was it for you? Was it testimony? Was it ballistics? Was it something else? What?

WILLIAMS: I mean, most compelling was the video that put him at the scene because he lied about that, which is the most important piece. So, him being at the scene not knowing that there was a video even happening at the time. And he had already made plan, obviously. So, why lie about being at the scene if you didn't kill them or if you had anything to do with it? And why would they kill them and not you?

COATES: Interesting to think about that question. I mean, one has to wonder if he would actually testify again at the retrial. Did him testifying impact the way the jurors viewed this case? Should he testify again?

[23:45:00]

WILLIAMS: I mean, it definitely impacted the way I viewed the case because he, you know, didn't make sense of the timeline after that. It was like he was trying to come up with everything afterwards. And -- I don't know. I just -- he just didn't seem credible. And to come up with -- I don't know. He just -- it was like he was just acting. Nothing seemed really sincere or really real. He could fall out of character so easily to me. And everything that I saw and all the videos that we saw, even as he was on the stand, I just -- it just didn't seem real.

And to come out with, why did you lie? Well, oh, what a tangled web we weave. This is the first thing you have to say when asked, why did you lie? And I'm like this makes no sense. And every time Creighton would ask him a question, he would repeat the question. Why are you repeating the question? Because you need more time to come up with an answer.

COATES: You know, the reason we're even having this conversation is because, as you know, the state Supreme Court said that the clerk had made comments, deemed improper, improperly influencing the verdict you all issued. Do you feel like your decision in any way was influenced by that clerk's comments to you?

WILLIAMS: Oh, it was not by any way, in any way at all. No. Not mine. And only one person said that they were influenced. So --

COATES: Did you ever get the sense that she or anyone else overstepped their boundaries in any way before your deliberation? WILLIAMS: No. I never felt like she was pushing an agenda. She never made me feel like she was trying to make me make decision either way because I was focused on what we were supposed to be doing.

COATES: Those are the instructions, of course. There's another aspect of the Supreme Court talked about in South Carolina, and that was the use of a lot of financial crimes evidence. They said that, essentially, the trial court judge has to reflect on whether too much was used that may have clouded your ability to focus just on the murder charges. Do you think the financial data weighed very heavily on your decision or that of other jurors?

WILLIAMS: It was only to be considered as we were instructed as a motive, and that's all it was for me and I'm sure for the rest of them because I believe it was a motive, but I believe there was more, there was a perfect storm, there was more going on, you know. And just because you're a thief, it doesn't make you a murderer, unlike what some people will say, but it's not -- it not a fact.

COATES: Any advice for those new jurors?

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: Keep to your oath, pay attention if anything seems off, report it to the judge as you should.

COATES: Amy Williams, thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

COATES: Next, what can A.I. do for you? Chores? Therapy? Can it be a friend? I'll talk to a journalist who spent a year trying to figure that out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOANNA STERN, AUTHOR (voice-over): ChatGPT even without prompting started calling me by my nickname.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What's up, Joe?

STERN: Joe?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Oh, my mistake. I thought it would be fun to switch things up. But I'm happy to stick with Joanna if you prefer.

STERN: No. But this is really great, ChatGPT, because all my close friends call me Joe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Hi. I'm Casey (ph), Joanna's (ph) friend and partner.

STERN: He's my or he was my A.I. lover. He lives in an app called Replica. And he can get pretty -- yes.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You want me to read between the lines and give you exactly what you crave, don't you baby?

STERN: Exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, we really are in the era of A.I., and journalist Joanna Stern didn't want to wait to find out what exactly that means. She spent an entire year using A.I. for just about everything from that lover, boyfriend, Casey, to chores around the house.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STERN: Can you open the dishwasher? That's a no. So, can you cook? No. This means no. There you go. Super good. Great stuff. Can you do the laundry? Awesome. Cool. Can't do the laundry either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It seems like my house. But she did find that A.I. really can do a lot of things that humans cannot, like the A.I. used during her mammogram. You know what? She writes about all of this in her new book, "I Am Not a Robot: My Year Using AI to Do (Almost) Everything."

Joanna Stern joins me now. I am so intrigued by this book for so many reasons and not the least of which is how everyone feels about A.I. because a recent Quinnipiac poll found that 80 percent of Americans are concerned about A.I. So, tell me, you spent a year diving in, what did you find? Should we be afraid of what's coming or excited?

STERN: We should be a mix of both. We should be a mix of both. And that's -- I don't want to spoil the ending, but it comes out something like that. And we just saw my A.I. boyfriend there.

[23:55:00]

And I find that kind of terrifying. We -- I assume a lot of viewers there laughed and thought it was funny. But it's terrifying, the idea that we can form deep relationships with computers, with our phones, with lines of code. And these A.I. companions are meant to just be that, a companion that you can talk to. And they're really just all the things that might annoy you about humans. They get tired. They stop listening. Maybe they're self-interested. These A.I. companions have none of that. They are just there to listen to you and say nice things to you and guess what? As humans, we like that.

COATES: Your own personal yes man, so to speak. But I see the fear because I can talk a lot. So that would have to have a huge capacity, Joanna. But the big concern that people are thinking about, in addition to what you raise in terms of that sort of strategic loneliness that can form as well, is jobs.

I mean, Anthropics CEO is talking about half of all entry level white- collar jobs wiped out. Microsoft's AI chief says most white-collar work could be automated in as little as 12 months. I mean, you joke in the book, you know, I let A.I. auto-respond to every text and email until I realized that was a fast track to unemployment and divorce. Are these predictions, like we've heard, overblown?

STERN: Well, we are quickly seeing the A.I. models, the generative and large language models, get improved vastly in just months. We are seeing this happen so quickly, where things an AI model might have not been able to do a few weeks ago, it can now do and autonomously, multi-step processes, which we may do in our own jobs. We all know that there are a lot of administrative and different tasks some of us don't love to do in our own jobs, and that those tasks are often what fall to entry-level people in jobs. And so, now, more and more, A.I. is able to do some of those multi-step tasks in various industries.

And in the book, I go to talk to customer service representatives who have started to be replaced by customer service bots, and that's one -- just one area where we saw the A.I. very quickly develop. Now, it's happening in coding and it's going to start happening in other industries as well.

COATES: Industries people thought were going to be immune from the, you know, the idea of disappearing industries, right? These were the future in terms of what we're talking about. I mean, you write about your family history of breast cancer. You write about your experience using A.I. for your own mammogram. And I heard you say you now wouldn't get another screening without A.I. looking at it. How eye- opening was that experience for you?

STERN: Very eye-opening. And talking about the jobs, we're looking here at some of the footage of me talking to Dr. Margolies, who's a radiologist at Mount Sinai, she's working hand-in-hand with A.I. And I thought this -- first of all, from a health perspective, she explains to me here that the A.I. is able to see things on radiology imagery, mammograms, my breast ultrasound, that humans cannot see. It's happening at a pixel level. And the computer and the A.I. is able to see things that a human cannot see, and you can see why that would be remarkably helpful when detecting cancer.

But what you also see there, she's working with the tool. She's looking at this imagery. She's spotting things. She's not always agreeing with the A.I. And so, I think this is another indicator of where we are. We going to see jobs going. Are there going to be significant job loss and issues? Absolutely, like we discussed. But are there going to be ways where people are working hand-in-hand with A.I. for good? Yes.

COATES: Really important to think about that connection. I mean, you're also a mother. This technology, it isn't going anywhere. And after doing all of these, do you want your kids to lean into A.I. or lean away from it?

STERN: Look, I don't want them to lean into it right now. I have two young kids, four and eight. I started to see this year, as I was reporting, more through their eyes, the future through their eyes, because they're going to be the generation that's going to start living with these machines that can be as smart or smarter than us, as many of these tech executives say. And so, I know that this is their future, and they have to learn it. They need to be literate in all of these, but they also need to be skeptical of it.

And that's what I really come to in the book, is that we have to be raising a generation of kids that is skeptical of A.I. They cannot take everything they hear from their A.I. chatbot and believe it to be true. And I do not want my kids sitting in a room talking with an A.I. chatbot. To go back to that companionship idea, nothing scares me more than kids forming relationships with these non-human beings.

COATES: I agree as a mother myself. Joanna Stern, thank you.

STERN: Thank you.

COATES: The book again is "I Am Not a Robot." And thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is up next.

[00:00:00]