Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Creates Billion-Dollar Fund For Trump's Allies; Deadly Mosque Shooting; Defense Chief Hits Campaign Trail To Urge Voters To Oust Trump Enemy; A.I. Becomes Villain At Graduation Ceremonies Across The Country. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 18, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump's DOJ creates a billion-dollar fund for his MAGA allies, using money from you, the taxpayer. Congressman Dan Goldman calls it a slush fund, and he's here to respond. Plus, breaking tonight, a deadly shooting at a San Diego mosque investigated as a hate crime. Police now revealing what the mother of one of the teen suspects told them. And Trump brings in his own defense secretary to try to get revenge on the thorn in his side, GOP Congressman Thomas Massie. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, look, even for this version of Washington, we have never seen anything like what the Trump administration did today. A sitting president settling a lawsuit against the government he runs, and then that government creates a fund for his allies.

Yet the conflict of interest isn't exactly hard to find. Just follow the chain. Trump's lawyers negotiate a settlement with Trump's government over the leak of his tax returns. The case gets dropped. And then the DOJ announces a nearly $1.8 billion-fund, a DOJ now run by Trump's former personal attorney. And that fund, it's to compensate people the administration claims were targeted by a weaponized justice system.

And it's all backed by taxpayer dollars. The DOJ says Trump and his family won't see any of the money. They'll get a formal apology, maybe a political benefit. But you don't have to guess who this fund is for because Trump is all but spelling it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Why should taxpayers pay for the January 6ers?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, it has been very well received, I have to tell you. I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in the whole creation of it and the -- and the negotiation. But this is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated. It's anti-weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Quite the change from earlier this year. Well, he made it sound a lot less like a political payout and more like a charity drive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You settle by giving charities a lot of money. And I think we're going to do something like that. We're looking to do something like that.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Would the charity be to pay for the ballroom or the arch?

TRUMP: No. I don't think either of those. I'm thinking about American Cancer Society. A lot of very -- I think they should be probably established charities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The American Cancer Society. Well, that's a far cry from what Trump is pointing to now. Rioters who ransacked the Capitol building. People who attacked police, broke windows, and turned the certification of the election into this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, before the DOJ made this official, Trump administration sources were getting pretty specific. Reporting last week explained that this fund was specifically for people targeted by the Biden administration. But you know what? When you look at the actual memo signed by the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, you know what? It doesn't say Biden. It doesn't say Democrats. The press release doesn't say either, the one that was put out by the DOJ. It just says it's for people who have -- quote -- suffered weaponization and lawfare.

The language does something very convenient. It makes to political audience clear without actually putting Trump allies in writing, which then, of course, makes you wonder, does that mean it could apply to people being targeted by Trump's DOJ like Letitia James or James Comey?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: I'm guessing I'll be in line. I hope I'll be ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN LEAD WASHINGTON ANCHOR: Are you going to apply?

COMEY: I'll talk to my lawyers. But it certainly sounds intended for someone like me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, it's probably sarcasm.

[23:04:59]

But it lands for a reason because =the fund may be branded exactly how Trump likes it. You know, $1.776 billion is a clear reference, of course, to 1776. Not exactly subtle. But the DOJ didn't write this fund narrowly. It wrote it broadly enough that even Trump's own targets can ask, why not me?

With me now, one of the more than 90 Democrats who signed an amicus brief arguing against the anti-weaponization fund, former federal prosecutor and Democratic congressman from New York, Dan Goldman. Congressman, welcome. I mean, listen, you and I are both DOJ alums. This money is coming from a congressional fund to settle lawsuits against the government. The question everyone is asking about is whether this is truly legal. It is. But the question is, why is it legal?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, it's not legal, I think, for a number of reasons. First, Congress has not appropriated this money specifically for this use. That slush fund is not just available for the president to do whatever he wants to do with it.

And let's be really clear, Laura, this settlement is -- makes is as if there was no lawsuit ever because it was not submitted to the court to be approved. They withdrew the case. They withdrew the case, of course, because they knew the judge was going to dismiss it on Wednesday because it is not a legal lawsuit. It is not a case or controversy because the two parties are one and the same, Donald Trump. But -- so to avoid that, they withdrew the case. They dismissed it with prejudice. And so, what that means is this is all a ruse.

This whole lawsuit has nothing to do with ultimately this settlement, and it is absolutely mind-boggling corruption that Donald Trump has orchestrated to effectively create what could be a secret slush fund to repay Proud Boys, Three Percenters, other January 6 terrorists, domestic terrorists who committed seditious conspiracy, and just give them as much money as they please with Donald Trump's total control. It's outrageous.

COATES: It's not so secret. It seems to be particularly in the face, including in the face of members of Congress. You all are supposed to hold the power of the purse. And I am really interested in how this is actually going to work. The what, the why, shocking, but the how. And this is the -- again, 1776. Again, a nod to the history of America.

You're going to have the attorney general naming five board members. You've got one of them who's going to be picked with input from leaders on the Hill. I'm not sure who that would, in fact, be. But the president can fire any of them at any given time.

And then you've got a deadline. The fund is going to expire by December of 2028. That happens to be weeks before Trump is set to leave office, given this sort of criteria and the fact that even the judges, you said, had questions about even the vitality of the original lawsuit, so to speak. Is Congress going to have any say whatsoever or any oversight?

GOLDMAN: Well, we -- as we've seen for the last year and a half, Laura, as things get worse and worse and you start to wonder, all right, the Republican majority must grow a spine here and stand up for what is such obvious and open corruption, they've done none of the sort. And, in fact, I haven't seen a single comment from any House Republicans about this --

COATES: How about behind closed doors? Are you hearing that behind closed doors?

GOLDMAN: Well, this just came out today. I would be interested to hear when I get to D.C. tomorrow to see what my Republican colleagues say about this one because he continues to stoop to new lows.

He feels, and quite justifiably after the Supreme Court effectively said this, that he's invincible, that there is absolutely no punishment that can be levied on him. He has the Republicans in Congress under his thumb. He has the Supreme Court in his pocket. He has immunity even though, I think, there's a pretty significant argument to be made that this is outside the parameters of his official duties. He is literally just doing whatever he wants, and he's daring someone to stop him.

So, I don't have a lot of faith in the Republicans right now, and they, of course, are in the majority. So, I can write letters, but I cannot issue subpoenas.

[23:09:58]

But come January when we are in the majority, you better believe there will be serious oversight of this.

COATES: Now, congressman, people have often looked at this. And this is shocking, stunning to think about where we are. Disorienting, frankly, for me as a former prosecutor that you would have not only obviously the pardon power that is the president's, but that you would have people who are able to, without oversight, without some sort of accountability and accounting, that you have no way to track who gets what under what criteria.

But why I find it so interesting, and I want you to address this, is there are ways in which people who have truly been wronged by the government, who have truly been wronged by the Department of Justice, for example, who are truly victimized, that they do have some access and recourse that sometimes can be financial. This, though, is in a league of its own, isn't it?

GOLDMAN: Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is -- this is a different planet from those claims. And those claims often arise, especially in the criminal context, when you have prosecutorial misconduct. A case is dismissed or it is acquitted or reversed in some fashion. That happens because of error on the part of the government.

These January 6 defendants, which it's clear that that's who this is targeted at, were pardoned. They were convicted. There was no misconduct by the government. So, even under those standards, this would not apply, and we know that's not what it's for.

The interesting thing, Laura, that I would just add is Donald Trump said today that he wasn't involved in this settlement agreement. Donald Trump is the plaintiff. He is the suing party. I mean, he's also the unnamed defendant. But he is the named plaintiff. He has to agree to this. And, in fact, he should have to sign it. And we'll have to wait to see.

COATES: You mean for the IRS (INAUDIBLE)?

GOLDMAN: Well, to this agreement, just generally -- I mean, yes, under the -- well, I assume that this -- you're right, that this is the settlement, purportedly, of a case that actually never existed for practical purposes. But if it is an agreement between Donald Trump and the IRS, Donald Trump has to sign it, Donald Trump has to be involved in it, he has to know it. So, he's not just doing this, he's just continuing to outright lie to the American people about his role in this.

But as you saw from that structure, the attorney general was his personal lawyer, continues to be effectively his personal lawyer, and he gets to a point four of the five people, and Donald Trump can fire anyone at will. That is Donald Trump's board.

And there's no requirement of any transparency or any openness about how the process works or what awards are actually given. So, this can just be done in the dark of night however Donald Trump wants. It is insane. This is taxpayer money, almost $2 billion, as people are struggling to make ends meet all around the country. It's horrific.

COATES: You say insane. How about another I word? Impeachable, because you were lead counsel in the first impeachment of President Trump. You got a former U.S. attorney, Harry Litman, who is arguing that the creation of the anti-weaponization fund actually is an impeachable offense. Do you think it is?

GOLDMAN: Oh, I think you can add it to the litany of impeachable offenses that he has committed. This certainly falls in that category. Frankly, I think it falls in that category for Todd Blanche as well. But impeachment --

COATES: Will you seek to have that happen if you were asked by the House?

GOLDMAN: I think this needs to be seriously investigated. And my view generally is that when we take back the majority in January, we need to conduct investigations, we need to get the facts, we need transparency, we need things to become public so the public understands the actual conduct. Whether impeachment flows from that is a decision that can be made later. But I do not believe we should be dropping articles of impeachment on day one because it is the investigations and the facts that are going to make the biggest difference. That's certainly what I would do with this case. I think there's no question it would qualify. But honestly, we can't wait that long. And Donald Trump needs to be reined in and removed one way or another. And it is shameful that this Republican Congress continues to sit on its hands and be silent.

COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you for joining.

[23:15:00]

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Next, the deadly shooting at San Diego's largest mosque. Three men killed, two teenage suspects dead. Hate speech scrawled across one of the weapons used. And now, new information about what the suspect's mother told police before the shooting, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: It's being investigated as hate crime at this point. There was definitely hate rhetoric that was involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We are following today's breaking news from California. Three people killed in a deadly shooting at a mosque in San Diego. One of the victims was a security guard who police credit for confining the shooting to just the front of the mosque while children were inside.

[23:19:54]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I know that he knew he was sacrificing his life for the kids because if he didn't take that bullet, they would have easily walked up stairs, and then there's just innocent eight and younger and women and, you know, people that couldn't defend themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Police are investigating this as a hate crime. And moments ago, investigators released new information about the 17 and 18-year- old suspects who were found dead inside a vehicle nearby.

I want to bring in CNN senior law enforcement correspondent Josh Campbell and Donell Harvin, former chief of homeland security and intelligence for Washington, D.C. Josh, we know that police uncovered writings from one of the dead shooters. What do we know?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, these are critical new details. Law enforcement sources are telling CNN that one of the suspects here, the 17-year-old, had taken a firearm from his parents' home and left behind what's being described as a suicide- type note that contained writings about racial pride.

Additionally, on one of the weapons that was actually used in the shooting, there was, scrolled on it, the same similar type of writing, racial in nature. Now, we don't know the specifics of the language that was used but that, you know, obviously very important.

You and I have covered so many of these instances where, oftentimes, it takes a while for authorities to try to identify a motive. Here, it appears they were laying it out by leaving it behind in these writings. It's important to note, Laura, that the police chief says that among those writings, there was no specific threat to this Islamic center and no specific threat to any other locations as well.

COATES: You know, it's not new, Donell, for shooters to write messages on guns or even shell casings. But we're hearing about this more often now. What do think is driving this? Is it some sort of pursuit of notoriety?

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Yes. What you're referring to is we first saw this start in 2019 in Christchurch in New Zealand where that attacker also attacked two mosques and had racial slurs written on his weapons. Fast forward three years later, you saw that in the Buffalo Tops shooting.

And it's something that has really been coming of age really in the online environment. You see this conflation between young people. These are teenagers. They memorialize this type of things, they study them, they talk about them, not in the kind of social medias that we see, but in the dark web portals and chat groups, they share pictures, and they talk about this type of stuff. So, yes, it is about notoriety and one-upping each other.

COATES: Stomach-turning and devastating to think about the planning that would go behind something like this. I mean, Josh, as a former federal agent, what do you make of the fact that there are two suspects here?

CAMPBELL: Well, it's exceedingly rare. It almost never happens whenever we're talking about this type of targeted mass violence in this country. It has happened in the past in certain instances, including several years ago here in the L.A. area, in San Bernardino. There was a mother and husband -- a wife and husband, rather, who engaged in a targeted act of violence. But it's just so rare.

In fact, when I was live on the air today, that information came in. We were getting from law enforcement sources. I actually picked up the phone, called one of our CNN bosses and said, let me get this straight before I say this. There are two people. He said, yes, that's what we're hearing, two people. And think about what that means. That means it's not just one person that maybe has some type of grievance and, you know, becomes delusional and wants to act with violence, but we've got someone else to go along with it. It's very, very dangerous.

Final point I'll note, Laura, is you're a former federal prosecutor, you know, just because these two suspects are deceased -- there is still work for investigators to do.

COATES: Yes.

CAMPBELL: They want to make sure there isn't a third or a fourth. There's someone else out there who may have known what was about to happen.

COATES: A very important point. Donell, we know the mother of one of the shooters contacted police before the shooting, saying her son was suicidal and several of her weapons were missing. Investigators are still collecting evidence. But in recent years, prosecutors, they've been willing to charge the parents of mass shooters. So, what will investigators look at to determine whether to charge the mother or anyone else in this case, if that's even on their radar?

HARVIN: Well, the first thing is, you know, folks like I used to do are going to be looking through forensics, particularly electronic forensics, any laptop, any phones he had. They'll look at his social media footprints, and they'll see if the mother or anybody else close to the family had any prior knowledge. If you think that your child is suicidal or homicidal or have, you know, violent thoughts, you should certainly have your weapon secured, especially with a 17-year-old minor.

And so, they'll look at that, anything else that this individual or his accomplice may have said to other people. And so, this story is not clearly done. For the mother, hopefully, she's forthcoming and provide all the information to the investigators that they need.

COATES: Really important point. They're going to be increasing their presence at L.A. police, Washington, D.C., New York, and also at mosques as well. Oh, my goodness, Josh, Donell, thank you both.

[23:24:58]

Up next, Trump pauses his attack on Iran and sends his defense secretary to attack one of his foes instead, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I have to say up front for the lawyers that I'm here in my personal capacity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Massie pay the price for bucking Trump or might he pull this one off? The panel is with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, 24 hours from now, we'll find out whether President Trump's political revenge tour has been successful. It's primary day in several states, but all eyes will be on the fourth district in Kentucky.

[23:30:00]

Trump is trying to oust Congressman Thomas Massie for not being loyal enough. And today, Trump sent one of his most loyal foot soldiers to campaign for Massie's opponent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Thomas Massie has acted like his job is to stand apart from the movement that President Trump leads instead of strengthening it. When President Trump needs backup, Massie wants to debate process. You can send a warrior or you can send an obstructionist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm sure Trump is upset about Massie voting against his signature tax cut bill and supporting releasing the Epstein files. But Massie is also a stalwart conservative. Surely, there's room in the MAGA world for that, right? Well, Massie seems to think so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I think I'm going to win. Actually, I think that's why they're panicked. They're just making trash claims. These are the signs of a desperate campaign. They're desperate because they're in with both feet, and they pushed in all their chips. When they lose this, it's going to be cataclysmic for the establishment in D.C.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But Massie may be looking over his shoulder a little bit after what happened to Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy. After he sparked Trump's ire by voting to convict him in the 2021 impeachment trial, Trump put his full weight behind challenger Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who beat Cassidy in the Senate primary on Saturday.

I'm going to bring in our political panel tonight. We've got CNN political analyst, New York Times White House correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, also CNN political commentator and publisher of "The Root," Ashley Allison, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have you all here. I'll go with you, Shermichael. I mean, we know we saw Cassidy lose his challenge. Is Massie going to survive?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I doubt it. I mean, look, every president is a de facto leader of their party. And I think about it in this term. When Nancy Pelosi had her issues with the squad and they were a bit disruptive to her process, she called them each into her office one by one and said, this is not how this process is going to work. And effectively, you see Donald Trump in many ways doing the same thing.

Now, ideologically speaking, is it a good thing to have some dissenters amongst your ranks? Absolutely, because iron sharpens irons. I'm a strong believer in that aphorism. That said, though, if you're Speaker Mike Johnson, you don't necessarily want to deal with a few members who are constantly going through the process, as the secretary of defense stated. You want some folks who are going to say, okay, I don't agree with this, but they're going to be reliable voters, and I think that's what we're seeing here.

COATES: Well, what is different between himself and Cassidy? Because they do have different backgrounds and different reasons to draw Trump's ire.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I was actually -- that was the exact point I was going to make, is that Cassidy and Massie are not cut from the same cloth. And I actually think Massie -- I don't know if he'll be able to pull it off tomorrow, but Massie is like a leader on the Epstein Files. He is somewhat of an obstructionist, but a consistent obstructionist. Cassidy is not consistent in his support and lack of support. So, when you're in a MAGA district, I think one thing that -- any voter, they want consistency, and I would say Massie has been consistent and Cassidy hasn't.

I also just like to point out, it is wild that the secretary of defense --

(LAUGHTER)

-- during a war is on the campaign trail. Wild. And if that is the weight in which this administration has to throw behind this race because of Donald Trump's ire towards Thomas Massie and they don't pull it out --

SINGLETON: Yes.

COATES: Tone-deaf. Even sent him in the middle of a war, by the way.

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: We are in the middle of a war. I mean, this isn't the first time we've seen the president or this administration politicize an agency that usually would not be involved in politics.

COATES: Maybe the first time we have a defense secretary campaigning for a congressional candidate, though. That is novel.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Oh, it's unusual. Don't get me wrong. It's unusual. I'm just saying for this administration, let's not act like it's a one-off in a way, but it is unusual to do it. I do think it's interesting, though, when you see the defense secretary there in a time of war and when you look specifically at this race, how it could also be a litmus test for the -- just how high frustration is when it comes to the war in Iran and the ramification of higher gas prices.

We talk about foreign policy a lot, and American people can be frustrated with different foreign policy decisions, but it doesn't always actually equate to being a primary factor when it comes to electoral races.

Now, this could be different. My colleague was in Kentucky recently, Jenny Medina, she did a reporting there, and found that a lot of people like had that gas price on their mind, had the initial America First promise on their mind, not to get involved in some of these prolonged conflicts. I know the administration likes to say that this isn't a forever war and yes, we -- but a lot of voters in Kentucky also remember the president initially saying that this will last four to five weeks. We are past that.

COATES: Almost in 12. But, I mean, it's not just Cassidy, it's not just Massey. You also got Lauren Boebert now, who's in the mix.

[23:35:00]

SINGLETON: Yes.

COATES: This is interesting to me because he called her a -- quote -- "carpetbagger." He wanted someone to run against her. You're rolling your eyes already thinking about that. What's your reaction to that, Shermichael?

(LAUGHTER)

Because she says she's not mad or offended at the president's comments because she knew the risks of standing with Massie.

SINGLETON: Yes. You know, sometimes, I just would like the president to post a little less on social media. Let me tell you something. Thomas Massie, being in the firearm space, a lot of gun people that are conservatives, who voted for Donald Trump despite their skepticism about Trump and the Second Amendment as an issue, broadly speaking, really laud and support Thomas Massie because he's a very, very reliable member of Congress as it pertains to the Second Amendment.

And I thought it was just interesting to me that they would send the secretary of war or defense to the small congressional district and maybe not someone else. I just wonder what -- does the internal polling suggest if he does lose by what margins and what does that tell us about the pending election this upcoming November? And so, the point I'm trying to make here, Laura, is that I would be a little careful because while there is a big MAGA coalition that's opposed to president, you also have different groups and segments within the Republican umbrella, including gun owners. That's a lot of Republican voters who really like this guy.

COATES: You also got Cassidy, who is not going quietly into the night. I mean, he has already sent this message about maybe being a thorn in the side of the president still.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): I know there's no legal precedent for that. You know, (INAUDIBLE) yourself, agree with yourself, (INAUDIBLE) believe in yourself. And there is no legal precedent. We are a nation of laws. So, you've got to have laws. You can't just make up things a whole piece.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: He's talking about the weaponization of DOJ fund, obviously. Some would call it slush fund. Some have called that. And, of course, he is now saying and signaling he's not just going to be quiet about what he stands up for.

ALLISON: Yes. I think anybody who tries to take on Trump and loses and they still have time in office becomes a gnat that Donald Trump won't be able to swat away because they have nothing to lose. Their political career is over. Cassidy will go back to probably being a physician or a doctor. And he has six months to make Donald Trump's life better (ph).

KANNO-YOUNGS: So is Thom Tillis.

ALLISON: Exactly. Yes.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right, right. But --

ALLISON: MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

KANNO-YOUNGS: To your -- to your point before, I mean, kind of where was this before? You know, for Cassidy? Cassidy didn't just anger President Trump with his vote to convict after January 6th, but also, he angered some moderates, too, after he voted to confirm RFK after asking questions about --

COATES: Because he is a doctor.

ALLISON: Doctor.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Correct.

ALLISON: Yes.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Correct. So, you know, this -- yes, this is, you know, another example of retribution and, you know, vengeance, and the president saying, I will primary those or I will challenge those who do not show loyalty. But it also is an example of another Republican sort of going in between criticizing the president and being loyal to him. That indecision also isn't going to be --

SINGLETON: Politically homeless. Imean, he's a guy on an island who, quite frankly, didn't have a constituency at all. And you've seen similar examples in the past. I mean, it's really difficult to sort of be a moderate or traditional-leaning Republican right now considering the strong support that the president does have within the base. You got to sort of choose a lane. And Cassidy has tried to choose one. And, ultimately, he came -- what? Third place, I believe.

ALLISON: Yes. But I guess my wonder is, after these midterms, if whatever happens, but if you lose the House and potentially lose the Senate, will people still fall in line with Donald Trump or will they believe that he is a sinking ship that they need to --

SINGLETON: Possibly, because they may consider the president to be lame duck at that point. COATES: What do Democrats do about it?

ALLISON: They need a message.

COATES: Do they have one?

ALLISON: I haven't heard it yet. I think that they are some -- some are trying to articulate it, but they need a clear economic message to let Americans know they are going to fight for you for this next chapter because people are struggling. The insecurity that Americans feel right now because of the expense, the daily expenses, is really weighing on them. If Democrats can get that right and actually have some bills to introduce, they can pull it out.

COATES: Thank you so much, everyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: There is a fear.

(BOOING)

COATES: You hear that? Students booing Google's former chief executive for talking about A.I. at their graduation, and that was not a one- off. Andrew Yang is here to talk about it, next.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution.

(BOOING)

What happened? Okay, I struck a chord.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: She most certainly did strike a chord because college grads about to go out into the real world apparently anything but excited about A.I., and that became clear after several commencement speakers just these last few weeks were booed at the very mention of those two letters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Last December, Time magazine selected its person of the year for 2025. And it was this time, it was the architects of artificial intelligence. Interesting. (BOOING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Here's what's happening. We're using a new A.I. system as our reader.

(BOOING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: If those reactions aren't enough of an indication, a recent poll found that just 18 percent of Gen Z used the word "hopeful" to talk about A.I., even lower than the 27 percent who said so last year.

I want to talk about why that is with former Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang.

[23:45:01]

Andrew, so glad that you're here. I mean, you've heard the reactions not just at the college level, but it's becoming harder and harder for graduates to find work after college. On top of that, they're being told the careers they've chosen might soon be obsolete because of A.I. So, should these reactions and the boos come as a surprise?

ANDREW YANG, FOUNDER OF FORWARD PARTY, FORMER 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They should come as no surprise at all, Laura. The fact is young people have been running scared from majors like computer science that used to be guaranteed tickets to high-paying jobs. And now, they're told that is the major to stay away from like the plague.

And so, if a commencement speaker then raises the image of A.I., what young people hear is that's why you're heading home to mom and dad without a job. And so, they have a very deep-seated emotional reaction that I think people should be able to predict as natural.

COATES: So, what should political and business leaders take away from that backlash? I mean, even outside of a graduation context, what do they need to learn?

YANG: Right now, there are folks in the industry who are very, very concerned about a popular backlash. Approval ratings for A.I. are around 26 percent, which are lower than for any other industry under the sun. And we have some pretty unpopular industries, Laura, so that's saying something. And the question is whether that backlash is going to derail the development of data centers and the incipient IPOs of some of these firms that are around the corner on which hundreds of billions of dollars are being bet.

COATES: You know, a new Gallup poll found an overwhelming -- I mean, 71 percent, Andrew, of Americans oppose constructing A.I. data centers in their own neighborhoods. So, why aren't we seeing either party try to seize on this issue? YANG: It's in large part because the A.I. lobby has a lot of money and neither party really wants to run afoul of this industry. Also, if you are a governor or a leader of a state, you are courting investment in your state via these data centers, even if some of your constituents are not excited about it. And I think it is something of a natural reaction to the fact that your power bills might go up, your water supply might go down.

And the usual trade-off is that you're going to get a bunch of jobs in your community. But there are a lot of folks who are dubious about how many jobs are really going to be sustainably created at these data centers because there's a sense that a lot of them are going to be automated.

COATES: I hear a lot of people talk about the risks also of the environmental concern and what it might mean on their health. They don't necessarily know what impact a huge data center will even have on their overall well-being in that.

I mean, despite all these concerns, though, I mean, A.I., it doesn't appear to be a top issue heading into the midterms. There are some who don't see it all as doom and gloom. Of course, they do see some good parts of A.I. as well. But the president has aligned himself with tech and A.I. leaders in this term. So, do you think that Democrats or Republicans are missing an opportunity by not trying to sort of capitalize on the anti-A.I. sentiment? Should they be trying?

YANG: You know, Laura, I think that A.I. is here to stay, but there should be some kind of grand bargain that includes a token tax or some other revenue from A.I., and that's not someone like me approaching that for the first time. Dario Amodei said you should tax us. Sam Altman proposed a national wealth tax based on A.I. revenues.

And that's the kind of approach that could turn people around on having A.I. be more widely adopted because if you're getting a check from a national wealth fund or a token tax, then you're in a much better mood about it, especially if you know it's coming directly from the development of this new technology.

COATES: You know, Pope Leo, he is about to release a document on protecting human dignity in the age of A.I. He's teaming up with one of the co-founders of Anthropic. And Anthropic has tried to position itself as having the kind of moral high ground when it comes to A.I. safety. Are they winning this fight to be considered one of the so- called good guys of A.I.? Do you think it's genuine?

YANG: Dario Amodei has been at the forefront saying, look, we're going to automate or eliminate 50 percent of entry-level white-collar jobs in the coming months, and we should do something about it. And sometimes, I get asked, Laura, why is he saying this? Why is he saying this? I think Dario is saying it because he believes it to be true. And I happen to believe he's directionally right. And so, you know, they're trying to keep the climate from becoming uh too hostile, but they also, I think, are sincere.

[23:50:04] I will say, though, that the average American would probably have a hard time distinguishing between Anthropic or XAI or OpenAI in terms of their different approaches or practices. I think, right now, those college kids are just booing A.I. as an overall technology. And I think that all of the companies really need to be hearing what those boos indicate about public sentiment.

COATES: Maybe A.I. loan forgiveness. I'm just saying. Graduates might want that. Andrew Yang, thank you so much.

YANG: Money in your pocket goes a long way. Thanks for having me, Laura.

COATES: Thank you. Next, I have something to say about Luigi Mangione's case and what happened inside court today and outside court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: I want to end the show tonight with a few words about Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin charged in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. Now, I've seen a lot of noise around what happened at his hearing today in state court.

But here's the bottom line: Today was not a particularly good day for Luigi Mangione's defense. A judge finally decided what evidence from Mangione's backpack would make it to trial. And remember, the defense wanted everything excluded because the police never had a warrant for their initial search at McDonald's where they found him.

Here's what the judge decided: What's in? The 3D gun, the silencer, the notebook. What's not in? The loaded magazine, his cell phone, his passport, his wallet, and a computer chip.

Now, trust me, every prosecutor would have wanted to get everything in, especially his phone because it could be a treasure trove. But the prosecutors, they are still sitting pretty. The state can show the jury the most important pieces of evidence any prosecutor thinks they need in a criminal trial. The alleged murder weapon, which the D.A. says matches the ballistics found at the scene. And the notebook, which the D.A. says contains written details about the murder that he is charged with.

Now, in case you forgot, his writings contain things like this: You whack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention. It's targeted, precise, and doesn't risk innocents.

Now, sure, the lack of the passport and the wallet and the cell phone, it makes it harder for the prosecution to fully reconstruct his every movement to the jury. But prosecutors say they have other ways to place him at the scene. And that includes what you're seeing there, this now infamous surveillance video that they say shows Luigi Mangione shooting Brian Thompson.

Now, Mangione's defense team, they are doing exactly what you'd expect. They don't want the jury to see any evidence that could link their client to a crime. The only way to do that is to try to suppress the evidence. And they tried. And they are filing every motion that they can. And you know what? They have had some legal wins. They got the state terrorism charge thrown out. In the federal case, most notably, they got the death penalty knocked off the table.

But what his defense team has not done is offer any signal of what, if any, defense they can actually successfully mount or plan to mount. They have made no public suggestion that he has an alibi or that it was a case of mistaken identity or that it was an act of self-defense or even his mental fitness. None of that.

But let me be clear, the defense, they have absolutely no requirement that they do that. Any of it. Remember, it is always the state's burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this system, Luigi Mangione doesn't have to prove his innocence. He is already innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.

And, you know, that brings me to my final point, and that's the "free Luigi" fans we've seen outside of court over the last year. Now, one day, there's going to be a jury in this case, and I want to know who's on it. Will it be impartial jurors or his fans? Because here's the thing: A lot of his fans do not appear to believe that he did not commit the crime. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. Some actually praise him as if he were some sort of a hero. One so-called independent journalist put it this way: "He (Brian Thompson) is responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden, and I remember Americans celebrating when Osama bin Laden was killed. It's not like we don't understand heroic violence, or, like, when violence is good" -- unquote.

Now, even Mangione's own defense lawyers distance themselves from that kind of talk. As they should.

[23:59:57]

In a statement obtained by Courthouse News, Karen Agnifilo said -- quote -- "We condemn these vile and irresponsible statements that have no place in the discourse around these cases.

And yet Mangione has received an extraordinary amount of support, not just the supporters and Luigi outfits outside, but also financial. More than $1.5 million have been donated to his legal fund on GiveSendGo, including $28 million -- excuse me, $28 from someone anonymous who named themselves "jury nullification." Quote -- "Wishing Luigi and his legal team the best of luck today," green heart emoji.

Now, I remind you, nullification is when a jury acquits someone even though they think they broke the law. And that's not a legal strategy. It's, well, a shot in the Dark.

Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is" starts now.