Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Paxton Defeats Cornyn In Texas GOP Runoff; South Carolina Republicans Defy Trump To Block New Midterm Map; Trump DOJ Wants To Interview 2020 Fulton County Election Workers; Trump To Hold Cabinet Meeting As Iran Pressure Grows. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 26, 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]
KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: And so, if you ever break up that trio, then we're in trouble. So, I don't want to ever change that.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Marc?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Look, we're in the middle of baseball season, and I still regret that Major League Baseball has adopted the D.H. in both the American and National League. I wish that the pitcher still got a chance to bat and made the game more strategic.
PHILLIP: Huh, I don't know what you were just talking about.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I'm with you.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Coates. They say everything is bigger in Texas. Well, it was a big election night in America and a big blow out win by the controversial Trump-backed candidate with big scandals in the marquee Texas race. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton beat the incumbent senator, John Cornyn, in the GOP runoff for U.S. Senate and it wasn't even close. Paxton is up by about 28 points right now. President Trump gave him an 11th-hour endorsement just last week, and Paxton sang his praises tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN PAXTON, TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: When everyone in Washington told him to abandon me and abandon the people of Texas, he didn't listen. Instead, he gave his complete and total endorsement. President Trump is the leader of our party, and his endorsement is the most powerful force in politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, there are two ways to read tonight's results. On the one hand, it is more evidence that Trump's grip on the GOP is as tight as ever. And on the other, it may very well be a Republican warning sign for November because to get here -- this race was ugly and it was expensive. I'm talking big money, a hundred and 30 million bucks.
It was really a fight over what kind of candidate Republicans or President Trump wants to send into the midterms because the same politics that can get taken down as a Republican incumbent in the primary could make it harder for Republicans to hold that very seat in a general election.
And this term alone, Trump's primary power has been on display time and again. Cornyn is actually the latest incumbent to fall to a Trump- backed candidate. Congressman from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, was defeated last week. Senator from Louisiana, Bill Cassidy, lost a few days just before that. And don't forget, several Indiana State senators went down earlier this very month. That could come at a huge cost in November, especially in places like Texas.
Now, Democrats believe their nominee, James Talarico, has a real opening against Paxton. Cornyn had been making the case for months that Paxton would be a drag on the GOP ticket and could even jeopardize Republican control of the Senate. Well, tonight, Talarico is already starting to court those Cornyn voters.
Plenty to talk about with my panel who is here with me for the hour. I got Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, he has advised the Talarico campaign, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, also former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Ashley Etienne, and CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton. A lot to chew over here in Texas. Scott, is Texas going to be a problem for Republicans in November given this slate?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, there's going to be a race. Both parties are going to spend money. Both candidates are going to carry some baggage into the campaign. My view is Texas is a right of center state that handed Donald Trump a double-digit victory in 2024. It would be a surprise to me if they would want to send a Democrat to the Senate to oppose that agenda.
Toss on top of that, Talarico is one of the most radical, out of the mainstream Democrats you could have possibly conjured for a Senate race in Texas. And I think the race is still likely or lean Republican tonight. But look, they got to -- they got to run the race.
COATES: Hold on. Chuck is already laughing at the most radical.
(LAUGHTER)
Is that hyperbole that you can relate to at all? CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I'm going to say that Ken Paxson is the most flawed, corrupt, divorce, biblical. All these things are what this campaign will most be about when Scott Jennings and me are on this T.V. But to the voters of Texas, it's going to be whether you care more about pronouns or gas prices, if you care more about what the price of your utility bill is or what gender you are.
Right now, in Texas, I've been polling all over Texas not just for Talarico, but when you go to somebody's house and ask them, what your biggest concern is, normally, how they're going to make ends meet, not about like who's got a (INAUDIBLE) and who don't.
COATES: So, he wants this race.
(LAUGHTER)
I'll let that go for a second.
ROCHA: Thank you.
COATES: But he wants that race, right? Talarico --
JENNINGS: You just going to let that go?
COATES: I'm letting the (INAUDIBLE) go right now.
(LAUGHTER)
Yes, I am. At 11:07 (INAUDIBLE) comes back. But right not, I'm going to someplace else.
JENNINGS: We'll get back to the PP. OK.
COATES: We'll come back. Jesus Christ.
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Please. I'm a lady, boys. I'm a lady. Settle down.
COATES: Ashley, OK, the non-PPs over here.
[23:05:00]
Ashley, let me ask you this question. If you're Talarico, you want this fight against Paxton more than you want it against Cornyn.
ETIENNE: Absolutely. I mean, this is a -- you know, this is a nightmare, I think, for Republicans that they did not yet realize. And this is a dream for Talarico. The reason why is because what this race is going to come down is to independent voters. And right now, if you look at independent voters, 58 percent of them object to Donald Trump. Sixty-six percent of Texans right now believe that their economic situation is worse because of the president's politics.
And then you've got -- let us -- you know, let me keep adding on to that. Then you've got a situation to where we've never in the state of Texas. I'm a Texan. We've never seen ever before where there has been a Republican president that's underwater across the state, across the state. So, there's a lot of red flags for Republicans now.
And then to Chuck's point, you've got a compromised candidate in Paxton. He was impeached by Republicans because of corruption. So -- and his wife divorced him for biblical reasons. The NRSCC put out a statement saying basically they were not for Paxton, they were for his wife, and that what happened to her is appalling. So, there's a lot of questionable actions that Paxton has done.
But this is going to come down to independent voters. They're now swinging toward Talarico in a 42 to 41 percent, if not higher than that. So, that's what this is going to come down to. And if I'm Republicans, I'm sweating it out right now.
COATES: Well, Republican John Cornyn had this to say earlier today about Paxton. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: Ken Paxton will be an albatross. He could well lose. But even if he doesn't lose, he will win by such a razor- thin margin that -- it's likely to have a negative drag on the down ballot races in Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, an albatross, Shermichael? Is he right? And if he is, what's the consequence?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, look, when I look at this race structurally, I see and understand the appeal among a certain segment of progressives in Texas, meaning a lot of voters have moved from California into the state, younger immigrants who reside in the state.
But operationally, I do see some weaknesses and vulnerabilities for the Talarico campaign. What is his messaging going to look like and what is the infrastructure to engage with Black voters, not just Black women, but Black men, specifically younger Black men, once you enter into a general election process outside of the Democratic primary? Some of his pronouncements about religion, about culture, about immigration will not resonate in the state of Texas.
Now, the three of us are from Texas. And some folks said, well, this is like Beto O'Rourke, I bet he will perform better. I'm not necessarily certain of that. You look at where most independents in the state of Texas lean. They lean more to the right. They're more centrist-leaning, not left-leaning.
And so, despite Ken Paxton's flaws, ethically, morally, I can acknowledge that those things exist. The question becomes for, I think, many of those independent voters, does some of Talarico's views resonate with them as Texas voters? I would argue that they don't.
ROCHA: Let me just say this. Let me put some meat on that bone around. What's the difference between 2018 and now? Not with a bunch of hyperbole but like it has just changed a lot.
SINGLETON: It has. It has.
ROCHA: A lot of folks have moved to Texas. That's why there's all these added congressional seats over the time, because more people moved to Texas. But the second piece is in 2018, Beto O'Rourke never led. He never led a single poll. Talarico has led some polls.
The second thing is, and me and Scott debated this, Latinos have moved to the right in Texas over the last few cycles. I've been a Democrat that has admitted --
SINGLETON: Yes.
ROCHA: -- we messed that up. And they moved to the right. Well, now, it looks like they're moving back, at least in the primary. In the primary alone, 30 percent of the folks who voted in the Democratic primary had no Democratic primary history and 12 percent of those had a Republican voting history. I'm not saying that's the end all be all, but it shows that something is happening in Texas.
COATES: Let me ask you all because you're talking about independent voters. But Ken Paxton is one of those figures where Republicans have gone against him. He was impeached by Republicans in his own state, which is not typical to happen. So, is it Republican voters that would go for Cornyn who Paxton has to worry about or is it truly independent voters?
JENNINGS: Well, look, first of all, the Republican voters, when they analyze the records of these two candidates -- let's say you voted for Cornyn. Are you really going to switch your vote to a guy who thinks there are six genders and it's immoral to eat meat because of the climate crisis? No Texan believes that other than Talarico. And no Texas Republican is going to switch their vote from Cornyn to a Democrat because of that. On the independent voters --
COATES: Hold on. By the way, how does Talarico's campaign react to that? That has been what has surfaced as his main critique. And, of course, he has come back to say, if that's what you got on me, good luck in the actual general election. But what's the reaction from the campaign or what should it be?
ROCHA: It's about -- it's about the issues. It's about what you believe in. It's about -- do you believe that this culture war is what we should be running election or is it about prices? Talarico is going to say, of course, I'm not a vegan, I grew up on barbecue. He's going to answer. Then he's going to pivot. He's going to pivot to what people are talking about every day, whether it's gas prices or utility bills.
COATES: Here's what he actually said in reaction to this question of being a vegan and beyond. Listen.
[23:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS: I'm an eighth-generation Texan. I've been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton's first indictment. And if all they have on me is lying about me being a vegan, I feel pretty good about our chances this November.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Ashley, when you hear that -- by the way, this all stems in part from him ordering an egg and potato. I think burrito. Right? By the way, eggs are non-vegan. There was cheese in it as well. I'm just saying.
JENNINGS: This goes back to a previous campaign when he said it was existential, the climate crisis, and it was effectively immoral to eat meat because meat adds to the climate crisis.
COATES: That's not where it has come from recently, though, Scott.
JENNINGS: But that's the genesis of this, and then he got into the food order. But the point is you're talking about -- talking about real issues. Why is it Talarico has spent so much of his life talking about things in a way that no other Texan would ever say out loud, let alone many Americans? Maybe in California, but not in Texas.
ROCHA: We had a primary against the most popular Democratic person in the state of Texas named Jasmine Crockett to what some would say are left-wing voters. And we never talked about this issue. We talked about gas and groceries. So, we're going to do the same thing in the general election.
COATES: Ashley?
ETIENNE: I mean, it's still the economy, stupid. There's no question about that. When you look at the polling, you've got 66 percent of Texans that are concerned about food prices. You got 66 percent that are concerned about the health care costs. You got 57 percent that are concerned about housing costs. This is across the spectrum. So, it's going to continue to be about the economy, and that's what Republicans don't have an answer to.
Also, if you look deeper into the polling, people are dissatisfied with how Republicans have been managing the state. You've got a governor that's only polling at 44 percent approval rating. So, if you put all of these things together, it's, to me, blinking red signs for red signals for the Republican Party. But I will agree with Shermichael, which I rarely ever do --
SINGLETON: Right.
ETIENNE: And that is the concern is going to be Black voters. What's going to happen to Black voters? You cannot win an election without Black voters. You've got a situation where the Houston Chronicle interviewed Black women. For the first time, they said the quiet thing out loud, which is that we give 92 percent of our votes to this party and we get nothing in return for it. There's an underlying sentiment with people who are feel betrayed, I should say, by what happened with Kamala Harris, what happened with Jasmine Crockett. So, Talarico is going to have to do a lot of work to engage the Black community to get them to turn out. There was a lot of momentum in the primary, but the question is whether or not the momentum for Jasmine Crockett can transfer over to James Talarico.
COATES: And given that, who does the momentum -- I mean, Jasmine Crockett, a very, very opinionated and respected member of Congress from Texas, lost to Talarico, including when Black voters were not overwhelmingly, I don't think, going for her. What impact is that going to have there then?
SINGLETON: I think, structurally, you have to look at when she entered the race, you have to look at how much money she raised. There are some differences between her and Talarico.
ETIENNE: And the infrastructure --
SINGLETON: The infrastructure just wasn't there for her. I think if she started a lot earlier on, she probably ultimately would be the candidate we're running against. That said, though, I think from a Black voter's perspective, and I'm not a Democrat, so Ashley, you correct me here if I'm wrong --
ETIENNE: You know I will. Don't worry about that.
SINGLETON: That's not typically, you know, the constituency for the folks that I'm consulting with. But I do think that there is a very legitimate problem for Democrats to the points that you raised from my initial assessment.
If you're a Talarico's campaign, it is not enough to speak to just a young white, uber-progressives or some Latinos in certain rural areas. Perhaps that gets you to 70 percent of the voting electorate in the state. You still have a significant percent of Black voters there who must be engaged with, who you have to turn out.
And I can promise you this, Republicans are going to engage with those voters. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to vote for Ken Paxton, but will absolutely messes like hell to say don't vote for James Talarico.
ROCHA: I think that's exactly why on primary night, you saw him go to the podium. And the first thing he did before he said thank you to his mama or to campaign staff, he looked in the camera and said, I look forward to earning the Black vote, I look forward to Jasmine Crockett campaigning with me. He went out there with hat and head and say, I don't take your vote for granted, I need to work to get your vote. And since then, he has been in Black churches in Houston, he has been meeting with clergy in Dallas, he has been in those communities. He's got a lot more work to do.
COATES: Let me ask you --
ETIENNE: But the reality is we're not -- these young people are not in churches anymore. You can't organize a Black community that way, the way that we used to. That's really the concern for him. You got to have a new whole playbook.
And actually, this can be tested in the state of Texas. You can come up and develop a new messaging playbook for how to mobilize and turn out Black voters in the state of Texas that could be applied to the 2028 races going forward. But we'll see whether or not that actually happens.
I think that my main issue here is that Black voters in Texas hold all the power in this dynamic. It goes back to what Kamala Harris said, that Black voters have to become more transactional. And this is an opportunity for them to become transactional.
You go directly to Talarico and you demand what you want from him on the front end before you give out any votes. Do this thing very differently. Have him come to the table, not with a message of obligation, but with a message of power.
SINGLETON: Yes.
[23:15:00]
ETIENNE: You've got to reorient how you engage the Black community, especially after the undermining of the Voting Rights Act. It's got to be a different conversation.
ROCHA: Could have learned a lot of lessons from Kamala Harris. I'll just leave it at that, on what her outreach was and say that this -- we're going to do a lot different than that.
JENNINGS: You'll get to learn them again in '28.
ROCHA: Absolutely.
COATES: Oh my. All right.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: We'll leave it there for now. A lot more to talk about. The panel is staying with me for the hour, which means you at home can send in some questions or comments for them. They're going answer a little later in the show. Send us to @cnn.com/asklaura. Or you know what? Just text me, 818-972-7272. Just make sure you include a first name and your city or state. Again, the number on the screen, 818-972- 7272, and I did say text.
But first for us, Republicans in South Carolina defy the president and reject his push for a new midterm map as judges he appointed also block a new map in Alabama. What it means for November, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. TOM DAVIS (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We swore an oath to uphold not only the United States Constitution, but the state Constitution. If we were to pass this map, I believe we would be abrogating that oath.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Democrats scoring a one-two punch against Republicans in the redistricting war today. In Alabama, a federal court blocked the state from using a GOP drawn map in the upcoming midterm elections. The three-judge panel called it unfair to Black voters. And I should note, two of those judges were Trump appointees.
Now, let's go to South Carolina, where early voting began just today. The state Senate defied Trump's push for a new map that would have drawn Congressman James Clyburn right out of his district. Fourteen Republicans voted to kill that plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. RICHARD CASH (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I can no longer support passage of this bill for one simple reason. South Carolina citizens are going to the polls today. And neither my conscience nor my commonsense will allow me to stop an election that is already underway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The panel is back with me. All right, Shermichael, you know that you risk some wrath from President Trump when you defy his orders.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: So --
ROCHA: (INAUDIBLE).
SINGLETON: No, he cannot.
COATES: No, not Article III. But tell me what you think about the idea of the message they're sending by doing this.
SINGLETON: South Carolina, I'm not surprised. I've known Congressman Clyburn for a very, very long time. I have great admiration for him. And he has built, over decades, relationships with Republicans in that state, including the governor. They like him. That stuff matters.
You go to Alabama. The South, I'm a Southerner, there's a complicated history there with Black Americans and white Americans. But over time, people, political officials have built relationships with each other to try to make these systems work as best as possible.
So, despite the president's edict to move forward with gerrymandering, a lot of these officials are saying, wait a minute here, our relationships will continue beyond the Trump presidency. And I think many of the political leaders are looking at it through that lens and saying perhaps this isn't the right approach, the ethical approach to disenfranchise our friends even though we may politically disagree. That's the way I look at this.
COATES: That would give people a little bit more grace than I think we've seen in the sense that some people are looking very short- sighted and thinking, you know what? Yes, maybe down the road, democracy will be questioned but, today, I got to stay in office, I'm following Trump.
JENNINGS: Well, a lot of people have made that decision. You know, I'm going to make a party decision. Now, in South Carolina, the election was going on. And so, they did have an out. And that's what I think a lot of them were arguing. They may come back and redraw this in '28 and turn it into a 7-0 map. So, you know, it's one seat.
Would it be nice to have when the fight for the House is going to be, I think, pretty nip-tuck? Absolutely. Is it the end of the world? No. Will it catch the president's attention that a bunch of Republican office holders in a state that he won by a bajillion points defied his views? Of course.
COATES: And what's the consequence of that?
JENNINGS: Of course, it will. Well, what happened in the state of Indiana? You know, where you had state senators who defied him on what they wanted to do there, and he took out several of them in the Indiana primary. Now, again, the election is going on in South Carolina. So, this might get punted down the road, both in terms of dealing with those people and dealing with a new map. But, you know --
SINGLETON: But Alabama was interesting, though, Scott. They didn't necessarily -- you know, the courts didn't have to rule the way they did. There were uber conservative judges there, and they decided to -- nevertheless, I wouldn't say --
COATES: In fact, let me read you a part -- let me read a part of it. "We cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination."
They didn't necessarily have to worry about it at all. And, frankly, the South Carolinians, they saw what happened in Indiana and acted anyway. Did that surprise you?
ETIENNE: You know, listen, I'm from the South, and there's a saying that God don't like ugly. And so --
SINGLETON: Haven't heard that in a long time.
(LAUGHTER)
My grandmother --
ETIENNE: Let's see. Get back in church. OK? Get back in church. So --
COATES: You just said they weren't there.
(LAUGHTER)
Last segment. OK. Go ahead. Be where you are. Go ahead. Be where you are.
ETIENNE: OK. Nevertheless -- so my point is there clearly are some still some reasonable Republicans that are left in their party, nationally and locally, that objected to what has become sort of a heavy-handed approach from Trump and the Supreme Court to undermine Black political power all across the south.
And, you know, there was a whispering campaign early on after the Voting Rights Act was dismantled, that this is likely going to have, and I heard it from congressman figures whose district is one in Alabama that they were trying to draw out, that this is going to backfire on them. And now, we're seeing it actually backfire.
COATES: Well, how about for Democrats? I want to hear your point.
[23:25:00]
But I'm curious, as a strategist particularly, there had been a lot of concern and hope from Democratic voters that Democrats would play and meet fire with fire. But now that there is a more, let's call it tempered response in terms of South Carolina or Alabama through the courts, does this now disincentivize Democrats to fight that fire with fire by redrawing their maps?
ROCHA: That was fire with fire three months ago. The clock has run out on all these primaries. People are already voting in almost every place. Scott was right about that.
In South Carolina, the old man in South Carolina who's been there a long time, Clyburn, has brought a lot of money, and that money didn't go to just red places or blue places. It came to the whole state.
And folks pretty much agree that the Democrats will take control of at least the House. And they know Clyburn will be in a position of power to bring all the money that he has always brought back to South Carolina.
And Clyburn is old school. Clyburn gets along with lots of people down there. He has a fish fry. He got these flame throwing folks down there. There are still folks that lack him, and I think that's why you saw this.
COATES: So, if it weren't Clyburn, though --
(CROSSTALK)
Yes. But if it weren't Clyburn, you're saying that they would have done something different or is it the fact that -- I mean, is it more than just Clyburn's district that was at stake? ETIENNE: I mean, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a long game for Republicans. The undermining of the R.A. is not just about this particular midterm, it's about midterms. So, I think Democrats are going to continue to fight fire with fire because we understand that this isn't just about November. Again, it's a long- term play to undermine Black political power.
JENNINGS: How does this -- how does the Callais case, the VRA case, undermine Black political power? All Black Americans, all white Americans, all Americans before the Callais case had one vote. Now, they all still have the franchise and they have one vote. Why is it undermining Black political power just to take away an artificial floor of Democratic seats?
COATES: Oh, me, me, me.
ETIENNE: Go for it.
COATES: OK, I'm taking this.
ETIENNE: The lawyer on that.
COATES: That was in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. And I'll tell you, as everyone realizes, that when you dilute the voting power of a particular population, the one person, one vote is essentially a myth. If you tell them that they're going to be separated and can never actually vote for a candidate that they're choosing or have the opportunity to have that candidate elected, that's problematic.
And before you give me that squint, don't tell me that Republicans have fewer offices in the New England River, but the crux of the matter is the Voting Rights Act in 1965 was designed to make sure that voting strength was universal. And if you dilute that power through gerrymandering in separating districts, then you do undermine the ability to do that very thing.
JENNINGS: Their power to do what, though?
COATES: To elect a candidate of their choosing. Not entitled to the winner, but a candidate of your choosing.
JENNINGS: But they're going to go to the polls. And they're going to see names on a ballot. And they can vote for anybody on that ballot they want. To me, the underpinning of your argument is Black political power must be aimed only at one political party. I think the conservative argument here is that Black voters, white voters, any voters in any community ought to expect out of both parties an argument. What's best for me as an individual American voter?
COATES: Well, your argument is --
JENNINGS: And so, to try to group people together and say, you all are -- you are all forced to vote for one kind of a candidate, AKA Democrats -- COATES: I hear you. I hear you, Scott, but you're not -- you're not quoting my argument. You're quoting someone else's. Mine is actually directly related to the voting power. And it's not about partisanship. You asked the question as to why and how it could undermine Black voting strength.
If what you say is true, there would have been no reason to dissect Memphis in the way that it was. If what you say was true, there'd be no reason to gerrymander district with a goal towards what President Trump spoke about, trying to add particular numbers to one particular side.
I think people universally do want one person, one vote to actually be the case, but with gerrymandering, that can't exist.
Stand by, everyone. We got more to talk about. Yes, it's my show, last word. Next, Justice Department's new controversial moves tied to one of the president's obsessions, the 2020 election. And later, rare warnings from Republicans about the potential Iran deal that may or may not be in the works. Is the president listening?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: I think we're on the verge of something that, ultimately, history will decide was a catastrophic loss for the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We're less than six months out from the 2026 elections. But, lately, it seemed like the president and his DOJ are pretty fixated on 2020 instead. Today, we learned the DOJ is trying to interview 2020 election workers from Fulton County, Georgia as part of an investigation into election fraud in the state, allegations which remain baseless.
Then there was yet another attempt to rewrite the history of January 6th. This time, the DOJ scrubbed all press releases from their website about that day, information about criminal charges and convictions and sentencing. And Trump, he is not slowing down when it comes to spreading these false claims about 2020. Reuters actually did the math. And, apparently, he claimed the election was rigged at least 107 times in just the last six months.
All these come as the DOJ moves ahead with a $1.8 billion anti- weaponization fund that could result in payments to over 1,600 people who have been charged with crimes related to January 6th.
Guess what? The panel is back. OK, let's talk about this effort, Scott, to interview the Fulton County election workers. I mean, this has been litigated several times. I mean, there's no evidence of widespread fraud. I know you've said that in the past.
[23:34:55]
And let's not forget that Giuliani was ordered to pay a hundred and fifty million bucks to the Fulton County election workers that he falsely alleged tampered with ballots, Ruby Freeman, of course, and Shaye Moss. Why can't they quit this issue? It doesn't seem to work.
JENNINGS: Well, there is one other thing going on, and that is in the last few months, a federal judge did sign off on a search warrant for collecting evidence in Georgia. They went in and took the ballots, I guess. And so, that did happen.
And that's not Donald Trump speaking it into existence. That's a federal judge saying, OK, prosecutors came in here, they showed me some stuff, I signed off on a warrant so they could go collect evidence. Now, what are they doing with that? What's the outcome of that? I don't think we know the answer to that yet. But there was an intervening action here in which a judge got involved and said, sure, you can go with an investigation.
COATES: Yes, the warrant, though, of course, standard. Very different than obviously beyond the reasonable doubt. The actual indictment --
JENNINGS: Of course.
COATES: That's not there.
JENNINGS: It's a warrant.
COATES: But still, the question remains. But why? I mean, why didn't they interview them and have a backwards looking view like 2020 when -- by the way, he has the presidency again in between that time. What is the point of this, Ashley?
ETIENNE: I mean, it's -- I mean, for -- I think it's a lot of reasons. The president has a retribution campaign that he aggressively been pushing since he has come back to the White House, going Jim Comey, going after Fulton County. I mean, pick it and choose it. All of his sort of fake supposed political enemies, he's using the power of the government to go after them. This is only another example of that.
But I think, secondarily, the issue is to have a chilling effect, to send a signal ahead of the midterm elections to everybody. Not only are we going to utilize ICE if we need to utilize ICE and send them down into your ballot boxes, but we're also going to -- you potentially could be prosecuted. So, for me, it's having that chilling effect.
I mean, I think what I'm so baffled by is, can you even imagine a world in which a Democratic president did any of these things? I mean, love you, Scot and Shermichael, your heads would be exploding right now with complete and total outrage. And the fact that you're like -- well, you know, some judge said, bah, bah, bah. B.S. This is unacceptable. It's beneath the office of the presidency. And it's -- if you ask me, it's a weaponization of his office to go after his political enemies, which is beneath the democracy we swear to, the principles that we say we are as American citizens.
So, that's really -- it's not for me to answer. It's for these guys to answer, that are apologizing for this president who is doing things that are --
SINGLETON: I don't know I was apologizing.
ETIENNE: You are. That's --
SINGLETON: I haven't even spoken yet.
ETIENNE: But I know what you're going to say.
SINGLETON: What am I going to say?
ETIENNE: I want to see the outrage. If your head is not exploding, it's not sufficient.
SINGLETON: It's not a lot for me to be outraged.
ETIENNE: Let's see. Go ahead.
COATES: You know, I want to hear from the voters. Maybe he will explode then. Who knows?
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Samantha from Tucson, Arizona asked this question. Republicans consistently alleged massive fraud has been exposed. Did I miss the proof, Shermichael?
SINGLETON: I'm not focused on the past.
ETIENNE: Here we go.
SINGLETON: I think, to me, the message to Republicans need to be what is our plan to put people back to work, what's our plan to deal with the issue of crisis among young men, the affordability issue. We have a housing crisis in our country right now. Most of the American people feel that we're spending too much time and money in foreign conflicts and not enough home domestically. And so, to me, the focus and the messaging to the party should be how do we get Americans back to work. Anything other than that, I think, is noise and is a political mistake.
COATES: Including focusing on 2020?
SINGLETON: I wouldn't focus on 2020. It has happened. We've moved on. Trump has won. He did very well. We want to win future elections. Let's focus on what's in front of us.
ETIENNE: Well, my issue is that you guys will not say out of your mouth that what the president is doing is beneath the office of the presidency. That's my problem with you guys.
SINGLETON: OK --
(CROSSTALK)
ETIENNE: We don't want to look back because you don't want to --
SINGLETON: So, Ashley --
ETIENNE: Listen --
SINGLETON: I'm not having an opportunity to give my analysis --
(CROSSTALK)
I was in college when Barack Obama --
COATES: First of all, how dare you try to age define us?
SINGLETON: I'm not. I'm not age defining.
COATES: Never mind. We are going to Detroit. Jack from Detroit asks, why are Republicans not allowed to support their constituents instead of Trump? Why do they allow Trump to bully them into going along with him when they do not agree? Scott, let's have you take that one.
JENNINGS: On what issue?
COATES: I'll read it again. Why are Republicans not allowed to support their constituents instead of Trump? Why do they allow Trump to bully them into going along with him when they do not agree? Obviously, talking about who they believe he should endorse and otherwise.
JENNINGS: Well, look, the president, as all presidents are, is the political head of his party and his opinion matters a lot. When Barack Obama was the president, when George W. Bush was the president, when Bill Clinton was the president, all these people had enormous influence over what the people in the party were going to do top to bottom. Trump, I would argue, of all of those people, is probably the strongest party boss of the modern political era. If he wants you to be the nominee of your party, he can will it into existence.
But you have to understand, his agenda is what Republican voters, especially Republican primary voters, it's what they've endorsed, it's what they voted for.
[23:40:03]
They trust his judgment. And if he says, I think candidate A is better to enact that agenda than candidate B, they follow along not because of the personality contest, because they voted for a particular agenda out of this president, and they want him to have the best possible team based on his judgment to enact that agenda.
It happened in Kentucky with Massie. That was the issue there. They thought he'd gotten off the team. It's what happened in Texas. They believed that Paxton would fight harder for the agenda in Cornyn. That's basically the underlying issue in all these primaries.
COATES: Let's go to Anthony. He asked this question. If many voters supported Donald Trump despite controversies and allegations related to race, sexual misconduct, ethics, stealing classified materials, and personal conduct, why do some analysts assume those same voters in Texas would reject Ken Paxton over similar controversies? The man with the hat, Chuck?
ROCHA: Because it's a way different electorate. Now, we know, in a presidential year, you have this big turnout. I actually give Donald Trump credit for getting a lot of new people to show up, and I've said this here on this today, to show up to vote in a general election. Well, in our field election, about 35 percent of the electorate don't show up.
It comes about a turnout. We've talked about it. A turnout election on who can get folks who normally sit at home to turn out. That's the biggest difference here. Will those folks actually show up, who voted for John Cornyn, who loved John Cornyn? A lot of them are going to vote for Paxton.
And you don't need all of them as a Democrat to win Texas. You just need a small little piece of them to be not even not show up, but to show up. When it gets to Ken Paxton, just skip that line on the ballot. Only one percent of the Republicans doing that, and Talarico is the senator.
ETIENNE: I think the other -- can I just add one other factor here? The voters voted for a lie in this last election. Donald Trump lied to the voters. He said, I'm going to lower prices, day one. I'm not going to get us into wars. I'm going to get us out of wars. All of it was a lie. So, that's what they voted for. It was for a lot.
So, now, they're starting to realize that he lied. You know, he was completely wrong. He lied to them. What he said he was going to do, he did the very opposite of that and is double downing on it. This bad terror policy, double downing on it. That's costing American people millions of dollars.
So, here, I think the difference is now, they're going to be dealing in reality and voting -- deciding whether not they want someone like Paxton given their economic situation. Now, they realized -- and given his corruption. I think that's going to be the issue, that people voted for a lie. Now, they're living in a reality.
COATES: Well, this is a good segue to your point. A viewer from Queens, New York asked this question. Why doesn't someone take Trump into a Stop & Shop so he can see the prices? He can fly to China, but can't come to Jamaica, Queens and see the elevated prices?
SINGLETON: I think it's always a good thing for the president or any political leader to see what the reality is for hard-working people. I think, sometimes, being in this town, we all live in a bubble. And sometimes, you forget how difficult it is for your voters and maybe even people who don't even like you and maybe voted for your opponent, that everyday reality to take care of themselves and their families, I think it dictates what the messaging is, I think it can help shape what your priorities are.
And so, in that particular focus, looking at the midterms, I don't think it would be a bad idea to get the president back out there on the stump. Have him talking to the American people, stopping at grocery stores, I think, would help inform where the general public is, specifically those independent voters, which my party will need in order to maintain the House.
ROCHA: During the presidency election when he showed up at McDonald's and tried to --
SINGLETON: It was brilliant.
ROCHA: I made fun of that shit, but it worked. I'm going to pay you right now.
SINGLETON: Take McDonalds, though.
ROCHA: That's all right.
(CROSSTALK)
ETIENN: -- getting back to the fact that he's alive --
SINGLETON: But it's the political mechanics.
COATES: I don't know why Stop & Shop. Hey, we'll say, thank you, Queens, for Stop & Shop. This is price is right. You know what I'm going to say? I'm going to do $1 over you. Stand by, everyone.
Next, a Cabinet meeting on tap for the president as Iran tells him, show me the money. Will they give it to him? And at what cost? The panel is back on that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, I mean, are we on the brink of a deal or what or is there an escalation? Iran is threatening to retaliate after U.S. strikes near the Strait of Hormuz just yesterday. Central Command says that it targeted missile launch sites and mine-laying boats in self-defense. But the strikes happened in the middle of a ceasefire while the administration was teasing a potential deal.
Over the holiday weekend, the president was talking about an agreement he says has been largely negotiated. He claimed the details would be announced shortly. He is set to hold a Cabinet meeting tomorrow at the White House after moving it from Camp David due to weather.
Joining the panel, Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst at Washington Post Intelligence. Let me go right to you. I mean, is Iran going to retaliate here? Is a deal jeopardized now? JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: I don't think that tit for tat strikes will jeopardize the ongoing negotiations. But I do think that the president has exactly two choices. He can pay Iran to open the strait or he can suffer the indignity in continuing this quagmire longer and longer. And because I listen to Scott Jennings's radio show religiously --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I know that the White House has no intention of paying them to open up the strait. A senior administration official told Scott Jennings exclusively, you should check it out, that they're only going to pay them at the end of the process, not at the beginning of the process.
The Iranians, by the way, are not going to go for that. That means this deal that they've been bragging about, which usually they brag about right before the market is open, it's usually right before the market is open that there's a lot of good news, and then somehow the markets go up, and then over the course of a couple days, we find out that it was all B.S., it turns out that that's all B.S. because what's going to happen is that they're not going to want to take this horrible deal, according to Scott Jennings's top-level sources, and that means that the deal is not going to be struck and the war is going to go on, quite sadly, actually.
COATES: Is your -- I can't -- I thought your question is shade or strategic (ph). Let me ask you, Scott. Tell me -- tell me, do you agree with this assessment?
[23:50:01]
JENNINGS: Yes. He's faithfully reproducing the briefing that I got from a senior administration official. There had been some reporting or some conjecture that there was going to be payments made on the front end. And what I was told is the only way Iran will ever see any sanctions relief or any financial gain of any of this is after they fulfill their commitments in a deal, principally turn over the nuclear material. That was made abundantly clear. It was made over and over and over again in the conversation.
Also, in the conversation, I was told that the deal was, you know, framework was 95 percent complete, although it was admitted, too, it could all fall apart, it could all fall apart. And it also takes forever. Even on minor back and forth with the Iran, it takes forever to get them to get back to you about even simple word changes. So, it could take a long time. So, there was optimism, but there was an admission. It could fall apart. But the real crux of the briefing was we will never pay these people unless they actually do something concrete that --
COATES: Before we begin, I mean, Iran is pushing the U.S. to lift sanctions --
ROGIN: Right.
COATES: -- to unfreeze assets. "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board actually is against and warned against and bailout of Iran. Here's what they wrote. "Iran's regime went into this war facing domestic political and economic crises. War has made these worse. Saving such a regime now with an economic bailout would be the real betrayal -- of the U.S. interest even more than the Iranian people." So, would that deal become a bailout essentially?
ROGIN: Yes. And would be a really tough pill to swallow for the Trump people and for the Republicans because it would make them into complete hypocrites for criticizing President Obama for giving $1.7 billion to the Iranians and they're going to give them what, $12 billion, $24 billion? So, they're going to be 10 or 20 times worse than the Obama people.
That's the only way that Trump gets out of this thing. And that's why he is convening all of these Cabinet members and trying to, you know, push back against people at "The Wall Street Journal" opinion section because he got to sell this somehow, and it's a really bad sell.
JENNINGS: I'll just --
ROGIN: And that's why, I think, ultimately, it's not going to work --
COATES: Hold on. I want to hear Shermichael and Ashley. Go ahead.
JENNINGS: It was said to me point blank, we will never give these people a dollar unless they produce concrete commitments, and those commitments would be largely centered on giving up nuclear ambitions, turning over the nuclear material. Period. So, I hear what "The Wall Street Journal" is saying. What this senior administration official told me was, bottom line, they'll never see a dollar unless they do something, not just say something.
SINGLETON: I think just removing the nuclear material alone is very complicated. It's going to take a long time, according to most experts. It took the Obama administration two years just to broker a deal. Early voting starts in September, most states across the country, for midterms.
And so, to me, my priority as a strategist is to wrap this up as quickly as possible because I don't want to give my friends on the other side an opportunity to have a new (INAUDIBLE) because we haven't resolved this. They're going to start talking about the cost of living. And we're potentially giving billions to the Iranian regime. That funded proxies that have killed thousands of troops over the past 47 years are just something that isn't palatable to most Americans.
And so, to me, you got to figure it out. Maybe we get an Obama 2.0, Josh, but at this point, that's better than --
ROGIN: I'm with you. I'm with you. They should cut their losses. And it's going to be called a surrender deal. But you know what? That's better than a quagmire, and that's where we are. You got a bunch of bad options. I think Trump wants to get out. Everybody knows he wants to get out.
SINGLETON: It's evident the president wants to get out. ROGIN: He's going to have to piss off a lot of Republicans to do it, but so be it.
COATES: Rock meet hard place. Thank you, everyone. Up next, why the year 1999 is suddenly back in the headlines.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Good morning, my fellow New Yorkers.
CROWD: Let's go Knicks!
MAMDANI: Let's go Knicks!
(APPLAUSE)
What you may have heard as I walked on was Ricky Martin's Livin' la Vida Loca, which was the number one song in the country the last time the Knicks were in the finals.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Her lips were devil red and her skin is the color mocha. I'm just saying. Yes, New Yorkers are partying like it's 1999 with the Knicks earning their spot in the NBA championship by sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers. It was 27 years ago, 27 years ago when they were last in the finals.
You know what else was going on back then? Zohran Mamdani would have been about seven years old. It was the debut for "The Sopranos," "The Matrix," the third Harry Potter book, and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" And you know what? Serena Williams won her first major championship.
It's almost midnight and time to bring in Elex Michaelson. Elex, so good to see you. Look, I have an image of you from 1999. You were in the seventh -- Oh my God, Elex. You were probably obsessed with the NBA finals. Even the Lakers didn't make it that year.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
COATES: Tell me what you remember from that year.
MICHAELSON: Well, first up, I still have this shirt.
(LAUGHTER)
I found that picture and this shirt today, which is crazy.
COATES: Oh my God.
MICHAELSON: All right, so, that was a big year. Well, the Lakers made it the next three years after that and won the next three titles. But 1999 was the big three for the Knicks. We had Marcus Camby, Latrell Sprewell, and Allan Houston. But they placed off against the Spurs, Tim Duncan's first championship, David Robinson, and the Spurs ended up taking that. This time, we'll see if it will be the Spurs or it will be the Oklahoma City Thunder.
COATES: I let them know it was OKC. Well, the last time the Knicks were in the finals, two courtside tickets, you know, were $2,500. Now, today, those same seats would cost you more than $100,000.
[00:00:00]
First of all, what's more shocking, the Knicks back in the finals to you or the cost to see it courtside?
MICHAELSON: I think that's pretty crazy. But like, does Kylie Jenner and Timothee Chalamet, are they paying that price or are they being given these tickets for free? Because if you look at their whole courtside, it's like all celebrities. So, are all them putting up that money or are they giving that away to these people?
COATES: Well, if they are paying it, I'm not buying anymore Kylie lip kits. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: She can afford it. You have a great show. It's going to be fun to watch the finals.
(LAUGHTER)
But let's get back to the real news. "The Story Is" starts right now.
