Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump and DOJ Willing To Surrender Fund; Freedom 250 Concert Collapses As More Artists Drop Out; Alleged Sexting Scandal Clouds Platner's Senate Race In Maine. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 01, 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]
UNKNOWN: And so, I wrote this book from experience on the inside, but also from the outside as to how that trust has been breached, but most importantly, how to repair it because we have an enormous opportunity in front of us, not only in 2026 but 2028. But we have to repair the faults. We have to speak authentically about the issues that matter to American voters. Democratic Party has done great things and is capable of doing great things. We just have little ways to go.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's in the south.
UNKNOWN: And you go online, lifewithpartybook.com.
PHILLIP: All right. Pick up that book. Thank you very much for watching us at "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" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, tonight, Trump and the DOJ signaling that they are willing to surrender their controversial almost $1.8 billion fund. Do you trust it? And what about the deal that set this off in the first place? The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jamie Raskin, will be my guest. Plus, I've got some exclusive news to break tonight about the president's Freedom 250 concert. Why it's about to be even worse for the President. And later, Democrats on defense after one of their best Senate pick-up chances faces another blue scandal. Which number straw is this? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, we got something from President Trump's DOJ that we aren't really used to hearing. It wasn't defiance or a delay tactic. Instead, acceptance? Really? At least for now. It came in these words, related to Trump's nearly $1.8 billion anti- weaponization fund. "The department will abide by the court's ruling." And the president told ABC News in a phone call, "We are subject to the courts. At this moment, that's what it is."
Well, yes, that is what it is. Normally, following a court order wouldn't make any headlines except, well, you know why this anomaly does. Let me bring you up to speed, shall I? A judge ordered the fund frozen late last week. And then a separate judge reopened the IRS lawsuit to look at the settlement that actually led to the fund in the first place. So, the legal pressure was mounting.
But then so was the political pressure because we're hearing Trump pump the brakes after meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson. And Republicans in the Senate were already in open revolt over the fund. They were livid over the idea of payouts potentially going to January 6 rioters who beat up cops, oh, and also terrorized some of very members of Congress that you wanted to co-sign that fund. They tied up Trump's own agenda over it. They stalled a vote to fund his immigration crackdown.
Well, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, he even went to the Capitol for damage control. And, yes, I'll remind you, it wasn't pretty.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS (voice-over): There were fireworks at an epic level, and I got to say it's one of the roughest meetings that I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. There were a lot of Republican senators who were just pissed. The entire meeting, they were screaming at the acting attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, you fast forward to today, and Republicans are telling the administration, we don't believe you, you need more people. The actual proof of this fund is totally dead before funding ICE and Border Patrol. John Thune, the majority leader in the Senate, says that Trump should just shut the whole thing down. But Democrats are warning this ain't over.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: So, I think this is just Trump saying, OK, I'm not going to include it in this bill, but I'm not giving up on this idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS SUOZZI (D), NEW YORK: So, right now, it is pause. That's good. The people don't like it. The elected officials don't like it. The courts don't like it. But they're going to -- they may try and keep it going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And let's be clear on that may try and keep it going. Neither the president nor DOJ have publicly said that the fund will get thrown in the scrap heap. One source is telling us the administration is just pausing the fund, not outright dropping it. So, even though Trump may be pumping the brakes right now, the fund may still be waiting for an open road. With me now, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. He introduced a bill to block Trump's anti-weaponization fund. Congressman, welcome back to the show. You obviously have heard that the Department of Justice says that it's not, not going to appeal the court's decision that puts that fund on hold. Do you believe that that means this is dead for good or do you think that Congress still needs to act to really make that the case?
[23:05:05]
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), RANKING MEMBER OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Congress needs to act. Look, what I read the Department of Justice is saying was that they would comply with the order, which is a less than two-week order before they go into court to argue it.
I don't think -- I didn't read them to say that they were not going to object and try to argue that their settlement was perfectly lawful, that their slush fund is lawful and constitutional, and that their super pardon of Donald Trump and all family members and all businesses is OK. I think they're just saying -- stating the obvious, which is they're going to -- they're going to comply with the court order. Of course, they've got to comply with the court order. If they don't, that's contempt of court. So, I don't think that they've said much here.
Congress needs to act. We need to come forward and defend our power over the person, say we don't want one dollar, much less one $1.776 billion going into Donald Trump's pocket and through his pocket to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the insurrectionists, and the rioters. It's good that the Department of Justice is conceding the obvious and the necessary, which is they're not going to fight this interim brief court order. OK, fine, but we need to cut off this whole corrupt enterprise now.
COATES: I totally understand the idea that complying with a court order was never meant to be the ceiling. It was the floor. It's what's expected to do, by the way. But on the area of being able to try to impact in the way that you've talked about, do you think there are enough votes to do just that in Congress right now? You've heard some Republicans take issue. They want to do more than just oppose this. But do you think you have enough, even with the power of the purse and the concerns you've raised among Republicans and Democrats, to do it?
RASKIN: Well, we certainly have had enough Republicans, more than a dozen Republicans who have been outspoken about it, and probably even more behind closed doors when Trump went or rather when Attorney General Todd Blanche went over to try to convince them that this was OK. It's just being universally condemned and rejected.
You know, look, the country has now gotten the point about the political slush fund where they want to give a million dollars apiece to each of the rioters and insurrectionists, and then have a couple hundred million dollars left over to spread around to other people like they have already started. They gave money to Michael Flynn, $1.25 million for a series of legal complaints he had that were already rejected in court.
COATES: So, what are you going to be able to do about that? Because, obviously, a federal judge has reopened the president's IRS case to examine whether that agreement was properly disclosed. I understand your point about a super pardon or the amnesty, but is there any method or understanding of whether that deal that has been given can be undone now?
RASKIN: Yes. Well, it has been frozen right now by Judge Kathleen Williams in Florida, who has taken the case back. They had dismissed the case. She said, not so fast, you cannot commit a fraud in the court, and that fraud in the court would very quickly become a fraud in the country. So, she has got it --
COATES: The fraud being that she doesn't think there's a case in controversy. Just explain what the fraud would be to the court, that there was not an actual issue between the government and the plaintiff, Trump in that case.
RASKIN: Yes, there's a tissue of frauds built into the original case. The first thing was there was no adversity, no adversary relationship between the plaintiff, Donald Trump, and the attorney general, Todd Blanche, his former lawyer.
In fact, if Todd Blanche had been representing Donald Trump in this so-called settlement and had come back with nearly $1.8 billion for whatever purposes Donald Trump wanted and also this super part in tax amnesty for Trump and his family, people would be giving him high fives, saying, that's an extraordinary win you got there, Todd Blanche. But he wasn't supposed to be representing Donald Trump. He was supposed to be representing us against Donald Trump.
So, it's very clear that there was no adversary relationship between Trump and Trump. That is Trump, the private plaintiff, and then Trump, the boss of the attorney general of the United States. It was totally collusive. It's what the courts call collusive litigation ending up in a collusive settlement.
COATES: And ultimately, a settlement would then appear fraudulent, to your point. I mean, you are demanding, in fact, that the acting attorney general who obviously is vying to become the permanent one, Todd Blanche, you want him to resign over his role in the lawsuit, over the fund.
[23:10:03]
Now, he's not going to do that. But I do wonder if you think this is going to hurt his chances maybe at getting the permanent job of the A.G. or he's going to get him an attaboy.
RASKIN: Yes. Well, obviously, he thinks it's going to dramatically improve his chances by pulling off such a remarkable caper. But there's no way it can go through. There's no way that the United States government in any branch of government can accept this as a normal way of doing business. Again, it would be phenomenal if Todd Blanche had pulled this off, working openly and publicly, formally as Donald Trump's lawyer. But he was working for our lawyer against Donald Trump. At least theoretically, he should have stopped this at every level. And he had every reason to stop it, but he didn't. He was essentially still doing his old job, working directly for Donald Trump.
COATES: Congressman, thank you.
RASKIN: Thank you for having me, Laura.
COATES: I want to turn to chief Washington correspondent for MeidasTouch Network, Scott MacFarlane, and also CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Zolan Kanno- Youngs. It's good to have both of you, gentlemen, here.
I'll begin with you, Scott, because the president rarely backs down on anything, as we have seen, especially after he has had a string of political wins, in this case, the primary. Why now? What are your sources telling you as to the why?
SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: Oh, my sources are clear. Nobody thinks this fund is dead. And there is nobody and I mean nobody, Laura, on Capitol Hill or elsewhere outside the Trump administration who thinks this thing is a good idea. There's no surrogate championing this fund, which means it has got political pressure surrounding it and it has got the legal pressure. Congressman Raskin just described.
My reporting tonight, as this evening ends, there are now five, not one, not two, five federal civil suits challenging the legality of this fund, three in Washington, D.C., one in Virginia, one in California. There will be more in the days to come. And Laura, just one of those challenges has to stick to kill off this fund legally. No political support and tons of legal hurdles.
COATES: So, Zolan, how does the president go from -- I mean, he was flexing his power after Republican primaries. The conversation was about he was still kind of a kingmaker and that he had a unified GOP. Now, backing down in some of the ways we've described tonight because people in his party didn't like it.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes.
COATES: Reconcile the two.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes. It's -- they both exist at the same time.
COATES: Right.
KANNO-YOUNGS: We're seeing a split screen of President Trump's power here. And the thing to know is that he was dominant in terms of endorsing folks and trying to take out those he deemed political opponents in the primaries. But the people showing up to the primaries are some of the most passionate voters. They're members of the base. And yes, he still has a hold of the base.
But when you see elected Republicans pushing back, they're thinking not just of the short-term clock of the primaries, but they're also thinking of a general -- of the midterms where you have -- you're not just going to need the base, you need more of those voters outside of the base that are concerned about the economy, that are looking at gas prices as well. And also, those Republican elected officials know that this fund was politically unpopular as well. So, that's the split screen you have.
You know, yes, he's finding success in the primaries, but in Washington, you're seeing more room for dissent right now in the Republican Party than, really, we've seen thus far in Trump 2.0.
COATES: In some ways, is that because they believe his power in the primaries, that even supporting him fully doesn't guarantee you his support?
KANNO-YOUNGS: We've seen that.
COATES: We have.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. We've seen that. And also, remember, some of the people that have lost in these primaries now don't have the incentive to continue to support the president because they're heading for the exits. So, they're more likely to push back on the president in Washington. We've seen that at least with Bill Cassidy just days after his primary.
COATES: Scott, President Trump told CNBC midday that he doesn't care if the -- he's talking about it -- Iran negotiations are over. He couldn't care less. That talk started to get, his words, boring. Then an hour or so later, he posted on Truth Social, talks are continuing at a rapid pace. So, tell me about this back and forth. Where do negotiations actually stand?
MACFARLANE: We are watching like the largest ever version in worldwide version of a game of chicken little where you have people who have to fund this war here in Washington, who have no idea where peace negotiations are, members of Congress who are reading Truth Social post to get guidance, and you see the Truth Social post conflict with each other.
I've talked to senators, Laura, who are concerned about the quantity of U.S. munitions right now. They know the bills are going to come due on this, and they don't know the trajectory. I don't think members of Congress like the briefings they're getting, the thoroughness of the briefings they're getting or not getting on the war.
[23:15:00]
And the president is being, to put it charitably, less than clear where things are going.
COATES: Well, talk to me, Zolan, about the idea that Axios is reporting the president is furious with Prime Minister Netanyahu after Israel escalated their strikes in Lebanon. He told Netanyahu, what are you doing, essentially? Is their relationship now totally vulnerable or at a breaking point?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, we've seen that relationship go through sort of ebbs and flows. I mean, it would still -- I mean, the president still welcomed President Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House. He played a key role as well. The U.S. also going to this war with Israel to Iran. So, I don't know if there's a definitive sort of point we've reached as far as that goes.
But to Scott's point as well, really, this moment just shows as well what has been a through line now and throughout this war with Iran, which is a lack of a clear end game, right? The president said today that he was getting bored, essentially, with the talks and the negotiations. You go from just weeks ago, you know, threatening to wipe out a civilization to now saying that you're bored with the peace talk --
COATES: Which is an odd word choice, by the way.
KANNO-YOUNGS: It also probably is highly unlikely. The sort of indifference that he's showing at least for the entirety of the White House and the Republican Party, when you look at the economic fallout of this war and the impact that it could have politically, yes, the president is saying that he's not sorts of feeling a rush here, you know, he wants this to be legacy, but for the entire party, there is a ticking clock.
COATES: Thank you so much, guys. Up next, Donald Trump mad at performers for pulling a 180 on his 250, insulting the very performers and making it about himself instead. Tonight, one of the few remaining acts who is ready to show up, Milli Vanilli's Fab Morvan, will be my guest to share some news. Has he had a change of heart? Well, he'll tell me in our exclusive interview, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: And then after they announced this all-star lineup, a lot of them said, no, what are you talking about? We're not playing.
(LAUGHTER)
That's got to hurt a lot when you can't close the deal with Milli Vanilli.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Bill Maher getting a kick out of all the artists bailing on the Freedom 250 concert. But President Trump is not laughing. He's calling for the event to be canceled. And now, a spokesperson confirmed that the president himself will be the main event after the president suggested holding a massive rally instead.
But it just so happens that Milli Vanilli is among a handful of acts who had said they were going to show up to perform in a few weeks from now unless, of course, they happened to have had a change of heart. You know what? Let's find out.
Joining me now, Fab Morvan, founding member and half of the pop duo Milli Vanilli. Fab, very nice to see you. I've always been a big fan. We heard on Friday, your team told us that you were still intending to perform in Washington, D.C. for the Freedom 250 concert. Is that still the case tonight?
FAB MORVAN, FOUNDING MEMBER, MILLI VANILLI: It's not the case tonight. This is why I'm here. I need to talk to you about this whole thing. So, you know, at first, when this idea came to me, I live in Europe. So, my team in Europe received the dates, we knew the dates, a great American state fair, and the cherry on top was 250 years anniversary in America.
I've learned a lot of lessons in America, hard lessons that I never forgot to this day. So, you know the difference between working hard and working harder, thinking big, thinking bigger, resilience, believing in yourself. So, for me, I felt like it was a special moment. You know, a full circle moment. So, I was excited. And, you know, that's what it was, the State Fair in Washington, D.C. That's all it was to begin with.
COATES: Well, how was that told you? They told you that it was going to be just a performance to celebrate the United States of America? What changed then?
MORVAN: Well, what happened is when I saw Young MC pulled out, I was like, well, that's weird. Why is he pulling out? Does he know anything that I don't know? What does he know that I don't know? I was thinking. So, I was a little worried there. And then one after the next, people started to leave.
But I was told by my team, who was told by another team, there's nothing -- there's no political entanglement, there's no political alignment, it is just a free show for the people. I was there to unite the people, to bring people together, to have them walk down memory lane, celebrate life. Some people that were there, that would be there, were there when my music came out. So, it was a way to say, hey, I'm still here, you're still here, let's have a good time together. That's what it was for me.
But throughout the week, it turned into a circus. And this is not what I signed. You know, I'm here to bring them together with music. I'm not into politics. So, you hear it first here, I'm not attending June 26 celebration. COATES: Well, you know, the president of United States, he now wants to host the event himself. And he has actually called the artists who have chosen to cancel performances -- quote -- this is his phrase -- "Overpriced singers who nobody wants to hear, whose music is boring." And he also added this. "I don't want so-called 'artists' that get paid far too much money, who aren't happy. I only want to be surrounded by happy people, smart people, successful people, and people that know how to win." What is your reaction now that you have canceled your performance?
[23:25:00]
MORVAN: Listen. I don't even try to enter into this arena. You know, I deal with everyday people. What I perform for people is with love. It's to bring people together, like I said.
I have a very special story. I fell, I stood back up, I reinvented myself, and I've moved forward. And for many, I am an example. So, when you fail -- when you fall into a storm like this one, you know, all I can do is say, you know what? I don't want to have -- I don't want none of that because this is not what I signed for. I am a singer. I'm a producer.
I know what it's like to be taken into -- I know what it's like to have a narrative being changed over and over until you don't even recognize this narrative. And that's what happened to me. It took years for me to change the narrative, to let people know -- oh, well, people thought, well, he doesn't sing, he can't sing. No, I've been touring years, for years in Europe. And before that, Rob and I used to write songs. But it took many years for me to combat the narrative.
So, I'm not even going to response or give anything to that. I'll step out. That's what I'm going to do because I know --
COATES: Yes.
MORVAN: One of the reasons why I'm stepping out is I didn't sign for that. Now, I see how it turns into. Now, I hear the president of the United States talking about all the people who pulled out. Well, it is what it is. Life will go on. But I won't be on that stage on June 26th.
COATES: Well, somebody who will be on that stage is Vanilla Ice. He actually was on CNN earlier today and talked about why he was choosing, in spite of all that you have described, not to withdraw. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANILLA ICE, SINGER: That's all we're doing, celebrating the birthday of our country. What's the big deal here? And as far as entertainers, I don't think it's fair to put any of us on a pedestal like that as far as politics goes because, you know, it shouldn't matter. We're just here to play. I'd play for anybody. So, it's, you know. I go play for Biden's family or anybody. It doesn't matter. It's all about just enjoying music. There are fans everywhere. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You heard him. And you have fans everywhere. And there are fans everywhere. And he kind of has a what's the big deal about this? Do you think he has a point in choosing to perform instead?
MORVAN: But the thing is, you know, when you enter the political realm and you're being pinned against another --
COATES: Yes.
MORVAN: -- that is not fair. This is not what we stand up for. And I know -- I'm very knowledgeable about politics and I know how politics works. It's a game of chess where everyone is trying to move, is trying to move its piece and using others as pawn. I don't want to be part of that, which is why I'm stepping out, you know, in peace.
COATES: On your terms. Fav Morvan, thank you.
MORVAN: And I understand.
COATES: Up next, could scandals be what decides the U.S. Senate? Maine's presumptive Democratic nominee, Graham Platner, now in hot water after a sexting scandal emerges. Will the party's establishment still support him? Karen Finney and Shermichael Singleton are with me on set to debate that and more, next. Remember, we're taking your questions and comments live. Just go ahead and text us at 818-972- 7272.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Democrats are scrambling to contain the fallout in a must-win Senate race after a pair of news reports by "The Wall Street Journal" and "The New York Times" revealed the main Senate candidate, Graham Plattner, is at the center of a new extramarital sexting scandal. Tonight, with his wife standing by his side, Platner is going on the offensive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER, MAINE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: It's no surprise to me that the establishment media outlets are just going to run gossip instead of wanting to talk about the things that actually matter in this race, which are the material realities that the Mainers are working with. "The Wall Street Journal," New York Times ran stories without any evidence besides the gossip from a former staffer. I'm sorry, that's frankly journalistic malpractice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the texts. But his campaign has been overshadowed now by a relentless string of scandals that includes everything from an inflammatory internet posts to a now covered tattoo with apparent Nazi ties.
I want to bring in CNN political commentators, former senior advisor for the Clinton 2016 campaign, Karen Finney, and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have both of you guys here.
I mean, we know how the political tit for tat work. We know that Democrats have been very keen on pointing out, say, Ken Paxton's infidelity as an example. And Democrats have complained about the GOP's tolerance for scandals. The moral high ground is always a part of it. So, I know these are very different circumstances, every case is, but how might this play in terms of the Democrats handling of this versus their response to, say, Paxton?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it's interesting to hear the governor, current governor, Janet Mills, remind everybody she's still on the ballot. So, it will be interesting to see between now and next week when the primary happens, if voters have a change of heart and decide.
[23:35:00]
We just aren't sure that there might not be more of this because it's always -- you know, when I work with candidates, it's the drip, drip, drip of information that is a -- just kills you. And the reason it does, you know, a crisis is something that damages a candidate's relationship to voters. Donald Trump's voters don't seem to care about the Epstein files and all the various things he has done.
COATES: So, why might these voters care if they're at the threshold?
FINNEY: Well, that's the question. It may be. And I think that's part of the question that we'll find out, how voters feel about him. Do they -- do they say, OK, I'm OK with it because he and his wife have worked it out? I don't know the answer to that.
But the challenge and the reason I think you're seeing Democrats raise real concerns is he had -- as we've shown today on our air, he already said there's nothing else a while ago. And then now -- and they knew. The thing I found interesting about this, he knew this was out there because it was their self-oppo research, which is something you do. So, look --
COATES: (INAUDIBLE) or previously.
FINNEY: Right. So, we'll see. I mean, I would have liked to see him just answer the question a little more head on and say, look, it was an issue in our marriage, we've dealt with it, and let it be that instead of blaming the media and this and that. I just -- you know, just take it head on.
COATES: Well, you know who wants the oppo research and loves this likely? Susan Collins.
(LAUGHTER)
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Of course, she does. I mean, this race was incredibly close for a while now. I would imagine, over the next couple of weeks, those numbers are probably going to change. I mean, to Karen's point, when you're dealing with scandals -- and Karen has worked on a lot of political campaigns. I'm catching up to you, Karen.
(LAUGHTER)
But one thing we do know, Laura, is every single day you're not talking about the issues, you're not drawing the contrast to your opponent, you're frankly losing the race, and it goes to the question and the premise that Karen just made about the trust with the voters. Do those voters who are going to vote for him decide to stay home? Maybe some will hold their nose and say, you know what, I'll vote for him anyway because I don't want to vote for Susan Collins.
But I think when you pair these two individuals against each other, one, you say Susan Collins has been there. Maybe I don't like every single vote she has taken, but we know what to expect out of her versus this guy where he says one thing, to Karen's point, and we ultimately find out consistently that none of it is true.
FINNEY: But how about --
COATES: I want you to answer it, Karen, but progressives like Bernie Sanders, he already said they support him despite the controversy that we've seen. Platner is heading to Capitol Hill to meet with other Senate Democrats tomorrow, I should mention. Is that -- is it going to matter, the support endorsement he has to cancel this out?
FINNEY: Sure. He is going to have -- I think tomorrow, he's going to have to make the case and convince people that he is still viable in this race, that he can break away because it is a close race, and actually show -- if I were at the campaign, I would want to put up really strong numbers next Tuesday, even though it's just a primary, as a show of support. But, again, he's going to have to convince some of the party elders and senators, hey, I'm still viable. That's going to be an important part of his conversation that he has tomorrow.
COATES: I mean --
SINGLETON: Karen, you think that's possible? I mean, you think about Axios reporting stuff about he got his home with a V.A. loan, but then you discovered it was his dad, questions about his wealth. I mean, what are the odds just, as a strategist, running those numbers?
FINNEY: Well, but here is the thing. In 2016, we said that. And I don't mean to compare him to Trump because they're very different. But I remember scandal after scandal. And certainly, after they grabbed him by the, you know what, you know, the GOP thought, OK, we're cooked. And yet, somehow, voters decided.
SINGLETON: The connection.
FINNEY: So, who knows? We'll see. We'll see if Mainers decide. You know what? We trust this guy, and he's the one we won't fight for us. COATES: We will see. Karen, Shermichael, please, stand by because you'll be on with me later this hour to answer the questions and comments from viewers at home. Send them to us at cnn.com/asklaura. You can always just text me. Get the number right there on your phone, 818-972-7272. Just give me -- do me a favor. Include your first name and your city or state. Again, the number on the screen, 818-972-7272.
Now, up next, Karen and Shermichael are back with me to answer the questions you have been sending in. Plus, California getting ready for a wild election night as Spencer Pratt hits the streets to deliver his closing message in the L.A. mayor's race. Elex Michaelson spoke to him and his rivals today, and he'll be here, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Just hours to go until polls open in the high-stakes California primary. We're keeping a close eye on everything from the governor's race to multiple key primaries for the House and, of course, the one that so many of you have been asking about, the race for L.A. mayor. All three candidates are locked in a tight race. But the real question is, can reality star Spencer Pratt turn all that online buzz into real life upset against Mayor Karen Bass?
Our friend, Elex Michaelson, was out in the field all day covering this race down to the very last detail. So, Elex, I mean, you actually caught up with all three candidates earlier and asked them for their closing arguments. What did they say?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, all of them are trying to make the argument that they're the best at making change. Here's some of what they told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR KAREN BASS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: No time for amateurs. We don't need a T.V. reality show villain.
UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE) no time for amateurs?
BASS: No time for amateurs. No time for people who've been there and haven't gotten done what they said they wanted to get done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPENCER PRATT, L.A. MAYORAL CANDIDATE: The reason I'm here is because I'm not like these people. I don't have the experience of failing like they have. You know, oh, he doesn't have experience. We don't want your experience anymore. We've all seen it. We've lived it. You burned down my whole town with your experience, ma'am. [23:45:00]
We're good on it. We've seen you increase homelessness no matter what numbers you make up. We see it with our own eyes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: So, he -- you know, this idea of we don't have time for amateur hour, I asked him about that specifically, and he said -- kind of laughed that off and saying that her experience got us this fire. Where was she during all of that? So, very different visions for Los Angeles, and it's going to be really interesting to see what people decide.
COATES: Clearly. I mean, the latest poll, I mean, it shows no clear leader among those three candidates. And these are pretty evenly matched in some respects. Pratt is in a close third place. Obviously, you see Karen Bass. The incumbent has, well, 26 percent. But do you think he can actually pull this off or was this just a long shot symbolic campaign from the start? What do think?
MICHAELSON: Well, you know, there were a lot of folks that thought that Donald Trump ran a symbolic long shot campaign for president, and then he ended up winning. There were a lot of people on the night before that election day that said that there was a 90 percent chance that Hillary Clinton was going to win, and then even Donald Trump himself was shocked when he actually won that night.
So, Spencer Pratt says he's going to shock the world. He thinks he's going to get 50 percent tomorrow night, and that the election will be over because if somebody gets over 50 percent, the election is over, he would become the mayor. There has not been a single poll that indicates that that's going to happen, but he says his people don't necessarily talk to pollsters. So, we'll see.
COATES: We will see. We'll be covering, of course, especially tomorrow, on election night in America, and results will be coming in all night. You got me and Elex. We'll be hosting a two-hour edition of "Laura Coates Live" starting at 11 p.m. Eastern. Can't wait to have you there.
I want to get to all your questions right now. And a reminder for those of you who want to participate, you can finish your questions by going to cnn.com/asklaura, or you have your phone, just text me, 818- 972-7272.
I got Karen and Shermichael back with me. Let's go right to you all out there. We got Gabe from Whittier, California. Here's his question. Does Spencer Pratt really have a chance in the Los Angeles mayor race? What do think, Karen?
FINNEY: I don't think he's going to get over 50 percent. I actually think -- you know, L.A., particularly the parts of L.A. that really the mayor controls, people are pretty pragmatic in terms of -- particularly around homelessness, particularly around the economy. They're not necessarily people who are going to take a risk on this kind of guy. He's had some stumbles himself throughout his campaign. So, no. My prediction is I don't think he gets over 50 percent. I think it could be a run up between Karen and the city council member, though.
COATES: All right. Let's see. One viewer from California asks this question. Not many politicians are squeaky clean. Why is it OK for Trump to be a convicted felon and get elected, but a Democrat is not allowed to make a mistake that his wife worked through with him? Shermichael?
SINGLETON: Look, I think the argument that I've heard from a lot of my friends on the other side is that Democrats have a higher moral standard. And if that is the premise of your argument, that they have articulated for 10 years now, then you wouldn't necessarily lower that standard just because your opponent and his side have lowered the standard, if that is your disposition. And so, that's why I think it's different.
I was watching earlier today. I think Jake was interviewing a member of Congress, and he referenced a previous interview with another member, a congressman out of Massachusetts, and he said, look, this guy should not become the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in terms of us lowering our standards. I would post it, that many Democrats probably share that belief. So, that's why I think there's a difference.
COATES: Let's see. Jack from New Hampshire asked this question. Who is paying for this UFC fight? Well, actually, I'll take it, the UFC is the one paying. According to Dana White, his organization is footing the bill for the entire thing.
OK. Let's go to Corey from Washington, D.C., who asked this question. There's so much coming up for American 250, and I feel conflicted. I want to take part but don't want to support Trump. I know he's ripping us off but I still want to celebrate. Karen, I'll let you take that.
FINNEY: You know, I've been encouraging people. First of all, there will be counter events on July 4th in terms of -- for an opportunity to celebrate our America because I, like many people, do not subscribe to the vision of America that Donald Trump has been pushing, which feels like Black people and women, there's not really much of a place for us. So, what I would say is I'd encourage you to create your own event and have your own event where you celebrate America's 250 and what your American story is.
COATES: Let's go to another Californian. Love it. Richard from Cardiff, California asked this question. Democrats keep attacking Trump, his policies and character, much of which is well deserved. But they fail to talk about what they will focus on. What are the proposed initiatives? Either of you.
[23:50:00]
SINGLETON: I mean, look, just quickly here. I will say that I think Democrats have tried to run on against Trump for a while now, and it hasn't been effective. When you look at the 30 plus special elections that Democrats have been successful in, a lot of those candidates talked about kitchen table issues, the tangible for the individual. The reason they brought back a lot of those young voters, a lot of Hispanic voters, a lot of Black men is because they were talking about some of the failures from their position and how they prepare to fix and correct some of those things.
FINNEY: But I would say it has been effective, and that is running against the Trump record in terms of the costs and from tariffs to the war to the strain people are filling in their pockets. That's what Democrats have been very aggressively talking about and how do we rein in costs.
COATES: Well, we'll see if it works. There you go. Karen, Shermichael, thank you both so much.
SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, the goat is back. Serena Williams making a comeback to tennis. Why now and why it's much bigger than sports, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(PHONE RINGING)
TEXT: Guess everybody heard the news.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): I got to change my number.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, the secret is out. One of the greatest athletes of all time is coming back after nearly four years away from professional tennis. The legend Serena Williams is set to play doubles at the Queen's Club Championship next week, people. She is 44 years young, a mother of two. But it's like she has been taking it easy. Off the court, she has been building businesses, expanding her family, embracing motherhood, her bosshood, and showing us what an athlete second act could look like and does, except she hasn't been done writing her first act.
Joining me now, contributing writer to "The Atlantic," Jemele Hill. Jamel, so good to see you, my friend. I mean, look, Serena's legacy, it's undeniable. I mean, she's got 23 grand slams, 73 career singles titles, 319 weeks as number one in the world, four Olympic gold medals. I mean, why return to the game now? Pure love?
JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: Because she can. And that's what happens when you're considered to be the greatest tennis player, the greatest women's tennis player of all time, and as you so wonderfully noted, one of the greatest and most dominant athletes ever to come from America.
The other factor we have to consider here is the Olympics. She was raised in Compton. The Olympics are here in Los Angeles. And imagine what the moment would be if Serena Williams were competing for Team USA right here in her hometown.
And, you know, I think Serena, what has set her apart for decades and throughout her whole career is that she has a competitive instinct. I mean this in the kindest, most respectful way. That is psychotic. And it takes that kind of killer instinct to have accomplished what she did. And when athletes like herself have that kind of instinct that is always inside of them and they feel like they still physically can compete, it's pretty difficult to convince them that they can't do this.
And from a playing standpoint, I don't really think Serena has anything to risk. Let's say she isn't as good as she used to be or this somehow winds up being a -- quote, unquote -- "failure," given what she has accomplished, I don't think anybody is going to hold that against her. And her sister is still competing in her mid-40s as well.
So, I just think that she probably felt like now that she has her family established. She's got her businesses where she -- you know, she had an impressive business portfolio, that this seemed probably like a ripe opportunity for her to make a return to the sport that she loves.
COATES: You know, I think about Allyson Felix, track star. I think about Serena Williams. So often people will write off women of a certain young age and mothers after they have left for some time and only to return. And I just wonder about that aspect of her legacy as well. This is a mother of two, in her 40s, coming back and, as you say, because she still can.
HILL: They tend to do that with women who don't have kids as well. It's like we all got some secret expiration date that nobody knows about. I think what's so great about what Allyson Felix has done and even Lindsey Vonn with her comeback --
COATES: Yes.
HILL: -- as well in her 40s is that these women athletes are redefining what it means to be or what you can achieve as an older athlete. I think that's why for Simone Biles, the next Olympics is on the table. And as I just mentioned a moment ago, I do think a driving force is the fact that the Olympics are in America. If the Olympics were in another part of the world or another country, I wonder, would these same athletes, would they still be thinking about it? Maybe they would. But when -- Allyson Felix also. We get an opportunity to compete right in L.A. where she's from as well. So, I'm sure that was a significant factor in her decision.
But I think these ladies are just showing that they don't have an expiration date and that people need to re-imagine what they consider to be the ceiling for female athletes. COATES: Let's talk about some who have been at the pinnacle who are men. You see athletes like Tom Brady, Michael Jordan. They've come back after stepping away. But what makes her come back different from theirs? They're both considered to be the goats in their own generations.
HILL: I think for Serena, it is a different kind of comeback. And I think Simone Biles experienced this, too, when you've already submitted your legacy. And Simone Biles had no reason to come back to the last Olympics, but she did.
[00:00:00]
And I think she, even in her own right, was able to redefine what they thought a gymnast of her age was capable of. And I think with Serena, knowing her and her competitive fire, and I'm not professing, let me correct myself, to know her well, but just understanding competitively how she competes, I could see Serena sitting at home, watching a lot of these slams, a lot of these matches and saying, I still got it, I could still whip her and her.
(LAUGHTER)
I bet she was thinking that in her mind, like I still got it, and especially because, physically, she looks incredible.
COATES: Right.
HILL: And I think that's a big reason why she's like if not now, when.
COATES: Well, here to no expiration dates, Jemele Hill, thank you so much. This show is expiring right now. Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
