Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Key GOP Senators Skeptical as Trump Eyes Blanche for Attorney General; Platner Faces Allegations of Unsettling Behavior Toward Women; CA Still Counting in Nail-Biter Race for L.A. Mayor, Governor. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 04, 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]
SHARON STONE, ACTRESS: -- all the P.R. we do, all the stuff we do. We mostly work for free.
PALMER: We really do love it.
STONE: We work for free for the few jobs we get to get paid for.
PALMER: Yes, it's so true.
STONE: My poor kids as I try to explain this to them. Yes.
PALMER: Yes, the glitz and glam, it can be quite deceiving.
STONE: But we're good at it. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch the full episode of that interview, streaming now on the CNN app.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or @cnn.com/watch. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Todd Blanche facing new hurdles as the president prepares to nominate him for attorney general. Did Pam Bondi just hurt his chances? Plus, new claims against Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner and his alleged behavior toward women. The response from him and voters in Maine. And votes still trickling in for two key California races as now Trump is turning the slow count into a political fight. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, Todd Blanche has a lot to prove if he wants to drop acting from his title because even if President Trump is nominating him for attorney general, he still has many votes to earn. And not because he doesn't have the resume. I mean, he isn't some random Trump loyalist pulled off of television. He worked at the SDNY. He was a federal prosecutor, a trial lawyer. He stood in courtrooms and argued cases where facts and the burden of proof matter, including cases where he represented Donald Trump.
So, the question isn't really whether he is qualified legally on paper, right? It's about whether he can be trusted to be independent, whether he is loyal to the people the DOJ is supposed to serve, you know, on behalf of the people of the United States or to just the president of the United States.
And so far, his track record comes with some pretty big red flags. Take the Epstein files. We all know what happened there. I mean, except the full story about Ghislaine Maxwell being transferred after that meeting with Blanche, but -- OK. You have the botched rollout, the lengthy delays, names redacted that should not have been, names unredacted that should have been, victims who said their voices were not heard.
And now, we know, apparently, it was Blanche who was in charge of the whole thing. How do we know that? Well, the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, is throwing him under the bus. The newly-released transcript from her meeting with lawmakers last month reveals she said -- quote -- "He was in charge of the process and the entire release of the Epstein files."
And as for the transfer, I already mentioned this one, of course, the Epstein associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, to a cushy federal prison camp after her interview with Blanche, well, Bondi commented on that as well. "I read about it in the newspaper, or online, after it happened. I had nothing to do with that."
Astonishing, right? She said that she believed it was for security reasons and to check with the Bureau of Prisons, which reminded me of what Blanche was saying back when it happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So, every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her. And the institution she was in, she was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Epstein is not the only place where senators are going to test his word. There's also the 1.8 nearly billion-dollar anti- weaponization fund, the one coming from a lawsuit brought by Trump against his own government, settled by Trump's DOJ, led by Blanche. Now, you know the Republican backlash was swift. Even though the GOP has rejected multiple attempts to kill it today, Blanche had previously said the fund was dead. And then the president jolted it back to life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: We are not moving forward with the fund.
UNKNOWN: Not moving forward ever?
BLANCHE: Correct. We are not moving forward with the fund, period.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was -- I didn't make it, but I was -- I heard that. I thought that was the greatest thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, he did say was. But there are questions.
[23:05:00]
And that puts Blanche in a real bind because if he's on record telling lawmakers the fund is (INAUDIBLE), well, how are they going to trust what he says if it comes roaring back?
And there's another problem. When you're asking senators to believe you're fighting weaponization, you probably don't want your own DOJ to be accused of doing the very same thing. Does the name James Comey ring a bell? The prosecution of one of Trump's biggest political enemies who Trump has publicly vowed to go after. Now, Comey was indicted over this, a photo of seashells arranged to read 8647. That, Blanche claims, was a threat against the president's life. He says, don't just look at the seashells. When it's all the public can see, I mean, trust us becomes a harder sell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments, of course. Every single case depends on the investigation that's done. And, of course, the seashells are part of that case. I mean, that's what the public sees.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to begin with former national security official and founder of Defiance News, Miles Taylor, former district attorney for Westchester County, Mimi Rocah, she worked with Todd Blanche at the SDNY, and CNN political commentator Brad Todd as well. Good to have you guys all here.
Brad, I want to begin with you because the president thinks that Blanche -- a confirmation for Blanche would happen in pretty short order. The Senate majority leader, though, is not so sure about that. Do you think the Senate Republicans actually will give the president what he wants in terms of this confirmation?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don't think the confirmation guaranteed it all. Todd Blanche is a good lawyer, and Republican senators believe he's a good lawyer. They believe he's talented. They believe he would do a good job running the department. But this weaponization fund is dead. It has to be dead. And I don't think you can have Todd Blanche as attorney general and the weaponization fund alive. So, I think the administration is going to have to put those things together.
You know, there are eight Republican senators who are either publicly have a beef with the president. They have tough elections right now, they want some little independence, they come from bluer states or they kind of been in open warfare like Mitch McConnell with the president for a long time. And it just so happens that more than a couple of those are on Judiciary Committee, which is where the Todd Blanche nomination for attorney general will have to clear. Republicans only have a one seat majority on that committee. It will just take a couple people to keep it from coming out of the committee with recommendation. Still could bring it to the floor, but I wouldn't see John Thune doing that.
COATES: Well, Mimi, the transcript of the interview with the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, that's now out. And she did say that Blanche was in charge of the entire release of the Epstein files. Now, you had high hopes for Blanche after his deputy A.G. appointment. Will his record so far make an already tough confirmation, particularly given weaponization, despite even harder?
MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: Well, Laura, I think it should. You know, my hopes about Mr. Blanche were quickly dashed very early on because, you know, he really has shown that he has never left the role of being President Trump's defense attorney. And it was appropriate for him to be a defense attorney and to fight vigorously for him in that role, but that is absolutely not his job now.
And, you know, I could tell, frankly, that Blanche was the one in charge of the whole Epstein release.
COATES: How?
ROCAH: You know, we saw it with him interviewing Maxwell and giving her this benefit. And his excuse about the threats to her in the prison are very disingenuous at best. As Blanche knows, when people are threatened, there are other ways to deal with it other than giving them a huge benefit of being sent to a minimum-security prison that is more like a camp, especially a child predator.
And, you know, he is the one who knows how the federal system works. I mean, Bondi did not know that. She was a former state prosecutor. He knows what the FBI files and how they work. And so, he is the one who is overseeing that. That means he owns, he is responsible for the completely re-traumatizing and horrible -- I mean, I think calling it sloppy is generous -- rollout of the files, exposing names, identification, child pornography. Even after being told by lawyers that their clients were exposed, their names were still not redacted.
[23:10:00]
So, you know, anyone who votes for him, I think is -- has got to be willing to own that kind of conduct as well.
COATES: Well, you make some very sound points. In addition to that, though, the buck ought to stop with the attorney general. I can't think of a huge -- a total delegation of authority on a matter of such extraordinary importance to say that only he would be responsible for it. But, obviously, she's no longer there and vying for that role.
Miles, I want to bring you in here because today, three vulnerable Senate Republicans sided with Democrats to formally kill the Anti- weaponization fund. Ultimately, the effort failed. So, what now?
MILES TAYLOR, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST, FOUNDER OF DEFIANCE NEWS, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, look, Laura, I mean, there are two different types of failure here. One is the Republican senators, who wanted to look courageous the other week, really were actually hoping that the administration would do the job for them, and they want this Todd Blanche statement that the fund is dead to be enough because they also don't want to piss off the president.
So, people were misreporting the other week that there was a resistance in the ranks of Senate Republicans. Resistance is too strong of a word. I call it the reluctance. They're reluctant to go along with the president's agenda right now, but they don't actually have spines of steel at the moment.
So, look, here's what's going to happen: The slush fund is not going to be able to go forward in any form. Even if they don't officially put in writing that it has been revoked, this thing is going to die a slow and painful death in the courts. There are so many credible lawsuits against it. It does not survive.
But the worry here, Laura, is we have seen within 24 hours of Todd Blanche's statement, the Justice Department already start to talk about other ways to reward January 6th rioters. We are talking about cash for criminals' programs. That is what I'm worried about. And that's one more reason Republican senators are going to have pause about Todd Blanche. It is because in voting for Todd Blanche, they may be still voting to give cash to criminals.
COATES: You know, on that point -- of course, we should note, we were talking about the courts and the lawsuits that are happening. I mean, there are concerns about whether there was an actual case or controversy sufficient to have a settlement that you could actually be valid in the court of law.
But the court of public opinion, I think, is where many people are looking at, certainly senators themselves, as you know, Brad. I mean, you have a new study released by the nonprofit lawfare, found that at least 97 January 6th rioters who were charged, then pardoned by the president, have been accused of new crimes. That includes larceny and burglary and child molestation. Now, if anti-weaponization fund moves forward, let's just say, for some reason, are taxpayers who would be expected then to be writing these checks essentially, how is that going to be reconciled or viewed in terms of the midterm elections if Republicans can't put the kibosh on it? TODD: Well, presumably, first of all, I think the fund is dead. I think Todd Blanche --
COATES: Blanche said that, but --
TODD: But I think that's going to be a condition -- that will end up being a condition of his confirmation. And I think the president wants Todd Blanche to be attorney general more than he wants this fund. I think --
COATES: You think so?
TODD: You saw it today when he said was. He said it. It was in the past tense. I think -- but he trusts Todd Blanche. And it's right for the president to want an attorney general he trusts. Barack Obama had Eric Holder. Eric Holder said, I'm his wingman. You know, JFK had Bobby Kennedy. Presidents want someone they completely and totally trust to run that department, and that's legitimate. So, I think Todd Blanche is a legitimate choice for that purpose.
COATES: However, some would say you would want to trust them to run the department in a way that would honor obviously the seal, not the presidential one.
TODD: Wingman implies to do what the president wants. That's what Eric Holder's name was for the job was, and I'll take him for his word for it. But, hopefully, if there was some kind of a fund for people who had been targeted through lawfare, there'd be a process, and there'd be a public process for it to go through and for some evaluation on the merits of the claims. I mean, there are people who have been the victims of weaponized government, and Donald Trump, in some ways, has certainly been that. You know, we also know that 15 years ago, the IRS was targeting conservative groups. They admitted it. Those people were victims of lawfare.
So, these things do exist. I would hope that if we had a fund to compensate people for that, there would be a very public and transparent and objective process.
COATES: Mimi, I'd like you to comment on this because, obviously, if there is a verdict against the government or there is some sort of legal conclusion or determination that somebody has been wronged by the government, there is a process by which you can go that does not include the weaponization fund that's at issue here. But, Mimi, what's your response to the idea that these particularly January 6th rioters who were charged, some of who have been recharged, that they might ultimately believe they have a valid reason to get this money?
[23:15:00]
ROCAH: Well, I mean, look, there are so many layers of problems here. I mean, first of all, as you said, and I think it is really important to reiterate it, this fund is -- this so-called fund is solving a problem that does not exist. There are people who have been wronged by the Department of Justice and the criminal justice system under every administration, Democrats and Republicans. And there are mechanisms in place for them to be compensated.
The January 6 defendants, I'm using that term broadly, were not wronged. I mean, Trump may feel that they are, they may feel that they were, and certain people may not have liked their prosecutions, but they received fair process. There were before trials and juries. They had lawyers. I mean, these were not wrongful prosecutions, even if people don't like them.
So, they can bring lawsuits. I guess they can try. But this idea that they are entitled to payment, I mean, because President Trump decided to pardon them and throw out valid convictions by juries and judges, including Trump-appointed judges, doesn't mean they're entitled to anything, let alone money.
And I just want to make one other point about the weaponization fund. You know, even if it is dead, so to speak, in the form that they were trying to do, which was very brazen, what we're seeing, as Miles suggested, is that they're going to maybe try to do it in some backhanded way. So, the senators, you know, shouldn't just -- who don't like it should not just -- and whose constituents aren't going to like it shouldn't just accept the fund is dead. What else are you doing? And what about that sort of super pardon for President Trump that no one is taking off the table?
COATES: Clearly, the trust but verify is in order. Mimi, Miles, thank you. Brad, stand by, please, because up next, new problems for Democrat Graham Platner's Senate campaign in Maine. "The New York Times" is out with new allegations about his behavior towards women. And tonight, Platner is responding. We'll have reaction from the people who matter most, the voters in Maine. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You see what's happening in California. They're rigging the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And later, the painfully slow vote count in California fueling Trump's baseless claims of cheating. Congressman Mike Levin of California standing by to respond and set the record straight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, new allegations against Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner. "The New York Times" spoke with six women who dated him in the past. Three of them described volatile and toxic relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching. The allegations include heavy drinking and infidelity and comments that were demeaning toward women.
One woman who dated Platner from roughly 2013 to 2015 claims he was physically threatening. The Times reports -- quote -- "he regularly grabbed her by the shoulders -- sometimes hard enough to leave marks -- and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car."
Now, Platner is denying claims of physical intimidation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER, MAINE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: There are some allegations in this piece that -- I just want to be kind of unequivocal about -- are simply not true. Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of someone who is politically motivated.
In this piece, there is a lot about my struggling, not being a good boyfriend, certainly self-medicating with alcohol. And I've been very up front since the beginning of this campaign that that was a pretty dark period of my life after I came back from a combat service, and that's what that combat -- that's what that kind of life looks like.
And so, there are things in this that I absolutely will take responsibility for and have been speaking about openly for months now, but those serious allegations are just not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My next guest knows Maine politics inside and out. Deputy editor of the Midcoast Villager and former NBC News reporter, Alex Seltz-Wald. Good to see you, Alex. I mean, I know you've heard from voters after reports broke that Platner was sexting with other women. But what has the reaction been like and what is different than the response to the tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol that he later had covered up?
ALEX SEITZ-WALD, DEPUTY EDITOR OF MIDCOAST VILLAGER, FORMER SENIOR NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER FOR NBC NEWS: Yes, Laura. I was just at a birthday party actually where this New York Times story was the talk of the party. Everyone was discussing it. Most of the people there were Platner supporters, and they said they felt really disappointed. One even used the word heartbreaking to describe what they read in there and also the sexting allegations. They were kind of fine with the Reddit and the tattoo stuff. They thought that was all behind him, he had moved on, and they believed this narrative of recovery that he had told everyone.
And now, these new revelations are showing that, you know, he's maybe not exactly who they thought he was. They thought he was this really good guy. They also all said they were angry at him for what this is doing to his wife, Amy, who is from one town over from me. Some of the people there know her personally. They feel quite upset about that.
That said, they all still said that they would vote for him against Susan Collins in November because, as one said, what choice do we have? He's almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee, and they just feel the stakes are too high with the control of the Senate, the Supreme Court, everything else. [23:25:01]
And that reflects what we heard when we asked our readers at the Midcoast Villager, midcoastvillager.com, by the way, what they thought. And one woman I thought summed up really well when she said, I feel sickened that I have to vote for him. So, she's going to vote for him, but she's not going to be happy about it. It's going to make a lot of Democrats feel like hypocrites for stances that they've taken in the past.
And there was some discussion this is still an outside chance. But there is a provision in Maine law to change the nominee. It would require Platner dropping out by July 13th. And then there would be this really quick turnaround. July 27th would be the date that they have to name a new primary, a new candidate.
I've heard some rumblings about an idea that maybe the runner up in the gubernatorial race, because we have a very crowded field there, maybe that person could get in. But, you know, people are not happy. They'll vote for the Democrat if they have to, but they're looking around for other options, and even a few defections could be enough to keep Susan Collins in power.
COATES: Alex Seitz-Wald, fascinating. Thank you so much.
I want to bring in back with me Brad Todd. And also joining us tonight, political strategist and senior advisor of "Our Republican Legacy," Rina Shah. Well, that was interesting to me, in particular to hear about the idea of almost the hold your nose and vote, the stakes being so high. He described compartmentalization that many people criticized Trump voters in the administration number one and others for doing similarly. Rina, when you hear this, do you think that the new reporting is likely to change the campaign and those who say, well, look, this is the choice I'm making regardless?
RINA SHAH, POLITICAL STRATEGIST AND COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISOR OF OUR REPUBLICAN LEGACY, GEOPOLITICAL RISK ADVISER: This reporting about multiple women, I think, that he has been rough with in various ways, right? I think it has a potential to change things. I mean, we saw this happen so recently with Eric Swalwell. But the difference there is that that was a Democrat in a field of Democrats. And so, the vulnerability wasn't there. Who could they pick now if they get rid of Graham Platner? But I'm also thinking --
COATES: Well, Janet -- I mean, Mills, she is on the ballot, right?
SHAH: She's also very highly unlikable in the state. And so, people really do want to rip Susan Collins, right? They want to get rid of her. They want to be done. So, they are almost saying what is the choice, right? It's the devil I know to be able to stick it to Trump here.
This is so big on so many levels because I think, again, this is him asking people in Maine to trust him with power, but also to be a member of one of the most exclusive clubs in the world, 100 people, U.S. senators. This is no joke. This isn't the House of Representatives, which I love, no offense, did my career there.
But when I think about this, it's beyond private texts. It's about judgment and accountability. It's also about transparency and fitness. So, the many layers here, I think, are getting muddled. We can't look at this like we have other scandals.
COATES: And yet scandals we have and looked at, including one from the Oval Office through members of the Senate and the House as well. I do wonder about the threshold and the level of impatience voters really may or may not have. I mean, Senate Democrats, they've been all over the place on Platner. Just watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA: What kind of a creeper has been on a decade on a platform like Kick and send a dozen explicit kinds of messages and who knows what else?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Because he doesn't stand up for working people. Is he a saint? I guess not. I don't know too many saints (ph) here.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It sounds like he has your support, senator.
UNKNOWN: Well, I am -- I am convinced that he is manning (ph) on all of the right issues for our country right now.
SANCHEZ: So, why not say that you endorse him?
UNKNOWN: In my opinion, he has taken the issues, and he has galvanized a grassroots movement all across Maine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know when Boris is smiling. He knew that question was not answered. But how will this question be answered by the Susan Collins campaign? How do we use that?
TODD: Well, first off, all those Democrats are scared to death. And they're not scared to death of Susan Collins who votes with him often, by the way. And she voted with him on Obama's stimulus, on Obama's infrastructure bill, Biden's infrastructure bill. She voted against Amy Coney Barrett, for Sonia Sotomayor, for Elena Kagan, for Ketanji Brown Jackson. She votes with Democrats on big stuff.
But those Democrats you heard there are scared to death of grassroots Democrats who want the badness of Graham Platner. Remember, he broke into the public consciousness when he said, if you don't like election officials and what elected officials and what they're doing, yell at them in dinner, don't let them have dinner in peace in public. Graham Platner has been a violent, impulsive, rhetorically violent man for a long time, and that's why Maine Democrats took to him. COATES: Well, he has said that he, at times, disavowed his previous comments on, say, Reddit and other means in that respect and talks about who he is currently versus who he has been. But that juxtaposition, I hear your point in terms of how it could be used by Republicans trying to say, look, this is what you're going to get, just go with who you know. What do you say?
[23:30:03]
SHAH: Well, I think your points are perfectly saying why people don't want Mills, why they wanted to knock her off and why they wouldn't want her to replace Platner. That's my feeling. If you really talk to people in Maine, you have that contingent that is very happy with Collins, but also there is that frustration with wanting to check the administration. So, I don't want to repeat myself here, but I do want to say this feels like a moment in which things should shift, but they just won't because of the political environment around this. And Ken Paxton, it comes to mind, for example.
COATES: Well, Nia-Malika Henderson wrote a fact to piece in Bloomberg on this very comparison. Go ahead.
SHAH: I can't wait to dig in because I think the thing is Ken Paxton has survived his own scandals through loyalty politics. And now, Democrats are risking the same thing with Platner, which you see as the same playbook here. Downplay character, attack the messenger, and hope the base turnout saves you. But voters in really swingy states are really sick of that playbook. That's a test here.
TODD: You know, I've been playing critical, Ken Paxton. But Texas Republicans have a choice of Talarico, who is far, far left. Maine Democrats have a choice of Janet Mills, who is also a liberal, or Susan Collins, who's the most liberal Republican in the Senate. They have two other good choices. They don't have to take this very flawed individual.
COATES: Well, the voters have spoken already. Brad and Rina, thank you both so much.
Up next, Trump explains why Bill Pulte, a guy with no national security experience, was tapped to temporarily run the Office of National Intelligence. Plus, California facing backlash for its slow vote count. We'll have an update on where the races stand and a debate on whether it's time for the state to change its rules, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Already two days since polls closed in California, and we're still waiting to see who will make the November runoffs. In the governor's race, Republican Steve Hilton is maintaining a tight lead against Democrat Xavier Becerra, but there's still 40 percent of the vote left to go. And in the mayor's race, Spencer Pratt maintains his second- place spot with 66 percent of the vote in. There's still a lot of counting left to go.
And now, the president is saying, without evidence, fraud. He wrote on Truth Social -- quote -- "There's big cheating by the Democrats" -- excuse me, he said Democrats -- "in California," adding a federal investigation is underway. And he repeated the baseless claims also in the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You see -- so, what's happening in California? They're rigging the election. They think it's going to be seven or eight days before we know who won the election. But the numbers are looking strange because without any vote counting, the numbers dropped very precipitously for two Republicans that are doing well, that had been doing well. And I hope you're all watching it because I'm watching it very closely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We are. And there is no evidence of any fraud presented. The reason it takes so long to count in California, and it is long, is because of the state's policies. Every registered voter receives a mail-in ballot. They can be postmarked up to election day, and they have to be received no later than seven days after election day, and then you still have 10 days to cure signature verification issues.
Joining me now, Democratic congressman from California, Mike Levin. Good to see you, congressman. I mean, look, these kinds of fraud allegations made by the president of the United States, they have really become par for the course for him. A number of seeds he has planted over the years. But are you concerned that there may be some who are buying into the allegations of fraud given the delay in California?
REP. MIKE LEVIN (D), CALIFORNIA: You know, Laura, I've heard the president for years rail against California elections. And I will tell you that as somebody that has had to wait for that count every election for the last several elections that, of course, we'd like for it to go faster. But the principles that every eligible voter has to have their vote counted, and we have the law in California that says if you turn that ballot in and it's postmarked on election day, that there will be enough time to count the ballot. One thing that is --
COATES: Seven days they have from that. Unlike other states, like Florida, for example, who had their own issues, they have postmarked by that date and it can be counted. People have suggested that.
LEVIN: Correct. Correct. And look, I think there is a new law in effect this election, we're going to see how it works, the governor has signed that says that all those registrars in all of our counties have to get everything counted within basically two weeks. So, we should have pretty much all the results to determine the outcome of all of our races up and down the state by the middle of the month.
COATES: Do you want that faster? I mean, you must want it faster, too. It's a long time. LEVIN: As a candidate, of course, you do.
COATES: But as a voter, they want to know who represents them or who has a viable chance to do so.
LEVIN: Absolutely. I would say we're a big state. We have to do it as quickly as possible while still maintaining the principle that every eligible voter can have their vote counted fairly and properly. And I think we should look for whatever ways we can to continue to accelerate the count.
COATES: You don't see a delay as fraud.
LEVIN: Absolutely not. And there's no evidence whatsoever, any sort of objective evidence from any rational person who has looked at this through any sort of objective lens, who has reached any different conclusion.
COATES: I want to travel with you a little bit to some of the races that are happening. You've got Steve Hilton. You've got Spencer Pratt. And even if neither end up winning, they have made their mark in terms of their claims that this should not be a sort of one-party rule in California.
[23:40:00]
Spencer Pratt alone has given a run for the money of an incumbent mayor who previously was a member of Congress. And, of course, Hilton, you know his history as well. I mean, should Democrats be concerned by the performances of these two in particular?
LEVIN: I think Democrats should not be complacent, I think we have to meet voters where they are, and I think we always try to learn from every election. I will tell you, though, that at the end of the day, I think we're going to have a great Democratic governor, and we're going to have a great Democratic mayor. And having served with Karen Bass, I really hope that she will win. And I think that it's certainly looking like Xavier Becerra will be our next governor in California, but we'll wait for every vote to be counted fairly and properly as we just discussed.
COATES: Should Democrats, however, incorporate some of the dismay and disdain that seems to be apparent for those who are saying, look, I don't like what has happened so far? Even if they ultimately end up becoming, you know, incumbents as Democrats, is there a lesson to be learned even from how they have performed?
LEVIN: I think there's always a lesson. At every election, I try to learn from what has happened. And, for me, I've always done very well with independent voters. And, again, trying to meet people where they are and recognizing that most people are not as tuned in to day-to-day politics.
And you have to ultimately respond to the concerns. Clearly, the concerns today are costs. Everything is too expensive, not just in California, but everywhere, and we have to respond to that. Inflation, the economy. But people are also deeply concerned about the corruption that they're seeing in this country. It is unprecedented, and they are demanding that we stand up and we stop it.
COATES: You actually have, along with your colleagues, AOC and Jason Crow. You've recently launched what's called the End Corruption Caucus. What would the main priorities be and how would you effectuate the end of corruption?
LEVIN: I think the key is taking all of that anger and that resentment out there that we see towards these unprecedented acts of corruption and turning it in to an actual legislative platform that we can enact. If we're so fortunate to take back the Congress, ultimately to take back the White House, things like getting the dark money out of our political system, banning members of Congress from being able to trade stock.
There are a whole host of other ideas out there. We need to compile them, and we need to enact the ones that will ultimately pass. And look, it's not going to be easy. None of this is easy. The Supreme Court has made it even more difficult on the campaign finance side. But we've got to fight back. Enough is enough.
COATES: Is part of the plan an eye towards impeachment which, normally, was the main remedy for corruption?
LEVIN: What I would say is I'm not afraid of impeachment. I voted twice to impeach the president of the United States.
COATES: But not for Noem. Right? The timing of that, you thought, was inappropriate.
LEVIN: That is correct. And it turned out that that situation resolved itself with Kristi Noem. And there's still more to learn about Kristi Noem. Here's the thing: Because we haven't had actual oversight and we haven't had an actual functioning Department of Justice under the Trump 2.0, we really don't know the extent to which Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski were engaged in corrupt acts. We're going to find out. And I think they'll be held to account as they should be.
COATES: I want to ask you about Bill Pulte because the president was asked today about his decision to name the housing official, again, his name is Bill Pulte, as the acting DNI despite lacking experience in the area of intelligence. Listen to his answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's an acting position. It's not permanent. He's not going to be permanent because, you know, I don't think he would want to be permanent. But he's a very smart guy. He may find out some things about the rigged elections, etcetera, etcetera. I think he would like to do it. I would like to -- I think he wants to do it very much, get a lot of energy. But he'll be very good. Again, it's not a permanent position.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean, I don't know what temporary looks like and how long that is. You can make a lot of headway or problems if you were even temporarily in a position. Do you think an acting DNI ought to be investigating rigged elections even if it's on a temporary basis, the president says?
LEVIN: Well, certainly not if it's -- the allegations is a domestic one rather than a foreign one. That's specifically not what the DNI is supposed to do. And Pulte's only qualification seems to be his willingness to go after Donald Trump's enemies, which is what he has been doing, ginning up crazy investigations and really doing whatever the president has wanted.
So, I see the through line for him and Todd Blanche as well as being loyalty, as being willingness to do whatever it takes. Whether it's legal or illegal, whether it's corrupt, they really don't seem to care. And that seems to be their main thing they have going for them. That's all this president seems to care about.
COATES: Concerning to say the least. Congressman Mike Levin, thank you.
LEVIN: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, Trump scrapped the Freedom 250 concert and announces a rally with him and Lee Greenwood instead. Is the president making America's anniversary about him?
[23:45:00]
Plus, inside Obama's presidential center as he lays out his legacy and what he says he's not responsible for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Trump making it official, scrapping the Freedom 250 concert and will instead headline his own rally on the National Mall. Quote -- "A rally to end all rallies! We don't want singers with no talent, but big fees to put you to sleep, we've told them all to stay home. All we want is you, me, a few speakers, and the greatest music ever played."
Trump's decision to inject himself in several 250 events has led to a debate over just how political this anniversary is becoming. A recent op-ed in USA Today compared America at 250 with America at 200 back in 1976. Quote -- "The vibe at 250, however, is completely different from the feeling at 200. We still had a sense of oneness then. We no longer do."
[23:50:01]
Let's discuss why that might be with CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur. So glad to have you here. I want to get your thoughts on this op-ed, but tell me why, if you think so, this anniversary does feel different to people.
LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, HISTORIAN: So, I think the biggest thing I'll find is that we have a president that is largely and hugely divisive, and has been very clear about the fact that he is president of a certain group of people and would celebrate the idea of punishing the other group of people, and has been very open about retaliating against, you know, holding grudges, going after a very specific enemies list.
I mean, if we look at 1976 in comparison, we've just come -- the United States had just come out of a period where another president, who also had an enemies list, had actually been punished for that, had been forced to resign because of the scandal surrounding all of ideas of corruption, bribery, breaking and entering. And it was just coming out of that period, America was deeply angry, and they were very untrusting of political institutions. And so, for a lot of people, one, Republicans were punished at the ballot box in 1976.
But the other part of it is that increasingly politicians, civic organizations, looked for moments to bring people together to overcome all of the things that the country was going through because it wasn't just there are some similarities with today, right? So, it's not just that they're overcoming this massive kind of political disaster, but it's also that there's stagflation, there's inflation, there's high unemployment.
COATES: There's a real lack of civil rights gains.
WRIGHT RIGUEUR: Right. And people are suffering. But the vision that we see from political institutions, from politicians who understand the dire nature of the moment is one that is about unity. Let's bring people together under the banner of America at 200. We're not seeing that today.
COATES: Let's talk about what we are seeing because the Obama Presidential Library and Museum, it's about to open. Obama was recently asked whether he sees Trump's election as a repudiation of his presidency. And his response was, no, actually. 60 percent of the country still agrees with me, referring, of course, to his approval ratings. As a historian, how do you see it?
WRIGHT RIGUEUR: So, I think Obama is doing something that is actually groundbreaking and actually may be inspirational for Donald Trump, so we should watch it closely, which is that he has established what is essentially a museum that cements his legacy and makes it untouchable by political institutions, in particular federal political institutions.
So, it doesn't matter if Donald Trump is changing the Smithsonian or the museum for African-American history and culture. It doesn't matter if Donald Trump is saying, I want to roll back DEI, we're going to go on an anti-woke push.
It doesn't matter if Donald Trump is getting up in front of the country and saying, you know, Barack Obama is a treasonous, is a traitor to the United States, because Barack Obama has cemented an institution, quite literally in Chicago, that is his legacy and has borne the cost. It is not a federal institution. It is a private institution that is funded by private donors. He controls what goes into it. He also controls the vision that comes out of it. Donald Trump has no say in that. And I think part of it is him saying, this is what I want my legacy to be, which is a very specific image of America.
COATES: One thing that historian -- CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali, who was in charge of the Nixon Library, as you know, he was quoted in "The New York Times" as saying, there's no doubt Obama was an inspirational president, but -- quote -- "He wasn't a transformational president in the mold of F.D.R. or Reagan, despite being their peer in terms of being a once-in-a-generation political talent." Is that a fair assessment?
WRIGHT RIGUEUR: You know, I love Tim, and Tim is one of the historians that has inspired me, inspired me when I was a very young graduate student. I did a lot of work at the Nixon archives and the Nixon presidential papers. And normally, Tim and I are 100 percent on the same page. We are not 100 percent on the same page on this.
And I think we have to look at Barack Obama as a complete or composite and not just think about what is his legacy in terms of policy, but also what does he represent in terms of his position. He is a once-in- a- generation politician. And it matters that he is the first Black president. It also matters that he puts in place a policy legacy, even though it's imperfect, that has a long-lasting impact to be far beyond his presidency.
COATES: Really important point. Leah Wright Rigueur, as always, thank you so much.
Up next, World Cup ticket prices are out of control. I mean, tickets for the NBA finals, forget it. And now, tickets for a movie are hitting a thousand bucks? What? Next.
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it is time to bring in our friend, Elex Michaelson. So good to see you. You have been --
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.
COATES: -- working very hard in California. So, let's take a little escapism for a second because, I want you to know, moviegoers have rushed to buy tickets for Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey" today, and they overwhelmed the AMC website. I mean, some of those tickets are already showing up online for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. So, I want to know from you, would you ever buy a movie ticket that's over face value?
MICHAELSON: No!
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Not for thousand bucks? MICHAELSON: How stupid is that?
COATES: What? Not for a thousand?
MICHAELSON: The experience doesn't get better. I get it for like a Knicks ticket or something where it's like a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but it's the same "Odyssey," whether you watch it on Friday night or Saturday night.
[00:00:01]
COATES: Well, a Knicks ticket --
MICHAELSON: Would you?
COATES: -- would be a thousand bucks. It'd give you like a popcorn maybe. And they want you to know it's not a once-in-a-lifetime. All right, Elex, it was important question, though. What food are you buying?
MICHAELSON: So, I like popcorn, obviously. But I'm a big fan of Sour Patch Kids at a movie. And I really like that we now have the feeders that serve the alcohol, which is --
(LAUGHTER)
-- which is a great addition to the movie going experience. What about you?
COATES: I like popcorn, I like Goobers, and I often sneak in beef with broccoli.
MICHAELSON: What?
COATES: I mean, look, everyone is different. Have a great show. I do.
MICHAELSON: What does that smell like for everybody?
COATES: Smells delicious.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: OK. All right. I like that.
COATES: Beef with broccoli, Elex.
MICHAELSON: Laura, thank you so much. Have a great night.
COATES: Bye.
MICHAELSON: We got to go to a movie together, apparently.
