Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Says He "Wouldn't Mind" if New Spy Chief Makes Cuts; Xavier Becerra Will Advance to Governor's Race; Justice Department Lawyers Said the Courts are Powerless to Intervene in the Dispute Over the former East Wing; Astronauts Told to Seek "Safe Haven" Due to ISS Cracks. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 05, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: President Trump says he wants his new acting DNI to be less shackled and free to start cutting. Plus, call it the Statue of Liberty defense. Trump's DOJ claims no one can stop the White House ballroom construction, and the president could even tear down Lady Liberty if he wanted to. And a leak scare on the ISS forces astronauts to seek shelter. Could it happen again on the aging space station? It's all tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, the DOGE playbook is coming back. And this time, the target, the intelligence community. Yes, I'll say that old chainsaw is getting the rush shaken off and being retrofitted with a security clearance.
But it won't be Elon Musk wielding it. It will be Bill Pulte, President Trump's new acting director of national intelligence, a guy with no known national security experience. In fact, sources are telling us he didn't even have his own security clearance before Trump picked him. The vetting process just started yesterday.
Before this, Pulte was Trump's top housing official, better known for going after Trump's political enemies over alleged mortgage fraud, not for handling some of the nation's biggest secrets.
But Trump is standing by him, and he wants to start cutting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He'll do a very good job. He'll watch it closely. But Bill Pulte is very good. He's very talented.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And you want him to cut the number of people working there?
TRUMP: I wouldn't mind. I've heard that's way too high for way too long. Yes, I wouldn't mind if he cut. I wouldn't mind that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, here's what gets interesting. Trump has said that Pulte isn't his permanent DNI pick, he's temporary, and it may be because Republican senators are all a bit signaling good luck trying to get him confirmed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I think he's the worst form of sycophant and advisor to the president.
SEN. TODD YOUNG (R), INDIANA: I'm waiting on the administration to explain to us credentials.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R), NORTH DAKOTA: Well, I think it's a funny pick, to say the least.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Trump does not seem to see any of that as a problem. He told "The Wall Street Journal" that having Pulte in an acting role makes him less shackled. It actually gives him more power, even if it's for a limited period of time. Trump says, frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come because if he reduced the size, in conjunction with me and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in, he can do a lot of the hard work, and we wouldn't have to saddle somebody that goes in.
The president is all but admitting it's using a loophole, an end run around that confirmation process. Pulte could be there just long enough to swing the chainsaw exactly how Trump wants, then send in a loyalist, then do the hard work or the dirty work, the bulldozing perhaps, then the actual nominee can show up after the walls are already torn down, and that work may not stop at cutting staff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't think he'd want to be permanent. But he's a very smart guy. He may find out some things about the rigged elections, et cetera, et cetera. I think he'd like to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not just one, et cetera. Two. And having the DNI drive cuts is one thing. Keeping the office tied up in Trump's bogus election fraud claims is entirely something else. And doing both while the country is dealing with a war and focusing on threats at home, these real risks are obvious. It's also worth remembering the last time Trump handed someone a chainsaw, I mean, it got messy, it got really messy. And tonight, Trump is describing Elon Musk this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, look, Elon, he had a bad moment. But now, he's a friend of mine again. He had a very bad moment. He's 80 percent brilliant. And 20 percent, he's got little bad moments. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to begin with former counsel and assistant attorney general for national security, Jamil Jaffer, former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, who served as senior director on the National Security Council under President Clinton, and former spokesperson for Senator Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, Rick Tyler. Glad to have all of you guys here this evening. There's so much to cover.
I'll begin with you, Rick, because the president has said that his goal for Pulte is to act as kind of a disruptor. What is your expectation for what that would mean and how this might play out?
RICK TYLER, FORMER NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON, TED CRUZ'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Nobody knows.
COATES: Will that concern you?
TYLER: Yes, because the office of -- ODNI maybe need to reform. I don't know enough to know what needs to be reformed. Is it too big? Probably too big. But this isn't a serious reform. You can tell why by the president because he always gives himself away. He said it's about elections.
[23:05:02]
By the way, the DNI is in charge of foreign intelligence services, which aren't supposed to be looking at domestic, only foreign interference. So, that's one.
And two, cut what? For what? I mean, reform is fine, but tell us what the reform is for. What's wrong? What's broken? And does this guy have any experience to actually reform it? And, apparently, he doesn't. Also, he has a record. His record is to be a hatchet man for Trump and to exact revenge. And I'm very concerned when someone is unshackled with national security intelligence seekers. It doesn't sound like a good reform plan to me.
COATES: I mean, I'm struck especially, congressman, by the idea that president sees the acting status as a major benefit to him, that he might have more power. Now, one could read that to think that means he has no oversight and could do what he wants. That's certainly very powerful. I think it is the American people.
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah, it just means he doesn't answer to anyone but one man. He doesn't answer to Congress. He doesn't have to report or get confirmed. And, you know, I really pity anyone who has to defend this today.
You mentioned he has no security clearance. That means he has never in his life seen a classified document. He has never in his life been briefed on a classified matter by anyone in the U.S. government. He has no idea how they do their job. Sorry, I'm thinking about the NBA finals tonight and my beloved Knicks. It would be as if my team hired a basketball coach who has never stepped on a basketball court. The fans would go crazy.
So, it shows utter disrespect for the work that these professionals do to keep us safe from terrorism and from our nation's enemies around the world, which is the job.
COATES: This is your wheelhouse in so many ways in terms of thinking about this, Jamil, because the federal statute for DNI, and this is not like, you know, a preference, the statute actually says that the nominee shall have extensive national security expertise. Now, one way, I suppose you could try to get around this to suggest, well, it doesn't actually talk about somebody in an acting position. That's the confirmation process, the vetting. But, I mean, the substance of what is actually required and what they want to have given the timing when this is enacted is quite obvious.
JAMIL JAFFER, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, LEAD ARCHITECT OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REVIEW ACT, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, that's exactly right. I mean, the president knows why he put Bill Pulte in place, right? He knows why he's put in there in this temporary capacity. He knows why he's not nominating him. Right?
COATES: For the permanent position.
JAFFER: For the permanent position. It's clear. And so, the question then is, what is he doing there? Look, the reality is the DNI's office probably does need reform, right? It does need to be slimmed down. You know, Tulsi Gabbard is trying to cut it down. She had ODNI 2.0. She's going to cut it by 40 percent. Senator Cotton has talked about cutting it down to 650 FTE.
You know, ODNI has gotten bloated. There's little doubt about that. There's a lot of people -- former DNI Mike McConnell will tell you that, right? So, the question then just becomes, OK, if ODNI needs to be slimmed down, who's the right person to do it? What's the right way to do it?
COATES: Or the timing.
JAFFER: Or the timing. And you need congressional buy in (ph). What role do they play? But it's not like we didn't know where the president is on these things. We didn't know the kind of president we're getting. He's going to move swiftly. He is going to move with executive action. And if Congress lets him get away with it, he'll keep the acting people in place, keep them there as long as possible. And so, maybe that means the (INAUDIBLE) Reform Act needs be modified.
I mean, look, Congress has a role to play here. They keep a pressure on the president in a variety of ways. You saw some Republican senators there talking about Bill Pulte's nomination -- you know, his qualification. But the question then is -- they have other tools as well. They can use oversight hearings or other parts of the government. They can use budgetary authority. If the legislative branch wants to do its job, it can. The problem is Congress has been a sleeping switch for the last year and a half. If they want to be influential, they can.
COATES: What is to stop him from doing this for those very reasons and run around the confirmation process continuously? Other cabinet positions, frankly.
MALINOWSKI: Yes. There's some serious damage. The guy is an idiot. He's incompetent. So, there are some things I'm not worried about. But here are a couple of consequences. Number one, our foreign intelligence partners, while this guy is acting, are they going to be trusting the U.S. intelligence community with the intelligence that they need to share so that we can be safe? I'm not so sure. Number two --
COATES: By the way, on that point, there's already concerns about the trust relationship between the United States and other allies.
MALINOWSKI: Now, we have -- we have a CIA that's still under professional leadership. But this -- this will hurt. Number two, Congress right now is debating the reauthorization of what's known as Section 702, the authority that allows the intelligence community to look at, under hopefully good safeguards, information that's incidentally collected about Americans.
I might have voted for that as a member of Congress, as a Democrat, with the proper safeguards. No way would I vote for it while this guy is in charge of that president, to give this guy the ability to spy on Americans.
[23:10:00]
TYLER: Which is why it recently failed. Because this is position of public trust. This is the -- this is the most senior person informed to tell the president about intelligence decisions around the world, all the things that -- look, a Supreme Court justice, I think by law and by Constitution, could be a child from Zimbabwe. I'm not picking on Zimbabwe. But I don't think anybody had in mind that a Supreme Court justice should be that. That it should be -- here, they have the law spelled out.
This is not a series. And this is an end run around what the intention of the law is supposed to be. It doesn't fit with Trump, absolutely. We can go down the list. But this is too dangerous. National security is a very -- you know, it keeps us safe, and it should keep us safe.
COATES: You know, everyone has been stopping at the idea of what the qualifications are under that code of the 50 U.S. Code 323 about the qualifications.
But I want everyone to understand as well, to the point you guys are talking about, there's also a prohibition on dual service. They're saying that the person in that position shall not, while so serving, serve as the director of the CIA or as the head of any other element of the intelligence community. Why? They want the independent oversight to figure out that somebody is trustworthy in this position.
But I also wonder about this idea of Congress being able to do something about it because we have seen, time and time again, the concern of many American people who say, well, that breaking case of emergency, nothing is in the glass, nothing is behind it. And people look at this and say, OK, well, now, what? You've said why, you know the reasons why, but how can they do something about it?
JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, I think -- I think Congress can do something today, right?
COATES: They can, but will they?
JAFFER: Well, that's the whole problem, right? I mean, if Congress is upset about the way the president is running the executive branch or the things he's doing, they have power to. It's not OK to simply say, OK, look, let's go to the president, right? He may be doing things wrong. He may put the wrong eye at the job.
But Congress can do something about it tomorrow. They can fence the funds for ODNI tomorrow if they wanted to. They're not going to do that. They can their authority back. In fact, if they do, what Congressman Malinowski suggested, which is to not reauthorize 702, that will not hurt ODNI, that's going to hurt America.
COATES: Yes.
JAFFER: Section 702 is the single most important surveillance authority we have. It produces about 60 percent of the content of the president's daily brief, right? Taking that away, not reauthorizing it or doing what they did, these short-term reauthorizations, will be a massive error. That's not about Bill Pulte. That is not about anything but the American people's safety. If Congress doesn't do its job by June 12th, that's their fault, and they will fail.
COATES: One concern, I mean, if 60 percent for the daily briefing with the president is that, you have to wonder given the president's stated priorities and even his statements recently that he wants him to look at everything and make determination, including about releasing classified documents and the 2020 election. You wonder if that's going to be an inverted pyramid of things that are unrelated to national security, but instead elections, which is not the work of the DNI.
TYLER: Priorities are completely upside down. You know, we're talking about national security here, and he's talking about whether he was ripped off in the 2020 election or whether there's a few leftover Biden, Obama people, which I assume are actually working for the country unless they're doing otherwise. And we have a process for that. But the president should concern himself with previous appointees.
And the whole thing is backwards. If you want to do reform, do serious reform. If it needs reform, we should do that. But don't put in a guy who has no experience doing reform, and then list off your personal enrichment agenda.
COATES: You know, acting can be a loose term in some ways, but there's enough damage that can be done even acting for a week. Jamil, thank you so much. Tom, Rick, please stand by. Next, we finally have a projection in the California governor's race that happened on Tuesday. But now, the DOJ is sending in a prosecutor to watch ballot counting in L.A. the day after Trump baselessly accused the state of cheating. California Congressman Kevin Kiley is here to respond. Plus, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner rallies in Maine and pushes back on the allegations that have recently come out against him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER, MAINE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Now, as every single piece of that past and journey gets dug up, litigated, and weaponized, you have my back.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, CNN is now projecting that Democrat Xavier Becerra will advance to the November general election. With ballots still being counted, it's not clear who he will run against. The state has long had a reputation about being slow to report election results largely because of the time it takes to count mail-in ballots. The state, remember, allows you to have seven days from the date it is post-marketed as long as it's election day to be counted.
But the state's slow pace has made it a big target for critics, including President Trump who, again, repeated false claims about election fraud during an event in Wisconsin tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You're going to be waiting weeks to get these votes. It's corrupt. Somebody said it's incompetent. I said, no, just the opposite. It's unbelievably competent if you happen to be a Democrat politician because with their policies, the only way they can get elected is to cheat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, independent California congressman who caucuses with Republicans, Kevin Kylie. Congressman, welcome back. Good to see you again. Listen, you've heard the president of United States. He has planted this seed more than once. Now, he's doing it again.
[23:20:00]
Is there any evidence you are aware of that there is any fraud in the counting of the election in California? REP. KEVIN KYLIE (I), CALIFORNIA: No, I don't think that's particularly a helpful way to characterize it because the slow counting of ballots, I think, is a problem. And it's not just me saying that. "The Washington Post" just did an editorial saying this undermines faith in democracy. "The New York Times" has done an editorial saying this is a big problem. You've had a lot of criticism across the political spectrum.
There's no reason we should be taking weeks upon weeks to count votes. All 49 other states, red or blue, basically have it done on election night if not shortly thereafter. And it does create a lot of uncertainty and instability and other problems when you drag it out like this. So, I think California does need to get its act together. But that's not --
COATES: Separately.
KYLIE: Yes.
COATES: There's no fraud that you're aware of?
KYLIE: I haven't. No. I mean, I have heard, you know, not at least in relation to counting the votes. There are issues with the ballots going out to houses where people don't live there or they've died or that sort of thing, but nothing along those lines.
COATES: Because California sends a ballot to every -- mail-in ballot to every registered voter. So, it could be completely a full scope of people who are there. CNN also learned today, though, the Department of Justice sent an attorney to observe the ballot counting in Los Angeles just this morning. You know, I've been a trial attorney in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. I have monitored many in election. Do you support the DOJ's presence for the ballot counting in California, in L.A.?
KYLIE: I don't really see why it's necessary because the campaigns have a right to be there. And so, you know, whenever the ballots are being counted, like even right now, like, you know, my campaign has people, the other campaigns have people, that's kind of your right under the law, is to observe the process. So, I don't really see the need for the federal government to be getting involved.
In that respect, I think, actually, the role that the federal government could have is just making the vote counting go faster. So, I have a bill that I've introduced with some of my colleagues in California, the Election Results Accountability Act, which says that you got to count your votes in a timely fashion as basically every other state does. As I said, this idea has brought bipartisan support. But I don't know that that's an appropriate role for the federal government.
COATES: Do you find their support in California? This is the state's policies right now. Obviously, the voters wanted some mechanism to have the widest opportunities to cast their ballot and have it counted.
KYLIE: Yes.
COATES: Are they against that?
KYLIE: I think that they're certainly frustrated with how slow things are.
COATES: The pace.
KYLIE: Yes. I mean, if you look at other blue states, Massachusetts and other states in New England, they have all kinds of voter access, all kinds of voter protections much like California, but they managed to count their votes on time.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Imagine that. OK, well, congressman, tonight the DOJ, they put in writing for the first time, in writing, that they have abandoned the anti-weaponization fund. Do you have confidence that that, in fact, is true and will stick?
KYLIE: Well, it's hard to say that I do given that, you know, this was proposed in the first place. So, why did it even get proposed? I actually voted the day after this news came out for subpoenas to be issued, to figure out exactly what went on here. So, I personally would like to see this not just, you know, in some memorandum from DOJ, but in statute. I was disappointed to see that the Senate didn't vote along those lines last night.
And so, I think that this is an area where Congress needs to exercise rigorous oversight. This was an attempt to essentially subvert the appropriations power of Congress by doing a unilateral appropriation without the involvement of Congress. The court didn't get involved to put up a stop to it. So --
COATES: Under the pretense of a settlement, you're suggesting?
KYLIE: Correct. Exactly. And that's what the court came in. So, yes, I think that we need to be doing more oversight here, and Congress does have a role to play in making sure that this does not move forward.
COATES: Why do you think this did not result any permanent ban or a codified way to ensure there wasn't just a work around later on to say, OK, well, this weaponization fund is done, but whack a mole, here's another one to try to compensate January 6 rioters?
KYLIE: Well, that's -- that's I think the point, is that we don't have that now. We don't have the assurance that that won't happen.
COATES: Why do you they don't have that, though? Why? Why did that fail?
KYLIE: Yes. I don't know. That was one vote. So, I think a lot of us are still going to be working on making sure that it doesn't fail, that we have something there that is robust, that's meaningful, and that assures us that this sort of thing is not going to be happening without congressional authorization. COATES: One other concern, well, one of many other concerns people have, frankly, but one that I'm going to focus on with you right now is that you've got the battle of the anti-weaponization fund. You also have the idea of the unprecedented protection from IRS audits for Trump and his family. And the acting A.G., Blanche, who obviously wants to be the permanent attorney general, he said this about that this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The second order that you just held up --
REP. ROSA DELAURO (D), CONNECTICUT: Right.
BLANCHE: -- and that is still -- nothing has changed with that.
DELAURO: You are moving forward with this second order.
BLANCHE: It's not moving forward. There's a settlement. There's a settlement that the IRS entered into with President Trump and others, his family and his companies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:24:56]
COATES: If the fund itself is basically under the pretext of a valid settlement, a valid case and controversy, then shouldn't it follow as well that the immunity, so to speak, and the protection would also be invalidated?
KYLIE: That seems right to me. But the broader question is, you know, how is it that you can essentially reach a settlement with yourself? Right?
COATES: Right.
KYLIE: Usually, when you're reaching a settlement, there's a give and take, there's a negotiation, one side gives something. But when you're sort of talking about a lawsuit that the person who is appointing all the leaders of the agencies brought in a civilian capacity, you're essentially negotiating with yourself.
So, I do think this is an issue that we need to look at, is, you know, making sure that this sort of inherent conflict of interest doesn't arise in future administrations as well.
COATES: Otherwise, the power of the purse might mean nothing.
KYLIE: Exactly. Yes, this is a workaround. You're right.
COATES: Congressman Kevin Kylie, thank you for joining.
KYLIE: Of course. Thanks for having me. COATES: Next, the DOJ argues in court that judges might have no power whatsoever to stop the construction of the White House ballroom. And here's where it got weird. They answered in the affirmative when they were posed with a, well, hypothetical, whether Trump could even bulldoze Statute of Liberty if he wanted to. Plus, the leak repairs onboard the ISS that sparked astronauts to seek shelter in space.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The battle over Trump's White House ballroom made its way into the courtroom today. An appeals court heard arguments from the administration over whether to reverse a lower court ruling that said the ballroom could not move forward without Congress's blessing. That ruling, as you know, had been on pause until now.
Lawyers for the administration argued that the courts have no authority to stop the ballroom at all. So, even if it was built illegally, courts can't do anything. The construction is well underway, and the ballroom is necessary for national security, they said.
Now, one of the judges pressed the administration to define the limits of the president's power.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE PATRICIA MILLETT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS (voice-over): When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?
YAAKOV ROTH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL (voice-over): I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on day one.
MILLETT (voice-over): If the government decides very quickly and bulldozes the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country. But the government moved too fast. Nothing can be done?
ROTH (voice-over): I think -- I think that's right, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. I mean, I hear that argument. Essentially, you know, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. And when you're already bulldozed, there is no action that can be taken. Is that the crux of what's happening here?
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, that has been one of the issues here with the ballroom since the beginning, right? That we have this sort of surprise demolition of the East Wing and it was really over before anybody could get to court. Another thing that came up in the courtroom today was sort of the changing explanations from the White House and even from the Justice Department about what happened here at the very beginning when they were trying to make sure the judge didn't stop what was already going on underground. They said, look, the ballroom has nothing to do with the bunkers and the security systems that we're going to put in underground. And now, they're saying that the ballroom and the sort of the cap that's going to be put over that bunker is an essential part of it. There's like no point in really building any of those other things without this ballroom structure.
And you may have seen even Trump putting out graphics that show --
COATES: Yes.
GERSTEIN: -- some kind of drone port where swarms of drones will go off the roof of the building or something like that. So, there has been a changing explanation of how critical now this ballroom is basically an essential national security measure.
COATES: Trump and other presidents have used this idea of it's for national security as a kind of blank check that is supposed to silence anyone who criticizes. One of the judges today appeared to agree with at least the balance between national security interests and, say, the underlying aspect of the lawsuit, including whether he could have done it at all.
GERSTEIN: Right. I mean, what was really interesting during the arguments was, the Justice Department's position was even if this was totally illegal, if there was a black and white statute that simply said, you know, you can't knock down this part of the White House and you can't build a ballroom, even under those circumstances, there would be no way to get an injunction here. The most you could get was a court to say this was illegal and the ball to be sort of punted into Congress's court to figure out what to do because of the national security implications.
COATES: We're here because there is an active lawsuit that has happened. It came after there had been the bulldozing and the demolition and now the rebuilding above ground aspects of it. Trump and the administration are saying there is no standing for the person who is actually bringing this case, that she feels offended professionally, personally by the aesthetic impact in Washington, D.C. Is that going to be a winning standing argument?
GERSTEIN: I mean, I think that's an argument that appeals to a lot of judicial and legal conservatives, that the standing rules around these issues are really too loose, and it seems like almost anyone can go to court.
The problem is, especially here in D.C. and the D.C. circuit, those rules are precedent and those rules are fairly loose. If the Park Service, you know, wants to put, for example, an oil rig or a mine in the middle of a national park, you can get someone who visits the park regularly and make them sort of the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit.
[23:35:02]
To challenge that, the courts have upheld that kind of standing.
COATES: And the White House is essentially falling in that criteria as a part of the Park Service?
GERSTEIN: Yes. It's within a national park called the President's Park. And there are obviously people who do go down there on a regular basis and are invested, like the woman who's being used to establish standing in this case, who works on various historical groups, and says she visits the area on a regular basis and is involved in historical preservation efforts. It's usually the kind of thing that's more than enough to get you over the relatively low bar to get into court in this kind of a battle.
COATES: This is a battle, nonetheless. Of course, the timing of it, essentially the idea that, well, it's too late now, they've already bulldozed it, may not be that convincing to every judge on that panel. Josh Gerstein, thank you so much.
GERSTEIN: Sure.
COATES: So, there's the ballroom, the 250-foot D.C. arch. Let's see, you get the newly-refurbished reflecting pool outside the Lincoln Memorial. And then at an event today in Wisconsin, which was supposed to focus on fighting for American farmers, the president touted these projects again.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TRUMP: I said, you know what? I built a lot of swimming pools. Many, swimming pools. Every time I do a development, I do swimming pools. I know more about swimming pools. I said, why can't we put the wonderful material, which is thick, pasty, beautiful like rubber, but industrial strength? Why can't we use it? And let's pick the color blue from the American flag, which is what we did. And that is the most beautiful thing that you've ever seen.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tom Malinowski and Rick Tyler are both back with me. I mean, Rick, will this focus on construction projects, I mean, will this be a liability for Republicans in November?
TYLER: No. I think -- look, it's like an 18-ring circus. You only focus on so many things. But what American farmers are focused on is that Trump's policies have been really bad for them. I mean, Stalin- like farmers better than Trump-like farmers. His tariffs, his -- the trade, the fossil fuel is used to make fertilizer, the energy cost farming is an energy intensive industry, they're getting killed, and farmers going out of business in record numbers. Like he's going out there and like it's -- he's just like it will be better in two weeks. Like stop it. COATES: Even said it might be even be better than it has been before, right? Perhaps hyperbole and all these things. I want to turn to what's going on, a vulnerability on the Democratic side and, of course, travel to Maine for this conversation because the Senate race over there obviously involves Graham Platner, who has faced his share of controversy.
He was back on the campaign trail tonight after the revelations in "The New York Times" piece since they published a report that he was engaged in unsettling behavior, we'll just say, towards women. He denies that happened. Here were his words from tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: When hurtful things I said on the internet a decade ago came out into the public, as I shared my personal journey through PTSD and darkness of recovery and accountability and growth, Maine had my back. Now, as every single piece of that past and journey gets dug up, litigated, and weaponized, you have my back.
(APPLAUSE)
And when politically motivated, serious and false accusations are made against me, Maine, you have my back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Congressman, is he handling that the right way?
MALINOWSKI: I think if a person's past keeps surprising you, it's a pretty good bet that his present and future is going to surprise you as well. I think progressive leaders in my party, I think sometimes get very excited about candidates who seem different, who may agree with them on the issues. And too often, they fail to tell their followers hard truths that they need to hear. And I think one hard truth is that this is not a person in the middle of what he refers to as his journey, his therapy. Should not be running for the United States Senate.
COATES: Well, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean told my colleague, Boris Sanchez, this earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D), PENNSYLVANIA: I think it's so distressing, all of the stories that are coming out. And they're more and more, it seems, by the hour. I'm not a voter in Maine, but he has disqualified himself in my eyes. He is not qualified to be a representative, a senator. We'll see what Maine does about it. I know Governor Mills remains on the ballot. But he has disqualified himself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, Rick, the calendar is as it is. The time would be running out on a Democratic alternative. Although she does remain on the ballot, she was not as viewed as popular as Platner in this realm. [23:40:00]
But how do Republicans seize on this, if you are Susan Collins, by the way, and not sort of shoot yourself in the foot because there's somebody who you're going to compare to in places like Texas and maybe other states where there are flawed candidates?
TYLER: Look, I know the Senate is at stake and Maine is at the head of it. But I think this race is over. I mean, OK --
COATES: In favor of?
TYLER: Susan Collins. She will win this race. Look, I'm sorry for my Nazi tattoo. I'm sorry for the things I said about women that were hurtful. I'm sorry about mistreating women. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. And yet you're going to leave out your identity crisis in public, on T.V., in this race? It's just -- it's a joke.
COATES: And why are they even in the polls somewhat if that's the case? If you've posted or written them off in that respect, why do you think it's not disqualified, at least in the eyes of voters who, by the way, were aware of the issue related to the tattoo prior to him succeeding this far?
MALINOWSKI: Well, first, I'm not going to predict what --
COATES: Right.
MALINOWSKI: -- they're going to say. I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I think, look, there is a lot of cynicism out there about government and politicians. And sometimes, that plays ironically to the favor of politicians with real problems like Donald Trump.
I mean, think of what he has gotten away with. Think about the Republican Party and Ken Paxton, who's an actual criminal. You know, members of his party tried to impeach him for actual acts of corruption. And the leader of the Republican Party stepped in to help him beat a long-serving member of the United States Senate, a real Republican who did absolutely nothing wrong. I think from a Republican point of view, I'm sure --
TYLER: And even from Donald Trump's point of view.
COATES: The skepticism might be warranted then, obviously.
MALINOWSKI: So, you know, I hope there is a way out of this. As a Democrat, I hope, frankly, that there's a way for somebody else.
TYLER: Mills is still on the ballot.
MALINOWSKI: Mills is still on the ballot.
COATES: Hold on. I've heard that again. Do you think she's a viable candidate against Susan Collins?
TYLER: I don't know. Look, there is an anger against the establishment, both in the Democratic side and the Republican side. It has been that way for a long time. The problem is when a populist movement results in an unvetted candidate, this is what you're going to get.
It's OK to be anti-establishment, I've been that way all my life, but find candidates who are qualified. And look, you can say you're sorry about all these things. You don't get -- there are consequences. You don't get to be a United States Senator.
COATES: I'm curious to see how Senator Chuck Schumer grapples with this in the event. Thank you both.
Next, a scramble onboard the International Space Station forcing astronauts to take shelter during repairs to an air leak. Is it at risk of happening again? We've got a retired astronaut here to tell us, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A temporary scare aboard the International Space Station forcing astronauts to take shelter in a docked spacecraft and prepare in case an evacuation was necessary. It was all over worsening leaks on the Russian side of the station. Two were detected and one was sealed.
But NASA says the Russian space agency wanted a more extensive repair involving cutting a bracket to reach the possible source of the leak. NASA says that could have created the elevated structural risk. The Russian space agency eventually paused the repairs, and NASA lifted the shelter order.
Joining me now, retired NASA astronaut and U.S. Air Force colonel, Cady Coleman. She spent six months working aboard the International Space Station. Thank you so much for being here. I got to have you explain to us where this leak is. It sounds very, very scary. And why it posed such a risk?
CADY COLEMAN, RETIRED NASA ASTRONAUT, RETIRED U.S. AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, any leak is going to -- oh, this is a great graphic you've got. I mean, where you're going from one end of the station to the other, or you're going from actually from the European module down to the Japanese one. But you can think of the space station as one long, long train car, so to speak, you know, without any of the seats in it, and then there are certain modules that are sticking off to either side. And now, we're starting -- we're looking at all different views. But it's really long and skinny. And at one end of it, which happens to be the Russian end, you can think of this as the front door with the front hallway.
And it's the front hallway that has some leaks just due to the metal being old and getting some cracks in it. And so, they've been actually protecting the space station by keeping literally the front door shut and, of course, the door to space shut as well. And so, having leaks in this part -- I mean, they are safe on the space station because they can keep that hatch shut. But when different ships arrive, they've got different reasons to be in that compartment, and it's limiting not to be able to use it all the time.
Today, I think that as the repair evolve, we live in a culture as NASA folks, I'm retired from there now, but what if this happens? What if this happens? And they started off saying, well, we're going to do some small repairs, we're going to put epoxy on here, and caulk up some of these leaks. But when they go to do a more extensive repair, everyone is thinking the same things on board and on the ground. OK, this is more extensive, maybe more risk.
[23:50:00]
What do we need to do to reduce the risk? And that is what we do as a routine when things are risky, which is get into our safe havens or our rescue ships and be ready to go home. There's just really no sense than having more than the two people that were needed for the repair exposed to the more risky environment. Does that make sense?
COATES: It does. I mean, you frankly had me at door to space --
(LAUGHTER)
-- thinking about having to keep that closed and wondering about what that must be like when an order comes down like that and the notion of extensive repairs. I mean, what do you make of the increased measures the Russian space agency wanted to take? I mean, that would have involved, I understand, cutting a bracket, bringing elevated risk to the area. What's supposed to happen when maybe partners in that sort of long train car are not on the same page?
COLEMAN: Well, they've had a relationship for a really long time and it's -- there's different ways. You know, it comes, it goes, it evolves. And also, there's just a language part to what people really want to do. But something to keep in mind about this leak situation is it has been going on since 2019.
COATES: Wow.
COLEMAN: And so, this is not new news. It's just that they developed a higher -- they fixed a bunch of -- they fixed leaks. And then after a ship docked in early May or late April, they discovered there was a higher leak rate, and they needed to make more repairs. So, it is something that has been controllable. And there's no reason unless there's something just wildly going on, there's no reason to say, let's make a sudden decision, when we're not all on the same page yet. And so that's what I saw happening.
COATES: I mean, just given the leak being around for as long as it has so far and knowing that the ISS is currently supposed to be retired, I think around 2030, there's a push in Congress to extend that to try to give replacements more time. Is that a mistake?
COLEMAN: I certainly think keeping the space station up there and working -- I mean, when I was up there, it was so clear in a visceral way that every single data point that you took, whether it was about, you know, how is the new air revitalization system working or the heating or the cooling or the bathroom or an experiment that shows us what happens to humans while we're up in space, every single one of those things counts. And the longer we keep that thing up there, it's so much easier to do experiments on a space station 250 miles above the Earth than it is at the moon three to six days away.
And so, at the same time, we need to keep a certain safety factor. And I trust them to think about what needs to be replaced, what doesn't need to be replaced, the agreement that we made a bunch of years ago about 2030. What can we evaluate? And does the answer change? Maybe, maybe not, but I trust them to do that evaluation.
COATES: I'm so in awe of your work. Cady Coleman, thank you so much.
COLEMAN: Well, it was great to see the videos and our little trip home. So, thanks.
COATES: Of course. Up next, the New York Knicks take a two-nothing lead over San Antonio Spurs and a wild late game comeback. So, what and who is in store for game three?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And the Knicks win. That was the moment inside Madison Square Garden just moments ago after Knicks took a two game to none lead over the Spurs in San Antonio. The series will now head back to New York for game three on Monday of this really fascinating series.
Now, it's almost midnight, so let's bring in my favorite West Coast anchor, Elex Michaelson. So good to see you. All right, look, Knicks are up two-nothing.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you, too.
COATES: Your predictions for game three?
MICHAELSON: I mean, they're going home. They're going to have all that energy. They're going to have all the celebrities.
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: It's the first game there. And for the final since '99, it feels like they're on a roll, baby. I mean, they've -- they've won a record number of playoff games in a row. I mean, I feel for the Spurs. It felt like this was the night to either even the series and really make it a series --
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: -- or to kind of potentially be swept. And Victor Wembanyama, who is so good and could be the best player of all time, eventually, has looked a little young. And maybe he's there maybe a year too soon. And it looks like it's the New York Knicks year.
COATES: Well, we'll see. I mean, one point, a one-point loss. But, again, OKC, they know the Spurs can come back. Look, today, the president of United States confirmed that he's going to be at game three on Monday. Good luck, New York traffic. He'll be in New York, and he'll be the only VIP in the building. You've got the mayor. Zohran Mamdani will also be there. So, here's my little question for you on this Friday night. If you had to guess which big name might make an unexpected appearance, who are you thinking?
MICHAELSON: Oh, man. I don't know. I don't know. Who do you think?
COATES: I think Obama will sit across from Trump.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: That would be something if it brought everybody together and that was a moment.
COATES: Wearing the Chicago Bulls jersey. That would just take it, right?
MICHAELSON: OK.
COATES: Just the whole thing. I don't know.
MICHAELSON: That would be -- that would be good. Yes.
COATES: All right, tell me --
MICHAELSON: I mean, it's going to be fun.
COATES: Tell me about your show tonight. What you have coming up?
[00:00:00]
MICHAELSON: Well, we got the registrar for L.A. County, and there's a lot of talk about vote rules in L.A.
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: So, we're going to be talking about that. We're going to be talking about the NBA finals with Derek Fisher, five-time NBA champion is coming in, who once coached the New York Knicks. So, that's going to be interesting, to hear from him. We've got Brian Tyler Cohen and Katie Zacharia debating tonight. So, it's going to be a lot of fun. And Paul Mitchell, the top data expert in California, is going to be joining us as well. So, we got a lot going on tonight.
COATES: A hell of a show. Can't wait to see it. Talk to you soon.
MICHAELSON: Happy Friday. Have a great weekend, Laura.
COATES: You, too.
MICHAELSON: All right.
