Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Deal with Iran Gets Closer, But a Breakthrough or Another Teaser; Trump Chooses Former SEC Chairman as New Director of National Intelligence; UFC White House to Push Through This Weekend Unless a Court Order may Stop the Event; Two-Time NBA Champion Player Bill Bradley Shares His Experience with the New York Knicks. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 11, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:37]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Groundhog Day, Part 39. President Trump teases a deal with Iran, again. Is it an actual breakthrough, or the latest round of wishful thinking?

Plus, the President names his pick for the next intelligence chief, which begs the question, so why is the controversial acting chief still acting?

And the twice-impeached President is reportedly trying to push Republicans to wipe away those impeachments.

All tonight, on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, well, actually, you know what, let's start with an opening question. Is this time for real, or are we just trapped in the same repeating fever dream? Because we have been here too many times to count.

President Trump says some kind of agreement with Iran is in hand. The markets rally, the White House has a victory lap, but Iran goes silent, or denies the specific terms Trump is pumping up, and then the entire thing starts to unravel. So tonight, you would be forgiven for being skeptical when you hear the President say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (on the phone): I don't know if you heard, but we ended the war with Iran today, and they have agreed never to have a nuclear weapon.

TRUMP: We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran, and we're going to be subject to finalization of documents, which should get done over the next few days. We'll probably have a signing maybe in Europe.

The documents are in pretty final shape, so we'll see. We'll see.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Yes, we'll see.

Hey, need I remind you, the President has teased a deal like this nearly 40 times over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They want to make a deal, they're talking to our people.

We have points, major points of agreement.

We're actually talking to the right people, and they want to make a deal so badly.

It's looking very good that we're going to make a deal with Iran, that it's going to be a good deal.

We're going to end that war very quickly. They want to make a deal so badly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Call it whiplash, call it the boy who cried deal, call it incoherence, erratic, chaos. I mean, I could pick about a dozen different words to describe the foreign policy pinball machine of the last three months.

And it's not just saying something is going to happen only for it not to happen. You know, it's also the President making existential threats one moment, saying he doesn't even want a deal the next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP (on the phone): They're going to negotiate, and if they don't, they're going to see problems like they've never seen before.

TRUMP: I don't want to rush it. I want to take my time. We have plenty of time and I want to get a great deal.

Frankly, maybe we're better off not making a deal at all. Do you want to know the truth? Because we can't let this thing go on.

We hit him hard yesterday, and we're going to hit him again hard today. They should sign their deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right, let's give the President the benefit of the doubt for a moment, Okay?

Say we are on the brink of a breakthrough. Even then, this isn't really a deal in the way Trump is selling it. It's an agreement to keep talking about a deal, or as Washington calls it when the deal isn't a deal quite yet, a memorandum of understanding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: So is this just essentially setting the stage for a talk on nuclear?

TRUMP: It's a very strong memorandum of understanding. That is a little conceptual, but it's something that's going to get done. And if it doesn't get done for any reason, which I can't imagine that not happening, they want to sign it as much as I do or more.

I would say they want to sign it more, maybe a lot more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, that sort of memorandum of understanding is not a foreign concept. They do it in the Department of Justice, between different entities. They do that.

But when they do it, it is a little conceptual. That's a whole lot of wiggle room, then, for an agreement that's always almost done.

Let's start tonight with the professor of political science at the University of Chicago and the author of the Substack column, "The Escalation Trap," Robert Pape, retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, also the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute; Jamil Jaffer, who was the lead architect of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

[23:05:08]

Glad you guys are all here. Professor, I'm going to begin with you out there.

We've been here, I mean, we counted about 40 times, Professor. And to be clear, this would be a commitment to start or continue negotiating, not a final deal. So do you think this is some kind of a real breakthrough?

ROBERT PAPE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO PROJECT ON SECURITY AND THREATS, AND SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "THE ESCALATION TRAP": No, I don't. We are not at an endgame, we're in the middle game.

For 20 years, I've modeled the bombing of Iran, the trajectories it would take, the options, the stages. We are in the middle game, and it's following through that trajectory. In the middle game, Laura, the opening is where the bombs hit targets, and America loses leverage, loses strategic position.

In the middle game, Iran goes from survival to ambition. It actually spreads its wings. It starts to look for regional influence in a more integrated way.

That's why they're talking about a new security resistance network. They've had pieces of it. Now they're talking about integrating it.

They're getting more ambitious in the last two weeks. That's why they're upping the ante on their strikes. We hit them, they double-hit us, they did that with Israel as well.

And what's happening is this is causing Trump, and he would be like this anyway. The last thing I'm going to say, he's stable.

But what he -- what Trump is doing is he now has a domestic political problem, Laura, because if this was about negotiating with Iran, you wouldn't be seeing this on True Social. The domestic political problem for Trump is he's got two parts of MAGA, not one. He's got a big part of MAGA that wants him to hit hard, he's got another big part wants him to pull back.

And that's what you're seeing in the middle game of the escalation trap. And I'm sorry, Laura, this is going to go on through the midterms.

COATES: Well, let's talk about this with Admiral. I mean, the domestic policy concerns are evident. But at the negotiating table, I mean, why would Iran take the President at his word during negotiations? And if they are perhaps justified in skepticism, what does that portend for the continuation of the war?

REAR ADMIRAL ROBERT MONTGOMERY, RETIRED U.S. ARMY, AND SENIOR DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, neither one of these actors is a rational, you know, is a negotiator the other can trust. I mean, Iran for 47 years has been a country we've had trouble trusting, they've killed a thousand Americans, you know, they started this with a pretty aggressive killing of their own activists.

So they are a regime that's hard to trust and validate with. The President, on the other hand, is the same way in these negotiations, very hard to understand what he's for.

I do hope he keeps that blockade on because that blockade to me is the one thing constantly pressuring the regime, much more so than this tit-for-tat on missile launches. I don't think that brings pressure on them in the same way the energy coercion that we're practicing through the blockade is. If he keeps that up, he might get some movement on the Iranians.

COATES: That's an important point. I mean, Jamal, the President's announcement of a deal on social media apparently caught the Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu by surprise. Why would he be kept in the dark?

JAMAL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE: Well, it may not be that he's being kept in the dark. It may be that the deal is sort of just theoretical, right?

The President keeps saying, there's a deal. The Iranians aren't telling us anything about a deal, and we don't know what the deal space even looks like, right?

The problem is the President wants no nuclear weapons, he wants all the enriched uranium out of Iran. Iran's never conceded that, they said they were going to open the

Strait of Hormuz as part of the ceasefire. Strait of Hormuz has never been opened. So we keep negotiating with them, we keep giving, they keep doing nothing.

This is a win-win for them. So sure, why not? Let them stretch it out.

And so probably the reason why Bibi Netanyahu didn't know when anything was happening is it's not clear anything's actually happening.

COATES: Is the term even saying deal, even when the President talks about an agreement, a total misnomer in the actual term of art it needs to be applied in these conversations?

JAFFER: That's the whole problem. Remember when Barack Obama did the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and everyone made fun of it because it wasn't even the signed agreement? What do you think is going to happen with this memorandum of understanding? It might be signed, but to your point, it's a negotiation to negotiate later. What are we getting for this thing? It's unclear.

And that's what makes the whole thing so crazy. Professor, Republican Congressman Don Bacon, he thinks Iran is exploiting the President of the United States. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Iran needs to come to us wanting a deal. Right now we're going to them. And they are abusing the President in these negotiations, if you ask me.

Because they think he wants it more than they do. Right now they think they can, they think they have the advantage over President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So professor, if the President is being outplayed by seeking a deal, what's the alternative? Would a direct military conflict or a permanent diplomatic stalemate serve our interests any better?

[23:10:03]

No, it won't serve our interests, but President Trump may well find himself escalating.

Laura, the big thing that's coming that will make that politician even more upset is we're about to enter the period of maximum leverage for Iran. That hasn't started yet.

See, when we hit the oil inventory cliff, as we're going to do in the middle of July, end of July, August 1, that means when our inventories go down, Iran's leverage goes up and will stay up through the midterms and probably a bit beyond.

So that is why there's very little chance Iran's going to cut a deal right now. Why would it cut a deal when its leverage is about to grow?

Everybody knows it's going to grow. President Trump can talk down oil prices only for so long. Once that oil inventory dries up here at the end of the first week of August, as all the world's experts, the actual experts, are predicting, and I just spent four hours with them last night at the University of Chicago, they flew in from around the world.

That is really going to hit Laura, August 1. The only debate among the experts, is it July 25 or August 7? That's the actual debate.

And look at that from Iran's perspective, Laura. That means they just ride this out, and then if they want to do damage to Trump, real damage to Trump, you let those gas prices go from $6 to $7 to $7.50 sometime in September 30. Now you're talking real. This is what I think Iran's looking for.

COATES: Well, you're saying damage to the President. The American people are thinking about those numbers as well. I mean, Admiral, I mean, the President, what a difference a few hours makes, right?

The President this morning appeared to have his sights on Kharg Island. And then back down on the condition that a deal is finalized, he was concerned that Americans don't have the stomach for what it would take to actually be able to have that operation. Would that operation be sustainable? What is the type of stomach we're talking about for U.S. forces?

MONTGOMERY: Guys, first, I want to agree with my old shipmate, General Don Bacon. He has it exactly right on Iran. And look, Kharg Island would be a disaster. We can strike Kharg Island all we want.

If we want Kharg Island to not function, sink the next ship going in and tell the next shadow fleet merchant, we'll sink you as well. But to actually seize Kharg Island, put U.S. forces on there, within 20 miles of Iranian mainland, they will be hammered with first-person view, one-way attack drones, as the Russians and Ukrainians do to each other, in a way that our troops aren't ready for.

We weren't ready for Shaheed drones against our bases during the first 40 days of this war. We're not ready for these one-way attack drones against our soldiers and Marines. So we need to hold off on that, use our other tools, and then at a later date, when we've developed the right tools for our forces, we can do things like seize and hold Kharg Island.

COATES: If negotiations fail, is military escalation really the only next option?

JAFFER: I mean, it might be the right option right now. The President needs to get leverage back. I think Professor Pape, my professor at University of Chicago, and I was a law student there, is exactly right. If we're losing leverage every day that we keep begging for a deal, the way to get leverage back might be to hit them hard. And that's the one thing the President has been willing to do. It might also be, let's reopen the strait. Let's start escorting ships, the way President Ronald Reagan did, through the Strait of Hormuz, dare the Iranians to hit us. The challenge is we're going to lose some soldiers, some sailors.

The President doesn't want to do that, understandable. But you can't fight a war unless you're prepared to lose lives. And the President isn't prepared to do that. The Iranians know it. That's why they're leveraging us in these negotiations.

COATES: You're uncomfortable?

MONTGOMERY: Yes, our bases are not ready for this kind of attack. Our ships are okay. They've been shooting everything down but our bases are not ready yet for attacks by Shahed drones.

We have a hole in our air defense that was identified, that was exploited by the Iranians for 40 days. We need to fix that problem before we go back to full-scale strike operations.

COATES: Thank you, gentlemen, so much.

Up next, there's new drama in the battle to lead America's spy agencies. Trump picks a new permanent director of national intelligence. So why is he now the acting DNI instead of the full team?

And later, a new White House effort to undo history. Republicans consider trying to erase Donald Trump's impeachments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A week after President Trump ignited bipartisan backlash over his choice for acting director of national intelligence, he made a more conventional choice for permanent director, Jay Clayton, who is the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, also the former SEC chairman during President Trump's first term.

Now, he is viewed as a much more competent choice than the temporary head, Bill Pulte, who has no national intelligence experience, but did cover a lot of favor with Trump when he used his position to accuse Adam Schiff and Letitia James and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud.

Trump is keeping Pulte on as acting DNI, and some Democrats say that's a downright dangerous decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): If there was a path that, you know, and I'm a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard, but that Tulsa Gabbard would stay in place until Mr. Clayton was confirmed, we have a path out, but. REPORTER: So it's still a no because Bill Pulte will be acting?

[23:20:01]

WARNER: Yes, there was. Bill Pulte is a national security threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director in the FBI counterintelligence division, also runs the Frank Figliuzzi Substack, and veteran investigative journalist and contributing editor at "SpyTalk," Michael Isikoff. Glad to have both of you gentlemen here.

I'll begin with you, Frank. First, can you listen to how Trump is defending the decision to keep Pulte in, even temporarily?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you intend to have Bill Pulte continue to serve as the acting director of national intelligence? And do you think it's unreasonable that some Republicans have concerns that he has no intelligence experience even if he's serving in this acting role?

TRUMP: But he's intelligent, unlike a lot of other people.

REPORTER: But do you think that's a fair, no intelligence--

TRUMP: He's only there for a little while.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: "Axios" reports that Trump is keeping Pulte as acting director because he wants Pulte to lay off large portions of the office. Frank, what would the consequences of that be?

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION, AND HOST OF "THE FRANK FIGLIUSSI SHOW" ON SUBSTACK: So look, if the only goal is to have Pulte in place long enough to reduce the office size at the DNI, I think we can live with that. They might actually be overstaffed.

I think the issues are far greater, Laura. I think I'm concerned about how long the confirmation process might take for Jay Clayton, whether that's going to be thorough and real vetting and national security vetting like a polygraph and full background is going to happen.

I think there's more to this than just reducing the office size. And I feel like Pulte's largest qualification is that he's proven his loyalty already by forwarding criminal referrals on Trump's enemies for mortgage fraud investigations. And I'm concerned that he's going to try to stay in place for much longer than we think.

COATES: Yes, I wonder, Michael, just somebody who doesn't have national intelligence experience being in a position to decide whether there is bloat in the different agencies, what he can do about it. I don't know that you're even qualified to do that if you don't have the experience in the area.

But I want to play for you. The Democrats are saying that they're willing to consider Jay Clayton in his nomination because he's seen as a serious choice. But he has made some curious comments recently about elections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CLAYTON, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: On the integrity side, we're doing an absolutely terrible job. And the American people are right to question it.

I am not speculating about fraud. I'm not saying there is fraud. Okay, I am saying that the opportunity for fraud makes no sense to me when we can have a much better system.

There are a lot of people who look at this and say there is no fraud. Okay, I don't think that they're right either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: For this position, national security, there is some small overlap of the Venn diagram of when you might look at election integrity with foreign interference. But are you surprised that he is wading into these waters?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CO-AUTHOR, "FIND ME THE VOTES", CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "SPYTALK", AND VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: It probably got him the job saying those things. I mean, you know, he had an audience of one, Donald Trump.

Trump heard it, named him. But you know, the larger story here is, you know, this has been one of the colossal national security screw ups in a long time because it was clear that they couldn't. The government's main tool for surveillance of terror suspects and spies, the Section 702 of FISA, expires tomorrow night.

The reason it's expired is because Democrats and some Republicans were not going to vote to reauthorize a law when Bill Pulte would have access to all this highly sensitive intelligence, including about Americans who get incidentally swept up in some of these surveillance tactics.

COATES: But with it expiring and with him being acting, does that somehow change, does that hold out change that?

ISIKOFF: Well, look, the Senate is going to rush to get Clayton confirmed because Pulte is such a disaster for this choice. They do not want to give him any time at ODNI to do whatever he's been tasked to do, even if it's just cutting the staff, which he can't do as a practical matter.

So they've already scheduled, the Senate has a confirmation hearing for Clayton next week. I think they're going to try to rush it through because Pulte doesn't get there till next Friday. And I wouldn't be surprised if you see a rapid confirmation to make sure that Pulte nowhere gets anywhere near the office of director of national intelligence.

COATES: Because, of course, Frank, once you are even acting, I mean, the idea of somebody refusing to give you information you're requesting is probably a very big uphill battle. I mean, Democrats and even some Republicans, they're refusing, as we talked about just now with Michael, this reauthorization of section 702 of FISA, as long as Pulte is that position.

[23:25:06]

I mean, Senator Mark Warner was clear who he blames, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARNER: If this goes dark, there is one person responsible, Donald Trump. This is not a fight between Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans. This is a fact of Donald Trump trying to override the advice of everyone in the intelligence community and put a political hack into one of our most critical national security positions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, think 702, think targeted surveillance. Tomorrow night, midnight lapses. What are the consequences of that?

FIGLIUZZI: Yes, we should be concerned about it. We're under a raised threat here.

There are some legal experts, by the way, Laura, who think that this year, earlier this year, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recertified section 702, and they think that will carry the day, and they'll try to argue that it should not lapse tomorrow. And we'll see what happens there.

I've actually interviewed the ranking member of House Intelligence, and he's of a mind that it's going to continue. We'll see. But here's what this does, just for people wondering what 702 is real quick.

So it's the ability of the FBI to go into a database of foreign collections. Think wiretaps, intercepts, of spies and terrorists abroad. There's no warrant required for them, but they can ask about Americans who are in the database who have tripped into conversations with those targets, and they can do it without a warrant.

So there's real concern about it. There's been abuse of that ability before. But the inability to check on Americans talking to really bad guys is really threatening and really puts us in danger if it truly lapses tomorrow.

ISIKOFF: In fact, just adding on top of that, you know, Frank said we're in an elevated threat environment. Yes, we're actually in this on-again, off-again war against Iran, which has shown no compunction at trying to send agents to the United States to do harm to American officials and citizens as well, including Iranian dissidents.

So, I mean, the idea that we're going to lose, you know, what has been described by multiple Presidents as a crucial tool to capture people who might be trying to do stuff like that is pretty astonishing. It's going to all go dark tomorrow night because of this Pulte stink bomb.

COATES: Frank, Michael, thank you both.

Up next, Trump reportedly trying to get Republicans to undo his impeachment. This is a senator warns that his next two years might be miserable for him.

Plus, we're awaiting a judge's ruling in the lawsuit to try to block the White House UFC fight. What do Americans think about it? We've got the answer next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So remember when the then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this after Trump's second impeachment?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER EMERITA: He's impeached forever, no matter what he says or whatever headlines he wants to carry around. You're impeached forever, you're never getting rid of that scar. History will always record that you were impeached for undermining the security of our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, tonight the President seems to be saying, maybe not, Nancy. The "Wall Street Journal" reports that he and his allies are discussing plans to expunge both of Trump's impeachments through a congressional resolution.

The President signed the journal, quote, "it should be done because I did nothing wrong. It was a rigged deal -- It was a whole rigged situation."

Now, frankly, it's unclear if Congress can even do this. I mean, the Constitution, in all of its what, 4500 words, didn't actually contemplate everything that would ever happen. It doesn't lay out a procedure for undoing an impeachment.

But it could set up a bitter fight in Congress to get the resolution passed.

Joining me now, former communications director for Vice President Harris, Ashley Etienne, along with former senior communications aide Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo, T.W. Arrighi. Glad to have both of you. First, on the impeachment part, T.W., why do we litigate this? I mean, I know symbolically he does not want this to have happened. But to focus or use, like, the political capital on the Hill for this, does it serve Republicans?

T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP AND FORMER SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Not right now, and I think if it comes to a floor vote, you're going to have a lot of members of Congress calling out Mike Johnson and be like, I'm sick. Oh, I can't make it into work today.

COATES: Not to get on the record with their vote.

ARRIGHT: Right. They just don't want to talk about it. Now, obviously, it looks like they won't be able to do it before the midterm.

So if they're going to do it right after, we'll see how that plays out.

A lot of people are going to make judgment calls. I would be willing to bet within a couple of weeks, if the Democrats take the House, there will be an impeachment resolution on the floor for Democrats to vote on. So I'm not so I'm sure we're going to have to litigate this again at some point.

But it's sort of like this, Nancy Pelosi's point. Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy. They took it away from him.

He still kind of won the Heisman Trophy. Right. Louisville won a championship, they took it away.

People still consider them the champs. So the fact of the matter is, regardless of how this ends up, the history books are still going to have the impeachment.

If it makes Donald Trump feel good, knock yourselves out. The resolution doesn't do anything.

COATES: I mean, no one wants the asterisk to your point on that.

But I'm a little curious. Do you think Democrats would revisit the impeachment road knowing that the impact of both impeachments did not result in him not being reelected?

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS: You know, I ran the first impeachment war room for Speaker Pelosi.

[23:35:02]

And, you know, and I think our sort of lead manager was Mr. Schiff and Senator Schiff recently made a point. And his point was, we've got to find a way to hold the President accountable outside of impeachment because you likely can pass it out of the House. But it won't pass out of the Senate. And then you've got a Supreme Court that's already determined that

this man is immune from any sort of accountability. And so I don't think it's wise for Democrats to go down this path of impeachment. And definitely not early on in the process of winning in November, primarily because not only do Republicans not care, but independents don't care.

To your point, the President wasn't held accountable, but people reelected him.

COATES: Right.

ETIENNE: After having known that he was held, that he was found, you know, that we went through the impeachment process twice successfully to hold him accountable. So I just don't know that what it does is it runs the risk of raising expectations that you cannot meet, you know, expectations of accountability, removal and you won't get to removal with this President.

So we've got to find I agree with you. We've got to find other ways to hold him accountable outside of.

COATES: Well, there is a lot of--

ARRIGHI: -- important note successful getting it in front of the Senate, not successful getting him convicted.

ETIENNE: That's my point. Yes.

COATES: Let's talk about the UFC fight because that's a good transition point. Why not? Right.

I mean, why not go from discussions about impeachment to UFC? They just go together. The White House is ready, actually, for the Sunday fight.

And I mean, look at that. There's a glowing octagon. Listen, T.W., to what Secretary Marco Rubio said about the event earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: And if you've been to UFC fights and I've been to many and you look into the crowd, the crowd is as diverse as you can imagine. This is one of those few things we have left in our country and I would say in the world that brings so many people from so many different places, so many different backgrounds and so many different points of view together. And it's something we want to share with the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATE: I mean, the World Cup is. No, never. Anyway, do you agree the event is unifying?

ARRIGHI: I do. It is the most diverse, fastest growing sport in the country. It's going to be a great spectacle to celebrate the 250th anniversary.

And I don't mean to put my history cap on. I know T.W.'s talking history again. But it is not the first time that professional sports have been hosted by the President of the United States--

COATES: No.

ARRIGHI: -- on the grounds. In 1865, Andrew Johnson held a baseball tournament. In 1922, Warren G. Harding held a tennis tournament.

You can't fit a baseball field right in the backyard. You can't fit a lot of things. The octagon fits well.

Dana White's a big fan of the President. UFC's growing. People from all over the world, I think it's a great thing.

ETIENNE: I appreciate you bringing up history. But the difference in those cases and where we are now is in those cases we weren't on the precipice of a recession. And that's where we are now.

And so from my perspective, this really demonstrates the President's priorities. At a time in which you have inflation at a record high.

Hyatt's has been in three years. People are having a hard time making ends meet. We're in two active wars.

This is how the President decides to spend not just $60 million, but spend his time and that of the entire government to actually facilitate a, you know--

COATES: A cage fight.

ETIENNE: A cage fight between, you know, half-naked men.

ARRIGHI: Private donations.

But I will say,--

COATES: Let's add this point, Ashley. Hold on. Our new Reuters poll found that just 16 percent of Americans think it's appropriate to hold this fight at the White House, which is really the question, and among Republicans just 31 percent. Does that impact?

UFC is very popular. Full stop. People love watching it, I've watched it a lot. But at the White House, will it backfire given those numbers?

ARRIGHI: No. I actually didn't like how that question was phrased because that's how the headline was, a UFC fight, but that's not how the wording of that poll question was.

I think it should have been a more informed poll question. I don't think so. UFC, while growing and while very popular, is still very niche, it's very popular among young people, not so much popular among the older sect. So you're going to have people who just aren't even really fully up to

speed on the sport. It's obviously, Donald Trump's been a fan for a long time. He's part and parcel to the reason UFC has grown so much.

And, yes, there are some economic factors going on in the nation, but America's 250.

EITIENNE: Economic factors?

Economic factors, that's really the problem.

ARRIGHI: It's our 250th anniversary--

ETIENNE: I would say here's the reality.

The people who need to be polled are those Republican members of Congress. You've got now a revolt that's happening. John Cornyn's leading it, Cassidy's leading, Massie's leading it. All these Republicans now that are trying to get the President to focus on the economy, not on these self-serving sort of sideshows.

ARRIGHI: I don't see it as self-serving. Look, I'd love to go. There's going to be thousands of members there, members of the military there.

It's going to be super fun. If anyone has a ticket, hit your boy up. I'll buy the beers.

It's going to be a great time, and I think it'll be a great spectacle. And Democrats don't like it, and so I think it's going to be great. There's going to be a lot of them tuning in.

COATES: Phrase of the night. Hit your boy up. I'll buy the beers. Ashley and T.W., thank you both.

Up next, a growing backlash over the verdict in the Carmelo Anthony case, and why this polarizing case may not be over quite yet.

[23:40:01]

And later, the miracle on 8th Avenue. Nyxmania sweeps New York as Charles Barkley loses it on San Antonio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY, "INSIDE THE NBA" HOST: We saw the dumbest basketball team in the history of civilization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, a case in Texas is reigniting the debate over self- defense and the role that race can play in jury selection.

This week, Carmelo Anthony was found guilty of murder for stabbing a track athlete during a high school meet last year when he himself was also 17. He'd gotten into an argument with Austin Metcalf just last year when prosecutors say that Anthony stabbed him. Witnesses say it was unprovoked, but Anthony argued he felt threatened by Metcalf and his twin brother.

Anthony was sentenced ultimately to 35 years in prison, but his legal team plans to appeal. And while in the courtroom, lawyers on both sides say race was not the factor, the court of public opinion can't ignore its impact.

[23:45:09]

Anthony, black. Metcalf, white. And the crime happened in the affluent Dallas suburb of Frisco, a city that's 46 percent white and 10 percent black.

And despite a pool of 500 jurors that included black jurors, not one of the 12 jurors, nor one of the six alternates impaneled was black.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW ANTHONY, KARMELO ANTHONY'S BROTHER: What stuck out to me, number one, was the all-white jury. But I was trying to be, you know, like, it's not that big of a deal. I mean, the truth is on our side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to talk about this with retired California Superior Court judge LaDoris Cordell. Judge, thank you for being here.

We don't know what issues Anthony's attorneys will raise on appeal, but the absence of a black person in the jury is likely to be one of the main issues. The defense raised it during trial. A judge rejected the challenge to have those jurors struck.

How would an appellate court weigh whether excluding all the black jurors is a valid basis for appeal?

JUDGE LARORIS CORDELL, RETIRED CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: The, as you said, the lawyers on both sides stated that this case was not about race, but look at their actions. When the defense objected to the exclusion of black potential jurors, leaving no African-Americans on the jury, that was the second round of challenges.

The district attorney insisted he dismissed them because he didn't want educators seated because the incident took place at a school- related function involving high school-aged minors. That is ridiculous.

You know, it's like saying a real estate developer is on trial. We can't have anyone on the jury who owns any real estate. That's just ridiculous.

The judge determined the dismissals were race-neutral. Basically, I see this, and I think the defense saw this as a blatant use of peremptory strikes as a pretext, a way to exclude black jurors, and it's not uncommon for prosecutors to exclude black people from juries where there is a black defendant.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this twice, in 1986 in the Batson case, where Thurgood Marshall himself said, and I'm quoting, "ending racial discrimination in jury selection can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely."

And then in 2020, the Supreme Court, with Kavanaugh writing an amazing opinion, said "basically you cannot use peremptory challenges as a pretext to get rid of a certain type of people."

I think this is a very strong case for reversal on an appeal because of this.

COATES: And it could go back again to a trial if that is the case. I mean, then there was the jury instructions, another aspect I think will likely be raised, I mean, jurors were allowed to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter in addition to murder as well, I mean, ultimately they chose murder.

Will the fact that the judge gave the jurors the choice between the two be something the appellate court will look at closely?

CORDELL: I think, first of all, that the judge was correct in saying the prosecutor charged murder. Murder in Texas is the intention to kill.

So the judge said, I'm going to add manslaughter because the evidence in the case supported a finding of manslaughter. And what is manslaughter? It is the unintentional killing of someone.

So there were sufficient facts to support that. So I don't think that's really going to be the issue.

The issue is why this jury chose to believe this young man intentionally killed. And also the question of sentencing.

He's 17, I understand a stellar academic record in high school. And just 17 years old, no history of criminal activity. Why 35 years?

COATES: The jury in Texas does that. Excuse me, Judge.

The jury in Texas does that. Does the judge have any discretion to change that in Texas?

CORDELL: Yes. In Texas, the sentencing recommendation comes there. The judge, I believe, could do something if the judge wanted to increase it or even decrease it.

So there are issues on appeal. I think the strongest one is going to be on the exclusion of African Americans from the jury.

You know, it isn't the rule that because you are a certain race that you have to have somebody of that race on the jury.

COATES: Right. CORDELL: But when you have the conduct here where there were three, I

believe there were black women, educators, and the prosecutor just decided, well, we can't have educators because they're probably going to be biased and it's too close to them being in high school. That makes no sense at all. So I think that is a very strong issue on appeal.

COATES: Judge LaDoris Cordell, thank you.

CORDELL: Thank you.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

COATES: From the air to the streets, Knicks fans electric after the game 4 win and now just one game away from bringing the ship home to New York. So how about some motivation from a Knicks legend? I've got two-time NBA champion Bill Bradley with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD JEFFERSON, NBA FINALS ANALYST: -- operate at the top, one-on- one.

MIKE BREEN, PLAY-BY-PLAY COMMENTATOR, NBA FINALS: Brunson gets it, fires up a three. Shot, no good. The chip, it's gone.

With 1.2 remaining. Knicks take the lead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's a shot that will be talked about for years to come.

The Knicks taking game 4 of the NBA Finals by a single point. They trailed by 29 at one point, making this the greatest comeback in NBA Finals history.

[23:55:00]

And tonight, Knicks fever is sweeping all across New York and beyond. They're just one win away from their first NBA championship, get this, in 53 years. They haven't done since my next guest played on the team back in 1973.

He's a two-time NBA champion, an Olympic gold medalist, an A.P. College Player of the Year. Go Princeton.

Oh, and yes, he also served three terms as a U.S. Senator.

New York Knicks legend Bill Bradley joins me now. Oh, it's such an honor to talk to you. So glad that you are here.

You were at last night's game. You were on the Jumbotron. Walk me through what you were feeling when the comeback was happening, let alone when that shot went up. BILL BRADLEY (D), TWO-TIME NBA CHAMPION WITH KNICKS, U.S. OLYMPIC GOLD

MEDALIST, A.P. COLLEGE PLAYER OF THE YEAR, AND FORMER NEW JERSEY SENATOR: That you can't count this team out. If anything happened from yesterday, it's the message you can't count this team out.

They're going to pull together, they're going to help each other, they're going to be unselfish, they're going to be disciplined, they're going to be resilient, and they'll find a way to win. And that's what happened last night.

COATES: You played in the NBA Finals three times back in the 70s. You won the title in '70. You won it in '73. Tell me what it's like to be a player under that kind of spotlight.

BRADLEY: Well, you're playing for the championship of the NBA. So if you win, you will be the best in the world for that year. And it's a tremendous motivation and you have to have great discipline.

You have to be willing to help your teammate as much as you help yourself. And you don't think about how it will feel when you win as long as you're playing and you're doing well and there's a flow.

And you come out of the flow for shots and passes. And you feel the team is moving in the right way, helping each other out on defense. They're doing all the fundamental things that champions do and that's how you become a champion.

COATES: I oftentimes will look to sports figures and become all the more motivated by the resilience, the persistence. Even though it's not in my particular physical wheelhouse, I am motivated and inspired by athletes of that caliber.

And there is something really magical in the air in New York City. I mean, you've got massive crowds of fans. They've been gathering to celebrate this team.

You can't walk down any workplace hallway without everyone being in a Knicks jersey, a Knicks hat. Forget dress code. What does this moment mean for New Yorkers and fans who never thought they'd see this day come again?

BRADLEY: Well, if you haven't really experienced your team being excellent for 54 years and now they're on the brink of being the champion, being the NBA champion, I think that people see themselves going along with them.

And they're excited. And they feel confirmed in all the things that their parents told them, that they told their children about discipline and respect and responsibility and about, you know, unselfishness. And that's a key thing in the world today.

There are so many models of selfishness in our world today. There's so many people who are out there parading around interested only in themselves, in their own power, in their own money. And yet at the same time, here's a counterexample of that, saying, no, you're unselfish. And when you become unselfish in a game like basketball, you can become the champion of the world. And that's not held by many people. I mean, I've had it twice.

You go to the mountaintop, you really do. And forever you're that. And if anybody knows anything about basketball and my play, they know that I was on two NBA champions with the New York Knicks.

And we're going to have another one very shortly. I keep all my fingers crossed.

COATES: I got to ask you quickly, how sweet would it be if they were to take it in San Antonio?

BRADLEY: I don't care where they win it. They can win it in San Antonio or New York or wherever. As long as they win another game, that's the only thing that counts.

I've won it in Madison Square Garden in a very dramatic seventh game in 1970. And I've won it in L.A. in a game in the sixth game against the L.A. Lakers in 1973.

You want to know something?

COATES: What?

BRADLEY: It tasted the same both times.

[00:00:03]

COATES: Well, New Yorkers everywhere want to feel that taste, and they want to hear from you. I'm so glad you came. Bill Bradley, thank you.

BRADLEY: Thank you. I admire you so much and what you do. I really do. ]

COATES: Very sweet. I'm going to clip that and send it to every New York Knicks fan and just say, you see that? I'm just saying, I'm a legit New Yorker now.

Bill Bradley, thank you so much.

BRADLEY: And you have my permission to do that.

COATES: Interview's over. We're done here. Thank you. Hey, thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michelson" is next.