Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Iran Agreement Details Remain Secret; Newsom Claims Trump's DOJ Is Investigating His Family; UFC Fighter Insulted Michelle Obama; Jalen Brunson: Underdog To Top Dog. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 15, 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]

SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: -- like shark movies when I was a kid. So, I have always random shark packs (ph).

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ana?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I have no idea. I need to look --

(LAUGHTER)

I can pick up practically anything on the floor with my toes.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: Charles?

CHARLES BLOW, LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: I have a green thumb. I love gardening. I can create anything.

PHILLIP: Scott?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Very simple. I'm a good chicken tenderer. I have all night chicken --

(LAUGHTER)

JENNINGS: -- apocalypse.

NAVARRO: I thought he was turning down chicken tenders.

PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription at cnn.com/watch or in the CNN app. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a memorandum of understanding where few people understand what's in the memorandum. And now, even members of Trump's own government appear to be skeptical Iran will ultimately comply. Plus, Gavin Newsom puts out a video calling out the administration for investigating his family. The governor says it's all politically-motivated. So, what is the DOJ actually looking at? And the insult from the White House Octagon that even has Trump allies saying it went too far. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, look, President Trump has set himself up for a huge challenge, hasn't he? I'm going to call it the floor ceiling dilemma. This new Iran agreement doesn't just need to end a war. That would be the floor. It also has to clear two different hurdles.

So, I want to talk about what those ceilings might look like. It needs to deliver what he promised from the very beginning of the conflict. And it needs to go further than the deal President Obama negotiated. And we're a far cry from knowing whether it will actually achieve either because, right now, we haven't even seen this memorandum of understanding.

What we do know is that it's pretty bare bones. It reportedly lifts the U.S. blockade on Iran's ports, it reopens the Strait of Hormuz, it buys a 60-day window for more talks. Beyond that, it's not clear if Iran will budge on the complex issues like the nuclear question.

We don't have to guess what Trump actually wants. He said it himself right at the very start.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon. We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, all of those promises, all open questions. Some of the doubters appear to be inside of his own government. Axios is reporting tonight that top members of Trump's cabinet are skeptical about Iran's intentions about making nuclear concessions. And among those skeptics appear to be CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to the reporting.

And as far as Iran's missile capabilities, recent reports suggest that Iran still has about 70 percent of its pre-war missile stockpile. And Hezbollah, the Iran-backed group in Lebanon, is still trading fire with Israel as of today. It's a tall order to solve all of that. Vice President J.D. Vance says that that's what the next 60 days are for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The MOU, Jake, is about a page and a half. So, it is a very general document on a number of issues. We are going to have to figure this stuff out during the technical negotiation phase.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Which gets us to the other hurdle that Trump would need to clear and why the comparison to the Obama deal really matters. He has been trashing it ever since it was signed in 2015. He withdrew from it in his first term. And we know exactly what he did not like about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and, over time, reach the brink of a nuclear breakout. The deal's sunset provisions are totally unacceptable. It also fails to address the regime's development of ballistic missiles. The deal does nothing to constrain Iran's destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:00]

COATES: Now, here's the thing. Trump is not wrong about the fact that deal had limits. It did have sunset clauses, it did let Iran keep a limited enrichment program, and it did not directly solve Iran's missiles or proxies.

But the Obama administration's argument was that wasn't what the deal was built to do. It was built to box in Iran's nuclear program and make sure the world could see if Iran cheated. Obama's team said it was the best deal they could get after negotiating with Iran for nearly two years. And now, Obama is signaling to Trump. Good luck with getting something better in a little more than that 60-day negotiation window.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to begin with Democratic congressman from Virginia, Eugene Vindman, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, I'm very glad to speak with you this evening because, as you know, there's a lot we do not know yet. Where do you stand on this so-called memorandum of understanding?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D), VIRGINIA: Well, I start with the deal is insinuate. We don't know fully what's in it. But we know for sure that this has cost the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, American lives have been lost, and price at the pump and at the grocery store have skyrocketed. So, we -- the Republicans seem to be celebrating what is in effect a very bad deal that has less -- left the United States in a much worse position than when we started this war. COATES: Without knowing all the details, how can you be sure that it would put us in a worse position or is it the fact that you think that we've gotten to this point unnecessarily only to get even the most nominal gains?

VINDMAN: Absolutely. This was not a necessary war. The president got us into a war without a plan. And we know from, you know, based on the leaks that we've seen from the Iranian side and from the U.S. side, including statements from J.D. Vance who talked about some sort of $300 billion reconstruction plan, that this has all the outlines of a terrible deal.

What we have is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was opened before this conflict started. The outlines of the deal do not seem to address the drone program or the ballistic missile program. It leaves the issue of nuclear weapons off to the side for negotiation in a future deal. And in the meantime, it grants sanctions relief, the relief -- and relief from a blockade. So, to me, all the outlines of this deal sound pretty bad for the American people, for U.S. leadership, and for our Middle East allies.

COATES: I'll be very curious as to when they would release the specifics because, obviously, the things you've mentioned, I can't imagine people overjoyed by those prospects. And yet we don't have the information, which just bogs -- boggles the mind.

But let me ask you this, congressman, because Axios reports that the Trump cabinet officials see people like Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe. They are skeptical of Iran's intentions, even about a final deal. Now, Vance insists the U.S. has the leverage, though, but does that concern you that this requires some level of trust with Iran?

VINDMAN: Look, the only thing worse than this deal -- the framework of the deal that we understand right now is the war continuing under the leadership of this president and this administration. What we've seen has been a complete fumbling of this conflict. They seem to mistake the fact that, you know, the magnificent work by the U.S. Military at the tactical and operational level does not substitute for a strategy on how to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and how to end the conflict.

And so, I'm not surprised that there's already some skepticism about the deal. I think the push for the deal has been largely to get an announcement by the president's birthday, which was yesterday. So, we'll see what happens. But we do know for a fact that in the meantime, the American people have borne the high cost of this war, both in blood and in treasure. And I don't think that we've seen the full cost of this war yet.

COATES: Let's talk about cost or sanctions to be more precise. I mean, the agreement, it relies on sanctions relief that, frankly, Republicans have spent years condemning. The vice president, J.D. Vance, says that Iran will have to meet their end of the bargain to get any kind of financial relief.

[23:10:01]

But the fact that the administration might even be open to his concession, I wonder how are your Republican colleagues squaring that reality with their past criticism.

VINDMAN: Look, what you hear in public is very different than you hear in private. I've had conversations with senior Republicans that acknowledge the fact that there are no good options here and that it didn't have to be this way. And what that means is that we didn't have to be involved in this conflict.

And you raised a really excellent point on sanctions. Sanctions have been implemented by legislation. That means Congress acted. That means Congress will have to act to lift the sanctions. And I, for one, am not going to vote for a terrible deal that does not address the nuclear program, that does not make the Middle East more secure, that does not have freedom of navigation and free passage in the Strait of Hormuz.

And so, I think there's going to be a great deal of skepticism. This is just the beginning of -- this is just the beginning of the negotiation. This is not the end of the negotiation.

COATES: Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you.

VINDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Let's dig in further with former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller, and political analyst for CNN and national security analyst for "The New York Times," David Sanger. Aaron, I'm going to start with you here because based on what you've seen from this agreement, do you think the president is on track to getting something lasting or is President Obama correct with his skepticism?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Look, I think we have to be really sober in terms of our expectations. There's no trust or confidence. This negotiating process is done not directly through intermediaries, on cell phones.

I think I'll take a flyer here, Laura. It's great to be here with David. We're going to be underwhelmed by the page and a half that they're going to produce. We have a letter of intent, a letter of intent which is aspirational, which uses language like commit, but it's all going to basically succeed or fail in 60 days of negotiations which, frankly, is not enough time in my judgment to close the gaps on the two critical issues that are necessary. Number one, what to do about the highly-enriched uranium? Dilute it, destroy it, should be out of the country. And second, what do you do about Iran's enrichment capacity? Then you have to deal with inspections, verification, monitoring.

I think -- last point, it's -- I think there's a real chance here that this will turn out like Gaza. It will be phase one and done. The straits will open up gradually. The naval blockade will open up. You'll get two months of negotiation. Maybe they'll surprise, and they'll be able to turn this into a significant agreement, but I think it's going to be extremely difficult.

COATES: Let's bring you in here, David, because you actually spoke with the president yesterday. He called you to speak with you about a number of issues, including, of course, what's very pressing on everyone's minds. Was he confident about what is being referred to as a letter of intent? Obviously, calling it a memorandum of understanding, that this will actually lead to the kind of deal he has said would come.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Oh, he was beyond confident. He was celebratory. It was his birthday. He got to go out to the UFC fight. But they had also just, you know, gotten this thing signed electronically as we now know, and there will be a more formal ceremony in Switzerland on Friday.

But what he was doing was talking me through each of the areas, you heard some of these from Aaron, that they're going to be negotiating as if those deals were already done. Right? So --

COATES: You heard the vice president. They're not.

SANGER: They're not. They're not. But the president was making it sound as if, in the background conversations they've had, they've wired these. Now, I spent a couple of years of my life covering the negotiations for the Obama era deal. It took two years. It runs to 150 pages for all the reasons Aaron just described. Inspection regimes are incredibly hard to go deal with and so forth.

But if the president is going to overcome what is, you know, his fixation on the Obama era deal, then he's got to do a few things. First of all, he's got to get all of the nuclear material in the country out of the country.

COATES: Is that possible?

SANGER: Well, it's possible if the Iranians agree and allow them to go do it. It's 11 tons of material, which a half ton is the near bomb- grade that Aaron referred to. He's got to stop all enrichment activity, which I think the Iranians may do, but they're probably only going to do it for 15 or 20 years, which means he'd have exactly the kind of sunset clause that he was concerned about during the Obama era.

[23:15:04]

By the way, that was a legitimate concern about the Obama deal. And he's got to do a few other things. He's got to close down Natanz, Fordo, and Isfahan, the three major sites that the U.S. bombed so they don't get rebuilt over the next few years.

COATES: Aaron, the president, he seems to constantly shift between using military force, threatening military force, offering olive branches, describing negotiations. Does all of that pendulum shifting make it more or less likely that Iran would be incentivized to compromise, would be likely to stall? What do you think? MILLER: I mean, look, I've been around negotiations for most of my professional life. The ones that actually endure are based on a balance of interests. It's not a win-lose proposition. I'm not sure that's the sort of paradigm that president has in mind.

Iranians may -- I think David is right. The Iranians may well agree on the highly-enriched uranium. What to do about the 11 tons in varying levels is unclear. That's a lot of stuff. But they -- they're going to want stuff for that.

And we haven't even talked about the complexity of opening up the straits and easing the naval blockade. The vice president seemed to suggest that when he was asked why hasn't it been released.

But there were certain technical -- quote-unquote -- "technicalities regarding implementation." Iranian definition of what opening the strait actually means is quite different than returning to status quo ante of February 27. They may forgo tolls for the first 60 days, but they will find some way. The Qataris and the Emirates may well pay them. And that in the end, I think, is the one thing that is -- I've got the hardest time with.

You're going to see a signing ceremony on Friday, maybe with the vice president sitting down with the lead Iranian negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who, as much as any Iranian, has been responsible for the repression and oppression of the Iranian people. And help is on the way. It's just -- I think help is on the way with respect to the regime.

COATES: We will see. Sixty days to begin the negotiations. I've been here before. Aaron David Miller, David Sanger, both, thank you so much.

SANGER: Thank you.

COATES: My political panel will join me in a little while and help field your questions and comments. Just text us at 818-972-7272. Include a first name and your city or state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Put my name on every and any enemies' list you have, but leave my wife and family out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Trump's DOJ now looking into Governor Gavin Newsom's wife. What's going on here? "The New York Times" reporter who broke the story is with me next. And later, silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? Trump's goes quiet amid calls for him to denounce a UFC fighter's insulting words against a former first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVE PORTNOY, FOUNDER, BARSTOOL SPORTS: That comment, if you're going to do it, own it and be like that -- that was wrong and should never happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The feud between President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom is escalating tonight. Newsom claims Trump's DOJ is investigating his wife and says it's purely politically-motivated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWSOM: Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He's coming after me because I'm considering running for president, because he hates that I've consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sources say the probe is focused on possible tax-related charges by -- crimes by his wife, and it was started after whistleblowers came forward to the Eastern District of California. Newsom's office denies wrongdoing and it believes investigators have subpoenaed financial records related to the couple. So far, no official comment from acting A.G. Todd Blanche or the Department of Justice.

I want to bring in Devlin Barrett, who broke this story for "The New York Times." He's also the author of a great new book. It's called "Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice." Also here, the prolific Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney, professor of law, and author of the book, "How to Read the Constitution and Why." Love that both of you are here.

Devlin, you broke another great story here. I mean, sources telling CNN's Paula Reid that there is no investigation directly into Newsom. So, there's a lot we don't quite know yet. But why would this be happening now? What can you tell us?

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR: So, the origin story of this case is a little complicated and it involves his former chief of staff who fairly recently pleaded guilty to a series of crimes that are not really related to the governor. But, obviously, there's a big connection there. They move in the same circles. It has been a political problem for the governor, this investigation. And again, that former staffer has pleaded guilty.

COATES: Yes.

BARRETT: In recent days, in the last, I would say, five days, we've seen new investigative activity that seems to be focusing on a different area, and that's the finances of his wife for possible tax reasons. You know, she runs and works at a couple different nonprofits. There's obviously a lot of financial rules that go along with working at nonprofits.

COATES: Yes.

BARRETT: And so, investigators are looking into that. I think it's too early to say whether that -- you know, how far down the road are they going to go here.

[23:25:02]

But, obviously, this comes in a much broader context, which the governor is talking about, of the Justice Department sometimes going after people the president doesn't like.

COATES: Is this coming from independently the district in California or being sanctioned or looped in by main justice? Do you have any idea?

BARRETT: So, the original case was definitely something that grew out of California.

COATES: OK.

BARRETT: I -- we have been told that this additional prong is also a California-based thing. But look, I think there's more reporting to do here. I don't want to pretend to have every answer to every question right now.

COATES: Sure.

BARRETT: But it's -- but it's obviously a big issue when you have a potential candidate, their spouse being investigated --

COATES: Right.

BARRETT: -- by the president --

COATES: Or a sitting governor. I would find it hard to believe that at least they wouldn't be looped in in some way with main justice. That's a memo you want to see someone on in D.C.

But let me ask you this, Kim, because Newsom says he is filing a FOIA request, Proof of Information Act, for all the information, all records related to anything about this investigation, this probe. Is that a viable path forward to get a timely response in documents of any kind? Is it the right tactic?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, AUTHOR: Well, I think what he's doing strategically is turning this into an offense rather than being on defense. And he's claiming, and there's some history with Donald Trump, that this is a vindictive prosecution or -- when I say history, we know James Comey and Letitia James. We also know the nominee for attorney general, Todd Blanche, has basically come out and said that's OK to use the Justice Department this way.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, this information is supposed to be made public unless an exemption applies. There is an exemption for criminal investigations. However, the government can't use it if it's pretextual. So, essentially, Newsom is teeing up this issue to say, listen, this is a bogus investigation.

And ultimately, it's 20 days to respond. It can go longer. But a judge can require the government to confidentially show the judge the information in private, and then a judge can make determination as to whether to make that public.

So, this is actually strategically and legally a strong move. And we've seen, notwithstanding this series of vindictive retaliatory investigations and prosecutions, that they're not winning in front of judges. Like judges are in this moment, the lower federal courts, are holding when it comes to the rule of law to a large degree in an era where we've really seen suspension of the Constitution on many fronts, as we've talked about many times.

COATES: The timing of this, I mean, the acting A.G., Todd Blanche, is not commenting. Newsome claims the probe started around the time that he was not made to be the permanent A.G. What can you tell us?

BARRETT: So, I think there's this truth to both those things. Look, the original inquiry that started looking at the governor goes back years, and it goes into essentially state business. But that inquiry, as far as we can tell, as far as our reporting shows, has really petered out. It's this new inquiry into the personal finances and what I would just call the finances of his wife that seems to be revving up.

And so, if you're -- if you're asking, you know, how long does this take? When are we going to know what the DOJ's plan here is? I think that's unclear. My sense is that the Justice Department doesn't know the answer to that question yet.

COATES: Thank you both. A lot more to unpack. I appreciate it, Devlin and Kim. Next, calls for the Obamas to go low and sue Trump over a UFC fighter's insulting attack against the former first lady of the United States. The panel is with me on the fallout, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, RADIO HOST: You don't have to agree with the Obamas politically to recognize that they were a master class in dignity. All right? Truly grace under fire. Now, the bar is in hell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH HOKIT, UFC FIGHTER: Lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Nearly 24 hours after UFC fighter Josh Hokit spoke from the White House and insulted the former first lady, Michelle Obama, as if she was watching. We haven't heard a peep from President Trump. His spokesperson was asked about it, but he didn't address the insult and just said -- quote -- "He had a great win last night. He showed toughness." Some of Trump supporters think it was indeed ugly.

UFC CEO Dana White told Time magazine he's -- quote -- "completely against saying nasty and false things about people's families. And Dave Portnoy from Barstool Sports, he went even further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PORTNOY: When you have that on the White House lawn, on an event you put down, I don't care what you think about the Obamas or anything, that has to be an immediate denounce. Like --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yes.

PORTNOY: -- doesn't speak for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and former domestic policy adviser to President Biden. Also here is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have both of you, guys, here.

I mean, this -- first of all, we know it's wrong. Full stop. No one needs convincing of this. The point was to be a provocateur. But it feels like a distraction that they could have at the White House easily silenced or distanced themselves from.

[23:35:01]

Why not just do that?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: First, can I just say you can't teach class? Now, this guy during the waiting process, the day before where they weigh in and, you know, they act like they're going to fight each other, you know, the typical stuff you see in fighting, was throwing up all over himself. Incoherent. So, this is a person to me that just doesn't have class. I'm the kind of person that -- I don't dignify classless people, just number one.

Number two, I think it's important, and I've seen a lot of this on social media, people not understanding, well, what is the racial component of this, people who aren't Black, and I'll just briefly explain it. I don't have to tell you this, but I'll just briefly explain it. When you say Michelle Obama was a man or Serena Williams is very muscular, that was a thing at the top of her career, or even -- I'll even get into the Republican politics of this a little bit -- even the former lieutenant governor in Virginia, Winsome Sears, one of the things -- she's too angry of a Black woman. When you make those types of tropes against them, what you're saying is that they lack empathy, there should be no dignity given towards Black women.

And how does that translate in terms of culture, care, discrimination? Well, we know what the facts say in terms of medicine. We know what the facts say in terms of workplace bullying, discrimination. These things have had real systemic repercussions for decades.

COATES: The thing is -- you're very eloquent, obviously. No one needs this lesson besides people who are pretending not to have had that level of -- this is an epiphany for no one. However, the fact that the president has not denounced this, as obvious as it is, why haven't they done so?

SINGLETON: Because I think -- you mentioned the point, the sort of controversy behind this. I think they recognize that there are people within the president's group of supporters who do believe that because there's another clip, I'm surprised they haven't played this at all on CNN, there's another clip with the same guy, he's asked about the comments, he actually doubles down, and he mentioned Hulk Hogan and said, well, Hulk Hogan actually really believed this to be true.

So, he isn't walking this back. And I believe he's not walking it back because I'm sure he looks at his social media like everybody else. And I think there are people that are saying, yes, I believe this, as crazy as this may sound to be true, as crazy as the whole --

COATES: No, no, no. I don't buy that for a second.

SINGLETON: You don't there are supporters who believe that, Laura?

COATES: No. First of all, you can't be surprised why I would not put sheer ignorance on my screen. It was a -- it was a gift for contexts alone to even provide that.

SINGLETON: Oh, sure. Sure, sure. OK. Got you.

COATES: Bu my point -- I'm asking -- is that the president of the United States, he has given pushback to his comments, even if somebody were to be as asinine in thinking something like that. I mean, he pushed back on behalf of the first lady of France, Brigitte Macron. I mean, he spoke out against rumors that have been spread by Candace Owens. He called it despicable. Why not do the same for the former first lady of the United States, particularly when you're at the residence she occupied before you did?

NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I mean, I think Shermichael is right that he's not condemning them because they're supporters of his who support these comments. That still makes it completely reprehensible. I mean, what's -- what's ridiculous about this whole situation is that, you know, in any other situation, you would expect the president of any party to not just criticize, but fully condemn these comments. And just as a reminder, this is, you know, a celebration around our 250th anniversary.

COATES: Yes.

TANDEN: And what this all reminded me of is if our founders looked at this kind of behavior on the front lawn and these kinds of comments, you know, they'd just be like -- it's horrifying. I guess -- you know, I think it's just absurd that we're even like rationalizing any of this. The president has not condemned racist, sexist, horrifying remarks multiple times. He's not going to do it now because he basically has condoned those views.

COATES: Well, Neera, one thing that the former DNC chairman, Jaime Harrison, tweeted was "Obamas sue them to hell! Go low!" I can't imagine that they would do a lawsuit. But, you know, the concept here is essentially being more aggressive in one's response to statements like this. A good strategy for Democrats?

TANDEN: I mean, I personally think Michelle Obama and Barack Obama are so much more supported and popular than the president. The president's library is going to open up this week. I think you'll see an outpouring of support for him. So, I actually think this -- the fact that this happened, the fact that they don't -- they won't say anything about it, the fact that you have conservatives or more conservative-aligned people sort of speaking out against it just makes it clear how --

SINGLETON: I mean, Dana White made it clear like this is -- this is repulsive. It was a lie. He blatantly said that, I think, in a text exchange with the Times reporter.

[23:39:54]

But one of the reasons I brought up the historical component of this and why I've seen a lot of Black women just real be insulted, feel insulted, angered by it, and hurt, there was an interview that Michelle Obama gave, the former first lady, to Oprah Winfrey, and she talked about how those comments really hurt her, and how she went out of her way to show more of herself so that she could control the narrative about who she actually was as a person. And that's why I talked about that.

So, this is not a partisan thing. You don't have to agree with the Obamas on politics and policy. We can have that debate. But this is a former first lady who is worthy of respect because if these were in the reverse against the current first lady, Republicans would be outraged and rightfully so. So, why should we not have the same outrage about the former first lady?

TANDEN: You're right. I think I heard the current first lady hold a press conference on rumors about herself. COATES: Neera, Shermichael, thank you so much. Up next, J.D. Vance suddenly being called the architect of the Iran deal. So, why did Trump put him in this role? Neera and Shermichael fielding that question and the others you're sending in to us tonight. Just text us to us at 818-972-7272.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We've got a lot of questions from you tonight. So, we're to get right to them. A reminder for those of you at home who want to join in, just text us at 818-972-7272. Give me your name, first name, city, state and, of course, your question.

Neera Tanden and Shermichael Singleton are back with me to answer them with you. OK, first one, Todd from Orange City, Florida asked this question. Why is J.D. Vance all of a sudden front and center regarding Iran? Shermichael, what do you think?

SINGLETON: That's an easy one. The vice president, I believe, has future ambitions. And if you have future ambitions, I don't think foreign policy is going to go anywhere. I think, in fact, because of this conflict, it's going to become even more complicated. I mean, Iran has positioned itself to be a quasi-superpower. And I say quasi for this singular reason. They don't have nuclear capabilities, but they do have the capability to cause extreme global panic in the economic markets. And that's a down toll effect that has issues and ramifications across our country and our Western allies. And so, this is a big deal.

COATES: Shonte from Texas asked this question. For an administration that always says they are the most transparent, why not release this one-and-a-half page of the agreement with Iran? Neera, what do you think?

TANDEN: I mean, they're not releasing it because I think it's embarrassing.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I think the president likes -- he's a showman. He understands the media. If he thought that he could -- it would be something that the world or the country would celebrate, he would be the first to show it to us. But I think we've been actually in a multi-week, almost multi-month effort for the president to kind of manage decline or manage basically ending this war without all the things he's required of the war to begin with.

COATES: Peter asked this question. Historically, U.S. presidents have been supported by citizens during times of war. Do you think Donald Trump started the Iran war thinking it would raise his popularity? That's a good question. What do you, guys, think? SINGLETON: That is a good question. I don't think so. I think he probably entered into this conflict at the behest of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has allegedly wanted to do this for a long time, proposed the Obama administration with strategic plans to do a joint effort. Obama administration ultimately decided not to do that because of the complexities, the economic potential tolls, the risk on military troops, et cetera. President Trump, I think, perhaps assumed that this could be a lot quicker. And I think we're realizing the Iranians are a lot tougher than we realized.

TANDEN: I mean, I think the only explanation of this war that makes sense is that the president thought he would win in a week or two. And he wasn't. He did not win in a week or two. The Iranians did seem to -- they are much more resolved than he expected. He expected the regime would topple. He listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu and others telling him it would be kind of easy to do. I think he came off of the high from Venezuela and it turned out that that was false. And essentially, we have been in a multi-month effort to kind of save face or whatever.

But I think when you see the end of this, the Iranians will be stronger. They will have more control of the Strait of Hormuz than they did before. That's a strategic defeat for the president of the United States.

COATES: Jean from North Carolina asked this question. Why does this administration want to check other people's finances but don't want people to check their finances? Well, this is in reference to the Newsom investigation that has been reported on by Devlin Barrett in "The New York Times." What's your response?

SINGLETON: You know, I read through our reporting on that, and I want to reserve my thoughts on this until I learn more. Allegedly, there is a whistleblower involved and engaged. Allegedly, this started potentially in the previous administration. I'm not really sure, so I don't want to opine on something without having the full picture here. It's a legitimate question.

Look, if you don't want anyone looking into your finances, you probably should have that same idealism for the next person. But, obviously, we have found that being idealistic in today's society is a pipe dream, I suppose.

TANDEN: I guess I would just say on this case in particular that the so-called whistleblower, that case basically died down. It has really risen up under this administration. And I think it would be naive to say that this Department of Justice, which is on its fourth or fifth political attacks on the president's enemies where they basically confessed to using the power of the Department of Justice to go after the president's political enemies, is a little naive to think that's not happening here.

COATES: We shall see. Neera, Shermichael, thank you both. Up next, how Jalen Brunson went from underdog to top dog and the special father-son bond that got him there.

[23:50:02]

Knicks's great Charlie Ward joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JALEN BRUNSON, 2026 NBA FINALS MVP, NEW YORK KNICKS: No matter what the situation is, someone may be down, someone may be feeling down about something that happened in the game, but it's on at least one of us to pick that person up. And I feel like the longer we play together, it wasn't just one person, it was everybody.

[23:54:59]

And so, we always had each other's back and it made it 10 times more special.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The victory tour is just getting started now that the Knicks are NBA champions for the first time in 53 years. A ticker-tape parade is set for this Thursday in New York City. And judging by the way the city reacted on Saturday, the event is going to be one for the history books.

Fans have been singing the praises of one player in particular, no question why, who helped turn this whole team around. It's captain Jalen Brunson. He is this year's NBA Finals MVP. And, you know, he scored 45 points in Game 5, nearly half of the team's total in a Knicks finals record.

I'm joined now by former New York Knick, Charlie Ward, who played for the team the last time they were in the finals in 1999. He's also a college football champion, a Heisman trophy winner, and he is our guest tonight. Charlie, so good to have you here in particular. I mean, talk to me about Jaylen Brunson because he is someone the pundits, they doubted, they kept doubting. We heard everything from he's too small to he's no Kevin Durant. But now, everyone seems to be knowing that they were wrong. Just listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES BARKLEY, FORMER BASKETBALL PLAYER, TNT AND CBS SPORTS TELEVISION ANALYST: When he signed with New York, we knew he was going to be a good player. But, come on, man, none of us saw this.

UNKNOWN: Not even me.

STEPHEN A. SMITH, AMERICAN T.V. PERSONALITY: National television owe this man an apology. I am grateful for what you have done for this city, what you all have done for this city, and you won't be hearing any more doubts from me, my brother. You're a champ.

(LAUGHTER)

BRUNSON: We'll see about that.

(LAUGHTER)

BRUNSON: We'll see about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Charlie, what does this say to you about Brunson as a player knowing you have -- you know very well what it's like to be in his shoes?

CHARLIE WARD, MEMBER, 1999 KNICKS TEAM: Yes, I've definitely been down with myself because of my size, you know, or whatever it may have been. But the one thing that you can't measure is Jalen's heart and his work ethic. That's one of the things that -- I know his dad had the same type of work ethic. He didn't get opportunities that Jalen has gotten. But his upbringing is definitely evident in the way he goes about his business. And so, you know, that doubt that people gave him was like his fuel to prove them wrong. And, you know, it has taken him a couple years to do that.

But the great part about him is just his character, the way he handles himself. That's the kind of leader that you want to follow. And it's no coincidence that the team rally around him and his personality because this team was based on, you know, essentially, when they say one guy, but that wasn't the case. This is truly a team that's connected, you know, throughout, and that's the reason why they're NBA champions.

COATES: Some would say he made sure it was a team because he took that $113 million pay cut just two years ago. The team could really build and sign stronger players. And now, you say, of course, it's 100 percent worth it. I mean, talk to me about the character involved in a league where you've got a lot of personalities, a lot of egos, a lot of people say that they want to be on a great team and be surrounded by great teammates, but not necessarily willing to make the sacrifices. What's the lesson here for other rising stars in the NBA?

WARD: Well, that is one, sacrifices. A hundred and 13 million is a lot.

COATES: Yes.

WARD: And to me, if you're -- if you're trying to build a team, you know, the cap circumstances, you want to provide the team that room if you want to win. And so, he's that guy that wants to win. God is going to bless him with other resources to help him get to whatever he's lacking or left on the table as they call it. But he has opportunity now to be an NBA champion, NBA Finals MVP. And all the people that doubt him coming from Dallas to New York --

COATES: Yes.

WARD: -- are now eating their workers, which is great. That's all you want to hear, people apologize. But I'm just amazed because I remember when he was a little kid running around in the locker room and at the games with his dad back in '99. And now, to see him, you know, leading the New York Knicks to a championship, it's just great -- great to be able to see that.

COATES: It must be so sweet. As a former Knick yourself, actually, you are never former, you're always a Knick, what's it like to know you're champions again?

[23:59:56]

WARD: Well, as a Knick alum, like I said, I've been blessed. My alma mater has won a couple of championships since I've left Florida State being one and not New York Knicks. And so, whenever you win all the heartbreak that you've gone through during those years kind of got erased in one night. And so, I'm just so happy for the franchise. Mr. Dolan has gotten all the criticism over the years. And now, he has an opportunity to be proud, NBA champion owner, and that's something that, you know, we're grateful for.

COATES: Charlie Ward, grateful to you. Thanks for joining. And thank you all for watching. Elex Michaelson is up next.