Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Caves on His Demand of Iran's "Unconditional Surrender"; Trump Jokes He'll Blame J.D. if Iran Agreement Falls Apart; Luigi Mangione Defense Strategy Revealed. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 17, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- familiar faces. They are going to reveal things that they want to get off their chest and things that they really cannot stop thinking about, things that they probably should not be saying out loud. Our first episode touches on etiquette, Botox, young people's opinions, and much, much more. You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or @cnn.com/watch. Can't wait to see you there.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump's Iran agreement is in and so is the scathing verdict forum conservatives who are calling it a U.S. surrender (INAUDIBLE). Plus, J.D. Vance in the spotlight and facing backlash over the agreement as critics warn probably the one getting blamed. And the strategy behind Luigi Mangione's defense, it has finally been revealed. I'll bring it to you tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, President Trump caved. Call it big talk, call it compromise, but can you call it a success? Are we better off than we were the day before the war started?

Let's talk about the agreement, the one whose potential he hyped for weeks. Forget weeks, the framework he has been calling for ever since he did the 2015 nuclear deal. Well, we're finally seeing it. And it's nowhere near what he demanded. And his demands were about as far as you could go. Walk with me for a trip down memory lane to a week after he dropped the first bombs on Iran. Remember, the president said -- quote -- "there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender." And he was declaring the United States would force Iran's leaders into submission.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They should wave the white flag, the white flag of surrender. And how could they say, uncle, right? When are they going to -- when are they going to cry, uncle?

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, today, there is an agreement. There's also no unconditional surrender, no white flag, no crying uncle. Not even close. But there was a lot of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we keep bombing, those ships won't be going. And you're talking about $500, $600, $700 million a day. Also, we run out of reserves in about four weeks. You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out. We have taken their money. It's not our money. It's their money. And we froze it. At a certain point in time, I guess we're going to have to give it back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: These are all considerations before you contemplate war. And if you actually look at this memorandum of understanding, Iran isn't giving up all that much. They're reopening the Strait of Hormuz which, of course, was open before the war. They're reaffirming no nuclear weapons, which they've long done without, I might add, convincing doubters they can even be trusted in their affirmations. And the key questions around their nuclear program are left for the 60-day negotiation window that comes after all this.

Meanwhile, the concessions list is a lot longer for the United States. It includes what so many Republicans are furious about, potential access to $300 billion fund for reconstruction, pathways to remove sanctions, and release frozen assets if Iran plays ball.

And look, the gap between promises and reality, it was everywhere today. Take Iran's enriched uranium. A month ago, Trump was saying Iran couldn't have it, that the U.S. was going to take it. And today, he's suddenly making room for Iran's nuclear power bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We will get it. We don't need it. We don't want it. We'll probably destroy it after we get it. But we're not going to let them have it.

It's a little hard, though, when you say that somebody wants it. Other people have it. Other adjoining states have it. And you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Same story with the missiles.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground.

Well, what am I going to do? They're going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them? Yes, sir. It doesn't work that way, you know. It doesn't work that way. And missiles aren't the problem. Missiles, they hurt a little location, but they don't blow up the planet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And we can't forget the economy. The Trump administration was telling Americans to be patient. He was selling this war as short term pain for long term gain.

[23:05:03]

Now, the president is saying the pain is why he needed a deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think about any. I think about one thing. We could not let Iran have a nuclear weapon.

I didn't want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, no, there was no unconditional surrender. But you know what condition he did surrender? His demand that he'd get one. That's the thing about memorandum of understanding, though. We still don't even know what the final result will be.

My first guest was a vocal opponent of the 2015 JCPOA, the deal that was struck under the Obama administration. Former Republican congressman from Colorado, Ken Buck, joins me now, and he served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, welcome. Glad to have this conversation with you because, as you can imagine, some Republicans are livid with this agreement. It has been described as the worst foreign policy blunder in decades or an American surrender. Tell me, congressman, how do you define it?

KEN BUCK, FORMER COLORADO REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it's an agreement to reach an agreement. We don't know what the agreement is. We don't know whether either side is going to live up to the agreement down the road. So, I think it's very difficult at this point to say that there there even is an agreement.

There's a memorandum of understanding. As you pointed out, it's incredibly vague right now. Really, really don't know who is -- you know, is Iran going to let inspectors have access to all their facilities? All these questions are unanswered.

COATES: If the stakes were as they are written right now and as it is described, even in these vague terms, the concession Iran is making, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, reaffirming no nuclear weapons, freezing nuclear programs during talks, agreeing to negotiate dilution of uranium stockpile, just to name a few, and then the U.S. concessions on the other end, I mean, the 14-point memo, it mandates Iran has to essentially dilute their enriched nuclear material but doesn't require them to give it up. It promises billions of dollars in sanctions relief. And if they were to sign the final deal, do you think that these terms are acceptable and distinct from what you called delusional, the 2015 JCPOA?

BUCK: Again, I think it needs more definition. Are there going to be inspectors on the ground? Right before the JCPOA, there was a statement from Iran that they would not allow inspectors into their military facilities to inspect the nuclear programs. I don't know what's going to happen with this disagreement. If it doesn't have inspectors on the ground, then, yes, it is a failure.

I don't believe that's what's going to happen. I think if you're talking about $300 billion, you are going to make sure that before anybody, before Iran gets any benefit from that, they have opened up the -- they have turned over the enrichment or diluted the enriched uranium, and they have made sure that the inspectors have access to everything. So, I think there's still leverage on both sides, frankly, to make this a deal that's beneficial to the U.S. and prohibits Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

COATES: The president thinks that it is fair for Iran to have some ballistic missiles if neighboring countries have them. Is that a realistic approach or a dangerous concession?

BUCK: I don't think Saudi Arabia appreciates it. I don't think Israel appreciates it. And I'm sure that some of those missiles can reach Europe. Europe probably doesn't appreciate it. But the reality is the main goal that the president had was to make sure Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon. And if that concession is they can have ballistic missiles but never have a nuclear weapon, then that's what has to happen to get the deal done, I guess.

COATES: Sixty days ahead. We'll see what it actually entails. Congressman Ken Buck, thank you.

BUCK: Thank you.

COATES: I want to turn now to NewsNation correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera and CNN senior political commentator Van Jones.

GERALDO RIVERA, CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE, NEWSNATION: Hello.

COATES: Glad to have you both here. Hello. I mean, first of all, Geraldo, let me begin with you. Geraldo, do you see any way that President Trump can convince people that this, today, vague as the terms may be, 60 days negotiations ahead, the terms as they seem to be enumerated, can the president convince people that this was a win?

RIVERA: I don't know how that is remotely possible, Laura. I see you and Van. We went for a kill shot against Iran. They took a pound. They wiped out a generation of their leadership. They closed the Strait of Hormuz. The price of the pump spiked, and we are calling uncle right now.

[23:10:01]

I don't see how that can be spun into a victory. It seems to me that the congressman who said the worst foreign policy blunder ever or in the generation is probably correct.

COATES: Well, it's interesting. You heard Congressman Ken Buck make this point, Van, about leverage, believing that the United States still has leverage and that Iran does well to try to negotiate successfully. I mean, the president acknowledged he wants to avoid an economic catastrophe, that was the phrasing, like the one that triggered the Great Depression, I might add.

But I wonder, from your perspective, is that a tacit admission by this president that Iran successfully leveraged their geographic weapon and being able to control the Strait of Hormuz?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Look, President Trump said this would end with unconditional surrender. And it did, from us, because we basically couldn't take the economic pain that this little country with these cheap drones was able to dish out.

And this is a big problem because the credibility of the United States is the guarantor of world security. If you're in Taiwan right now, you're very nervous. If you're an Iranian citizen who took to the streets and you heard the president say, you know, help is on the way, you are now very nervous because it turns out that the word of the United States is not what you thought it was and that the United States can get itself into a situation where our enemies can hurt us and we will give up.

Here's -- a big problem you've got right now is simply this. When western powers get into these asymmetric battles with ideological opponents, in other words, we've got all the big stuff, we've got the big tanks and the planes and the bombers and the satellites, and they've got little drones and some snipers, it turns out those asymmetric wars can be won by small powers. Ukraine is doing that to Russia right now. Iran just did it to us.

The world of warfare has changed, and you can be a superpower now without a nuclear weapon, just with drones and the proper geographic location. This makes the United States much weaker in the world eye and makes us all less safe because you don't have to fear the United States if a little country with some drones can back us down.

COATES: Yes. I wonder -- this will be part of the calculus people are discussing for many years to come, whether or not this war was necessary. I think I know the answer. People will come to conclusion, whether what has happened since then has led to leverage gained by the United States. And, of course, also, who is going to be the face of this, Geraldo, because the president joked that if this memo goes south --

(LAUGHTER)

-- he already knows who is to blame. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The works that are going to take the credit, if it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D. You better be careful, J.D. He's going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here. Yeah, I like that idea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I was watching Marco Rubio's face the entire time. Just that. By the way, waiting for him to crack a smile. He did not. Maybe it came later. I missed the whole thing. But conservative podcast host Ben Shapiro, he's not joking. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN SHAPIRO, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR, PODCASTER: In my opinion, the vice president of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Geraldo, do you think that Vice President Vance is going to be thrown under the bus here? I mean, is it fair for him to pay the price if it falls apart?

RIVERA: I think timing is everything in life. And Marco Rubio's timing has been impeccable. He has stayed above the fray. The president of the United States sent the vice president, normal and customary, I guess, to negotiate what was a losing hand. And now, he's not going to blame, you know, himself. He's going to blame the dealer and the person, J.D. Vance, holding those bad cards. I think that this has meaningfully set him back. I think that this has catapulted Secretary of State Rubio to the favored position in the presidential sweepstakes for '28. This is a big deal politically.

But more importantly, I worry about Israel. I worry about Israel having its reputation wrecked. Israel helped inspire or incite this ill-fated conflict and, you know, stuck with the bombing of Lebanon way, way too long. I worry. Israel is -- I think, in the modern era, perhaps, Israel is really in the most difficult situation. Since -- October 7th was horrible. A horrible, horrible date that will live in infamy. But Israel was united and went to fight the people, to get the people who did that to them. Then the scheme, though, to attack Iran seemed so flamboyant and based on awful intelligence.

[23:15:00]

I said timing was everything in life. If they had done it back in December 28th instead of February 28th and they had the Iranian people with them, it would have been a much different story. But as it turned out, it's a catastrophe.

COATES: Van, what's your take on that? Because, obviously, there are concerns about -- you mentioned the standing, not only the United States, globally, about alliances as well, but also about the person who was going to spearhead and is spearheading this entire initiative, who has been -- you know, vice presidents are not known to get the plum assignments.

JONES: Yes.

COATES: This is --

JONES: Ask Kamala Harris.

COATES: -- difficult.

JONES: Yes. Kamala Harris got all the tough jobs, and she wound up paying a price for that somewhat politically. Look, I do think it's important to know that, to point out, though, you know, Bibi Netanyahu has asked every president since George Washington to invade Iran. That's not what's new. People want to now blame Israel and that kind of stuff. Bibi Netanyahu has asked every president, he has asked every PTA president, he has asked any president he can find to invade Iran.

Only one was reckless enough to do it. That's Donald Trump. And if Donald Trump wants to then pass the blame off to J.D. Vance, that's perfectly fine. But I just think we need to be very clear, the commander-in-chief of the United States has to make these decisions. And Donald Trump made a reckless decision.

I agree with Geraldo. If you time this right where when the people were out there protesting, you backed up the people, you'd have a different outcome. The problem is when the Iranian people were out there protesting, all of our artillery was on the other side of the world trying to arrest Maduro. And then it takes us six weeks to get over to the other side. By then, the Iranian regime has slaughtered 50,000 people and that movement has been drowned in blood. Then we start bombing a country where the opposition forces have already been slaughtered.

It's a ready-fire aim from this president. And I just don't think you should blame -- don't let this president off the hook by blaming Israel. Israel has asked for this to happen for a bunch of times. Donald Trump made a bad decision.

COATES: You know what? Thank you. Stick around, everyone, because I want to hear from you all. You are a part of this show, as you well know. And we'll be answering your questions and comments a little later on in the show. Just text us at 818-972-7272. Include a first name, your city or state. Got a lot to talk to you about.

Still ahead, the man who spent decades wargaming this exact conflict is going to weigh in on the agreement. Professor Robert Pape on why he thinks the next 60 days could become the most dangerous yet. And later, Luigi Mangione's defense strategy. We finally got a glimpse. It has been revealed. The question is, could it actually work? I'm going to get into it tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE: This will be regarded as one of the biggest American disasters. And it's because Trump started this war. He didn't know how to finish it. And it looks like in too many ways, he has just capitulated to the Iranians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Democrats in Congress slamming the White House's 14-point plan with Iran. And tonight, the big question is, where does the plan leave the United States after the 60-day negotiating period ends?

Well, my next guest simulated every possible scenario in a U.S.-Iran conflict for the last 20 years. He's the author of the Substack column "The Escalation Trap" and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Professor Robert Pape joins me now. Professor, welcome back. I mean, look, you say that the next 60 days could become even more dangerous with Iran potentially, potentially ending up stronger than they were before. Why?

ROBERT PAPE, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS EXPERT, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, AUTHOR: This is a deal that doesn't simply reflect a defeat today. It shows in the deal itself that Iran is going to gain power over the next two months. And it already is showing the seeds of what that's going to look like.

So, number one, between now and the next 60 days, we're promising to give Iran something like $30 billion in unfrozen assets and in oil proceeds. I said $30 billion. That's what that monetizes to in the agreement today. That's just in the next 60 days. Then on day 61, the agreement sets. Iran starts charging tolls, fees, charging fees. That's more money and more power.

In that period, and you've been talking about this, Iran is not promising to give up its nuclear dust. And, in fact, Donald Trump is walking away from the importance of that, going out of the country. Iran is not giving up missiles, and Donald Trump is walking away with whether they should give up their missiles.

So, what's going to happen over 60 days is Iran is going to gain power, and then it's going to have even more leverage because the oil inventories are going to run dry. The very thing Donald Trump today said was the reason he signed this deal is that we're running out of oil inventory. Remember that. That was his core reason. You just talked about that. That's going to happen, Laura, because it will take 60 days or more for those ships to get the oil from Hormuz to refinery to market.

COATES: But professor --

PAPE: Not just get them to pass Hormuz.

COATES: Let me ask you this because we know there is a 60-day negotiation window and, presumably, the powers that be are contemplating the very leverage shift that you have just stated. If that's the case, the administration keeps pointing out that Iran only gets the benefits in the agreement if they behave and meet America's requirements. If they don't, they get nothing, they say.

[23:24:59]

So, do you have doubts that those next 60 days are anything but the solidification of what's already here and not truly negotiating?

PAPE: That's too narrow of a framing, Laura, because Israel is being left out of the equation. It's not just Israel shooting a few rockets and so forth into Beirut. The fundamental shift that's occurring is Iran is now the rising, aspiring hegemon. Israel used to have that position. Israel is now the declining power. So, we have a situation where Israel is declining precipitously. Is Israel just going to stand back and let Iran become the new regional hegemon over time?

Now, it still got months to go, that's not going to happen overnight, but that's the trajectory that we're on. The danger here, the zone we're entering is dangerous because this is a classic case of a new rising power and it's really shooting up quite fast a declining power that thought it was rising, that's Israel.

And then there's Donald Trump. Is he just going to stand by on day 61 and it's going to be suddenly fine that the tolls that he said would never happen are going to be imposed? Think about that for the midterms. And then what if that just does not leave the country? What if it doesn't get downgraded? And what if the Iranians just walk from the deal? There's nothing keeping the Iranians here. Fine, Donald Trump says, OK, they won't get $300 billion. Who really thinks that's actually coming, anyway?

The real issues here are all the advantages for Iran's power are built into this agreement. There's nothing limiting its power whatsoever. Its power is going to come from money, it's going to come from regional control. That is Lebanon, the Houthis, etcetera. Nothing limits that. And it's going to come from that nuclear material, which is already a threshold state.

COATES: Yes.

PAPE: Why doesn't it decide after 60 days, hey, we got the money we're going to get, Trump won't give us any more money, fine, we'll go this way?

COATES: That's the $30 billion question over the next 60 days. Professor Robert Pape, thank you so much.

PAPE: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, Trump goes to war with Senate Republicans as he sabotages his own nominee in order to give Bill Pulte the reins over America's spy agencies. Plus, your time to drive the conversation. Just text us your questions, your comments at 818-972-7272. We got Van Jones and former Republican congressman Garret Graves with me to take you on, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, sometimes all it takes is a single True Social post to turn things upside down. And today, no different. This time, the president threw Senate Republicans and the Intelligence Community into turmoil by demanding two things. He wants controversial housing official Bill Pulte to stay on as acting director of National Intelligence.

Remember, Pulte has no known national security experience, but he has pushed investigations into Trump's critics like Senator Adam Schiff, New York A.G. Letitia James, to just name a few. Trump even decided to delay his nomination of Jay Clayton to take over the permanent job. It's part of Trump's strategy to have Pulte stay on until Congress passes his voter I.D. bill. And Trump says he wants it attached to the bill reauthorizing Section 702 of FISA.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I mean, that's all we want. It's not a lot, the Save America Act. And that can be passed any way they want to pass it, but I'm not going to sign FISA unless it's done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Senate Republicans say that idea, DOA. And North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis adds -- quote -- "If the president was fully briefed on the consequences of taking this action and he did it anyway, that's on him."

Van Jones is back with me along with former Louisiana Republican congressman, Garret Graves. Glad to have you both here. Again, congressman, I mean, unless something changes, Pulte is going to be the acting DNI on Friday when Tulsi Gabbard's resignation actually goes into effect officially. Even Republicans, though, they don't trust him in that position even for a temporary time, it seems. Is he making a mistake by digging his heels into this?

GARRET GRAVES, FORMER LOUISIANA REPRESENTATIVE: Look, I think what's important to keep in mind is we found ourselves in politics in such a dysfunctional situation to where any opportunity for leverage you see, either Democrats or Republicans, taking full advantage.

In this situation, you clearly have Democrats that don't want Pulte in that position. President Trump is looking at it like leverage. He says, you know what, I want to (INAUDIBLE). How is it that I have to get on an airplane to show an I.D., go to the doctor to show an I.D., buy tobacco, if I used it, show an ID, but in this case registering to vote and having to show an I.D. is inappropriate? I don't understand it. I think the president's push for the (INAUDIBLE) is reasonable.

COATES: But isn't he burning some goodwill? It's rare sometimes to have the votes to get the job that you want done. You have the votes to get the U.S. attorney for SDNY, Jay Clayton confirm at DNI. You have Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton saying he's highly qualified. Is the leverage that is sought worth the goodwill that will be burned?

GRAVES: Look, you bring up a fair point. I've seen Chairman Cotton's comments. I've seen Majority Leader Thune's comments expressing some frustration. Certainly, Senator Tillis has expressed frustration.

[23:34:57]

I think it's great that you have a candidate like Clayton that folks are rallying around and can get a positive vote and get approved, and that's fantastic.

But, once again, I think you've got to look at this like the dismal state of politics in this country today where things are so polarizing and so divisive that any single opportunity for leverage, the other side tries to maximize and tries to use to their advantage. And I think that this is a situation where the president's request is reasonable. Whether conflating it with the DNI is appropriate or not, I'm going to leave that to the White House. But I think his request is reasonable, to show an I.D. to register to vote.

COATES: Well, is the request reasonable and is the conflation appropriate?

JONES: We're playing with American lives here. OK? This is not a joke. This is the director of National Intelligence. This is the most important person for keeping Americans safe. This person receives all the intelligence from all of our allies, trying to figure out who's trying to kill us, and then has to coordinate with all of our internal agents. This is not a joke. You can't put just Ronald McDonald or just some random Smurf or Muppet in this job, which is what he has done. He has just picked some fool who he put in charge of a total other agency. In the other job, all he has done is harass people and attack people and be a little attack dog for the president. That's not a qualification to have this job.

COATES: He would say that he's making conservative efforts to, you know, root out corruption and fraud. That's the statement he would make and not being a fool.

JONES: Listen. He has this clown in this office. He's going after the attorney general here in New York City. That's not a qualification to be the top spy over all the top spies. He's playing -- here's what I'm going to tell you. If something happens --

COATES: Please --

JONES: Listen. If something happens -- we have a big Knicks parade in New York tomorrow. If something happens while he's doing all this nonsense, shame on President Trump. Listen. I get the politics and this and that and you want to make a video about voting rights. This is about the safety of the American people being played with by this president, and it's very, very dangerous.

COATES: God forbid there be any issue, and I certainly hope that the appropriate law enforcement is taking it. I have to say one of the things that the president says, that he thinks Democrats are just afraid of Pulte. They don't think he's a fool. They think he's afraid. Listen to what he says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This was like a rush act. It was a rush act by the Democrats. All of a sudden, they want to get -- and why are they afraid of this guy? They're so afraid of him they'll do anything not to have Pulte go in there. He's a very capable guy, and they're worried about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you think it's fear that's driving it or do you think that it is the political leverage as a sort of tit for tat?

GRAVES: I suspect it's probably the political leverage issue. But, look, let me respond to what Van brought up, something that's really important to keep in mind. John Ratcliffe, former colleague, good friend of mine and a great, great leader of the CIA, he was the DNI under the first Trump administration. So, it's not like we have some void there. There are not capabilities.

Look, I don't know Pulte, I don't, but I can tell you, to suggest that there's no intelligence capabilities in the United States, I don't think that's fair in this case. I want to be clear. I want the best people in these positions. I think it is a critical position, and I'll agree with you on that. But it's not like we have some void and there aren't all of these capacities within our federal government.

COATES: I think his point was not that there's no intelligence in the United States, but that the person who is being picked to be the acting DNI does not have --

JONES: Not qualified. It doesn't even meet the legal qualifications for the job. It's actual legal qualifications he does not meet. So, listen, we can argue about voting rights, but this is much more dangerous for America.

COATES: Well, you know what? I want to answer questions from people at home because they are eager to jump in to the conversations. Let's go to Minnesota, of course. Doug in Minnesota asks, is Vance being set up to take the fall when the deal isn't successful? What do you think, congressman?

GRAVES: Look, it is curious, the way this whole thing has evolved with Vance being at first seemed to be opposed to the invasion. Rubio seemed like he was on board. Now, Vance is taking the lead. Look, I don't know the answer to the question. You're going to have to ask the president that. But I do think that -- I don't see this as definitively a situation where somebody is going to have to take the fall. I still believe that there's an opportunity to salvage something here. I'm hopeful this administration is able to do that.

COATES: Sheldon in Seattle asks, why did the prime minister of Canada receive the text to the USA and Iran agreement while our own congressional leadership was kept in the dark? Van, comment?

JONES: Because we have a king and not somebody who actually respects the three equal branches of government. And listen. One of the reasons that you want to pull in the congressional leadership is because there are really smart people in Congress in both parties. And the fact that the president has gone off and done this military misadventure without the good counsel from the top people in Congress is part of why this thing got watched so badly.

COATES: Let's ask Garret.

GRAVES: That question opened up the door for you to say because Canada has a good DNI.

[23:40:01]

You could have --

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: You did miss the window. All right, E.J. in Los Angeles -- I wonder if it's the E.J. (INAUDIBLE). E.J. in L.A. asked this question, why are we contracting $300 billion fund for Iran to rebuild? It's not his son, just E.J. Go ahead. Garret, what do you think?

GRAVES: Yes. Look, I -- once again, this agreement is not final. We don't know exactly what's in there. I've seen the numbers reported as other people have as well. Much of that, I believe, is actually their money, including the majority of it that's in China today. I think it's also allowing them to have access to the global oil markets, which certainly has value as well. I think we're going to have to wait and see what the ultimate agreement looks like to be able to answer that question.

COATES: I want to go to Canada. Ben in Edmonton asked this question. What are the ramifications of this war and nego0tiated settlement four, five or 10 years from now? Is a future regime change war inevitable? What do you think, Van?

JONES: I mean, I think the United States picked the wrong regime change war the last time around. If you could go back and do it over, you probably wouldn't knock off Saddam Hussein and spent $4 trillion and 15 years in Iraq just for Iraq to be dominated by Iran. Look, I think the long-term consequences are pretty bad. You had a guest on before that says Israel may wind up weaker, our main ally may wind up weaker, and Iran, our main enemy, may wind up a lot stronger.

COATES: Karl in California asks, why is J.D. Vance selling a book during a war and economic crisis? Congressman, I'll ask you.

JONES: We have better time (ph).

(LAUGHTER)

GRAVES: I don't think anybody scheduled the war. I don't. I'll also tell you that I think you need to read J.D. Vance's book. It actually talks about his faith, which I think is something that's really important in a time like this. It's divisive. Having principles, having faith, and caring about something bigger than yourself is a big deal. I think people need to read the book.

COATES: Garret is the publisher. No. Kidding. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it. Still ahead, it has been a mystery ever since he was arrested and charged. How was Luigi Mangione going to mount his defense? You know what? Tonight, we finally have the answer. One of New York's top criminal defense attorneys, Arthur Aidala, weighs in, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know what? For the first time tonight, we are getting a glimpse of what the defense plans to argue in the defense of Luigi Mangione. It's not that he didn't commit the crime. Rather, he did it while suffering from what's called extreme emotional disturbance. A New York State judge gave Mangione's lawyers until tomorrow to explain how they plan on making this case.

So, how would this work? Well, for starters, Mangione would have to admit to the killing. His lawyers would then need to demonstrate that he was experiencing a severe mental health episode that triggered him to lose control. Whether or not a jury is going to buy this, that remains to be seen. A jury hasn't even been impaneled.

This is typically a defense you might see for crimes that occurred in the heat of the moment. For example, maybe someone is walking in on their spouse cheating. But if the jury agrees that extreme emotional disturbance was at play, the crime would be reduced from murder to manslaughter, which could mean Mangione would get 25 years instead of life if convicted.

Here to talk about all of this is criminal defense attorney Arthur Aidala. I'm so glad you're here to help me unpack this because people have been wondering, Arthur, what would his defense be. And this is one that comes with nuance, but one that might have been their best- case scenario, right?

ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I don't think, Laura, they had much of a choice. I mean, the other -- here's the breaking news today. The breaking news is they're now conceding, yes, he's the shooter, right? They had never conceded he's the shooter. Now, they have overwhelming evidence. The prosecutor does. They waited until the judge ruled about what the jury could hear and what they can hear. So, now, they can --

COATES: Or the evidence is going to come in, right?

AIDALA: Right. What evidence is going to come in? So, they realized. And look, I know all of these lawyers. They're fantastic. Marc Agnifilo, his wife Karen, Jacob, I know them all, Teny, I was with them yesterday. But, you know, you got to play the hand you're dealt. So, they could've gone for the extreme measure and asked for insanity. Be like, look, the kid doesn't even know what is right from wrong is, he has totally lost his marbles.

But, obviously, they've had him -- I've spoken to a doctor, to an expert, who has said, no, no, no, he knows what was going on. It was just during this period of time he was so emotional, he was so caught up with the whole healthcare crisis, his own back operation, whether insurance covered it or wouldn't cover it, that he basically lost his mind for a certain period of time and, therefore, folks, don't find him guilty of murder, find him guilty of manslaughter.

This judge, who I know well also, will definitely give him 25 years, but that means he'll be eligible for parole probably in about 22 years, which means he'll be out of prison younger than I am right now.

COATES: What's so fascinating about this otherwise totally tragic case, and we're looking at this as lawyers obviously, and the tragedy speaks for itself of a loss of life, but what is so fascinating to people has been that there had not been doubt of who was the assailant, but how they would try to defend the actions and the behavior.

And this, this approach would kind of put the United Healthcare and also the industry on trial as well because if they are going to try to suggest that he was so emotionally distraught and disturbed by the things that he was seeing, reading, feeling, his interaction with the healthcare system, they're going to be able to raise a lot of his grievances with the healthcare industry and United Healthcare specifically in order to try to build their case for emotional disturbance.

[23:50:02]

AIDALA: So, you're correct. There will be what's called motions in limine. So, before the trial even starts, before you pick the jury, this is very important, the judge -- the prosecutor is going ask the judge to make rulings about how deep he's going to allow them to get into the healthcare industry. Had they not raised this issue, they wouldn't have been able to get into it at all.

COATES: Right.

AIDALA: It's just, OK, this person died on this date, and who killed him, and that's the end of that. Now, you get to bring out kind of the history. And, obviously, the most would come out if Luigi testified.

COATES: Will he?

AIDALA: Who knows? I mean --

COATES: I don't think he will. I don't know. You think he should?

AIDALA: Nobody knows. I'm sure this young man, who went to an Ivy League school, who comes from a beautiful family, will probably -- and he's a good-looking kid, probably would come off pretty well, he's going to be prepped very well by his lawyers, probably come off pretty well. All you want to do sometimes is get that one juror or two jurors for sympathy and get a hung jury and get a mistrial. But the judge, in my opinion, Judge Carro, is going to limit it. He's not going to let them come out with every statistic in the world. It got to be limited to kind of what Luigi knew and what was going on in Luigi's mind. So, what did he know about the healthcare industry? What were his experiences? And a lot of that will come out through the doctor, through the expert who gets to speak to Luigi, and he'll say, well, he told me he was upset because of this or of that. But the prosecutor's expert also gets to question Luigi.

COATES: Right.

AIDALA: So, it is going to be a battle of the experts. And sometimes, that makes jurors fall asleep. Other times, it makes them just be very confused. So, the opening statement, the jury selection, as you already indicated, you know, is probably the most important part of this trial because if you get one or two overly sympathetic jurors, then you can get a hung jury, and they got to do the whole thing again.

COATES: And you know, when you have a battle of the experts that is sure to come in this case, if you're the prosecution, you have to anticipate. Obviously, this defense is going to be raised. You have the burden of proof. It's your case in chief. You're going to have to aggressively be proactive about undermining what their expert might say in the long run as well. And then the defense could very well say, you know, we think we've done enough damage here by even cross- examining that person, and we don't have to do any more work. So, it's a very, very big minefield.

But just the idea of the jurors looking at this, we know full well. Just look at the way this case has been discussed, the people who are in Luigi costumes outside of his court appearances. You can imagine the fan mail you're seeing. There are people who are outside the courthouse every time he's there trying to see him.

When you look at the prospect of jury nullification, the potential of it, when somebody says, I know, I agree, prosecution, I'm still going to acquit, does this new strategy, does that make it more or less likely that jury nullification will not be an issue?

AIDALA: I think this makes it more likely that jury nullification can happen because you're going to hear a lot more about what was going on in Luigi's mind, about what's going on in the healthcare industry than you would if it was just who did it. You know, was it Luigi? Wasn't it? But you know, a lot of that, Laura, I think will go out the window.

Jill Simon, the prosecutor here, he most likely is going to call the wife of the deceased. He can only call her for one reason, to do the body I.D. And when she goes up there -- was there a time -- you're allowed to ask some preliminary questions. How long were you married? How many children do you have? The judge will let that stuff come in, right? Did there a time when you went to the morgue? What did you see?

And typically, that's when someone breaks down, hysterically crying, and she'll get out that, you know, my children are devastated, my five-year-old and nine-year-old, how old they are, you know, will now be raised without a father. And that's going to be done in the very beginning of the case, usually. So that sets the stage for the sympathy for the deceased. And that's what the defense -- and the defense usually doesn't even cross-examine it. You know, it usually says, Your Honor, I have no question. What are you going to say?

COATES: Right.

AIDALA: It wasn't him in the morgue, got shot in the back. So, it's -- you know, there's your jury nullification on the other end of the spectrum.

COATES: You know, Arthur, just one more thought on this idea of the emotional disturbance. I mean, as you point out, if it were insanity, you'd have to show really a longer period of time, frankly, where he was unable to know right from wrong.

But this allows him -- even if he were to testify in the long run or he would be interviewed by the psychologist who would be the opining expert, that they can compartmentalize that moment and not have, if he were to take the stand later, have that undermine the fact that he felt that way then. This is a strategic decision to have that very tight boundary around the period of time that he was disturbed, right?

[23:54:58]

AIDALA: See, Laura, that's why you don't need legal experts. You are a legal expert. You just said -- you said it perfectly, concisely. And yes, what you just said is absolutely accurate. So, you know, look, we shall see. But, again, Laura, having been in the shoes of this defense team, sometimes, you don't have a choice.

COATES: Right.

AIDALA: You have to play the hand you're dealt and just play it as hard as you can, and do your best, and hope for the best. And as a lawyer, when you put your head on the pillow, you say, look, I protected all this person's rights, I made sure his constitutional rights were protected, I argued vociferously and passionately for him, and the jury rendered a decision, and we have to live with that.

COATES: The case goes on. Arthur Aidala, always, thank you.

AIDALA: Thank you. It's always a pleasure, Laura.

COATES: Thank you all for watching. Victor Blackwell picks up "The Story Is" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)