Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Supreme Court Handed Trump A Map For The Rest Of His Term; Supreme Court Expands Power Of Big Money In Politics; Colorado Primary Puts Democratic Left To The Test; Lebron James To Leave Lakers And Hit Free Agent Market. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 30, 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: All right. And finally, last but certainly not least, I like Ashley's outfit tonight. She is dressed for battle.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, stay ready so you ain't got to get ready.
PHILLIP: You are a favorite this week.
ALLISON: I know. Thanks, guys. Love you, too.
PHILLIP: Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Supreme Court draws the boundaries of Trump's power on birthright citizenship, but he's already looking for openings. You know what? The court may have shown him where to find them. Plus, the progressive movement has put to the test in Colorado. One progressive challenger falls short while another's race is turning into a nail-biter. And the king leaving L.A. So, where does LeBron James take his next chapter? We'll talk about it tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, look, the Supreme Court has now handed President Trump a map, a map for the rest of his term, a map of where his power begins, where it ends, and where he might still be able to push. And, of course, we want to read that map, don't we? We want to figure out where all of this is going and where it's taking our country.
And the reality is, the Supreme Court term, I mean, it has been nothing short of dizzying. You've got ruling after ruling, decisions on nearly 60 cases, from immigration to presidential power to pretty much every culture war issue you can think of. And the temptation is going to be to draw one clean through line across all of it. I wish I could do that for you, but it's not that easy. You can say, he won this one, he lost that one. So, there you go.
Here's what it's going to be, but I take a different approach because there's more than one citizen in this country. It's not just about what he has lost or not. The question isn't just who won and who lost in the Supreme Court. It's what has changed in our country or stayed the same for all of us because of it.
Let's tackle Trump's immigration agenda. The court handed him a blow today on his push to try to end birthright citizenship. But that decision, upholding birthright, wasn't even a unanimous one. In a 6-3 decision, it ruled children born in this country, even to undocumented immigrants, they're still citizens. It has been the law for almost 150 years, by the way.
But they ruled again on it today. And Chief Justice John Roberts drew a line around the 14th Amendment and delivered a defeat for Trump's executive order. He tried to make that first day. But a completely dead end? It was not because Trump is now looking to Congress to pass legislation to try to end birthright citizenship. And House Speaker Mike Johnson says he might be open to trying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: It certainly is time for us to do everything that's possible. I don't know what that is. I think it's clearly an issue that merits the attention of Congress. But I will tell you that it's a big concern for the American people because it has been abused.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What's the it? Now, look, I can tell you that the likelihood of Congress passing anything on birthright citizenship right now is virtually nil. They have been so successful everywhere else. But despite what Trump says, a constitutional amendment to amend that amendment, that's under the category of necessary.
But now, the president knows where he can test his limits, and his administration is not waiting. Look at this. A DOJ letter to all U.S. attorneys directing them to prioritize investigations of -- quote, unquote -- "birth tourism schemes." You see where this is going, right? The administration is already trying to work around the court's ruling. And on immigration, more broadly, it has already been handed some pretty significant wins. Just take last week. It confirmed his power to regulate the border, it sided with the president on turning back asylum seekers at the southern border, and it cleared the way for Trump to deport Haitian and Syrian migrants with immigration protections.
And that ruling, it cannot be overstated in its significance because instead, it isn't a court's call to make, it's the president's. Now, that's just immigration. But if you step back and look at the entire Supreme Court term, I told you at the top, it's tempting to try to draw a broad conclusion.
And there is one thread that holds. I mean, look at what the president lost.
[23:05:00]
Birthright, tariffs. Those weren't about running the government. Tariffs, that's actually Congress's power to tax, right? The power of the purse, we know this, it's not his. Birthright, the Constitution. He tried to rewrite that portion by executive order. And the court basically said no when he tried to reach outside of his own branch.
But inside the executive branch, well, that's the horse of a different color. The court gave him more room to control the agencies under that huge umbrella that answer to the executive with one exception, of course, the Federal Reserve, which, of course, the independents, the court said, has sweeping consequence all across the world in terms of the U.S. economy.
So, even if -- even if they didn't necessarily hand Trump a clean sweep, it did give him a roadmap or maybe some confirmation of what he can and cannot do, which he's already trying to follow. And unless the other branches of government get on that same road and create some roadblocks, well, they may not be the co-equal branches of government but maybe two other subordinate ones.
Here to break down a pivotal day at the Supreme Court, we've got CNN legal analyst and former DOJ prosecutor Elliot Williams, Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett, and former CNN communications -- former senior -- former senior communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, T.W. Arrighi. I gave you a new job, a new title.
(LAUGHTER)
There you go. Let's get to it. All right, Elliot, let me begin with you because Vice President Vance, he is finding some silver linings. And in one, he says this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The fact that this case was a five to four decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th Amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread. We actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision just as we reversed so many bad decisions throughout the generations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: First of all, he said not six to three. He's talking about the concurring opinion and thinking --
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COATES: -- the way that the technical -- the way that they --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: -- parsed out the issues that he was describing that. But it was not unanimous, and that is the key --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: -- that he's trying to talk about. So, do you agree that birthright citizenship, the first line of the 14th Amendment, is hanging by a thread?
WILLIAMS: I don't think it's hanging by a thread. He is correct that it was 5-4 on the constitutional argument. Justice Kavanaugh sort of broke off from the majority saying that, wait a second, I believe that for statutory reasons, this might have been OK, but I don't agree with the court's constitutional argument grounded in the 14th Amendment.
Now, he also, in effect, gives a roadmap to Congress to limit birthright citizenship if they so choose. There are a few problems with that. Number one, I would think that based on that plain language of the 14th Amendment that you've talked about, any legislation to try to narrow it is itself going to be subject to legal challenge.
But the idea that it's hanging on by a thread, I mean, I just think that's just not an accurate reading of what the court decided today given the -- however many hundred-plus years of precedent on this issue and the language of the Constitution. It's quite clear, and the court has ruled today. So, maybe the court could overrule it one day or change their mind, but that's highly unlikely.
COATES: But the court never overturned its own precedent.
WILLIAMS: I know.
COATES: What do you -- what do you mean? Read the facetiousness in my voice. But you hear about the words birth tourism. You know that this -- whether you have the court talking about the legal and constitutionality, the political machines are already looking at this issue in terms of is this a winnable discussion, using the Supreme Court's failure to have a unanimous decision to say, uh-huh, there is an opening politically. How do the Democrats respond to even the speaker of the House saying, well, hold on, let's try something?
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: I mean, I looked at that decision not with a sense of relief but more disbelief, the fact that three sitting Supreme Court justices decided to kind of toss out the plain text of the Constitution in favor of what's essentially a presidential memo, a sticky note with his big fat signature on it.
And, you know, I think Democrats welcome this fight. I mean, if they want to try and pass a law that's going to have to make its way through Congress, which they do not have the votes to pass, that will not pass constitutional muster in the courts. They're not going to try and pass a constitutional amendment because that would just never pass. So, you know, what are we talking about here? Are we having a fight about birth tourism? I think, you know, Joe Biden and Barack Obama both went after that in their administrations. I don't think that's a contentious issue. It's following the law that, you know, as an immigrant, you're not allowed to come to this country for the sole purposes of having a child that's going to be a citizen. That has been the law of the land for many, many decades. So, I think Democrats would welcome this fight, and I think this is honestly just saving face from Republicans. COATES: When I hear about U.S. attorneys being told to prioritize this, having been a prosecutor, knowing the full scope of the types of cases you are looking at prosecuting, and you have to wonder, is this a directive to find a problem, to find ways to buttress the arguments that will be needed to make this political capital worthwhile?
[23:10:07]
But I come down to T.W. I mean, do Republicans even have -- does Trump have the capital with Republicans right now on Capitol Hill to insist on this aside from even having those attorneys do it?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Well, I think there is broad consensus on the immigration topic among the Republican caucus. It's actually probably one of the few things that are currently uniting the Republican Party.
COATES: But to end citizenship? That's the question I'm asking. To end the birthright part of it?
ARRIGHI: I think there's definitely more contention on that element. I was compelled by -- you know, I believe we're a nation of immigrants. I think we should have laws that reflect that.
But it is compelling to look at the history of the 14th Amendment, what it was designed to do, and then take the words of Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th Amendment, and he explicitly said on the Senate floor, it's not for foreigners or aliens or foreign ministers who are here or ambassadors. He actually said that on the Senate floor.
Now, that isn't explicitly laid out in the 14th Amendment.
COATES: Which makes a difference.
ARRIGHI: By the way --
WILLIAMS: It doesn't just make a difference.
ARRIGHI: No. I know. So, as is brought up -- brought up a lot today, I think if there was a clean slate on immigration policy and we had this debate anew, I think this would be something that we all would look at. No countries in Europe do it, etcetera. And so, I think there is a pathway forward.
If you follow the Kavanaugh thing, will it be subject to legal review? Absolutely. But I think it is absolutely a discussion to be had because it was not really the intent of it. And then the jurisdiction thereof, a lot of people are making hay of that. I think that's where Kavanaugh went to write a law.
WILLIAMS: The interesting thing about Kavanaugh's point is exactly your point, which is that the idea of immigration and citizenship to some extent has evolved over years or at least, quite frankly, centuries. The problem is that the language is what the language is.
ARRIGHI: Right.
WILLIAMS: And the Supreme Court's precedent and, frankly, Congress's own actions going back to the 1890s have been quite consistent. So, anyone who wishes to change this has a very uphill battle even in light of what the court ruled today.
COATES: I know even the ERA has not been passed yet. There seems to be universal support for equal rights. But maybe I'm wrong. Women.
Let me ask you about this because conservatives are up in arms after Justice Amy Coney Barrett, of course, sided with liberals. I shouldn't say of course because that's the argument they're making against her, that she, of course, sides with liberals. But she did so in key rulings. She does not always side with liberals at all. But with the issue of birthright citizenship and mail-in voting, well, she's getting criticism. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGYN KELLY, SIRIUSXM TALK SHOW HOST: Amy Coney Barrett is a turncoat. She's constantly siding with the left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, when you think about this, Sawyer, you've got Matt Walsh calling Justice Coney Barrett a DEI hire, you've got a member of Congress calling for her removal. Obviously, a tall order. How does this complicate Democrats' claim that this court is just rubber- stamping the president of the United States when you do have some fluidity, in some cases, which, frankly, people demand of Supreme Court justices as opposed to just being pure ideologues?
HACKETT: I think a year ago, if you had said that three Supreme Court justices would rule against the plain text of the Constitution on birthright citizenship, you would have been laughed out of this room. I think it's --
WILLIAMS: Four. On that point.
COATES: On that one point.
HACKETT: And, by the way, the folks who did ultimately dissent in this case didn't have a path forward for the folks who were born as birthright citizens in this country. There was no actual adjudication of that whatsoever. So, they don't even have a system in place for what would happen if birthright citizenship would fall.
I don't think this complicates Democrats' position on this. I mean -- because Amy Coney Barrett clearly is the only originalist on the court today who knew how to read the law. I mean, like, this is astounding that you have three Supreme Court justices who went along with this.
And they can, you know, cry about it all they want but, at the end of the day, it's the law of the land. It has been the law of the land for 150-plus years. And they're not going to change that because they're not going to pass a constitutional amendment, they're not going to pass a law. They can go after birthright tourism but, you know, that's on an individual case basis. Go for it. Have fun.
WILLIAMS: And people should know what it takes to amend the Constitution. You're talking about supermajorities in Congress and then ratification by every state or, you know, a big majority of the state, legislatures of every state in the country. So, this is not the kind of thing that we can say, let's just pass a constitutional amendment, and it happens. The framers made it deliberately hard for a very big reason. People just know that.
COATES: Elliott Williams's schoolhouse rock, my friends. There we go. Look at you.
WILLIAMS: I am.
COATES: I'm just a bill. There you go. Let's turn to what's going on because in another huge decision in the Supreme Court, one that has really been quite the culture war. Many have looked at this issue even when it came to the last presidential election and found it to be partially an Achilles' heel of the vice president, Kamala Harris, and others. The Supreme Court has allowed the states to, 27 of them, uphold their ban on transgender athletes, those who were assigned male at birth, to participate in girls' sports. Republicans have repeatedly cited these types of culture wars on the campaign trail.
[23:15:01]
But, T.W., talk to me about this because does this ruling now sort of take away some of the so-called political ammunition that suggests you've got to keep Republicans in power to prevent this from happening if the Supreme Court already said, yes, well, here's the ban, it can be upheld?
ARRIGHI: Not really because, look, it's emblematic of a larger critique that Republicans have on Democrats. They are just wildly out of touch with where Americans are on certain cultural and social issues. This isn't a close issue if you poll the country. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats don't agree with biological men in women's sports.
But we still don't have protections for biological men entering women's spaces. There are tons of other areas that this applies to. And instead of just the left saying, you're right, this is a step too far, they double down on it. So, Republicans are going to use those other avenues outside of just the sports issue.
And, by the way, it's not in every state. Every state gets the right to do it, so these problems are still going to come up. They're going to say, look, the Democrats are so wildly out of touch, they don't represent you, and they won't represent you when they're in Congress.
COATES: Sawyer, what's your reaction to this?
HACKETT: I mean, I think, honestly, like, we're talking about a population here that could fit around this table. There are 10 trans athletes in the NCAA out of 500,000 people. Republicans pick this issue because it's easy to demonize. It's easy to scapegoat people and demonize them and otherize them in society. And what they're doing here is doing that to children. They're doing that to kids who want to play sports with their peers.
And I think Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent, you know, the law isn't a zero-sum game all the time. It doesn't mean that someone has to lose because somebody wins. And at the end of the day, like, you know, Republicans are going to find a different way to demonize this issue, to find another population to otherize. So, I would agree with that.
WILLIAMS: One thing --
HACKETT: They will find that.
WILLIAMS: I would just add one thing. The fight over just sports is not over yet. T.W., to your point, many states still do allow trans athletes. Challenges to those laws in blue states are coming and will likely go to the Supreme Court over time. And so, you know, just because the Supreme Court said states may ban trans athletes, they did not say that they must, and that's going to be a fight brewing.
ARRIGHI: I just want to make a quick point here. I don't believe it's a demonization issue. I think, you know, if you are trans, you should be respected and loved as much as any other American. We can leave the other debates about it to the side.
This is about protecting women. And this isn't about some kids -- by the way, what kid is saying -- you know, if you're saying your kid is transgender, if they're like a minor, that already has been adjudicated in the Supreme Court. We can't transition minors. That's child abuse by many standards in this country. So, I don't see --
COATES: Hold on. They ruled on the issues of puberty blockers.
ARRIGHI: Right.
COATES: There have also been recent rulings in the court about being able to uphold bans in the military and also having a gender check on identification. But I think the larger issue you're speaking to, the idea, and I think, Sawyer, I don't want to speak for you, but the point I heard him making was that this was an issue where in terms of politically, speaking of the policies, there has been a demonization of the not-in-my-backyard sort of movements.
ARRIGHI: I see it not as a demonization thing. I do not believe anybody should be demonized in this country for who they are or who they say they are, but more it's a protection issue. And I think that's how many parents across America see it. I think that's how people see any sort of transition for minors, see it as a child abuse issue, and I think that is broadly accepted.
WILLIAMS: What's fascinating about -- really quick, what's fascinating about all this and the entire debate, though, is that far more people in America have opinions on this than have actually been affected by it. To Sawyer's point --
COATES: Yes.
WILLIAMS: -- about this sort of infinitesimally small number of college athletes, but you broaden that to literally how many Americans even know a transgender American. It's actually a relatively small number.
COATES: Well, that's exactly what the Supreme Court, if you read the whole ruling, was talking about in part, that they didn't want to use a certain way to evaluate this case based on the small population that was impacted, but also this is the sports criteria that did not extend to the workplace or other ways.
But I will -- you know what I'm going to do? I've never done this. I'm going to end this segment with the first lady's words. Melania Trump weighed in on this ruling, and she wrote this: America, we can support the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and also protect opportunities for female athletes. Respect everyone and keep girls' sports fair. Both ideals are essential.
She gave them some public comments. We'll see how that plays into the politics of all this later. We rarely hear from her on the substantive issues. Elliot, thank you. Sawyer, T.W., stick around because they'll be here later in the show to answer your questions. Be sure to text us. It's 818-972-7272. Just make sure you include a first name, your city or state.
[23:19:59]
Next, another huge Supreme Court decision we've been following, making it easier for political parties to spend big, big, big money. Supporters, they call it free speech. Critics call it a new opening for bajillionaires and special interests. So, what does it mean for the next election and, of course, the American public? Plus, a presidential windfall. A brand-new filing shows just how much money President Trump has made since he got back into office. I'll give you those details, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: OK, if you thought that money in politics was a problem before today, the Supreme Court opened up a whole new can of worms.
[23:25:04]
In a huge decision, the majority lifted the limits on how much political parties can coordinate with federal candidates. The majority opinion said the First Amendment rights of the national Republican senatorial campaign have been violated when you limit what they can coordinate and actually spend. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that this decision will -- quote -- "allow all political parties -- including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees -- to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process."
But my question is the same every night. What does this mean for you? What does this mean for the American public? Well, you'll probably start seeing more campaign ads on T.V. and online, particularly as you get closer to the midterms. Maybe you'll get more and more mailers as well. And you may not know who's actually paying for it and who's behind it, which is important because you really want to know how to evaluate the credibility of it, right?
But today's ruling allows the parties to funnel more directly to the candidate. So, a high-powered donor can give money to a party, not a politician. And then you may never know the accumulative wealth being put into it.
Now, campaigns, of course, they are bracing for impact, good and bad. Steve Chabot was a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, and he joins me now. Also here, Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Glad to have both of you here.
I thought about this case a lot before the ruling today, but also because I knew that, in many ways, it may have been overshadowed by, obviously, the 14th Amendment, transgender sports. But this is a particularly impactful decision that has years of impact ahead of it. I mean, Steve, it was a huge victory. What was your reaction when you read the ruling?
STEVE CHABOT, PLAINTIFF IN SCOTUS CASE ON ELECTION SPENDING: Well, I was pleased to see the Supreme Court rule as it did. Obviously, it's going to be controversial and people are going to have various opinions about it. But I think, overall, it will be good for the political system.
I think one of the problems we've had in this country has been the parties have been weakened over the years and you have fringe candidates really on the left and on the right, both parties. And so, a lot can't get done because they just don't have the votes for one thing.
And I think that what we're going to see is, right now, you've had major folks and extremely wealthy people are able to have a disproportionate impact on elections. You've had George Soros on the left. You've had Elon Musk on the right.
And a lot of that money is really not accounted for. There's a lot of dark money in politics right now. The money that goes through the political parties will be more transparent. It will be money that has to be reported so people can look up and see who's giving the money and how much is being given.
So, I think, overall, although there will be criticism, certainly, there always is, I think it was a good decision by this court.
COATES: Well, Trevor, respond to that notion because one of the main concerns you hear people saying is that if it's pulled in a way, then the idea of transparency may be undermined. What's your reaction to this, according to Steve, being able to give greater light?
TREVOR POTTER, PRESIDENT OF CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: I'm very much in favor of transparency. But I think your point is correct. If people are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to party committees and those committees are turning around and funding candidates paying their bills, those of us who are just out there watching it, the average voter, is not going to know where that money came from.
Sure, they could look at the NRSC, FEC report if they go online, but that won't tell them anything. It will tell them lots of people gave to the NRSC. They won't know that a candidate solicited money for the party committee in the hopes and the expectation that it would end up funding his campaign.
And so, a candidate, he or she can say to a major donor, you can give me $3,500 for the election, but then you can turn around and give the NRSC $44,000, and I can create a joint fundraising committee, you can give it $100,000 or $200,000, and it will help me, so I want you to do that.
That is now going to happen under this new ruling, and you and I won't know about those conversations and the fact that a major donor is directly helping a specific candidate.
[23:30:04]
COATES: Steve, let me ask you about that point. Also, I want to read for everyone what Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissent. She warned that this ruling was a recipe for corruption. She wrote, for those who would prefer even more money to be pumped even more easily into politics despite the danger of corruption, this overruling is for you.
What is your reaction to the fact that people do have a real reluctance and a visceral reaction to just the sheer amount of money in the political system?
CHABOT: Well, hers was obviously a minority decision, a minority opinion in this case. But I think many Americans, including myself, think that there is corruption in the system. We ought to get rid of it as much as we possibly can. And I think that transparency is really the key, reporting it and letting people know exactly where the money is coming from.
It's also going to enable both the Republican and Democratic parties to be more efficient with the money that they do raise right now because if they can't coordinate it, you oftentimes have the candidates that are running a particular commercial which is completely not in sync with what the party is running and a lot of money is wasted. And so, they raise oftentimes even more to make up for that waste.
So, hopefully, the system is going to be more efficient. And I think the key again is making it as transparent as possible so we know where the money is coming from, who it's going to, and get some legislation passed. Right now, we've had so many fringe candidates that are coming out on both sides. We're seeing socialists now winning in New York. And I think it looks like, in Colorado, a long time Democratic member of Congress looks like she's going to be defeated this evening by somebody who is clearly a socialist. I don't think that's good for the country.
COATES: We're out of time, unfortunately. This conversation, you know, will continue. Thank you, Steve Chabot and Trevor Potter for that perfect segue because there's breaking news and results are coming in tonight for Democratic primaries out of Colorado. Senator John Hickenlooper fending off a challenge from his left while a Democratic socialist is neck-and-neck against a 15-term incumbent. What does it say about where the Democratic Party stands? We'll talk about it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A mixed result tonight as progressive insurgent candidates try to take out more incumbents across the nation. This was the first test for the left wing of the Democratic Party after sweeping victories in New York just last week. And tonight, they set their eyes on Colorado. And in the race for governor, the state attorney general, Phil Weiser, upset Senator Michael Bennet to win the Democratic nomination. And in the first House district, Democratic socialist Melat Kiros, who we interviewed right here on this show last night, well, she currently leads incumbent Congresswoman Diana DeGette. But another incumbent beat back his progressive primary challenger. Senator John Hickenlooper defeated State Senator Julie Gonzales, which likely seals his victory in November.
Sawyer Hackett and T.W. Arrighi are back with me. Sawyer, what do you make of the mixed results tonight? I mean, how notable is it that Melat Kiros, who we interviewed here last night, I mean, she is -- she is more than holding her own.
HACKETT: I mean, if there's a trend through, you know, this primary election and the election in New York, it is that Democratic establishment candidates are really suffering and that voters are kind of looking for something different. I mean, over the last eight days, there have been 15 Democratic incumbents across federal and state races. If you count the Colorado races as they stand right now, that have lost to, you know, insurgent progressive candidates.
And I think that's in large part due to kind of -- you know, obviously, a lot of it is due to Trump, a lot of it is a reaction to what Democratic voters are seeing from Trump on a daily basis that's enraging them. But also, the weakness of the Democratic Party brand, that has kind of created an opening for progressives to kind of chart a new course for the party. I think that's where you're seeing the energy in the party right now. It's coming from folks on the left.
And so, you know, I think if you're a Democratic incumbent, you know, in a primary race and there are still few left, you know, you should be a little bit worried right now because there's a different mood in the Democratic Party right now. I think, you know, incumbents would be wise to correct course.
COATES: You know, both parties want to say that they're the big tent parties and they can envelop everyone in them. But, you know, the president has tried to paint Democrats particularly as socialists and communists. But this mixed bag shows range within the party. How is that going to be tackled?
ARRIGHI: Well, I think it's very dangerous for Democrats to fully embrace a lot of these socialist candidates, especially the ones in New York who've said crazy things. Whether it's abolishing prisons, abolishing borders, showing up at a pro-Palestinian rally the day after the October 7th attacks, absolutely crazy stuff.
It reminds me of what happened to Republicans in 2010 when the Tea Party movement took over. It's like great, yes, you're for cutting the budget, you're for a balanced budget amendment, you're for low taxes, but wait, you also think women who have abortions should be thrown in prison? And that's a big reason we lost winnable races, was because they became the face of our party. The Democrats are going through that right now.
I'm reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, who coined the term progressive and progressivism.
[23:40:00]
And he said it was socialism, communism, and looped it in with nihilism and anarchism, that was going to be the unraveling of the republic. And I pray we don't get to that point, that socialists and downright communists end up taking a stronghold in our country.
COATES: Distinguish, of course, Democratic socialism from socialism and, obviously, communism. I mean, you look at these issues and Democratic socialists are going to have to and constantly are trying to define what they believe in, their positions, but also try to appeal to even the moderate wing of their party who has fears of the Tea Party movement coming to Democrats. So, how can these candidates be within the Democratic Party and still operate not as a circular firing squad totally?
HACKETT: Well, I think, you know, first of all, I think T.W. is cherry picking a couple of examples from one particular candidate who I, too, would find myself at odds with ideologically, by the way. But, you know, you look at these primary races and they're happening mostly in some of the most liberal places in the country, New York and parts of Colorado, that are already blue districts.
So, I think, of course, at this moment, when you're seeing Democratic voters so enraged and so kind of engaged in what's going on in their political lives, you know, they're having those conversations about what a fresh take is on the Democratic Party's platform, and they're looking at these potentially Democratic socialist candidates because they're the ones putting forward kind of bold ideas, new solutions for the problems that have persisted in our country over many, many decades that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party has failed to address, you know, I don't necessarily think that that's happening across the entire country.
You saw in Colorado that, you know, candidates who were more to the center were able to fend off progressive candidates. But I think, you know, the trend is still, you know, that these are the candidates with the energy in the party right now.
COATES: I think the trend for both parties, and take note, incumbents are vulnerable right now. People are not happy with the status quo of things. And let's talk about this new reporting because there's a new financial disclosure form that shows the president who's already rich is even richer. He made more than a billion dollars with cryptocurrency last year. More than a billion dollars.
And I wonder if you think, T.W., it's a good look for the president to be making that amount of money in crypto. And I'm not going to ask you to try to explain crypto to the world because people are, like, what does that mean? But still, even on paper, that is significant. And people look at these issues of somebody making money in office, and they don't like it. When it's a member of Congress, they don't like it at all. And it's the president.
ARRIGHI: Yes. Well, I think a lot of it depends on how he made that money in crypto. If it deals with his family, that's a problem. This is a big issue that I have, actually, with the administration. It's a lot of the business dealings of the president's family, of other secretaries, Witkoff's family. That doesn't sit well with me.
And look, I get it, the ethics rules for the executive branch are a lot different than in Congress and elsewhere. They're nil at points. So, Congress will need to act on that at some point if they don't like it.
But I think it's bad as a general rule that the president should not be seen as enriching himself in office. Fair or foul, if you're going to -- if you're going to critique the Biden administration rightfully and Hunter Biden for making money, and I think that was a fair critique, you should also do it yourself.
HACKETT: I mean, this makes Hunter Biden look like a boy scout. This is like one slice of his corruption pie. I mean, you have -- you also have the president insider trading 4,500 times within the first six months of being in office. You have him -- you know, just this week, we saw reporting from the Times, I think, that showed that he essentially negotiated a deal with the government of Kazakhstan to do tungsten mining, that his sons happen to be investors in the company, that they lined up that investment just weeks before that happened.
I mean, this man is finding every possible loophole to exploit and steal from the American people. It's billions of dollars at this point. If you added up every dollar that every president has made throughout history, it wouldn't even come close to what Donald Trump has made within one year of being in office. It's truly, truly shameful. And it's surprising that more Americans don't care about it.
COATES: Let's go to Americans right now because you have a lot of questions out there. Let's go to Jack from California who asks, could fighting between Democratic socialists and moderates hurt Democratic turnout in 2028? That's a good question. Sawyer, why don't you take it?
HACKETT: I don't think so. I honestly think, you know, the Democratic socialist cause is clearly the slice of the party that has the most energy and the most enthusiasm that they're bringing into these races. And so, I think that they're actually bringing new voters into the fold. I don't necessarily think that, you know, some of these positions are necessarily helpful to the overall Democratic cause. I think they can be weaponized by folks on the right. But I don't necessarily think that that infighting is going to hurt enthusiasm in the midterms. That's mostly going to be a reaction to Donald Trump.
COATES: We'll see. Let's go to Houston. Jerome, you asked this question, why is the right so concerned about birther tourism while at the same time beating their chest on the success Trump has had with closing the border? T.W.?
ARRIGHI: Well, it's all part of the same immigration fight. And birth tourism isn't new. Ask the people of the Northern Mariana Islands or Guam.
[23:45:01]
It has been a problem there for a long time, mostly by Chinese nationals. So, it's a part of the whole process in making sure that citizenship is a valued thing. And people who get it, it's a big deal in making sure that it's not people who are here illegally or trying to take advantage of our system.
COATES: Well, we'll see. They're asking the U.S. attorneys to prioritize the idea of it. I do wonder how many cases they'll be able to find. Everyone, thank you so much. I appreciate so much having you answer the questions.
Next, 41-year-old LeBron James saying goodbye to the Lakers, but not to the game. And 44-year-old Serena Williams says hello to Wimbledon after four years away. What's age anyway? Cari Champion joins me to talk two legends in their next chapters, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: LeBron James, he is not done just yet.
[23:49:58]
He's about to enter a record, 24th season in the NBA, but not with the Lakers. Today, his agent confirmed he'll be leaving the team after eight seasons to become a free agent. He has a lot to be proud about from his time in L.A. He became the NBA's all-time leading scorer. He won the championship title back in 2020. But the Lakers haven't come out on top since then. I wonder if a new team could be the key to winning one last title for King James.
Let's talk about it with CNN contributor and host of the "Flagrant and Funny" podcast, the wonderful Cari Champion. It's so good to see you, my friend. Were you surprised by LeBron's decision to leave the Lakers?
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, you know what? I wish I could say I was surprised, but there has been this idea that LeBron and the Lakers were getting tired of one another. The relationship had run its course. And, you know, I think the Lakers are so used to being relevant and having a player that is such a face of the franchise, if not the league. That part is going to be surprising for me because I don't think we have that in Luka. So, we'll see what happens. I think it was time, though. I really do.
COATES: So, where's next? I mean, the rumor mill is in full effect. They talk about, well, it would be Cleveland. He went there twice. It started it all. Or he might go to the Warriors. Have you had -- if you had to guess, where is LeBron going to end up?
CHAMPION: You know, I hear the rumblings that you're hearing, of a super team that, perhaps, this is why Draymond Green opted out of his -- the last year of his deal. There was also another player who opted out the last year of his deal for Golden State to make more room and more money for LeBron and possibly A.D. So, imagine a super team of Golden State with Steph Curry, LeBron James, Draymond Green, and Anthony Davis. That's another name out there. So, a super team, if you will. A little older, right? Could it work? Will it work? I am anxious to see what will happen with LeBron.
My only thing is this: Because he is so great, I still need him to protect his legacy. I don't want him bouncing around these last few years of his career. I want him to stay wherever he's going to go. I want that to be the last ride. I don't want to see him anywhere else after that.
COATES: That's a good point. Really good one as you have them all the time. I want to talk about longevity and talk about wild-card, the queen, Serena Williams. I mean, she played her first singles match in four years today at Wimbledon. She came up short against 20-year-old Maya Joint in the first round. But what does this mean that she came back, let alone her performance?
CHAMPION: Laura, you'll be really ashamed of my behavior. I was online arguing with the Twitter bots.
(LAUGHTER)
I was like, she's still great. You don't deserve her. Who cares if she lost? But here's the deal. I believe what Serena is doing right now isn't so much about winning, it's about letting her daughters see her play so they can understand her legacy. We talk so much about men leaving a legacy behind. You know, somebody taking over the family business. What she's doing in real time is showing her daughters, look what I did, look what mommy did. And I also believe that she's preparing for the Olympics, which will be in Los Angeles, which is her home. And so, she's getting into playing shape.
I didn't expect her to go run deep into the Wimbledon -- in Wimbledon. OK, so, she lost in the first round. I thought maybe she'd win the first or the second. But what we're witnessing right now is a preparation for the Olympics. This is all a part of the legacy, something for her children to behold because they're old enough to really understand right now. We're seeing that with other 40-year-old Olympians such as Allyson Felix.
COATES: Yes.
CHAMPION: We saw with Lindsey Vonn. Age is nothing but a number. And I love that these women are saying, I can have a family and also be an excellent winner on and off the court, on and off the field. And so, that's what we're witnessing right now.
COATES: I wouldn't even walk by a tennis court that Serena was on pretending I could play.
(LAUGHTER)
I'll take a reroute these ways, reroute this. But you're so right, as a mother, I think to myself about how, you know, the sacrifices you make as a human being, as a professional, you want your children to understand what you've done. And it's crazy to think that one day, her kids might be like, oh, mommy, did you play tennis? What? Cari Champion, love you.
(LAUGHTER)
CHAMPION: I appreciate you so much. Thank you for having me. Have a great show.
COATES: Thank you. I'm fangirling. Her last name is Champion. I mean, can't go wrong. Speaking of Wimbledon, did you see this? Naomi Osaka's grand slam fashion statement? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here in the nation's capital. Let's bring in our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in Los Angeles. So good to see you. I don't know if you saw this --
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.
COATES: -- but Wimbledon, you know, is known for its very strict all- white dress code for players. Naomi Osaka, I love her. And she got really creative with her look. She walked out for her match in an all- white kimono that she says was apparently inspired by Lucy Liu's character in "Kill Bill." I mean, look, I love that she's not boring at all. I love her. But let me ask you, if, if, if you could dress like any movie character --
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: -- and you have a Wimbledon debut, what's it going to be? MICHAELSON: Well, I didn't do it, didn't pick based off of the white theme. But if we are playing, maybe the U.S. Open or something where you could do other colors --
COATES: OK.
MICHAELSON: -- I'll choose "Superman" because --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I've done this for basically every year for Halloween. I have the costume, you know, still. And so, that's my choice. What about you?
COATES: Well, that's funny because I see you as a little bit Clark Kent.
MICHAELSON: There you go.
COATES: You have that appearance. It's wonderful. I actually -- I will stick with the mostly white dress code. I love musicals. I'm going with Eliza Doolittle, "My Fair Lady," when she goes to the races. I could be like, come on, Dover, come on. That was a horrible accent. I apologize to everyone from the U.K. listening.
MICHAELSON: That's it.
COATES: There you go. But --
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: -- what do you guys have coming up on your show tonight?
[00:00:00]
MICHAELSON: We got all sorts of stuff, including what's happening in Colorado --
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: -- and more on LeBron James with two great basketball experts as well breaking down where he's headed to next. They have a really strong suspicion where it is. So, we'll be talking about that.
COATES: Really? Oh, I cannot wait to hear about this. All right, bye, Superman.
MICHAELSON: All right. Bye, my fair lady.
