Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Graham Platner Drops Out of Maine Senate Race; Trump Orders Strikes and Threatens Iran; Father Shot and Killed by ICE. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired July 08, 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: We have a new show coming up, "Confessions & Obsessions" drops tomorrow, including some familiar faces. They reveal things that they want to get off their chests and some things that they can't stop thinking about. You can stream it now at cnn.com/confessionsandobsessions or on the CNN app. Thanks very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Graham Platner bows out in Maine. The questions for Democrats now, who will replace him? Can that person beat Susan Collins? Plus, from rational to scum. President Trump says the Iran ceasefire over, orders new strikes, and insults the country's leaders in the process. And another deadly ICE shooting leaves a family mourning in Houston, and they don't buy the government's explanation of what they say happened. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
You saw this coming, didn't you? Now what? Or shall I say, now who? Because the stakes for Maine and control of Congress just got a whole lot higher. Graham Platner has officially dropped out of the race for Senate. And you know that saying, it's not what you say, but the way you say it? Well, his statement tonight has people reacting on both fronts. The scandal-plagued Democratic nominee released an 11-minute video tonight. Yes, 11 minutes. He vigorously denied the allegations against him, including a rape claim from a woman he casually dated in 2021. Her account on Monday triggered a wave of Democrats calling for him to immediately step aside. And tonight, he did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER, FORMER MAINE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I think, as many of you know, over the past couple of days, I have faced some very serious allegations. I just want to make it clear. This is all false. The things that have been claimed did not happen. It's not real. It has placed an immense amount of weight on me as I think about what needs to happen now.
We believe that for the movement to continue, it can't be me. And for that reason, we are suspending campaign operations. This is incredibly difficult because I know that some will think it's an admission of guilt, and it most certainly is not. We're not doing it because of the allegations. We're doing it because of the structures that are being taken away from us by those in power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That last line, it was just the beginning of a longer attack. Platner claims it was the Democratic establishment, not the allegations that ended his campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: It's not the false allegations, though, that have brought us to where we are. It's the fact that they are being used by the political establishment to put structural pressure on us. We live in a political system that is not built for normal people. It is a system that is built structurally to make sure that movements like ours cannot flourish, that if they begin to succeed, they can be crushed.
Larger organizations, the national level party, the bigger donor networks, they have all committed to spending no money in this race if I'm in it. They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The question now, what is next? Platner says he isn't going to pick who replaces him, but he is making it quite clear what kind of process he wants to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: For how this process is going to work, I'm not trying to dictate to anyone who it should be or how we get there, but I will say this: It needs to be open, transparent, and democratic. It needs to be reflecting the will and the values of the people that built this movement, the people that showed up on June 9th. People in D.C. need to stay in D.C. Decisions should not be made in back rooms by people in places of political power.
[23:05:00]
Party apparatchiks are not the ones to make these decisions. These decisions need to be made in the open by the people of this state, the people who got us here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, shortly before Platner released his video, the Maine Democratic Party approved a plan to hold a nominating convention, and it says it's going to keep the public informed throughout the process. Multiple Democrats in Maine have indicated that they'll throw their hat in the ring, including three people who ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for governor.
I want to begin now with the Democratic speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, Ryan Fecteau, who joins us now. Mr. Speaker, that was, some would call, very emotional, resentful, defiant-sounding Graham Platner who suspended his campaign tonight. What did you think of his tone and the underlying message?
RYAN FECTEAU, SPEAKER, MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Thanks for having me, Laura. I think the bottom line is Mainers are fed up. They're fed up with a political system that is unresponsive to their needs. They're experiencing ever-increasing costs. They cannot afford to pay for their electricity bills. They're concerned about health care.
And Graham Platner spoke to something that is very much resonating with Maine voters. We need to make sure that we move forward with a process, as Graham suggested, that's open, transparent, and make sure that we're choosing the replacement candidate by empowering everyday Mainers to make that decision --
COATES: Can you give me --
FECTEAU: -- not party leaders, not the Democratic Party. That's who needs to make this decision.
COATES: Can you give me specifics on how that process will work because you have to do it pretty quickly in one of the most important, frankly, Senate races in the country? Will a new nominee be decided by a reported 600-person convention or is there a way to give primary voters a voice? What is the plan?
FECTEAU: Well, I think the 600-person convention is what the party voted on, which they announced this evening, and those are going to be folks that are everyday Mainers. Those are going to be people who aren't party leaders. Those are going to be people who aren't the folks who are in Washington, D.C. and have a vested interest in the outcome of this election. The people that are going to make the decision are the people who care about the future of our state because the future of the state is what impacts them directly.
I'm really grateful that what the party has decided to do is not the most -- it's not going to be the easiest process, it's certainly not the most expedient way they could do this, but they're choosing to put the power back in the hands of the people, and that's where it should be.
COATES: Who chooses those 600 people?
FECTEAU: Well, I think -- I think what we'll -- what we'll see is a process. And I don't have any direct information about what the delegate selection process will look like, but my suggestion would be having the county Democratic committees hold caucuses, and anyone who's interested in putting their name forward to be a delegate should be able to do so. They'll take a vote on the slate of delegates based on who puts their names forward. Hopefully, there will be more than enough candidates for the number of slots, and those folks will get to go to the convention and have a say on who should be the nominee.
And most importantly, we should have a convention where there's nominations and there are speeches by the folks who are seeking the nomination, and we should make sure that the winner is chosen by a majority of those voters which, in my opinion, means having an instant runoff at the convention, not a plurality. We don't want a person selected who was just voted by a fraction of the people at this convention. We should have instant runoff until someone reaches 50 percent plus one.
COATES: Well, the magnifying glass is coming. Everyone is going to be watching to see how this all unfolds and the transparency. Speaker Ryan Fecteau, thank you so much.
FECTEAU: Thanks for having me.
COATES: I want to turn to CNN political commentator and former senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, Karen Finney, also former Republican congressman from Louisiana, Garret Graves, here with us as well. I'm glad to have both of you here. I want to play again for a second Platner's response to the recent allegations of sexual assault, which he denies, we should note. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: Over the past couple days, I have faced some very serious allegations. I just want to make it clear. This is all false. The things that have been claimed did not happen. It's not real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: This was a different tone from him tonight.
[23:10:00]
What do you think?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I thought there was a lot of hubris in that tone. You know, he was sort of saying, I get to be part of the process -- behind the scenes, he was saying I want to be part of the process.
And then I think I will tell you what I heard today in talking to people in Maine. Nobody is looking for his approval to do anything. And that --it's not just, you know, he's saying like the party apparatus is somehow, you know, retreating from him. No, the people of Maine are furious. He lied to them. They feel lied to several times. They trusted him when he said there's nothing else. They gave their time. They gave their money. And look at what he has done to them.
And so, you know, he's trying to puff himself up like he's the victim instead of acknowledging that he and his campaign and his apparatus, you know, did they not think that the potential for these types of allegations would be serious? I mean, what did they think when they -- because some of this came out of their own self-research. So, was there a conversation where they said, oh, that will be OK? I mean, you know, those are the kinds of questions that people are asking. At the same time, people are shell-shocked.
And so, I was glad to hear that the party was able to put the information out there about how they're going to do this process. I think it sounds like they're going to -- they're trying to do this in a way that is as open and inclusive as they can, knowing that they have a short period of time to get it done. And, obviously, they're going to have to raise the funds to do it as well.
COATES: There have been some who have, in a way, talked about -- well, some conservatives have said that he shouldn't drop out, that he should allow -- he should be in this race. I don't see them -- they're not condoning the allegations when they say that. They are talking about voters getting to decide because he was the person to have won this primary. And some of the scandals, this idea of the allegations most recently, distinct. Some Maine voters knew about that and stood beside him on those issues. But what do you think about this, congressman? Should voters be able to decide and him not having dropped out?
GARRET GRAVES, FORMER LOUISIANA REPRESENTATIVE: Laura, it is noteworthy. Less than a month ago, the voters in Maine did say that he was their candidate. They were the ones who put him forth. But something I can't stop hearing from the previous speakers is how this party apparatus is going to have a very heavy hand, ultimately, in selecting who the Democrat candidate is.
I really think that we need to take a step back here and look at the increasing involvement of parties. Go back and look at what the founders intended. I think that the parties have begun perverting and disrupting the election process so much that it's actually thwarting the will of voters.
Look, the reality comes down to one thing. The reality comes down to the polls showing he couldn't win against Susan Collins. That's why people have left him. Congressman Auchincloss from Massachusetts said months ago that Platner was disqualified because of his tattoo alone. I think that this is a flawed process. I'll say it again, it distorts the will of voters.
COATES: Let me say -- I want to hear your response to that. It's an important one. But some Maine Democrats that want to replace him, they're facing a kind of dilemma as well because there had been a groundswell of support for him in the policy stances that he took that seemed to be frustrated with the establishment. You actually heard the speaker as well saying the same thing about that very notion.
And the question I asked one person who's on a kind of short list, who ran for governor and came in second, Dr. Nirav Shah, I asked him whether he would welcome Graham Platner on the campaign trail or his endorsement given the groundswell he has achieved. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. NIRAV SHAH, FORMER MAINE GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I welcome anyone who supports my values to endorse me. But at this juncture, I don't foresee -- if I were to enter the race and become the nominee, I don't foresee campaigning with him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You're already shaking your head.
FINNEY: No. I said -- I told you, nobody wants his endorsement. It's going to be toxic. What I disagree with is, though, we've now learned of allegations of violence, serious violence. People did not have that information when they went to the polls. The interviews that Jake Tapper, our own Jake Tapper has done, I give him a tremendous amount of credit, they were really powerful. And the kinds of violence that these women are talking about is not something that had previously been known.
And so, I do think -- and I'm -- look, I am proud of my party that we can get to a point and say, wait a second, no, that is a line that is too far, you know, for us. Obviously, I don't want to make this all about partisan politics.
The Republican Party, different story. You know, we have a guy in the White House who has some allegations against him and folks seem to be fine with it. We are not OK with it. And so, he will not be on the ballot. I do not think you will see candidates trying to campaign with him. It's sort of interesting. You know, he's attacking the apparatus, like, so, is that Bernie Sanders or is that Morris Katz? I mean, who are -- those are the people who are telling you got to get out.
[23:15:00]
And these are also the people who are trying to -- look, I'm all for disrupting the party, but you still got to recognize that your responsibility is to the people who are entrusting you with power. And so, it's the right thing for him to do, to get out. And, again, I think the process they're trying to do will include people, give people an opportunity to vote for who they want to represent them in this process.
COATES: That's quite a split screen when you have the president of the United States having been adjudicated in the E. Jean Carroll case, for example, and allegations that were against him, and you counter that with what has been denied with this particular person. Obviously, substantively different, but react to that split screen for a moment.
GRAVES: I'm going to go back to my comments before. Look, if Platner showed viability in this race, there wouldn't be a single Democrat abandoning him right now. The reason --
COATES: Even with allegations?
GRAVES: The reason -- FINNEY: That's absolutely not true.
GRAVES: Well, OK, I'll tell you. You know what? That's fair. Let me back up.
FINNEY: I mean --
GRAVES: I'll say that he wouldn't be --
COATES: He has backed off. GRAVES: -- he wouldn't be -- he wouldn't pushed out of the race, is what I'll stand by. He wouldn't be pushed out of the race in this case. I think the fact that his polling numbers are plummeting, the fact that he's not a viable candidate against Susan Collins, a strong candidate, repeatedly reelected and delivered for Maine, I think that's what's going on here.
Now, the thing that -- I'm going to go back to it. I think, Karen, it's actually a problem with both political parties, is the fact that you have, and you heard him describe it, you have a process where political leaders, political party leaders, are determining who goes -- who goes first, who goes fourth.
FINNEY: That's not how it works. It's actually going to be at the community level. People will decide. You get to run. If you say, hey, I want to go represent my community at this --
GRAVES: It was -- it was -- it was just described.
FINNEY: I'm just telling you --
GRAVES: It's a smaller group of folks, though.
COATES: Hold on. Hold on.
GRAVES: And here's the thing. When you actually take the oath of office, you're taking the oath for everyone. And I just think that this process of splitting it by parties first, I think it distorts the outcome of elections. I think it results in more radical candidates. I think it results in an America that has a polarized Congress right now, that's dysfunctional, and I don't think it's in this country's best interest.
COATES: I mean, consider this, audience. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Should there not be a mechanism to remove someone from the ballot, who stands in stark contrast to your values as a party?
GRAVES: I -- I don't think that the Constitution in a single place references the political parties. Not once. Yet we have fully empowered them to distort the outcome of elections. And I think it's -- I think it is moving this country and our Congress in a direction that's increasingly polarized, increasingly unable to actually change laws, be agile, and do the things that our country needs done. And I think it's a dangerous direction. Let me say it again, not a single time in the Constitution are political parties identified.
COATES: Well, the Congress leaves a lot of people out.
(LAUGHTER)
FINNEY: Yes.
COATES: We'll talk more about that later. Karen, Garret, stick around. We'll be around later in the hour to answer your questions. Text us at 818-972-7272. Just make sure you include a first name and your city or state. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I say we hit them 20 to 1. Every time they hit us, we're going to hit them 20.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, perhaps the war never ended. Trump launching new strikes, new threats, and new impatience with Iran, as he now says the truce is over. Where do we go from here? And what will the Iranians do in response? I'm going to ask the man who helped negotiate Obama's nuclear deal that very question, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The ceasefire between the United States and Iran seems to be holding on by a thread tonight, and I'm being generous given that President Trump said the ceasefire was -- quote -- "over" and ordered new strikes on Iran. Moments ago, the Pentagon said it completed this round of strikes. They say they hit about 90 military targets, including air defense systems and missile and drone sites.
All of these after suspected Iranian strikes hit ships in the Strait of Hormuz. And Trump warned that if Iran kept targeting ships, the U.S. response -- quote -- "will get much worse." In fact, one U.S. official tells CNN Trump was upset that Iran launched these strikes while he was in neighboring Turkey, at the NATO summit.
Remember, it was just three weeks ago that the U.S. and Iran signed that 14-point memorandum of understanding that laid the groundwork for a long-term nuclear and peace deal and negotiations. Even Trump praised it and called Iran's leaders rational. So, what happened?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think they are more rational. But based on their actions over the last week or two, they're not -- they're not doing a service to the people. And I think more than anything else is I got to know them, and I'm not sure I want to make a deal with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in one of the lead negotiators for the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Robert Malley. He is the former U.S. special envoy on Iran during the Biden administration. Thank you so much for being here. I mean, Robert, with all of this fighting happening now, does this mean the country is back to square one with Iran?
ROBERT MALLEY, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY ON IRAN, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I mean, who knows? Really, at this point, Laura, I would say it's a bit of whiplash because only a few weeks ago, President Trump was saying he didn't want to go back to war. That war would mean perhaps a recession, certainly a big spike in the price of oil. And today, he seems to be contemplating it with some complacency. And I can say, likewise, the Iranians seem to be drawn to some form of de-escalation. That no longer seems to be the case.
So, whether we are simply in a period of intense tit for tat and we'll go back to what we were living, which is a fragile understanding, a fragile peace, or whether we're now on the road to an all-out war, I would say the coming days will provide us that answer.
COATES: The domino effect of that uncertainty is quite staggering.
[23:24:57]
I mean, one U.S. official says that Trump was irked by Iran attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz while he was at the NATO summit in Turkey. Was Iran, do you think, trying to send a message by attacking while Trump was in the region? Do you think that backfired, if so?
MALLEY: No. I mean, I think the -- I mean, what happened is reflection of three things. I think the breakdown or the semi- breakdown is reflection of three things. First, the two sides, completely opposite interpretations of who won the war, who has the balance of power, who has more leverage. Each side believes that it could sustain a resumption of hostilities better than the other.
Secondly, the vagueness and the ambiguity of this memorandum of understanding, which gave rise to two completely opposite understandings. Iran believed, based on the MOU, that it was in charge of the Strait of Hormuz. It would decide, you know, basically how to manage it. The U.S. doesn't seem to have that same interpretation. And if you read the text, you could kind of see how both sides reached that conclusion. Certainly, you could see why there's enough vagueness to lead to those opposing views.
And the third is this breakdown is reflection of the fact that you have divisions, polarization, and confusion within the Iranian political system, and you have divisions, polarization, and confusion within President Trump's mind.
COATES: Well, there was some, certainly, vacillation at best. I mean, Trump's tone toward the Iranian regime today, very different from a month ago when the MOU first took effect. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We are dealing with people that I think are very rational people. They were nice to deal with. They were strong people, smart people.
They're scum. They're sick people. They're led by sick people. And they're vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And then, on Air Force One, he said Iran called him today wanting to make a deal. Is Trump getting played here, therefore, the United States as well?
MALLEY: He's not. I think I said this on your show before. We really need to get into the habit, and it's almost impossible to do, of tuning out whatever the president says because it really, as you just showed, within a matter of a few days, he could say one thing and it's opposite.
I think what we should focus on is what's happening on the ground. You have an MOU that is fraying, that is collapsing, and that's because there is no clear understanding about what it means and because both sides seem to want to show the other that they could live with the alternative. They are comfortable living -- they want to project, at least, a comfort of living with a resumption of hostilities, which they think is the best way to get a stronger hand at the negotiating table.
And so, whatever the president says, I wouldn't say he's being paid or not paid because, honestly, I don't know what he thinks or whether he thinks from one moment to the next. So, let's just follow what's happening. We've seen now Iran reacting very clearly when they see ships that are transiting the Strait of Hormuz through a channel that they don't control, the one near or not. Therefore, they fire on those ships. And we see the U.S. responding. Either they reach some kind of understanding about how the Strait of Hormuz is going to be governed for the coming period or we're going to see a resumption of these hostilities.
COATES: Robert Malley, thank you.
MALLEY: Thank you.
COATES: Let's discuss more with Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst at "The Washington Post" Intelligence, and Brad Bowman, former Blackhawk pilot, now senior director at the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and co- author of the upcoming book, "Axis of Aggressors." Two wonderful authors here with me today.
Let me begin with you, Brad, because Trump once again mused about invading Kharg Island, the critical oil terminal for Iran. One Iranian official warned that if that happened, -- quote -- "not even a single American soldier will return alive." Is Kharg Island and the threat towards it an empty threat or is that something that he would seriously consider, even given the reaction?
BRAD BOWMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CENTER ON MILITARY AND POLITICAL POWER AT FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES, AUTHOR: It's a great question. I don't know for sure whether President Trump would actually order that, but as someone who served active duty in the U.S. Army for 15 years and looks at these issues closely in my current position, I think an invasion of Kharg Island would be an absolute disaster.
I have no doubt that the U.S. Military could seize it and seize it effectively. It would come at a cost. But I think it would probably get worse from there because holding it would be even more difficult. And it's completely unnecessary. We don't need to do this. The president wants leverage, but what he thinks is an asset in Kharg Island would quickly become a liability as casualties would mount.
COATES: You know, when Trump agreed to the MOU just last month, he specifically cited the war's impact on the U.S. economy. Remember?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, rather than possibly going into a depression, rather than having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover, that was always the one I didn't want to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:30:00]
COATES: I mean, has anything changed that would make Trump less worried now about that possible scenario?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: No. Trump has waded into the quagmire that everyone predicted would result from entering into a war with no strategy, no clear plan for getting us out of it, no clear objectives, and an MOU that solved nothing in 60 days to negotiate with no realistic expectation of how to get to any resolution on the nuclear deal or anything else.
And yes, Trump is frustrated with what he has created, but he still faces the same basic choice he faced at the beginning, which is he can escalate or he can make a deal that's going to be kind of ugly and kind of tough for him to swallow politically. He wants to make the deal, but he's threatening to escalate.
And I totally agree with Brad. Taking Kharg Island would be a catastrophe. He's threatening to bomb, you know, desalinization plants in Iran, which would be a war crime. And we know that Trump wants out. He says it all the time. He wants out. He wants to be done with this for all the reasons that you just said.
So, in a sense, he is bluffing, and the Iranians have to know that, which puts us in a weaker position and puts them in a stronger position. It's the complete best awkward way to negotiate. It's not the art of the deal.
And it has a very predictable ending, which is that we're going to continue in this quagmire until we get to the end of the 60 days and not solve the problem again because if bombing the Iranians was going to solve the problem, the problem would've been solved by now. We know for a fact that just bombing them is not going to solve the problem.
And we haven't heard any alternative from the president about what he's going to do to get us out of this war, which has already cost a lot of American lives and treasure.
COATES: Josh describes really a leverage shift that I'm not sure has gone back and the pendulum shifting in that way. I mean, surely, Iran knows the economic pressure. Surely, Iran knows the potential threshold for pain in the United States or the gas prices and beyond and, of course, the political realities. So, would that suggest that they would somehow cede that leverage in the near term?
BOWMAN: No. I think the Islamic Republic of Iran has discovered that they had more leverage in the Strait of Hormuz than they thought they had. They've known they've had it for decades. They've threatened to employ it. Now that they've actually employed it, it has gone, I think, better than they expected. They have more power and leverage over the strait than they did before the conflict.
You know, I think it's important to not miss the strategic picture here. What we are witnessing is a fight to determine what rules of the road should govern the Strait of Hormuz, one of the five most important energy choke points in the world. Any American who thinks that's boring or irrelevant, have you filled your car with gas recently, right? This affects us.
And so, the question for us is, who should govern? What should govern in that waterway? The rule of law, an international law, freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce or should it be a toll booth, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to charge any ship that wants to pass to further fund their nuclear program, their terrorism, their ballistic missile program, and their domestic oppression?
I'm not neutral on that. I don't think America should be either. We should be in favor of the rule of law in that waterway.
COATES: Really quick.
ROGIN: Yes. Trump bluffed. They called his bluff. And now, he's stuck. All of his threats are falling on deaf ears. He's getting frustrated. We have to start to entertain the possibility that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff don't know what they're doing. OK? Because they've got us into this. They have no way to get us out. We either have to double down or go home, and neither of those is a really good option.
COATES: Josh, Brad, thank you both so much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALDO SALGADO, SON OF MAN FATALLY SHOT BY ICE IN TEXAS: He did not deserve to die. He did not deserve to be reduced to a headline of Mexican man shot and killed by ICE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A son's pain after his father gunned down by ICE in Texas. DHS is claiming he tried to run them over. But tonight, the family says they don't believe a single word of what DHS is saying. The former acting director of ICE, John Sandweg, live with me on this story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SALGADO: I recognized him immediately. Not from his appearance, but from his voice. Crying for help as he lay on the street, bleeding out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A Texas family is demanding answers tonight after their father was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Houston. ICE alleges he was trying to evade arrest. His name, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. He was a 52- year-old immigrant from Mexico. He's a father, a human being. His son says that he has been living in the United States for 35 years with no criminal history.
CNN obtained video of the scene after he was shot. But I want to warn you, it is difficult to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): That's so (bleep) up.
COATES: We are hearing two very different accounts of what happened from the family and law enforcement. ICE says they were conducting a traffic stop as part of a targeted operation.
[23:39:59]
The agency also says he was living in the United States without legal permission and that this was a clear case of self-defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: ICE has said in a statement, he rammed an ICE law enforcement vehicle, refused to follow multiple verbal commands, and weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.
Now, the family disputes that. They say he was on his way to work with his crew and that he was afraid when he saw unmarked vehicles approached him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SALGADO: My father was being followed by two unmarked cars. Had my father seen an emblem of ICE or an emblem that says anything about law enforcement agency, my father would have complied, he would have stopped, he would have not run away because he feared for his life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: ICE tells CNN the shooting is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General at DHS.
Joining me now is attorney and former acting ICE director under President Obama, John Sandweg. John, thank you for being here. It's just heartbreaking to hear his son's description. The victim's family not at all buying ICE's explanation. How much has trust in the DHS eroded because of how it has responded to the killings of Rene Good, Alex Pretti, and others?
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: Tons, Laura, really. I mean, just tons, right? I mean, look, once again, here we are again. And it feels to me a little bit like DHS didn't necessarily learn the lessons of Minnesota. That statement has a lot of echoes of what was said after Alex Pretti's death and after Rene Good's death, right? Where their conclusions being drawn prior to an investigation being concluded. But look, ultimately, now, DHS is paying the price for what happened in Minnesota where there's a real credibility gap.
COATES: Of course.
SANDWEG: There is going to be an investigation. I have confidence that OIG can conduct that investigation in an independent manner, but I'll tell you that the public doesn't have that confidence because we saw the videos in Minnesota, we saw the public statements, and they just didn't add up.
COATES: The OIG would be the one to investigate. How much confidence do you have in the independence of that office?
SANDWEG: Laura, I mean, there's a reason that the first thing the Trump administration did was fire a lot of the OIGs. Now, the DHS OIG wasn't terminated. But OIGs historically are independent. They're an unusual agency, right? They report to the secretary, but they also report to Congress, and they have this large degree of independence. They are typically who is going to be responsible for any officer- involved shooting like this. They will have primary responsibility. The FBI would typically also play a role.
I have confidence that OIG has the capability of doing a fair, thorough, and independent investigation. I think, though, like all Americans, you have some concerns, especially when you read statements like that. What happens regardless of the conclusions that the OIG brings, right? No matter what those independent officers' determination is about, whether or not the shooting was justified, there's always that concern that what happened is a result of that.
COATES: There is also --
SANDWEG: And, again --
COATES: John, there's also a lot of questions on the tactics. And the tactics specifically -- I mean, the idea of unmarked cars, wearing masks, there's accusations obviously of excessive force as well. Do these tactics need to be reassessed in light of what has happened? And you heard his son describing that he thought his father was in fear of his life and didn't know who was pursuing him. Something similar you've seen with other people who've been approached.
SANDWEG: Laura, I think that is the most critical thing that needs to happen here. Let me explain something very quickly. First of all, there have been 19 shootings of individuals by ICE since the beginning of the Trump administration. Seventeen involved vehicle stops, four fatalities. Why is that occurring?
And I think if there's one takeaway -- I give Secretary Mullin some credit. We've seen a lot of shifts in tactics since he took over ICE -- DHS, excuse me. We have not seen some of those roving patrols or some of those kind of violent encounters with protesters in Minnesota. But this is an area he needs to take a hard look at.
ICE does not typically -- federal agents themselves don't do a lot of traffic stops. The units of ICE that's involved in a lot of these shootings, the immigration enforcement side, ERO, does not do a lot of traffic stops. Over the last five years, almost the vast majority of ICE arrests occurred picking up individuals who've been arrested at the border by the border patrol or people who are in state and federal custody coming out of prisons and jails.
This is not what ICE officers are doing, yet we're putting these officers in a position where, clearly, they feel that they are under a mortal threat that requires them to use lethal force. A lot of that is because of the lack of training and experience doing vehicular stops. This is something that I hope, no matter how you feel about the Trump administration's immigration policies, we can all agree, people should not be dying in the streets. We shouldn't have 19 shootings, 17 in a car. Let's take a hard look at that. There are ways of enforcing immigration laws without resorting to vehicle stops.
COATES: This poor family is grieving. John Sandweg, thank you.
[23:45:00]
SANDWEG: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, it is your turn to drive the conversation. Text us your questions at 818-972-7272. We've had a lot come in already. Karen and Garret are back with me to take them on, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We have been getting a lot of questions from all of you tonight. So, I want to start answering them. And if you haven't sent us one, you can still participate. Text me at 818-972-7272 and include your first name and city or state.
Karen Finney and former Congressman Garret Graves are back. Let's go to our first one. It's from Ned from Georgia who says, the Democratic Party is being wholly undemocratic by ignoring 72 percent of the Maine voters. What's your reaction?
[23:49:58]
FINNEY: My reaction is those voters will have an opportunity to participate in this convention process that they're trying to put together. And, unfortunately, given the timing, they're trying to do the best they can to put together a fair, inclusive process with the amount of time they have.
COATES: I've heard your take on it. You think it is undemocratic. Let's go to Mandy from North Carolina. She asks, setting Platner aside other than as an example, how does a candidate get benefit of due process when accusations arise with no time before an election? Good question.
GRAVES: It is a good question. And look, I think it's important to note that some of the things that have been alleged are actually criminal. They would actually break the law. And there does need to be a vetting process to ensure that, you know, if he has broken the law, he needs to be held accountable. But, at the same time, you need to be able to vet it to figure out, are these things real or not? So, I think it's a good point that it certainly needs to be looked into. You can't just let this die.
COATES: Chris from Texas has a question. Why is Graham Platner not under arrest for rape? Well, it's a segue from our last one. It seems there has not been an investigation into it that would have a criminal prosecution that is cited to do so. But I think that the allegation in 2021 would fall under, depending on the charge, possibly statute of limitations period. And if they are investigating it, we'd certainly hear about it. We will see. But, of course, there's a presumption of innocence in our country as well, if not in the court of public opinion.
Jay from Rhode Island asked this question. Why can't Republicans simply hold our president and others in their party to the same standards as Democrats have with their own unsavory candidates?
GRAVES: Look, I think I addressed this earlier in the segment. The reality is, I think that polls drive who is in the races. I think that in this case, that in addition to the completely outrageous accusations that are out there, I think that the polls show that he's not a viable candidate. And I think that that's what's driving decisions.
COATES: One viewer says, the Maine Dems just handed the win to Susan Collins. If Kamala Harris herself couldn't salvage a campaign with short notice, what makes them think a Mainer with zero name recognition will be able to do so before the election? Karen?
FINNEY: Well, a couple of things I would note. Number one, they'll have more than 107 days. So, that's something. Number two, the candidates that are being mentioned, all were just in the gubernatorial contest. So, they actually do have name recognition. One of the people is the current secretary of state. So, they're all people who actually have some public name I.D. But that being said, look, they're going to have to run hard and use the time that they have.
I will say, in talking to folks in Maine earlier tonight, they were saying, don't underestimate the ire against Susan Collins and the desire to have her no longer in office, and it has been accumulating over several years in terms of frustration with her not really being a moderate. So, we'll see.
COATES: Stephanie from California says, maybe if Trump was more involved with the Iran negotiations and wasn't concerned with the reflecting pool, red cards or helipads, the U.S. would be able to reach a compromise. Garret?
GRAVES: I think the Iranians are going to continue to make bad decisions. I don't think that there's anything that the president or anyone else could do at this point. I think that he's taking the right steps by making clear that we're not going to just ignore attacks on ships. I think this one is going to have to play out. But, at the end of the day, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, and that should be a bipartisan position.
COATES: All right. We've got one more. Robert from Bellevue, Washington asks, Laura, have you ever worked at Whataburger?
(LAUGHTER)
That outfit is on point.
(LAUGHTER)
You're making me crave that three-piece with gravy. I think I was just called a snack.
(LAUGHTER)
OK. Karen, congressman, thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
Still ahead, bookworms, begin your freak out because there is an extinction level event coming for reading. Yes, reading. I just was read. That was a read. Thank you, Bellevue. Next.
(LAUGHTER)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here on the East Coast. I want to go over to the West Coast. Hi, Elex. How are you?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Laura. Good to see you.
COATES: Good to see you. Look, this article from "The Atlantic," it caught my attention today. It called --
MICHAELSON: Me, too.
COATES: -- the end -- it's called "The End of Reading." And in it, scholars are warning that our daily habits of watching short form videos and using A.I. could lead to a post-literate society that does not read or write. In fact, one survey says the number of Americans who read for pleasure every day has dropped from 28 percent to 16 percent. How much time do you spend every day reading? Are we about to be post-literate?
MICHAELSON: Well, first off, thank you for explaining that story to me so I didn't actually have to read it.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I love it.
MICHAELSON: But I love reading. But I do find it increasingly difficult with our attention span to sit down and read. Sometimes, I get antsy if I'm doing it for too long. But it is one of my favorite ways to relax. And I like a physical book. I think that's important. What about you?
COATES: I have the Kindle. I like to read it, though. I need to have a book in front of me. But I watch a lot of bad T.V. that also makes me antsy. So, it's a general state of being for me.
(LAUGHTER)
I want to encourage more people to read, though. I'll share my favorite book.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: It's "The Alchemist." It is, and I love it. What's yours?
MICHAELSON: I said "1984" --
COATES: Oh.
MICHAELSON: -- which was pretty -- pretty timeless.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I would say it's very apropos still today.
MICHAELSON: Certainly ahead of its time. You know, that article suggested that more people are currently gambling in America than reading.
COATES: OK. Well, here's a gamble for America.
[23:59:59]
I bet everyone is watching me right now and wondering what the full shirt looks like because I'm getting a lot of texts about it. So, I'm going to stand up for you, guys, OK?
MICHAELSON: I was wondering.
COATES: Here is all the glory, all right? It is fabulous. It has even, like, little bows, OK? People --
MICHAELSON: What's the inspiration for this? Who made this shirt? Tell me more about this shirt. COATES: I am always my own news. And who made the shirt? It's Laura Coates. Made it fashionable. You may not agree, but here we go, America. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: I can't top that, but I'm going to do the best I can.
(LAUGHTER)
Laura, have a great day. And you look fabulous, by the way.
