Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Blanche Says the Quiet Part Out Loud; Clayton Refuses to Say Biden Won 2020 Election; ICE Pause Overturned. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 15, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- about the news being leaked and the actual fact that there are security concerns about the plane.
SABRINA SIDDIQUI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think that's also fair to agree with. Yes.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK POST: Publicizing it doesn't help. I mean, I can understand why he's a little on edge about his securities. A lot of assassination attempts.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I have a mixed bag on this one.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: All right, guys --
ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The biggest security risk in the White House is Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: I want to let you know --
NAVARRO: -- every time anybody is watching and ask him a question.
PHILLIP: I got to let you know it's Wednesday. So that means there's a new episode of "Confessions & Obsessions." It is streaming right now. You've got some familiar faces this week, including Cari Champion and S.E. Cupp. They're revealing some wild secrets. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a slip of the tongue or saying what he really thinks. Todd Blanche calls himself Trump's lawyer, then reverses. It's another answer that could make or break his nomination. Plus, the other confirmation hearing that went off the rails. Trump's DNI pick refuses to answer who won the 2020 election. And yet the exchange is as uncomfortable as you can imagine. Also, the Trump post that big-footed his own agency and reversed an ICE policy that lasts -- get this -- one day. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, Todd Blanche just said the quiet part out loud. And you know what? You rarely see that in these confirmation hearings because I know that you know how they usually go. You've got someone in the chair who's walking on eggshells, trying not to say the one thing that sinks them. They're staring at a clock and telling themselves, if I can just keep up this facade, if I can just play nice for, oh, three more hours, they're going to call me justice or secretary or attorney general.
Lawmakers are questifying. You know what that means. When they're asking questions, they don't want an answer, they themselves are testifying. It's called a soapbox. Everyone knows the camera becomes the most popular thing in that room. Everyone plays to it. It's a ritual. And most of the time, the ritual does not tell you much of anything. I get it. And I'm as frustrated as you are by the Capitol Hill theater.
But today, the script slipped. And it matters because for the great American experiment to work, voters have to trust that their attorney general answers to the law, not the president. And for once, the outcome, it doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion because if Blanche loses a single GOP vote in the Judiciary Committee, that could very well kill his whole nomination. And when the margin is that thin, you've got to listen to what he says, to what he does not say, and what just slips out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: Are you and President Trump friends?
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: I'm his lawyer -- was his lawyer. And now, I'm the deputy attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I am. I was. Did I mess up? Well, which is it? Because it captures the entire question hanging over his nomination. Has Todd Blanche actually made the transition from representing Donald Trump to representing the people of the United States?
Well, his record gives you plenty of reason to even ask that question. I mean, he's accused of slow-walking the release of the Epstein files, then botching it when they finally came out, files that Trump resisted releasing until Congress forced his hand. Blanche's DOJ is prosecuting Trump's enemies, like James Comey.
And then there is this settlement, the DOJ settlement of Trump's IRS lawsuit, outlining a $1.8 billion fund for Trump's allies. Even Republicans who support Trump couldn't thumb at that one. Blanche, of course, says verbally only that the fund is dead. But the GOP senator, whose vote he cannot afford to lose, needled him on whether dead really meant, like, six feet under dead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: It is a moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward. SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: On page four, this settlement agreement can be -- may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?
BLANCHE: No. The settlement fund is just not moving forward.
CORNYN: Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?
BLANCHE: Well, yes, it's an enforceable document. So, I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could.
[23:05:04]
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let me translate that from lawyer's book, OK? This is what John Cornyn just got Blanche to admit: Nobody has killed this fund on paper, the agreement behind it is still enforceable, and dead things aren't supposed to be enforceable.
So, when Blanche says that it's moot, what it means is the DOJ isn't moving forward with it right now. Exactly. It doesn't make it moot. Precious Blanche being moot, M-U-T-E, say nothing long enough, write nothing long enough, pretend it's dead long enough, and maybe everyone stops asking whether they're carrying Bernie over the weekend.
My guests tonight know this department inside and out. Gene Rossi, a DOJ veteran of nearly 30 years, served as former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Also here, Devlin Barrett, "The New York Times" reporter and author of "The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice."
I guarantee the senator is reading that book going into this particular hearing and with good reason. Let me start with you, Devlin, because Cornyn, he ain't buying what is being sold. This idea that the weaponization fund is dead, I mean, technically, it's like still living, yeah, but it's dead. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did Todd Blanche satisfy your concerns about the weaponization fund?
CORNYN: Well, basically, he confirmed that it's not dead. It can't be changed without written consent of the parties. According to the settlement agreement, there is no written consent of the parties. And he agreed that it could be enforced as a matter of contract.
RAJU: Does that concern you?
CORNYN: Yes.
RAJU: You're truly undecided right now. CORNYN: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: There's a great scene from "The Princess Bride" when -- you know what I'm talking about. And mostly dead?
DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Mostly dead.
COATES: Mostly dead, but can be revived by the blade crystal character. Like, this is mostly dead, but not at all? I mean, just think about this. Does this make his confirmation thin ice?
BARRETT: Todd Blanche is dealing with a very thin margin to work with here. You know, the Senate GOP, they are the majority, but they're a narrow majority, and this issue has really angered and frustrated those Republicans. And Blanche really has two problems. One, this was sort of a shoddily constructed legal agreement to begin with, so there's a million problems just with the language of the documents on the surface.
COATES: Because there was no case in controversy between the two parties anyway, but go ahead.
BARRETT: Right, because you're negotiating with -- Trump is fundamentally negotiating with himself. That's what the judge said. And everyone understands that logic.
The other problem is a more basic feature of life during the Trump administration, which is that they change their minds and run in the exact opposite direction all the time. So, in a more rational functioning administration, you would say, oh, well, maybe if they say it's dead, they mean it. But they bring things back to life all the time. There's a new Frankenstein's monster every week. So, how can you be so certain that this, if they declare a body dead, will it really be dead or are we just going to be storming the castle, to use "The Princess Bride" analogy, next week?
COATES: I mean, what bothers me is that he's pretending, it seems. Oh, I mean, hypothetically, I guess -- I guess you could do that. This administration in the courts, in the Supreme Court, has tried to thrive on the proposition that they could make the impossible a reality. I mean, they brought so many cases that people thought -- I guess you could bring this case, but why would I ever do it? And they bring those cases.
So, this sort of thing, the idea of a written pledge, if it isn't in writing, it basically doesn't exist. I mean, it is legally significant. If the contract says that you have to change it with mutual agreement, it's got to be in writing.
Is the DOJ attorney general want to be -- is he really suggesting that a settlement agreement by his own department doesn't have to be followed, and they can ignore it and change it at will?
(LAUGHTER)
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Laura, you worked at the Department of Justice. When you settle cases, whether it's a guilty plea or a civil case, that settlement agreement is a contract --
COATES: Yes.
ROSSI: -- where the terms are very specific. And if you violate any of those terms, and that's a big one, $1.776 billion is a big one, if you violate that terms, you can go back into court, which they don't want to do, and you can enforce it by preponderance of the evidence that they breached it.
Here's what bothers me about Todd Blanche. I think Senator Schiff probably had, in my view, the most powerful questions, and it's a conflict of interest. And I've said this on this show and others, that when I was hired in June of 1989 by the Department of Justice, I won't mention his name, he passed away, he said, when you're a Justice Department attorney, you have to be purer than Caesar's wife.
[23:10:04]
If there's an actual conflict or an appearance, and you know appearance is a low bar, if you have either one of those, you've got to back away. He should never have gotten involved in this settlement between Trump, who's suing himself -- and they come out with this sweetheart deal that -- I don't care what he said at that hearing under oath. That settlement gave civil and criminal immunity to not just Donald Trump, but his whole family. That was outrageous, that he got involved in that.
COATES: It's that. It's also part of the questions -- Devlin, you know -- you've been covering the Justice Department for quite some time. Your book talks about weaponization. The fund is one thing.
ROSSI: Yes.
COATES: But he has also been accused of weaponizing the DOJ. He says he's doing it to reverse weaponization of a prior administration. Without much substance there. But you covered the DOJ. When he was asked today which Todd Blanche is actually showing up, he said that he is still the straight-shooting prosecutor who just wants to do the right thing.
How is that playing in the DOJ now, in conjunction with the fact that he didn't have the prosecutors' backs on the cases? They convicted January 6th, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys. He went and supported the president's pardons as well. How is it all playing together?
BARRETT: So, in the world of DOJ prosecutors, there was a lot of hope, cautious hope, that when Todd Blanche, when they found out Todd Blanche is going to be the deputy attorney general, that he would be, you know, the adult in the room, the grown up, the one who knew and understood how the department worked and would be somewhat protective of the institution --
COATES: Yes.
BARRETT: -- even though there's this obviously inherent Trump-DOJ tension. And that's based on his track record when he was in AUSA in New York. You talk to those same people now, and they're incredibly disappointed for the most part.
ROSSI: Yes.
BARRETT: They're surprised. In some ways, they can't believe it. Still to this day. But I think the people who had some hope that, based on their past experience with Todd Blanche, the DOJ would be OK, I think most of them now would admit they were completely wrong on that score.
ROSSI: You mentioned a movie. OK, I got to admit I'm not too familiar with "The Princess Bride." Zelig, it's a Woody Allen movie, he has his problems. Zelig was a character that changed his personality to fit the person that they're working with. That's now Todd Blanche. He is the Zelig of attorney generals. He is changing his personality to fit what Donald Trump wants. And that's what really disappoints me.
COATES: Inconceivable.
(LAUGHTER)
Gene, Devlin, thank you both so much.
ROSSI: Thank you.
COATES: As I mentioned, Blanche faced a barrage of questions over the Epstein files, and rightly so. When pressed on the record to commit to a face-to-face meeting with survivors, some of whom were there, he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Will you meet with these 10 survivors, I'm asking you, on the record?
BLANCHE: If they have lawyers. As you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors as has many people in the Department of Justice, over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangement to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice meet with them.
DURBIN: Will you get it done?
BLANCHE: Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, to be clear, DOJ policy does not ban meetings with represented victims of a crime. You got to really have the attorneys sign off. You can't be a prosecutor talking to people who you know have counsel. You got to find out if they do have counsel. But if the counsel says it's OK to talk with them, you can do that. And Epstein survivors' lawyers, they have been demanding a meeting for many, many, many, many months. So that roadblock simply does not exist.
With me now, Attorney James Marsh. He represents survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, including Maria and Annie Farmer. He joins me now. I mean, James, you and I both know that it is lunacy to suggest that the attorney general could never meet with victims of a crime if there is a victim advocate who also happens to work at the DOJ as well. I mean, why do you think Blanche is blaming it on ethics rules for not wanting to meet with survivors when that's not how it actually works?
JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTS ACCUSERS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Well, I've been coming on your show now for one year, Laura, talking about this issue. This is our anniversary, almost. And from the very beginning of this, what has really emerged to be a scandal -- we've seen these equivocations about the files, about the redactions, the mishandling, the bad messaging, all of the things that have gone on over the past year when the simple answer to that question is yes.
[23:15:02]
Yes, I will meet with the survivors. That is the -- that is the answer that the survivors deserve and that our government should be providing. And not only does, you know, we can talk about the moral, the standard operating procedures, the ethics, whatever. The government actually has an obligation under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act to meet with victims of federal crimes and consult with them and hear them.
So, these easy answers -- we haven't really heard any easy answers for a year. We've heard a lot of equivocation about a lot of very simple questions when the answer seems very clear to the people who are listening.
COATES: Blanche took responsibility for some and apologized to survivors for the mistakes that were made in the release of the Epstein files. Does that apology resonate at all for you or the survivors?
MARSH: Look, the simple matter is we still don't have all of the Epstein files. There are three million files that have been sequestered, that nobody knows anything about.
We also learned today in the process of the New Mexico investigation by the attorney general there that New York has refused to release its files on Epstein that would aid in the investigation in New Mexico. Where are those files? I've been talking for a year. Where are the tower financial files? Where are the files of other prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein? Now, we've got New York files in play. Where are those New York files?
What we've seen in the Epstein file release is what they've wanted us to see, which is basically the prosecution file for Ghislaine Maxwell. We know, the victims know, the survivors know, Maria Farmer who reported these 30 years know that this did not start with the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution in 2019. There is a long, extensive history of records here, and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. So, there's a great deal of frustration all around.
COATES: Vice President J.D. Vance said this to Joe Rogan today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'll say this with all candor. Like, we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files. Like, we just did. But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you take him at his word about his motives or the intention?
MARSH: Look, what we know is the facts, is that they promised the records. They didn't release them except for, you know, major legislation and a very unusual congressional matter of ejectment where, you know, where they had to, like, take it out of the hands of leadership to get a floor vote. That's very unusual and a reluctant release that was bungled. And now, we hear about three million files that have been not released.
So, I think this goes beyond poor comms and poor messaging. You know, I mean, we definitely have poor comms and poor messaging to a failure to fully account for the United States government's involvement and knowledge of facilitation, perhaps, of the actions of Jeffrey Epstein. Those questions still remain unanswered.
The thing that disappointed me about today's questioning was there's a lot of retrospectives, a lot of questions about what happened, what happened, what about these records, why did you do this, yes or no. But the question that wasn't answered or asked was, where do we go from here? What's next for this Department of Justice with regards to these victims and survivors that goes beyond meetings? Right? Meetings are great.
COATES: Right.
MARSH: I mean, meetings are the easy thing. They can't even do that. So, I guess that says it all. And we've got a major election coming up, a possible change in the House of Representatives, all kinds of changes. What's going to happen September, October, January of next year? Those questions were not asked. I think those are great questions for Todd Blanche. What's this Justice Department going to do in the future? I think that's -- only time will tell.
COATES: James Marsh, thank you.
MARSH: Thank you, Laura. Thanks for your coverage.
COATES: Remember, we want to hear from you. Text me your questions, your comments, 818-972-7272. And yes, we'll answer them later in the hour. Give me your first name, your city or state. I want to know who the friend in my head is. Up next, a revealing moment that struck quite a nerve today. The president's pick to lead America's intelligence agency is tying himself into knots over a very simple question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D), GEORGIA: Who won the 2020 election?
BLANCHE: I'm not going to do this with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Oh, but he did. And trust me, you got to see it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, sometimes, there are moments you have to see in full to really appreciate how it landed. And one of those moments came today in Jay Clayton's confirmation hearing to be the next director of National Intelligence, courtesy of Senator Jon Ossoff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 election?
JAY CLAYTON, NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm not going to do this with you.
OSSOFF: This is a job interview. We have established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. Yes, you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee.
CLAYTON: Yes.
OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 election?
CLAYTON: Like I said, I'm not -- I'm not going to get into that with you.
OSSOFF: But you do have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee.
CLAYTON: Is there anything that I just said not honest or forthright?
OSSOFF: Yes, you're not being honest or forthright. Who won the 2020 election?
CLAYTON: I think I've answered the question. We can keep doing this.
OSSOFF: Well, we're going to keep doing it because you're not being honest and forthright.
CLAYTON: I'm not going to engage in the theater.
OSSOFF: It's a simple question, Mr. Clayton.
CLAYTON: And I've answered it.
OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 presidential election?
CLAYTON: I've answered it.
OSSOFF: You're here asking for the support of senators to lead America's intelligence community. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public.
[23:25:01]
But you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?
CLAYTON: No, that's not right.
OSSOFF: Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election?
CLAYTON: I have answered it.
OSSOFF: Answer it. What is your answer?
CLAYTON: I've given you my answer.
OSSOFF: What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community. Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?
CLAYTON: I think I gave you the answer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He was asked over and over again. His most concrete answer was that Biden was -- quote -- fairly and duly elected under our process" -- unquote.
Joining me now, former senior aide to Senator Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo, T.W. Arrighi, along with CNN political commentator and former DOJ director of public affairs, Xochitl Hinojosa. Glad to have both of you guys here. I mean, T.W., you heard Clayton say that I gave you the answer. Just listen to how he did actually give for the earlier answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLAYTON: Senator, I'm not -- I'm not an election denier. Joe Biden was certified as the president of the United States. I believe he had the most electoral votes. SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: So, he won the election?
CLAYTON: He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What is the strategy behind answering like that as opposed to just saying, yes?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: You do answer like that. That's bad prep work. He was right with one thing. There is theater in these hearings. However, you also need to be good on your answer and repeat the answer, and then pivot to your more fertile ground. It appears, to more substantive matters, he, you know, did fairly well on issues about Iran, about China, about Russia, whatever. But the headlines coming out of this now are all going to be about that back and forth.
COATES: Shouldn't he have known that and just say yes or no and move on? I mean, as a prosecutor in front of a court, I had to answer honestly and then pivot.
ARRIGHI: I would repeat the exact same full answer he gave. That's how I would answer it. That is the accurate answer. That is exactly what happened. You answer the question and you move on to more fertile territory. That is bad prep work.
And I've gone through my head saying, how would I do this if I were in the hearing prep room, which I have been before in debate prep rooms? I stopped counting around 475. There are plenty of ways to have handled that situation to avoid it. I am all about going Belichick and repeating the answer over and over again so long as it is an acceptable answer.
Jon Ossoff wasn't asking crazy question. He was just asking to basically repeat what he told Mark Warner, and he couldn't do it. It's a failure. It's bad prep work. And you need to know that there is blood in the water for you. And Democrats are going to try to get that headline to derail your nomination, and he failed at that.
COATES: But it's more than just -- I think if he had given that same answer again in the same way, the idea of the electoral college votes, et cetera, it is almost synonymous with having won an election then. So, there is a strategy behind phrasing it that particular way. What is the appropriate counter? How did you evaluate the way Ossoff did it? And does this derail his nomination?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR FOR DNC, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR DOJ: Well, I think that if he cannot be -- Mark Kelly (ph) said it perfectly great. He said, if you can't be honest with the president of the United States about when he is not in the room, how are you going to be honest with him and tell him that you disagree with him when you're in the Situation Room? And the reason why this is so relevant is because the president plans on giving a speech tomorrow where he is going to talk about the 2020 election and how it was illegitimate.
And if you are the director of DNI that holds the intelligence and controls the intelligence community, then how can we trust that you are going to be on the side of the American people and stand up to the president in that room or in the Oval Office when he says he wants to deliver a speech that could potentially be harmful to our country given an election that is coming up? Are you going to tell him, you know what? That's not a good idea because actually that is not the truth. This hearing just showed us that he cannot do that.
COATES: Is that the role of DNI, to evaluate the president's speech or are you saying in the role of DNI, he has to be able to, without regard for how it might be received, offer the objective information?
HINOJOSA: He needs to offer the objective information to Donald Trump. And to be honest with you, it's not just a speech and it's not Trump being Trump. It is dangerous. And the reason why it is dangerous is because he, the president of the United States, is going to be putting out information which is not accurate ahead of an election in order to -- and this is just what we're going to see going into the November election.
[23:30:08]
And going into the November election, you know Donald Trump is going to cast doubt when it comes to that election, and you have to have a DNI director that said, Mr. President, this is not true.
COATES: Let's talk about what conservative radio host Erick Erickson posted. Here it is. Quote -- "This is embarrassing. Ossoff is going to cruise to re-election when the GOP does stuff like this." I mean, the president is also, as you talked about, going to deliver that address tomorrow night. We don't have the full substance. We know what the bullet points are going to be, about free and fair elections. And you've got GOP Senator Cynthia Loomis who, well, said this. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHAD PERGRAM, FNC CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: In your mind, are senators Ossoff and Warnock duly chosen and sworn?
SEN. CYNTHIA LUMMIS (R), WYOMING: I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do Republicans really want to be relitigating past elections? What is the strategy here?
ARRIGHI: No. Donald Trump does believe to his core that there is wrongdoing in the 2020 election. I remember I worked for my late boss, Lindsey Graham, in the 2020 race. I helped in that process of trying to figure out information, review what was sent to us from the campaign to see if it had any legitimacy. I have still yet to see any evidence of that being the case. No member running for the House or the Senate wants to be talking about 2020. They want to be talking about the road ahead and what they want to deliver in stopping the socialist movement coming into country.
And I would just add one thing to what Xochitl said. I actually do think it is OK to have made mention of there are still things under investigation. Information is yet to come. You know, stay tune. You'll be receiving a briefing. That is all well and good. And I think every senator would appreciate at least getting a briefing, getting that information so they can review it themselves.
But to evade completely or bring this back up, bad timing. I look forward to seeing what he says tomorrow night. But it is definitely not something most candidates want to talk about in November.
COATES: I got to tell you, there was one moment when he did not know, apparently, that DNI Tulsi Gabbard, had been on a surveillance -- I mean, talk about preparation. I would expect -- I'm not asking you to be, like, cue, but at least be capable of intelligence to talk about what you know and don't know. I don't understand the preparation, knowing the importance of stakes like this.
HINOJOSA: It's also unprecedented, what she did. He should know at least the unprecedented action that Tulsi Gabbard took.
COATES: To compare or contrast --
ARRIGHI: Yes -- oh, sorry.
COATES: No --
ARRIGHI: You have to be prepared that the senator from Georgia is going to mention that the past DNI went to Fulton County. And you can't say, I just heard about it yesterday. And how he wasn't prepped for that blows my mind.
COATES: T.W., Xochitl, stand by. We'll be back to answer some questions from all of you that you have later in the hour. But first, apparently, no one asked Trump about pausing traffic stops. He is now ordering that ICE go back to conducting them. A reversal from just like last night in the wake of those deadly shootings in Maine and also Texas. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is standing by to respond. Plus, a seismic shift on Capitol Hill as more than a hundred House Democrats vote to cut funding to Israel. What it means for the party's future, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We found out how long ICE would pause making traffic stops. Any guesses? One day. By the time we woke up this morning, the president reversed his agency's decision and posted to Truth Social -- quote -- "We cannot give up one of ICE's most important and effective crime fighting tools, the traffic stop. Once we do, we're playing right into the criminal's hands.
And Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, he got the message. Quote -- "President Trump and I are on the same page. We want our ICE officers to have all options available to keep them safe." Them safe. Keep in mind, that post on X was the first time we've heard directly from Mullin since ICE officers shot and killed a man in Maine.
That shooting killed 25-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Duran Guerrero in Biddeford just on Monday. And that shooting happened six days after ICE officers shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston when he was in his van. ICE says that neither man was the target of their immigration operation.
I want to bring in Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, who sits on the judiciary and oversight committees. Congresswoman, thank you for joining us this evening. Does Mullin have any credibility as DHS Secretary given the president is able to pull rank like this?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D), TEXAS: I don't think that anyone in his cabinet has any credibility, if we're being perfectly honest. Simply, they are there to literally be his simp (ph). Whatever he says, whatever he puts on Truth Social is how they govern. It is what they do. They get their marching orders from him. And I think that that's why the fact that we are now listening to some new confirmation hearings, it really matters because we need people that will follow the law, not follow the man. And that's exactly what we're seeing.
And it is so terrifying because one of the reasons that our previous DHS secretary is out is because of the reckless, warrantless killings of American citizens on our streets. It's not the people in the streets that are making our neighborhoods unsafe, it is the officers that they have put into our communities that are making us unsafe.
[23:40:03]
COATES: I'm taken aback by the idea that the traffic stop might make the ICE officers more safe, given the way we've described what has happened. It's a shocking statement to make. But also, DHS is actually blaming Democrats for the delays in distributing body cameras. And tonight, the border czar, Tom Homan, he went even further. He blamed your party for encouraging people to evade arrest. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: They don't want us to arrest our future Democratic voters. That's what they believe. But it all goes back to the Dems, who want to continually attack ICE, tell people to evade them, tell people don't comply. There's still going be more bloodshed unless they shut their mouth and let ICE enforce the laws that they enacted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What is your reaction given -- I don't think I've heard you say evade arrest. I think I've heard you say you have constitutional rights.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
CROCKETT: I've never said that. But, I mean, what else do you say on faux news? You go on there and just like -- they're fake news. You're going to deliver more fake news to those that are watching.
And it is really unfortunate because, right now, they want people to believe, and this is why we see the divisions that we see in this country right now, they want people to believe that we are the ones that are trying to instigate some harm on the American people.
And that's not the case. We want to be safe in our homes, to be safe at church, to be safe at school, to be safe at, you know, worship. We want to be safe.
COATES: Well, I want to turn now to one of the hearings today, and that was in terms of somebody who wants to be the permanent attorney general for the duration of Trump's term. That is -- I'm talking about Todd Blanche. And one Republican from your state, Senator John Cornyn, he is expressing some real reservations about confirming Blanche to that position.
CROCKETT: Where is that?
COATES: Remember, Cornyn just last week told "The New York Times" -- last month, excuse me, that he had the right to choose -- quote -- "where I'm going -- or going not going to -- defer to the president." Obviously, he is not going to be -- as a senator --
CROCKETT: Yes.
COATES: -- he might have some more freedom in terms of being able to express himself --
CROCKETT: Yes.
COATES: -- although I take issue with only having freedom if you're not in office again at this point. But how would you convince him to truly oppose Trump's pick at this point?
CROCKETT: You know, I think I don't even really care what his reason is --
(LAUGHTER)
-- so long as he opposes --
COATES: Why?
CROCKETT: -- you know. So, for me, because I think that Todd Blanche is absolutely harmful. He has already instigated harm even not being the attorney general. But I say the reason that I don't care which way, even if I tell, you know, Senator Cornyn, listen, he cost you your election, it's time for you to get your get back, if that's what it takes, then fine.
But as you talk about this freedom, you know, I will tell you that, historically, John Cornyn actually had one of the most bipartisan records as it relates to Republicans in general. And John Cornyn was against Trump way before he was for Trump, which is one of the reasons that MAGA had been against him for a very long time. I have been told by a colleague, we will never forget how he treated Trump when he first ran.
And so, with all that being said, there is no reason to do what you know is wrong. We know that John Cornyn knows better. We know that he's a trained attorney. He knows that having someone who literally may be the most responsible person for this botched effort around the Epstein files, if you voted for the Epstein Transparency Act, then you should absolutely be a no on Todd Blanche.
COATES: You and more than a hundred different House Democrats, you voted to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. We know this is a very important and impactful issue. It has been all across the nation. It showed up in many elections, of course. The amendment did fail. For perspective, just over two years ago, there was only 37 Democrats who were in that position who voted to block aid. You were a no back then. But today, you voted in support of the blocking the aid. What was the reason for the shift?
CROCKETT: Yes. So, for me, there are a lot of things when it comes to aid in general, specifically foreign aid. This was an amendment that was a single-issue amendment, and it was only on that. The vast majority of the votes that I've taken since I've been in Congress, they've been in the form of an omnibus. So, they've included other things. They've included aid for other countries. They've included making sure that the people of Gaza are getting money and things like that.
In this particular circumstance, every single-issue situation that we've had as it relates to Israel, I've been a no. Whether it was defund the IRS and give money to Israel, I was no. When it was just give money to Israel, I was a no. So, typically, when it has been an omnibus.
I think that right now, you know, there were a lot of things. That amendment, if it had survived, was going to actually have to be cleaned up because it was spelled out to be one thing, but there were actually some issues with the actual language of it.
[23:45:06]
And for me, because I know that people right now are hurting domestically, it's the idea of it. And I just didn't want people to say, well, there's more money because they give us this scarcity attitude. And the reality is that we don't have scarcity. If we do, it's because the president is putting money in his pockets. But I don't want people who are already hurting, especially as we're heading into these significant midterms, to look at the Democrats and say, you know what? We can't afford gas, we can't afford food, yet you guys are still sending money elsewhere.
COATES: So, for you, it was not a philosophical dispute with the policies of Israel, it was about --
CROCKETT: Oh --
COATES: -- the prioritization of domestic policy here.
CROCKETT: For sure. But let's be clear about something. I have never been a Netanyahu fan. Netanyahu is like a more intelligent version of Trump. But, to be clear, I've never had an issue with the people of Israel. My issue has always been with Netanyahu and his lawlessness. And, unfortunately, he ended up with the rightful in the White House to follow him down this trail.
And that is why we are in an unlawful illegal war. That is why I don't think I'll ever have the benefit of being just a single-issue voter, because I understand how complicated things can be. And I think that the people of Gaza are in a worse situation because Donald Trump is in the White House.
COATES: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you.
CROCKETT: Absolutely.
COATES: Up next is the time of the show where you get your say. We've been getting your texts and comments throughout the entire hour. T.W. and Xochitl are back to take them on, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We've been getting a ton of questions from all of you tonight. So, let's start answering them, shall we? And by the way, if you haven't sent one in yet, you can still participate. Just text me, 818-972-7272. Give me your first name, city or state, and we'll get you on air.
So, T.W. Arrighi and Xochitl Hinojosa are back with me. Number one, we've got a question from Rickey from Sparks, Nevada. He asked about the Todd Blanche confirmation hearing. With a razor-thin Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee, will moderate Republicans actually hold the line and vote against him, or is this just political theater? T.W., what do you think?
ARRIGHI: I have family in Nevada. It's a lovely state. I think the line will hold. Look, Todd Blanche, politics aside, is a very well- regarded lawyer, has a very distinguished career. Yes, there is going to be some bumps along the way. John Cornyn has talked about that. There are definitely some people on the fence. And the meetings that will happen between now and next week and the week after, that's going to make the difference. It will be tight. I think in the end, he does pull through.
COATES: All right. Well, another viewer asked this question. How is it that Blanche can meet with Ghislaine Maxwell one-on-one but finds it impossible to meet the survivors of Epstein? Xochitl, what do you think?
HINOJOSA: That's a great idea because he was talking about how attorney generals generally do not meet with victims. That is a lie. I worked at the Justice Department. They meet with victims and their lawyers many times. And so, I think it is one of those things that the meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, you know, was done because he is loyal to Donald Trump. And I think that is a big question to ask. The victims have been wanting to meet with the Justice Department for quite some time.
COATES: Jeff from Henderson, Nevada -- oh, hi, Nevada. Two in a row -- asked this question. If the slush fund goes through, what would be in place to stop Blanche and Trump from splitting the money? You are skeptical, my friend.
Well, short answer, Blanche says that the issue is moot because he reiterated today that the weaponization fund is dead. A judge has blocked it too, by the way, until the courts decide if it was legal to begin with. And Democrats did introduce a bill to block Trump and Blanche from getting any of the funds, but we'll see if that actually goes anywhere.
If that's people's thoughts, I've got a lot more questions, everyone. All right, we've got a Christian conservative from Wyoming who asked this. Why is it so difficult for most Trump supporters to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? T.W.?
ARRIGHI: I actually don't think it is. I think it's a little bit trumped up. The president, obviously, has the largest microphone and doesn't quite believe it. I think a lot of people are shocked that Joe Biden got as many votes as he did in 2020. But the fact is he won. I think everyone needs to accept it.
COATES: All right. Another viewer asked this. What is the purpose of these confirmations if Trump's DNI pick will not answer a simple question, such as who won the 2020 election? Xochitl?
HINOJOSA: That's a great question. I think, you know, we saw today that this should have been a pretty, you know, typical hearing, that this wasn't the hearing that everybody was looking at. But because of his sort of mess up on the 2020 election, I do think that his nomination is now -- and confirmation is now in jeopardy. And so, these confirmation hearings are extremely important for the reason that you're trying to get real answers from these nominees. Congress is supposed to serve on a check on the administration, and you're finally starting to see some of that happen.
COATES: Final one. You both are strategists in a sort. Let me tell you this one. Another viewer says, I'm a Democrat and have been for 58 years. Why won't the Democrats in Congress fight harder to defeat the Republican agenda? I'm about to become an independent. I leave that out there for you all to consider the future of voters. What are your thoughts? Quick.
ARRIGHI: Well, I think they're trying too hard. They're just going the wrong way. Socialism and influence by communists and some of these candidates won't -- that dog won't hunt.
HINOJOSA: I think this will be a big topic in the presidential election and it will be about who is fighting for the people. People want fighters right now. They don't want necessarily policy solutions or people to back down from the administration. They want people who are going to fight for the American people.
[23:55:00]
COATES: T.W., Xochitl, thank you both so much.
I've also got an update to a story we've been following very closely on this show. This is about the mysterious death of 18-year-old Nolan Wells. Attorneys for his family say that they'll work with the district attorney's office on a joint inspection of his cell phone.
Remember, Nolan's family got the phone from his friends after he went missing during the July 4th boat trip to an island off the Mississippi coast. He was later found dead near the shoreline. His parents have raised concerns that content may have been deleted from the phone. Attorneys have said they do not suspect foul play. We are still waiting for the results of both the state's autopsy and the independent autopsy. It has been requested by the family. Follow me on social, and you'll see my interviews with the parents as well.
Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
