Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Donald Trump Addresses Election System Issues at His Primetime Address to the Nation; Trump to Sell Truth Social Posts for Priority Access; One of Epstein Survivors Speak Out Following Todd Blanche's Meeting at the DOJ. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 16, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:37]
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR, AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking tonight, the President makes new claims over an old grievance and questions America's election system during an ominous address to the nation.
Plus, from Trump's own words to money in the bank, Truth Social, Wall Street, his own teleprompter operator, the growing scrutiny over who profits when he speaks.
And Epstein victims finally get their meeting with Todd Blanche as his nomination hangs in the balance. One survivor who was in the room is going to join me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So obviously, we got to talk about President Trump's speech, don't we? I mean, he made a lot of claims, just like he has for years.
He wrapped those claims tonight in pretty ominous language, using the backdrop of a primetime Presidential address to make them sound like settled fact, all while advocating for sweeping new rules to how we vote. One of the President's main claims tonight was that China worked against him in the 2020 election.
Now, to be absolutely clear, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in 2021 that China did not deploy an influence campaign intended to change the outcome and did not interfere with the voting process. The documents declassified tonight show that same conclusion.
But this is how Trump characterized it in his speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Colossal security breach is even more disturbing in light of the additional information showing that China engaged in other election related activities to undermine my first administration and our 2020 campaign results of the U.S. midterm elections and later the results of the 2020 Presidential election itself.
Separately, in mid-2019, the Chinese government's strategy against the United States was focused on undermining domestic confidence in the U.S. President. They wanted to just make you sound like your President wasn't so hot when actually your President has done a great job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm going to CNN's Marshall Cohen, who covers election integrity for us, has been reviewing the documents that Trump mentioned repeatedly during his speech tonight. All right, Marshall, level set for us.
There are a lot of claims that were made tonight. What, if anything, did we actually learn that was new and substantiated?
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Laura, look, we've had a team here at CNN going through all these documents. This is just a small number, there are about 500 of them.
And it's new stuff. There is new material in here because these are declassified materials. But as you just pointed out, for everything that Trump is raising, it seems like there's always a counterpoint, a rebuttal, a piece of context that needs to be included.
So a couple of key points here that we found. One of the things that the White House has been touting all night is that they're arguing that China got access to 200 million voter files for 200 million Americans.
But they might not have pointed out is that a lot of those voter files, you can buy them online. A lot of the states sell them. And also, intelligence agencies have said for years that China is trying to get as much data as it can get its hands on and the intelligence report said that China was hacking voter files, social media, hospitals, not just elections.
Another key point in these new documents, concerns that Venezuela was experimenting with software that could flip votes. This has been a claim that has been coming up over and over since 2020 from Trump allies.
We looked at the CIA memo that described that allegation and it made pretty clear that, yes, Venezuela might be able to do that at home. But the assessment from the CIA was that they wouldn't be able to do that abroad in the U.S. for obvious reasons.
And one last point, Laura. There was new information that the White House claimed showed from the Department of Homeland Security, 250,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls. That's their allegation.
We looked deeper into the data. And the sources of that information are just not so reliable. When you looked at the better source, the government sources that assess who's a citizen, who's not, it was a much smaller number, only about 28,000.
Laura?
[23:05:08]
COATES: Marshall Cohen, thank you so much. Here with me tonight, we've got CNN commentator and Republican
strategist Brad Todd; former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Tom Malinowski; executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, David Becker, who also served in the voting section of the Department of Justice and Civil Rights Division; and senior advisor of our Republican legacy, Reena Shah. Good to have all of you here.
I'll begin with you, David. I'm partial to those who have been in alums where I've been. So sorry, all.
I'm going to ask you, I mean, the President, he made some pretty incredible and ominous statements tonight. A lot of it, frankly, we'd heard before. But what struck me was how he wanted the impression that we have an incredibly vulnerable election system and I'm wondering if there's anything that you saw supporting that in your research or otherwise.
DAVID BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH: No, I mean, when we heard about the run-up to this big speech, we were wondering what was going to be declassified, what was going to be shown. A lot was promised, but nothing was delivered.
This administration has been spending 18 months in total control of the federal government. They have turned over every rock. They have redirected every resource from the FBI, from the intelligence community, from the Department of Justice, from the Department of Homeland Security, to try to find evidence of massive voter fraud.
And after 18 months, what they revealed is they found nothing. I mean, if you look at each of the claims that Marshall just laid out there, first they claimed that 220 million voter records are in the hands of the Chinese.
Well, voter files are public. Literally in every state, part of the voter file is public. The states of Ohio and North Carolina have them up on the web right now.
Are those states complicit with the Chinese Communist Party? Of course they're not.
They're doing that out of transparency. We want, the campaigns want the voter lists for voter outreach and other reasons. And honestly, it also encourages people, if they think there's a problem with the voter list, to go and get the public data and look at it and try to bring those claims in advance.
With regard to the voting machines, like any technology, have vulnerabilities. That's true. But unlike almost every other piece of technology, voting machines are never connected to the internet, they are kept under strict locking key, they're tested before every election transparently with observers there.
And then we go back to the paper ballots, where every single voter in the United States votes on paper ballots. Nearly 98 percent, just the state of Louisiana doesn't have them. And we audit those ballots. Nobody just trusts the machines to work properly under any circumstances.
COATES: And yet this was an ominous statement and speech from the President of the United States, who really wants the impression that despite all that you just described, this is a vulnerable system. And we are just a few months out from the midterm elections. What's the strategy there? Is it planting a seed or is it illuminating an issue with an eye towards a solution?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AND REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, the President's passionate about the issue. And frankly, tonight there are some things he said that we all should be able to agree with. He said that they're going to work with local jurisdictions to patch known vulnerabilities in the system.
As David points out, there are vulnerabilities. It's technology. That should be a good thing.
Democrats should be able to work with him on that. Second, he said, we're going to have DHS notify the states of the people we found who are non-citizens and they can't vote, it's against federal law to vote if you're not a citizen. States shouldn't want that.
They should want and welcome that help, and Democrats should help them do it. It also, I think, is not controversial to say that we ought to have government-issued photo I.D. to vote. If you ask Americans, 80- something percent of them will say, yes, we should have it.
The only people who don't believe that, basically, are all elected Democrats and professional Democratic operatives.
COATES: Well, on that point, though, there are many people who do not approve of the process by which you are required to have certain identification given the bureaucracy to even get it. For example, the idea of a name change or having to have your birth certificate or the cost and expense. There are people who believe that that's different.
TODD: This bill has been amended so that you can use an affidavit when you've changed your name. You can just sign an affidavit at the registration. That's how we do it with everything else in life.
Everything else, once you change your name, as you begin to encounter other government agencies, you sign an affidavit that you've changed your name.
RINA SHAH, FORMER SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL GOP ADVISER: I actually don't think that's correct.
I have an issue with that. I don't think that's blanket, and I don't think that's correct. I think you should check on that.
I'm one person sitting at this table, I think the only one, that would not be allowed to vote if the Save America Act passed, because Rina Shah is not my legal name. And you know why? Because the Social Security Administration is the
problem. When I went to my state DMV, they said we are trying everything. I brought every single proof of my legal name change, anything I could possibly have, deed to my house, my marriage certificate, all kinds of things.
They said there's a glitch because the Social Security Administration does not have your name change. You cannot do this.
So I do not have a real I.D., meaning when I fly, I take my passport with me. I mean, these are serious issues. This is not what congressional Republicans are coming out against.
And the President tonight did not make it clear at all that he's trying to keep people who are not citizens out of the polls. He's just saying, we have problems. We need to fix them.
Redirect to my website.
COATES: Tom?
[22:10:00]
TOM MALINOWSKI (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEW JERSEY: So, well, it was nice to see some of those documents. I haven't seen them since I was in Congress, and I was briefed on them by the Trump Administration, by John Ratcliffe, who was in charge of all of this in 2020.
Now, the ominous part, the President is suggesting that somehow some of this information was withheld from him when he was President in 2020. Is he going to fire John Ratcliffe, who is in charge of his daily briefing?
He's suggesting, he's implying that China was part of some nefarious conspiracy to try to rig the election to interfere. Is he going to sanction China? Is he going to sanction his friend Xi Jinping, who he's kissing up to every single day? Of course not.
He's not going to do any of those things, because none of this is actually serious. And tomorrow morning, the American people are going to wake up to higher prices, to war in Iran, to all the things they actually care about, and I think this speech is going to fade into the memory hole, like so many of the distractions that Trump tries out.
COATES: Yet the President, I mean, just to play a little bit more of what he actually said today, especially on the point you're raising that has been a big issue in the Save America Act and beyond, I mean, he remains laser-focused, not on the other issues you've just described, but on pushing changes to voting rules by way of this Save America Act.
Let's listen. Save Act, excuse me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Congress must pass the Save America Act. How easy is that to do, unless you want to cheat?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, you're very well-versed in voting laws and election laws. Is the Save America Act something that is a necessary hurdle that can be overcome, or is it redundant from what's already protected?
BECKER: Well, first of all, we don't know exactly what would be in the latest version of the Save America Act. I haven't seen a published version since, I think, February, and now they're talking about inserting new provisions in budget bills and other things like that.
But I can tell you, the Save America Act that has generally been discussed, which would have required people to bring proof of citizenship any time they made a voter registration transaction, to your point, Rina, not just when they first register, but over and over again. They'd have to dig it up every time and show it to election officials.
TODD: At registration. Not at the polls.
BECKER: At registration. There's also be --
TODD: Most people don't have to re-register, though. They register, and if you keep voting, you don't have to re-register --
BECKER: Well unless you move or your name changes.
COATES: What about to his point that I think the larger issue that Trump is making, and I know that you've just made as well, and I've heard it before, the idea of, well, the only way you would not support voter I.D. is if you wanted to encourage or say it's okay to cheat.
Tell me why, I mean, I think that happens to be a hyperbole and inaccurate, but why do you think?
BECKER: Look, if you talk to election officials all over the country, I work with them all the time, Republicans and Democrats, red states and blue states, all of them want all eligible voters to vote and only eligible voters to vote.
And we want to make a system that, on the one hand, prevents any ineligible voter from voting, but also isn't over-inclusive and prevents eligible voters from otherwise voting. And that conversation's happening in the states. That's why these laws are best made in the state legislatures, as the Constitution requires, rather than here in Washington, D.C.
We already have I.D. for voter registration. The 2002 Help America Vote Act requires every single person more better than photo I.D. Every single person, when they register, has to give a driver's license number if they have it when they register.
TODD: But not a government issued photo I.D.
BECKER: That is checked against the motor vehicle's file before they can --
COATES: But what about his point with the photo I.D.?
TODD: Well, I agree. First off, David, I agree with you that I prefer these laws be made at the state level. And the Constitution does say that.
But it says Congress may step in and make additional changes. So we should look for, this is Congress' prerogative. And, you know, there are a lot of things Democrats might object to in the Save America Act that some Republicans would agree with.
But they should drop their filibuster and go to the floor and debate this. Have an actual legislative process where they allow the bill to be debated, offer amendments, and then let the chips fall where they may on the vote.
SHAH: Well, that's why tonight's speech was so unnecessary. Because the federal government's been the problem here.
You know, there's a lot of talk amongst conspiracy theorists on the right about who fake entries, for example, in voting records, state by state, or what have you.
Well, it would be the Social Security Administration that would need to create that record, I believe, as far as I know. So there's a lot of misinformation out there.
Number one question I get around every time there's elections from friends on social media, when I say, go vote, and you don't have to tell who you voted for. But if you voted, does show up to the government. And they're like, wow.
They don't even know some people out there.
TODD: Like if you show people jury duty that there's a record like yours.
SHAH: But people think that who they voted for can be found out. And I think the President, with his very first remark on China, kind of drew that into question, too. In my opinion, as a former speechwriter, this will go down as one of the worst Presidential speeches ever.
He was meandering, he wasn't grippy, and he didn't give a call to action.
COATES: What do you think? You were a former congressman. Obviously, that branch has been criticized heavily for ceding authority to the President and allowing a lot of his executive power to be expanded.
MALINOWSKI: Well, here's something we should be able to agree on.
[22:15:02]
Foreign interference in our elections is something that happens.
SHAH: Yes.
MALINOWSKI: There are vulnerabilities that can be exploited.
So maybe a President who cared about that would support organizations like the Cybersecurity Agency in the Department of Homeland Security that are supposed to protect us from that threat. Oh, gosh. He gutted it.
Maybe they would support the Election Assistance Commission that helps. You said we should be helping states. It improves their security.
TODD: I think you could offer that as an amendment to the State Department.
MALINOWSKI: He just fired the entire commission that is supposed to do that. So we can agree on that. Whether it's foreigners helping Republicans or Democrats, it doesn't matter.
Like actually build up our defenses. And I don't actually think he cares about that. He just cares about his delusional grievances about 2020, which the American people do not want to hear anything more about.
They want the President to take care of the economy and to make us safe in the world that he's not doing those things.
COATES: Food for thought, audience, while you hear this particular notion here.
Maybe it's not 2020. Maybe it's 2026. I want to play for you quickly, I know we have to go.
But there are Trump officials who appear to be sending some mixed signals over whether the administration will accept the upcoming midterm results. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED O'KEEFE, CBS NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Will the President accept the results of November's elections?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, Ed, you should tune into the President's speech tonight before you jump ahead to conclusions about what's actually in the speech. Again, I've seen a lot of reporting and misreporting about what the President will say. We hope CBS will take the speech and all Americans should take it.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, look, of course, we want to support the results of the midterm elections. We think we're going to win. Ultimately, that's up to the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, we did listen. Did he say that he would? Or was this seed planting? You have to answer that question yourselves, everyone. Stand by.
Remember, we want to hear from you. I want to hear your responses.
Text us your questions and your comments at 818-972-7272. Give me your name, your city, your state. I want to know who I'm talking to.
The panel is going to be here later to answer your questions as well.
Up next, forget America first. How about Wall Street first? The Trump media company is selling early access to the President's Truth Social posts in what critics are calling one of the most egregious schemes ever.
Plus, the man who ran Trump's teleprompter is now under investigation for allegedly making thousands on prediction markets by betting on what Trump would say. My next guest warns it's a cancer that's going to get worse. Investor Ross Gerber is with me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We know the President's words certainly move markets. But lately, it seems like they've become a market of their own. I mean, just look at today's headlines.
CNN has learned the President's longtime teleprompter operator is being investigated for alleged insider trading. His employee is one of the last people to read Trump's speeches before he gives them.
Sources say that he was making bets on Kalshi's mentioned markets. That's where users can bet on specific words and phrases that Trump says in his speeches.
And according to one source, he made up to $90,000 in profits. The White House says he's now on administrative leave without pay. But it's not just staffers allegedly profiting off of the President's words, look no further than the President himself.
A new CNN investigation found dozens of instances where the President was promoting companies on his Truth Social account just days after buying their stocks. In one case, he purchased between $15,000 to $50,000 in stock for American Eagle.
Just a few days later, he gave the company and its star model a compliment.
Quote, "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'hottest' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves.' Go get them, Sydney."
Now, to be clear, there's no evidence Trump was making these posts to boost his portfolio. And the White House says the President's trades are handled entirely by outside financial managers. But his associates clearly recognize the power of these posts. Because the other big headline tonight, Trump's media company is going to sell faster access to the President's Truth Social posts to Wall Street firms. Meaning that whenever the President posts a major policy announcement on the platform, certain financial institutions could be the first to know and the first to make moves.
Joining me now to talk about all of this is Ross Gerber, President and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. Ross, good to see you.
I mean, look, you know better than anyone that a single post from the President can send stocks either soaring or tumbling, whether it's an announcement on the Iran war or tariffs or anything else. Should the Trump media company be selling this access to Wall Street?
ROSS GERBER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GERBER KAWASAKI WEALTH AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: Well, obviously, the Trump media companies struggling financially. So they're, I guess, trying to figure out any way possible to make money. And, you know, certainly this is a good one, because it does give people a material advantage on geopolitical event trading, which obviously there's been a tremendous amount of news around geopolitical events.
But what I think is amazing about all of this is, I guess, the SEC doesn't care about any of it, you know.
COATES: Tell me why they should. Why is this so problematic? You said the people would have early access.
It's not really the people who would access. It's the Wall Street firms who'd be able to make decisions that would then, in effect, trickle down. Why is it problematic?
GERBER: Well, you know, in theory, there's supposed to be this sort of, like, level playing field idea.
[23:25:01]
And so we have regulatory bodies, many of them in my industry and in the financial industry, that keep firms like mine honest. And it's a very important function that they play in markets, especially around information flow, like insider trading and such, and corporate news, and certainly around politics and geopolitical events.
And those regulators make firms like us comply by what's called a fiduciary at Gerber Kawasaki. So we have to do what's in our clients' best interest, and certainly around my personal trading. And so that's, like, for example, why I have my own ETF, the G.K. fund, because I have most of my money in there.
So all of my interests are aligned with clients, for example. But in this case, it's, like, clearly they just are setting up a system that wouldn't be legal in any other circumstance. And it just seems like, you know, there's no check or balance to this behavior at all.
COATES: Let's talk about the allegations of insider trading that involved the teleprompter operator.
Apparently he has been placed on administrative leave. It's being investigated by regulators. But there are also reports of potential settlement.
Does there need to be a tougher response to deter people from trying this sort of thing, of being able to allegedly, you know, cash in on this mentioned economy?
GERBER: Well, this whole Kalshi thing, I think, is one of the worst developments for American, especially youth, in a long time. You know, gambling is a highly regulated industry and one I've invested in for a lot of my career. And it's always been controlled by states and highly regulated.
And just all of a sudden, under Trump, Kalshi, because obviously there's a huge conflict of interest with the board, they're all of a sudden allowed to be a commodities contract. And basically, you can trade on anything. And it's basically creating this enormous corruptible force in so many industries that now they're talking about you can bet on biotechnology advancements, I mean, now they're going to corrupt the doctors.
I mean, Trump's own speech guy, you know, is insider trading. I mean, it just shows you the unfortunate insidiousness of having something like Kalshi exists when it really isn't a legal entity. And I don't think it'll last once, obviously, you know, the administration or the politicians change and realize that the states should be regulating this and this shouldn't be allowed.
COATES: And yet, Kalshi, they say they did their job, they flagged these trades to the CFTC themselves. So what do you say to people who argue, okay, I hear your complaints about gambling being far more pervasive generally. But the current system, they will say, worked to flag it and stop it.
GERBER: Right. But it's like the drug dealers turning in a couple of their customers and say, well, you know, we got a couple of them. So the fact we're nailing all these other people with this horrible gambling habit, you know, so many young people today are gambling and betting on not just this, but also the stock market and crypto and all these things. And it's not the way to build wealth.
And it's really, you know, I think a negative force on society. So I'm all for gambling for fun in a regulated environment. But what it's become on your phones and on betting on everything, it's not a good thing and that's why there's always been laws around gambling, you know.
So I'm really concerned about it because it really does create a corruptible force that doesn't actually need to exist. So to say you turn them in after you got them addicted is like, you know, no real gift to anybody.
COATES: Very intriguing, Ross Gerber. Thank you. We should note that CNN does have a partnership with Kalshi and uses
its data to cover major events. But CNN editorial employees are not allowed to trade on prediction markets.
Up next, Todd Blanche finally meets with Jeffrey Epstein survivors face to face. Just a day after claiming, oh, I can do that. Well, what changed? And was it enough to get him confirmed? And how did the meeting actually go? Performative or productive? One of the survivors, Marina Lacerda, was in the room with Todd Blanche, and she's going to join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Day two of Todd Blanche's job interview to be the next attorney general included a meeting that could determine his fate. Today, he met with several survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It marks the first time Blanche has directly met survivors or their loved ones.
Republican Senator Thom Tillis essentially demanded the meeting take place. He said he wouldn't vote for Blanche if it did not happen. Afterward, Tillis praised Blanche for his, quote, "willingness to directly engage and listen survivors."
But some Epstein survivors say they don't feel heard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANI BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I mean, it wasn't substantive, it was not productive.
It was a lot of I didn't say that. You should go back to the FBI and things that we've heard before. And it very much felt like we were just taking the box off of the meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in someone else who was at that meeting, Marina Lacerda, who was identified as minor victim number one in Epstein's 2019 indictment. It's good to have you back here.
I know that we have talked a lot about your experience and, of course, the hope that there would be an opportunity to meet with the attorney general and, more importantly, to have some progress in an investigation. How are you feeling today after having met with him? What is your concern or hope?
[23:35:09]
MARINA LACERDA, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Well, I have to say there was a lot of emotions today. So it's kind of hard to just compile it into one word, right, to pile it up in one word. But I think meeting with Todd Blanche today, it was very compulsive, right? We should have -- and I say this. I know he wanted to meet with us today.
He said today we're meeting right after Senator Tillis said, you know, if you don't meet with the survivors, then you won't get your vote. So it pretty much felt like if you don't do this, you're not going to get this. So we weren't happy about that.
COATES: Because you wanted time to prepare?
LACERDA: Not only that, we wanted to be genuine, right? We had nine months for him to meet with us. And then all of a sudden, Senator Tillis says this, his promotion is on the line, and now he's like, I have to meet with him, right?
And okay, you know, we got to meet him. Everybody has been under pressure, everybody's been in a lot of stress for the last two days, right?
And I think having this meeting on his side and our side wasn't the best time. We could have, you know, set up a proper time. We could have prepared ourselves, he could have prepared himself.
COATES: What was he like in that meeting? Was he open-minded? Was there hostility? Can you describe what he was like in that conversation?
LACERDA: You know, I think there was a lot of, well, you didn't do this. And he was like, I never said that.
And then somebody else was like, but you said this. And he was like, but I never said that. It was a lot of back and forth.
And that's what I mean. It was a lot of emotion in the last two days. So it was compulsively a choice that I think we should have stood back on.
And he should have said, you know what? I can meet with these survivors. Let me set up a good time to meet with them. Not right now, not today, because now you've put us on the spot, we've been asking to meet with you, right?
So how bad would it look if the survivor said, we can't meet with you today because we are exhausted? Then everybody would have been like, but you've been asking this for months. So why not do it?
Because we were mentally tired. We had to scramble up, get our lawyers on the Zoom call to be there with us.
So it was it was rushed. You know, so it wasn't a productive meeting. But however, we do have now contact to the FBI to possibly start some new investigations and I'm looking forward to that.
I do have some new information and I'm willing to share. And now the question is, are they willing to investigate after I share this information?
COATES: Let me tell you one thing that he told CNN after the meeting. He said, quote, "it wasn't all cordial because there's something that they want that I don't think I can give them, which is some form of justice." What's your reaction to that?
LACERDA: Well, I think that, you know, some of the survivors, some of their some of their experiences happen, you know, like 1994. You know, I think Maria Farman, Annie Farman was 1996. And I think when he says that, I think he means I can't go back in time and give you justice for that.
However, if you have new information and you have things that we can use, we can move forward with this. But I can't go back in time and change things and make, you know, make that into a new investigation.
COATES: But what is he told the FBI you had access to now? Do you have an understanding as to why you now only have access to the FBI? Had there been attempts in the past to get that connection? And what are they telling you they're able to do from here forward?
LACERDA: Well, I myself, I've never reached out to the FBI. Right. They always reached out to me.
So I haven't had the experience of the failure of the FBI. I had the experience of the DOJ, you know, of the failure of the redactions, which was, you know, incredibly, you know, shocking to us that the DOJ even was able to do that. Right?
I think that we have to set up meetings with this FBI agent and, you know, do it correctly. Have our lawyers bring up information, you know, gather up the information that we have and do it correctly and then say, you know what?
We did this. We reached out to the FBI. We've brought them information, but they did absolutely nothing.
So right now, what I would like to do is give that chance to the FBI and to Todd Blanche to make things right.
COATES: And you think that there is optimism to do that, even if this meeting was contingent on his nomination?
LACERDA: You know, and this is what I like to say, right?
And I think it's a little bit different from what you're asking me. It's like, do I think he's going to be a great attorney general of the United States of America because he met with us today?
[23:40:02]
He was forced to do that, right? His job, his position was on the line. I don't think Todd Blanche would be good for that position. Why? He had nine months to reach out to us.
He chose today for a reason. We all know why. If he really cared and was genuine about it, he would have reached out to us but he had to do it.
But however, I want to work on these new investigations, this new information that I have. So I will give him the benefit of doubt that this will move forward.
Now, for the people, will he represent the people of America and be a good attorney general? I really don't think that, though.
COATES: Marina Lacerda, thank you so much for sharing.
LACERDA: Thank you.
COATES: Blanche's meeting with Epstein survivors may have put Senator Thom Tillis at ease, but Texas Senator John Cornyn still has reservations, especially around Blanche's involvement in the IRS settlement.
With me now, Liz Oyer, a former DOJ pardon attorney who was fired by the Trump administration for refusing to reinstate gun rights last year to convicted domestic abuser Mel Gibson. She testified against Blanche today as a witness for the Democrats.
Liz, welcome back. I mean, you talked today about the pressure that you felt on this very pardon and then the efforts by Blanche's office to try and silence you afterwards. What did that look like? What did it reveal to you about how Todd Blanche, who is vying to be the attorney general, operates?
LIZ OYER, FORMER DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: Yes, I was fired literally hours after I declined to rubber stamp a political favor for a friend of the President. I was asked to recommend restoring gun ownership rights to an individual convicted of a very serious domestic violence crime who never would have been considered for that type of relief, if not for the fact that he had a personal relationship with Donald Trump.
I raised serious concerns about public safety, including the incredible risk that that poses to women when domestic abusers have guns. And I was asked to reconsider, and I was not able to reconsider because in my professional judgment that was dangerous.
And Mr. Blanche personally fired me several hours later. He then sent U.S. marshals to my home to try to intimidate me from talking to Congress about what had happened. And it was really shocking that he got up in his testimony and provided false statements about what happened with my firing, about the circumstances of my firing.
It was really quite shocking to hear him give an explanation that he seemed to just pull out of thin air.
COATES: Truly outrageous to think about those series of events and then to have him vying to be the attorney general. I mean, this DOJ, you know, this is one that has not been shy about going after the President's critics.
Todd Blanche being personally involved in some of these investigations as you articulate your own experience. What compelled you to testify today, given sometimes the retribution that is sought for doing so?
OYER: It was very scary to get up there and testify against one of the most powerful men in the country, but I was compelled by a very strong sense of duty to my country and to my fellow citizens. Todd Blanche is doing great damage to the justice system. He is making our country less safe in the way he is carrying out his duties, and I felt an obligation to get up there today and sound the alarm.
COATES: Blanche was asked today, Liz, if he would ever say no to the President as an attorney general. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: President Trump trusts me to give him counsel. Counsel does not mean a yes man, and so that's true in my case like it should be in any attorney general's case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you believe that he would not be a yes man or Weber Samper?
OYER: Absolutely not, Laura. He is the ultimate yes man. He has not cited a single example of a single instance in the 16 months that he has been leading the Justice Department in which he has disagreed with or pushed back on Donald Trump.
He has signed off on some of the most egregious abuses of the justice system that we have ever seen in our history, including this corrupt deal that he struck with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's co- conspirator, including the settlement funds that he signed off on that gives away American tax dollars for no reason. A federal court this week said that that was a betrayal of Todd Blanche's obligation to zealously represent the interests of the United States, signing that settlement agreement on behalf of Donald Trump.
So really, he has demonstrated that he is nothing but a yes man.
[23:45:01]
COATES: Liz, you have come under attack quite a bit, perhaps in this era of politics, unsurprisingly, but still uncomfortably. I mean, several Republican senators, including Josh Hawley, they criticized harshly your work in the pardon office and recommendations that it made under Biden. What did you make of the focus being on recommendations as opposed to your experience with Todd Blanche?
OYER: Yes, it was really telling that the Republican senators had no questions of me about my experience with Todd Blanche. They just wanted to talk to me about my work during the Biden administration. There really just is no response on the facts to refute what I said factually about Todd Blanche, so they're trying to discredit me.
My job as pardon attorney is to serve under any President. It's a non- political position, or at least it was until Donald Trump came into office, and I would provide the same advice to President Trump as I would to President Biden about matters related to clemency. It's professional, non-political judgment.
The suggestion that I was a partisan operative is just absolutely false. I did not work for President Biden, was not appointed by him. I was a non-political career official.
COATES: The nature of being on behalf of the people of the United States, a reminder for those who want that position. Liz Oyer, thank you.
OYER: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, back to our top story, the President's speech tonight. And this time, you get to drive the conversation.
Just text us your questions, 818-972-7272. The panel is back to answer them live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's our favorite time of the night. You know why? We get to answer your questions.
Remember, you can text 818-972-7272. They give too many 7-2s? We'll put a number on the screen if you want to take part. Just be sure to include your first name and city or state.
My panel is back with me. One viewer asked this question, guys.
How will the Save America Act eliminate the biggest issue the intelligence discovered, which is foreign interference? David, you want to take that one?
BECKER: It won't.
COATES: Well, there you go.
BECKER: There's absolutely nothing it would do with regard to foreign interference. As was mentioned earlier, there were multiple agencies that were set up to combat foreign interference.
And to give credit to the Trump administration, in particular, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, had built up this incredible credibility and expertise in election security during the first Trump administration. It was continued during the Biden administration. And almost immediately upon taking office in the second term, the Trump administration wiped that out.
And now many of the Foreign Reliant Influence Task Force and other task forces that were created to prevent this have been wiped out by this administration. And I think we should probably go back to the administration and say, was that a good idea? COATES: Alan from Maryland asked this question. Whatever one might
think should be done about voter I.D., how could you justify changing the rules a few months before the election?
This would just create chaos and uncertainty. That's what Trump wants. Brad, why don't you take that one?
TODD: Well, it is awfully close to the election to be changing the rules at this point. But I think if Democrats agreed to adopt voter I.D. nationally for the 2028 election, Republicans would accept it.
They need to let the bill come to the floor, drop their filibuster and offer that amendment that this is effective in 2028.
COATES: Got another question. Joe asked this question. This teleprompter should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I love me in the audience. What do you think, Tom?
MALINOWSKI: This teleprompter?
COATES: They're making a joke about the teleprompter operator for Trump who has allegations that are trading. This is called sarcasm in 11th century.
MALINOWSKI: No, like, I mean, he's just he's following the leader. The other big story today is that the President is selling to Wall Street his social media post in advance of sharing them with the American people. If you're just a humble teleprompter operator and the leader of the free world is doing that kind of stuff, why would you think that there are ethical standards anymore? So I don't believe in punishing the little guys when the big guys should take responsibility for their conduct first.
Very serious answer to the question.
COATES: It's very interesting. I don't know if it was a joke at all.
Liz from Atlanta asked this question. As a U.S. citizen that's finding it difficult to make ends meet, it's clear that Trump doesn't care about anything or anyone but enriching his self and his family's pockets. When will the American people wake up and see what a grifter he is? Rina, why don't you take that one?
SHAH: Okay, so let me say this. Tonight, I thought I went in with high hopes because when you work in politics, as long as some of us do, you have to have high hopes.
I thought he's going to get somewhere with this tonight. He's going to say, you need to show up to vote this fall because we are the people setting up the solutions. Now, I get that things are hard for you guys right now, but voting is important and also I want to protect your vote, secure your vote, whatever he could say.
He did none of that because tonight what he really wanted, and he got what he wanted, he wanted to set up that whole game of he said, she said. And I think that was his entire point because I heard him coming back to it every time so that he can really not be debated with. And then guess what? He doesn't have to talk about solutions for the American people, he can just kind of leave that out.
And I think just drawn to question how unsafe our elections are. And so I think actually that shoots himself in the foot a little bit because he could get people to show up for him.
I think one of my favorite tweets I saw tonight was actually from a right-winger who said, just hit me up when somebody actually gets arrested for stealing the 2020 election. So I don't even know that his base felt something with tonight's speech.
Forget talking actual solutions about kitchen table issues like the fact that gas is really high and summer camps, by the way, for kids, they're all out of school. Those are really expensive. Oh, and groceries and dining out.
[23:55:09]
So yes, we heard none of that. Just crime, border, election. And I don't think it was enough for anyone.
COATES: I'll read one final comment here. Rennie from Wyoming says, I'm a Christian conservative, proud U.S. naturalized citizen, Latina. I'd like people who claim that illegal immigrants vote to provide proof, not just conspiracy theories.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you all of you as well for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
