Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Democrats Confront "Crazy" Woke Era as GOP Clings to Election Denialism; Trump Sued Over Selling Early Access to His Truth Social Posts; USS Abraham Lincoln Sailors Face Troubling Conditions. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 12, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Democrats confront what they stand for as a party and what they want to leave behind. So, why aren't Republicans doing the same? Plus, Wall Street firms fork over tens of thousands of dollars to get early access to Trump's posts. But a new lawsuit says that access, well, the president can't legally sell that. And a troubling new report about the USS Abraham Lincoln as sailors supporting the war in Iran face troubling conditions that now has the attention of Congress. Tonight, on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, look, sooner or later, everyone got to look in the mirror. You got to ask yourself, what's working? What isn't? Did something go too far, not far enough? And then you try to make adjustments. Well, Democrats have been looking in that mirror a whole lot lately. And what they've seen has triggered a brutal argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I just think, in general, like, going after holidays in America is a bad idea.
FRANCESCA HONG, WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: You have some hot takes, sometimes bad takes on Twitter.
ABDUL EL-SAYED, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: If you're Chuck Schumer, damn right I'm dangerous.
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: These people are too hot- headed to know that they're not popular. People don't like them.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: If Mr. Carville doesn't want to be in my party, the party that I belong to, that Piker, that El-Sayed belongs to, he can start his own party.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: I have a local city councilman that has this saying, woke one was crazy.
(LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Like I said, not pretty. And it's all out in the open. We watched it play out leading into Michigan just last week. And it was again in Wisconsin last night. And all week in between, a whole lot of hand-wringing about what the Democratic Party should be or shouldn't be.
And in Wisconsin, David Crowley eked out the win, the moderate candidate. Now, you fast-forward to this morning, a unity breakfast for Crowley. And guess who showed up? The progressive who lost, Francesca Hong. Literally hours after conceding the race, there she was, supporting the candidate who beat her.
Now, that doesn't mean the Democrats have solved their problems. They may be on the same page about voting blue, but a few hours are not going to force conformity on all the issues. You can tell the debates about how to get to the best version of America is going to keep going well beyond November 3rd.
But here's the point. Democrats are actually looking in the mirror. And I bet you can figure out where I'm going next. Where's the Republican version of that soul-searching? Because I'm not hearing a whole lot of this. Stop the steal one was crazy. In fact, just hop over to the state next door, my home state, Minnesota.
Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, he lost the Republican primary for governor. And look, maybe that is the reckoning, a direct message from Republican voters. But what did Lindell do? Started a pillow fight. He started raising baseless questions about the results and refused to concede.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE LINDELL, FOUNDER AND FORMER CEO OF MYPILLOW, POLITICAL ACTIVIST, CONSPIRACY THEORIST, LOST MINNESOTA GOVERNOR GOP PRIMARY: And I'm not going to sit here and say that there's something wrong, but there is. This is called a huge deviation. These numbers don't happen in elections. They don't. You guys, these are the power of numbers. This is so improbable, what we have here today. We're just going to look into it. We have people watching it from every -- from cyber guys to people in election precincts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, here's the power of numbers. Lindell losing to Lisa DeMuth by more than 45,000 votes. That's about 11-percentage points. Now, Mike Lindell is going to Mike Lindell. But if you want to try to write that off as some fringe thing, well, let's go back to Wisconsin, because Republican Crowley will face in November -- that's Congressman Tom Tiffany, and he voted to reject the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania after the 2020 election.
And then there's the president of the United States who still can't let go of his own election grievances. I mean, I'll remind you of what happened this week when a conservative host suggested Trump should declare a national security emergency.
[23:05:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WAYNE ALLYN ROOT, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: If they never get the Save America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections. If you do this in the next month, we will get photo I.D., proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots, and you don't even need --
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK? I'll leave it at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Stranger things. The thing he didn't say? That's crazy. My first guest attended a unity brunch with Democratic candidate for governor, David Crowley. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joins me now. Attorney General, thank you so much for being with us tonight. I mean, the party was split down the middle last night. What is your plan to unite progressives and moderate Democrats statewide? I mean, are there any concessions that should be made?
JOSH KAUL (D), ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WISCONSIN: Well, first, thanks for having me on the program. It's great to be here. You know, the good news is, while this was a spirited primary, I think there's a lot of agreement on some critical pieces. I think we know as Democrats that we need to fight to help make life more affordable for Wisconsinites. We need to make sure that we continue standing up to this Trump administration, which is trying to exert its control over the lives of Wisconsinites.
And the good news is Wisconsin Democrats understand the assignment here. We are a purple state. We need to work together to make sure that we are moving our state forward. I think that what you saw with that unity breakfast is that Democrats from around the state are coming together. We're unified, and we're going to work to have some big wins this fall.
COATES: You know, David Crowley, he was quick to lean in to Congressman Tom Tiffany's ties to President Trump. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID CROWLEY, WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Tom Tiffany stood with those who tried to overturn a free and fair presidential election instead of defending our democracy. He has worked in lockstep with Donald Trump to slash programs that Wisconsin families depend on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He spoke about the economic concerns, but he led with Tiffany being an election denier. Is that the right strategy for Wisconsin voters? KAUL: I think it's important for Wisconsin voters to know that Tom Tiffany would be the most extreme far-right governor we have ever had in the state of Wisconsin. You know, my administration defended the results of that 2020 election, and we had a free and fair election, just like we do time after time.
Tom Tiffany voted against certifying the election, which in my view is essentially a vote to put Donald Trump ahead of American democracy. He supported a six-week abortion ban. His campaign is benefiting dramatically from just three billionaires who have pumped millions of dollars into the Republican Party of Wisconsin. So, this is an extreme mega-Republican, and the stakes for Wisconsinites are huge in this election.
COATES: When you think about how to approach voters, particularly given that there were seemingly many undecided voters, they have certainly made up their mind now in several and many of the primaries. But voters want something to vote for, not just something to vote against. How do you square it with what you want to achieve?
KAUL: Yes, I think, like I said, we need to make sure we are tackling affordability. One thing that I love about being attorney general is we work to hold corporate monopolists accountable, whether it's Ticketmaster or prescription drug companies, to fight for affordability for Wisconsin families. We've got a federal government right now that is significantly overreaching and trying to cut programs that make a difference in the lives of people in our state and in states around the country.
And continuing to work to make our communities safer is something that has been integral to what I've done, and I think we've seen that voters clearly want it around the state. So, continuing to talk about the issues that matter to Wisconsinites is how we're going to win this fall.
COATES: One issue that matters all across this country is the integrity of our elections. You've spoken about defending that in Washington -- excuse me, in Wisconsin. Conservative T.V. host Wayne Allyn Root, he pitched President Trump on declaring a national election emergency to try to bypass Congress, and he appeared to take, at least in part, the bait. The president responded, stranger things have happened. That's got to concern you.
KAUL: There's no bigger threat to the integrity of our elections right now than Donald Trump. And the reality is, in Wisconsin, with folks like Tom Tiffany and my opponent, Eric Toney, if they were in office, we would have people who are yes men for Donald Trump. We need people who are going to stand up to protect our democracy now as much as we have at any point in time. Donald Trump has made clear that he does not care about the results of free and fair election.
And look at the contrast here. We just had a razor-thin margin in Wisconsin. But people aren't contesting the election. We're accepting the results. In Minnesota, by contrast, where Donald Trump's ally Mike Lindell is, you see claims about nonsense fraud being made.
[23:10:00]
There's a difference right now between the two parties. We've got one party that believes in democracy and one party that's undermining it.
COATES: Attorney General Josh Kaul, thank you for joining.
KAUL: Thanks for having me.
COATES: You know, let's be honest. The question I'm asking after last night, how did the polls get it so wrong? And does it mean the November polls are also off? Because if you were tracking the polls in Wisconsin, you would have seen this, an average of three polls had Hong running away with it. Hong, 42 percent. Crowley, 14 percent. He, of course, ended up winning by a hair.
But it wasn't just Wisconsin. Michigan Senate race last week, that was also way off. Several polls had Abdul El-Sayed up by double digits, some as high as 16 points. El-Sayed only won by one-percentage point.
So, what is going on here? You know what? Let's ask someone who does this for a living, Spencer Kimball. He joins me now. He is the director of polling at Emerson College. And first, I want to make clear, as I understand it, you know, Emerson did not conduct a public poll in the race in Wisconsin because you said you wouldn't have the funding to do it properly. And I want to talk about what that looks like because you polled in Michigan, not in Wisconsin. What is your assessment of why the Wisconsin polls were so off? Is the reason similar to what happened in Michigan?
SPENCER KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING CENTER: Well, it's hard to tell if it's the same two snowflakes. But what we saw out in Wisconsin was I think a lot of late movement in that race. As you notice in that number you put up there, at 40 percent of plurality for Hong, she was kind of stuck there. And without AOC or Bernie coming out to put her over the top, there was a lot of undecided voters. And I think after El-Sayed wins that race, you had anybody but Hong campaign. And then you have Barnes dropping out, you have the governor endorsing.
So, I do think that there was a lot of late movement in that race. But the polling needs to pull up to the election and try to catch those movements so that the voters have a better cue of what's going to happen.
COATES: You know, there's this joke people will say whenever they have a poll come out that they don't agree with. They'll go, well, nobody asked me. Right? And that's part of what you're talking about, that sample size, who they're actually asking the question of.
I had a Democratic strategist on with me last night. He said that he thinks the pollsters in Wisconsin and Michigan weren't able to measure Black voters, rural, working-class voters. Do you think the polls are not sufficiently accounting for those groups?
KIMBALL: No. I think polls, the way we collect data, changes a lot over time. So, 10 years ago, we were calling on landlines. There are still people using live operators, calling people during certain times of the day. We send out text messages, allowing people to take that poll when it's convenient for them. Some people send out emails. So, there's all different types of modes that are being used today.
And we look at the data that gets returned to see where there are deficiencies. So, there's definitely deficiencies with Hispanic voters and voters 18 to 29, and that's why you see online panels being used to supplement some of these polls.
But, overall, I think you have generally good representation. Look at Connecticut polling. Look at the South Carolina race. Look at New Mexico. Look at California. There's a lot of races I can throw at you that the polls properly projected the winners. In Michigan, on the Republican side, the polling was much more accurate. I had the winner up by 15. So, we have to look at each race as a study and try to figure out what goes wrong.
And perhaps, in Michigan, the $40 million spent in the last week or so of that race moved the needle, and the polling was done too early. That's something that happens a lot in these elections. When voters aren't cued in to who these candidates are, they kind of sit on the sideline. Then all of a sudden, the election comes, the lights turn on, and they're like, well, what am I supposed to do? And that's where we see those changes.
COATES: Is that equally true for a general election? Obviously, primaries have its own unique space, and people sometimes will lean in much closer to the definitive race of who ultimately represents them. But we see polling almost weekly that suggests Democrats are in a strong position, a strong position to retake the House in November. What do you say to people who see the results in Wisconsin and Michigan and the other states you've mentioned where there are far more accurate predictions and think that the November polls should indicate something similar?
KIMBALL: Yes, so, looking at that blue wave, the generic ballot test, that's the number that a lot of people are looking at. That number, for many of us pollsters, is between 7 and 11 points for the Democrats. That suggests that they're going to win back the House. The question is going to be the Senate. Now, you've got to be able to interpret that data properly. So, you know, these 11 points is a lot.
[23:15:00]
But remember, Trump wins Ohio by 13 or 12, Iowa by 13, Texas by -- Alaska by 14, 15 points. So, depending on what happens at each state level is going to impact those Senate races. But when you look at the big picture, the 435 in the House, that leans to the left, and it looks like the Democrats are favored to win back the House.
COATES: People are skeptical because, obviously, the biggest and most clear indication of the polling are at the actual voting polls. So, we'll see what happens in the long run in November. Spencer Kimball, thank you so much.
KIMBALL: Thank you for having me. COATES: Up next, have you heard about this? Wall Street firm is paying a hundred grant for instant access to Trump's Truth Social posts. My next guest says it's not only wrong, but illegal, and he is suing to block it. Brendan Ballou is live in studio with me, next. And later, 250 days at sea supporting the war in Iran. And tonight, there are troubling reports emerging about the morale and conditions that American sailors are facing, and there's no end in sight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: For those of you who just can't wait to read Trump's Truth Social posts, you might soon be able to pay to get them before anybody else. You might call that unbelievable. A new lawsuit is calling it unconstitutional. The suit filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and "The Intercept" argues the subscription program that Truth Social launched for instant access to the president's posts violates the First and Fifth Amendment.
Trump uses Truth Social to make policy pronouncements, personnel changes like today's announcement that Karoline Leavitt is leaving the White House at the end of the month, and even make declarations of war. This week, Trump media revealed more than 10 customers have signed agreements to pay anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000 per month for early access to Trump's posts.
The lawsuit argues -- quote -- "There is no legitimate interest, let alone a significant one, in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information." So far, the White House has not responded to a request for comment.
With me now is one of the lawyers representing one of the groups suing, Brendan Ballou, a former federal prosecutor who now runs the Public Integrity Project. Brendan, good to see you. People might not believe this is actually happening, but indeed it is. They've got subscribers as well. Why do you believe, though, this runs afoul of the First Amendment?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes. Let's start with the basics, you already laid a lot of it out, which is Truth Social is the president's preferred mechanism for making all sorts of government announcements. So, he's hiring and firing cabinet officials. He's declaring wars. He's declaring ceasefires. Just about all the business that he does online --
COATES: Government speech.
BALLOU: Exactly, happens through Truth Social. Now, the scheme here is these are going to be payments to Donald Trump's private media company, $60,000 to $100,000 per month for early access to this information, access to this information which the company itself describes as market-moving. So, this is stuff that they are saying is going to be financially beneficial to the hedge funds, the private equity firms, the gamblers that are going to buy that.
I want to get to the First Amendment thing, but one of the most extraordinary things we saw was yesterday on one of the earnings calls. They actually say they want to start using this information for online gamblers to help them make bets on potentially the president's pronouncements and so forth.
COATES: What could go wrong?
BALLOU: Exactly. So --
COATES: Now, the First Amendment.
BALLOU: Yes.
COATES: Why is that the issue?
BALLOU: So, you know, one of the great things about the First Amendment is it says that if they are going to publish government information, each person has an equal access right to it. So, you cannot discriminate who gets government information based on what kind of person they are, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat, whether or not they are willing to pay the president's private company to get that information.
COATES: But, normally, the First Amendment is talking about viewpoint discrimination, punishing somebody for what they believe, not necessarily the access to the information. This is more about the access of the press and beyond.
BALLOU: Exactly. So, one is you do have a right to access of government information. And again --
COATES: Whether you're press or not.
BALLOU: Exactly. Anybody has that. And then you also have, and this is getting a little in the weeds, but you're a lawyer, you know, you also have a compelled association argument. So, you can't be forced to spend money to express a viewpoint that you don't agree with in order to get access to that government information. Do you really want news organizations to have to associate themselves with the president's private company just to get official government announcements?
COATES: I'll make that question rhetorical. I think you know my answer. Let's talk about money, though, and this weaponization fund, the anti-weaponization fund, which we said -- we heard was dead from the now Attorney General Todd Blanche. But there was a press conference, his first one as the A.G., and he was asked yet again whether the anti-weaponization fund is dead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Is it dead and is it ever going to come back?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, so, I quibble with that because the president said in the cabinet meeting that it's dead. I have testified under oath that it's dead. I have testified in front of the House where I wasn't under oath where I said it was dead. Yes, the president feels very strongly, as do I, that there were people who were victims of Department of Justice that was absolutely weaponized. He feels very strongly that he would want to make them whole, as do I, but it will not be through the anti- weaponization fund.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Per se. It will be something else.
BALLOU: What they're going to do is they're going to start settling bogus lawsuits with January 6 defendants. You know, all these lawsuits are already being filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. They're alleging that the DOJ has been weaponized, and these helpless rioters who attacked the Capitol have been demonized by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, I suspect, will probably start settling those things for millions of dollars.
[23:24:58]
Now, we have been representing officers Harry Dunn and Danny Hodges in the first suit against the slush fund. You know, this harms them, not just if the slush fund is created, but if these bogus lawsuits get settled, too, and so we might be taking an action there, too.
COATES: Brendan Ballou, thank you so much for joining.
BALLOU: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln reportedly trying to jump overboard, and it's raising questions about what the Iran war is doing to the people being asked to fight it. Plus, another longtime Democratic lawmaker gets ousted by a younger challenger. Are there more to come? Congressman Seth Moulton is calling for generational change in his Senate race, and he joins me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A distressing report from on board the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Military Times reports multiple sailors have tried to jump overboard. The paper reports sailors face dire conditions on board, shortages of toothpaste, deodorant, soap, even food. They've been deployed for nine months while also supporting operations against Iran. Two hundred and 50 days. That's a record. And there's no announced end date.
A U.S. Navy spokesperson responded to the report by saying -- quote -- "We have not observed an increase in suicidal ideations or attempts aboard the ship. We take every service member's well-being seriously and have religious, medical and mental health professionals available to assess and address concerns as they arise." But the reporter who broke the story says the wife of one sailor who tried to jump hasn't heard from anyone in the Navy in weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATALIE OLIVERIO, PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT, MILITARY TIMES: Speaking with Ms. Saloma (ph), she is extremely worried and concerned about how her husband is actually doing. And until she can be in front of him and see him with her own eyes, she's not really going to be able to answer that question. And facing the stresses that every military spouse faces when theirs is deployed, being a solo parent at home with three little kids. So, not being able to have answers or directions is really challenging right now for her especially.
COATES: Joining me now is Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran who served four tours in Iraq. He also sits on the Armed Services Committee, and he is running for Senate. Congressman, thank you for being with us. What was your reaction when you heard these accounts of sailors attempting to go overboard?
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA), MEMBER OF ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I mean, it's horrific. But sadly, I'm not surprised. I mean, we have a president, a commander-in-chief who has made fun of troops for mental health issues. We have a secretary of defense who is more focused on testosterone tests than actually keeping our troops alive.
But the piece that I think we don't talk about enough is that our troops can do extraordinary things. And I've had deployments to Iraq that were longer than nine months. But you've got to believe in the mission. And nobody can participate in this Iran war. It has been a total failure. It has actually backfired. It has done more to empower Iran, which now controls the world economy, which they've never done before in their history. It's really hard to be excited about that mission. There's no one who believes in it right now. And that's got to be one of the toughest tolls on our troops.
COATES: You heard the Navy. They tell us that they aren't seeing an uptick of mental health issues on the USS Lincoln. And they're saying they have plenty of mental health resources available. Listen. You're on the Armed Services Committee. Is that statement good enough for you?
MOULTON: Absolutely not. And we will be conducting investigation to get to the bottom of this. Zero suicide is the only acceptable number. And I'm speaking not just as a veteran but as the co-author of 988, the National Mental Health Hotline, a service that I made sure was available to troops, even troops overseas. It's pretty obvious, though, that these troops are not getting the mental health support that they need, and it's our job in Congress to get to the bottom of that.
COATES: I want to turn to the midterms and just thinking about this as part of a larger discussion about people's views of the government, about what can be done, and how things can be checked and balanced, particularly on behalf of our military.
You know, another longtime lawmaker lost re-election today. Yesterday, excuse me. He was 78-year-old Congressman John Larson from Connecticut. He lost to 46-year-old challenger Luke Bronin. That's a similar age gap between you and Senator Ed Markey, I might add, who you are trying to beat. Does that give you some kind of confidence, that your generational change argument is going to work against the senator?
MOULTON: I mean, there's no question that people want generational change in our politics. It's time for a new generation to take charge and tackle a new generation of problems, a new generation of challenges, but also a new generation of opportunities. I don't think people look at the 80-year-olds in the United States Senate and say, OK, they're going to figure out A.I., for example. I think it is time for the generation that grew up with the internet and is going to have to live for decades with A.I. to chart our way forward.
But the other thing people are frustrated with is the political establishment, the Democratic establishment included. Seven out of 10 Democrats in Massachusetts are frustrated with the current Democratic establishment leadership. They want change. They're tired of two terms of Donald Trump, MAGA controlling everything, costs skyrocketing all across America.
[23:35:00]
It's just very clear that the old playbook isn't working. And the question a lot of voters in Massachusetts are asking is, after 50 years in Washington, Senator Markey, what are you going to do differently in the next six that you haven't done in the last 50?
COATES: Well, that raises an interesting question, not only about those who are incumbents or established or establishment candidates, but also those who are endorsed by people who've had a similar tenure because Senator Ed Markey, he bills himself as more of a progressive than you, and he has the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders. Do you think the label of being more or less progressive matters to the voters that you have been hearing from?
MOULTON: Well, first of all, there are two progressives in this race. And I have, for example, a more progressive and aggressive affordability agenda than the senator, landing the flag in the ground that housing, health care, and education should just be human rights, and getting there with things like a wealth tax and banning private equity from buying up homes, having universal health care, universal pre-K, and dramatically expanding rail access across Massachusetts to dramatically improve housing, just different plans because it's not progressive without progress.
But I hear you on the endorsements. I mean, there's no question that the political establishment is with Senator Markey. In fact, he put out an ad with his three endorsers. The combined age of everyone in that ad, Laura, is older than the United States of America. I think it is time for a new generation of leadership.
COATES: Do you see Senator Bernie Sanders as part of the establishment? I think he would argue he's not.
MOULTON: Oh, look, I think 80-year-olds in the Senate tend to stick together. So, that endorsement did not surprise me at all.
COATES: But we will soon see what matters most to voters. Will it be the label, the ideology or the action? Congressman Seth Moulton, thank you so much.
MOULTON: I'm for action, Laura. Thanks.
COATES: One candidate progressive lawmakers like Bernie Sanders did not endorse, Francesca Hong, who lost her election in Wisconsin last night. I want to turn to former assistant to President Biden, Rob Flaherty, and the editorial director of the Washington Examiner, Hugo Gurdon. Thank you so much, both of you, for being here.
I mean, Rob, I'll begin with you because people are trying to do a little bit of an autopsy on the elections. And I do wonder, was it a rejection of Hong's DSA platform or was she herself a flawed candidate?
ROB FLAHERTY, FORMER DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL STRATEGY: Well, look, progressives won in other places last night. You had Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota. You had Matt Little also in Minnesota. At the end of the day, a flawed candidate is a flawed candidate.
I think one of the lessons to learn from the elections last night were Democratic voters still have that pundit in them. They want to win. And they're pissed off, but they want to win. I think, you know, Francesca Hong was a flawed candidate, and voters saw that at the end.
COATES: A wake-up call for Democrats?
FLAHERTY: Well, I think it's certainly a wake-up call in a lot of different ways, you know.
COATES: Because it was so narrow.
FLAHERTY: It was narrow, right? And same with El-Sayed, right? In Michigan. I think for folks who are in the middle or who you might call the establishment, it means you have to articulate a positive vision. You have to have something that you're for because, you know, that has been the challenge for a lot of folks who are not in the progressive wing.
COATES: Hugo, Republican Congressman Tim Tiffany, he's got the president's endorsement and a full-throated one at that. He gave a less-than-full-throated response about whether he wanted him to campaign with him on the trail. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you want the president in the state campaigning for you?
REP. TOM TIFFANY (R-WI), WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: That's up to the president. The president will decide whether he's going to come to the state or not. I mean, he's got his hands full, both nationally and internationally. They're going to do the midterm convention. So, he's got his hands full.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
That was CNN affiliate WISN, by the way. Obviously, not a decisive yes. But also, the president is quite busy. There's a number of things happening. But normally, you have a candidate who would want him to join him. Does that indicate anything to you?
HUGO GURDON, EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, certainly, President Trump is decreasingly popular. His unpopularity is increasing. So, you can see why someone running in the state up in Wisconsin is going to think, is it going to be an advantage to me or is it not going to be an advantage? It's going to be easier for him to distance himself from President Trump because it's a state race rather than a federal race.
And so, you can see him making that calculation which, of course, him trying to distance himself is, you know, obviously, the Democrats will try and make sure that he is. You know, he has the baggage that he has with President Trump and he has to carry that all the way through November.
COATES: They're going to want photographs of them side by side. He's going to try to not have it. And you're right about the state versus federal. But then people, I wonder if voters are making those distinctions, if they're angry at the establishment or anyone in office, and they want change. Are they seeing that this is state versus federal given that many state officials are on the front lines or the last lines of defense?
[23:39:58]
I want to talk about the voting, though, because we saw Democrats outvote Republicans by six-digit margins in key races. I mean, look at these numbers. It's pretty extraordinary to think about that. How do you expand the momentum for November?
FLAHERTY: Yes. Well, first of all, I think this is a good sign for Democrats if any. You've got voters who are crawling over broken glass in order to participate in this election at a time when civically- engaged voters are the people who vote in elections more generally, right? Folks who care about democracy and democratic structures. It's a good sign for Democrats across the board.
I think one of the other sorts of under-told stories about the primaries that we've seen thus far is the increase we've seen in Black turnout post the Calais decision. I mean, folks are really motivated to vote. I think that's the thing that, you know, we're going to expect to see.
COATES: The gutting of the voting rights decision, you're talking about.
FLAHERTY: Yes.
COATES: Well, let me ask you because, obviously, Republicans want to encourage Republicans to turn out to vote. They know there is a distinction between the primaries and, of course, the general. They hope people will be galvanized in November. Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson, he is sounding the alarm over a trend that he warns is troubling for the Republicans ahead of the midterms. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R), WISCONSIN: I think what's concerning to me now, we didn't have really a contested primary for a Republican governor, but we had about 500,000 Republicans come out and vote in our primary, 700,000 Democrats. That's a 200,000-vote differential there.
President Trump is going to have to encourage the people who voted for him not to vote for socialists like they did in New York, but to vote for Republicans so that he's not facing impeachment charges in the House, and that we can retain a majority in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, the order in which he said that, a majority in the Senate, but also for Trump not to face impeachment, is that going to be the galvanizing force you think in Wisconsin?
GURDON: I don't know that it will be the galvanizing force. I think that one of the things that we have to remember, where we look at the various little things, the differences between one state and another, is that the fact is that history suggests that Republicans are going to have a very difficult time trying to hold the House.
Anyway, it's something like an average of 25 seats is normally what happens when you see, you know, against the president, you know, after two years that he has been in office. So, the probability is, I mean, it -- Democrats -- it would need to be a miracle for the Democrats to lose the House. I think it's much more likely that the Republicans will hold the Senate. And one has to think that, you know, the Democrats have impeached President Trump twice. I don't know that the leadership really wants to go there again.
But there will be a lot of pressure because, you know, Trump is extremely unpopular, continues to be extremely unpopular with the Democrats, and he's probably giving them some ammunition, too.
COATES: One of the risks people thought about when there was more than one impeachment was, would it undermine the gravitas assigned to an impeachment for people to believe that it could actually happen and lead to the ousting of a president? We'll see. Rob, Hugo, thank you both so much.
FLAHERTY: Thank you.
GURDON: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, how serious was the threat that forced the president to secretly switch planes? We've got new reporting on that tonight as the White House faces new questions about the decision and who Trump took with him and who he left on the decoy plane. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Why was it too dangerous for you to fly on Air Force One, but not too dangerous for the press?
TRUMOP: Well, I don't know. I think, actually, the plane that I flew on was at greater risk. I think it was at greater risk because that would be the plane I think that they would be more likely to go for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The White House taking a lot of heat tonight for not being transparent about the president secretly switching planes when he left the NATO summit last month. A source says the plan was prompted by a specific threat to Air Force One from a shoulder-fired missile. President Trump then covertly left the plane in a catering container that you see in those photos before boarding a separate military jet.
And tonight, we're getting some new insight into who left with Trump and who remained in that what we now know was the decoy flight. Among those traveling with Trump on the secret plane, a handful of close aides, along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to our source. But look at who was on the decoy flight, U.S. secretaries Marco Rubio and Scott Bessent and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller along with, of course, members of the press.
Joining me now, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, Frank Figliuzzi. He's also the host of the "Frank Figliuzzi Show" on Substack. Also here, White House correspondent for Bloomberg News, Jeff Mason. Good to see both of you, and this news is coming in. I mean, Jeff, "The Washington Post" is now reporting that the CIA and intel officials were skeptical of the Iranian threat against Trump that prompted all of this, which sources tell them were relayed to the United States by Israel. So, how serious could it have been when top officials like Rubio remained on the actual Air Force One?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: I think that's a great question, Laura. I don't have the answer to that. I would be posing a similar question.
I think that this entire incident has raised a number of questions, certainly about the security of the plane, not only the legacy Air Force One, which the president boarded in this case, but the new one that he did not take on that trip, and then the fact that it wasn't considered safe for him to stay on what we're referring to as the legacy Air Force One and going on to that smaller plane. There, of course, are also questions about transparency and about safety for everyone who was left on the bigger jet.
COATES: Unbelievable to think about the realization as people are understanding which plane they found themselves on and the reasons for it.
[23:49:59]
Pretty startling, Frank, to think about a security threat and those who may have been compromised, not informed. Was it the right call to keep high-ranking officials, let alone other human beings, and the White House press corps behind on that decoy plane?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, FBI: Yes. So, look, let's kind of separate the two things. One, the immediacy of keeping the U.S. president safe. That's understandable, and the secrecy around that needed to happen.
So, of course, there's -- however, you know, an intelligence and ethical issue here, meaning if your intelligence was believed to be valid, and now you've mentioned the reporting by "The Washington Post" that the CIA at least held it in low confidence, but if it's valid, then you're in for a penny, in for a pound. Either everybody has to get home differently and safely or not. You can't have it both ways.
Now, there is perhaps a valid security reason for simply shuffling the deck. Make the Iranians think they really don't know where the U.S. president is at any time. But I have to tell you, I'm concerned that many officials may have not known where the president was with reports that the tracking transponders were turned off on the aircraft he was traveling on. Did we actually lose contact with the U.S. president for a number of hours?
COATES: That is concerning. I mean, just out of curiosity, though, I mean, Trump says he was following the advice of Secret Service and military. When there is a credible threat against Air Force One, who does make the final decision on who stays behind?
FIGLIUZZI: Let's not pretend that this was anything but a briefing to the United States president. So, he can say he relied on the Secret Service, and I'm sure that's valid, but he ultimately could have said, I don't like this plan, I need another plan. That briefing must have involved, hey, and by the way, sir, we're leaving the journalists and cabinet members on the decoy plane.
COATES: Jeff, you are a White House correspondent. You have covered many administrations at this point. I mean, obviously, you understand that things can happen in real time. Things are unfolding. The safety of the president won't necessarily be paramount. You might understand the secrecy in the moment for safety reasons. But there wasn't transparency even immediately or soon thereafter, the fact. Does that concern you as a journalist covering that administration or any administration?
MASON: Well, you're absolutely right to raise that, Laura, because there is some precedent for presidents having to take flights or it's a secret flight that is not fully -- that the public and some members of the press are not fully informed about. But the record is then corrected afterwards.
And one example that I think we've all learned about recently was with President Clinton during his term when he was flying to Pakistan. But that's just one example. I can think of others during the period that I've been a White House correspondent, such as when President Biden went to Ukraine. The full press pool was not taken on that trip, and they were kept in the dark. But a couple of members of the press were, and the White House Correspondents Association was informed about that. Now, we had our own criticisms of how that happened, but those concerns aside, there was transparency, and that was not the case here.
I also think it's important to fact check the clip that you played from the president at the very beginning of this segment. Him saying that the other plane that he went on, the smaller one, was actually more at risk just doesn't make logical sense with regard to the Secret Service being the ones that made that decision, which he is also suggesting.
So, those two things do not track in terms of how the president described that decision and that operation.
COATES: You mean at least those two things don't track. Frank, Jeff, thank you both. Up next, the new legal twist in the Luigi Mangione saga that could see one of his trials disappear.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Before we go tonight, a potential major twist in a case we've been following closely, the Luigi Mangione case. Sources tell CNN that Mangione's lawyers are now in plea negotiations with federal prosecutors.
Remember, Mangione is facing two different trials for the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the federal one where he faces stalking charges and the state one where he faces second-degree murder. Now, the state trial is set to begin on September 8th. The federal one, not slated until January of next year.
But the big question is, what happens if the feds strike a deal with him before the state trial? Well, look, the Constitution, it does allow for separate federal and state prosecutions because the state and the feds are considered separate powers. However, New York has more protections when it comes to jeopardy, double jeopardy. They say that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for an offense based upon the same act, even if they're separate powers.
Well, Mangione's lawyers have tried to argue that in the past. A judge called it premature because the federal case had not been resolved, so they'll likely argue it again this time.
[00:00:04]
But state prosecutors will likely push back again and argue that these charges are totally different and try to get a state trial to happen even in spite of any federal plea. It will be up to a judge to decide what happens. And guess what? There is a hearing on Friday in the federal case. So, stay tuned. We'll bring you the latest.
And a quick programming note, I'll be covering the Lindsay Clancy murder trial again tomorrow on CNN All Access. Our coverage begins at 8:45 a.m. Eastern. I'll see you there.
Thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
