Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Democrats Face Big Tent Test as Progressives, Moderates Score Wins; Trump Defends Data Centers but Admits They Could Use "PR Help"; Former LAPD Detective Takes the Stand in the Tupac Murder Trial. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 19, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. A quick reminder for you, in just a couple of minutes, you're going to join us for an exclusive subscriber only conversation. We are going to be answering more questions from you directly. You have to sign into your CNN at All Access account online. If you have a cable subscription, you are totally eligible to do that. In the meantime, thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, voters are sending both wings of the Democratic Party into November. So, can that big, old tent hold everyone? The man trying to figure that out, DNC Chair Ken Martin, joins me live. Plus, A.I. centers, data centers, they went up. The public backlash arrived. And now, Republicans are telling tech companies, you're hurting our chances for November. And a former LAPD detective takes the stand in the Tupac murder trial and reveals the moment Keffe D told him he was involved in the rapper's killing. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live." Well, my opening statement tonight, when you've got a house divided, you better figure out how to keep it all together. And make no mistake, the Democrats have a real family feud on their hands, the kind of fight that makes that big tent real awkward come November. It's pretty clear they're going to have candidates under that tent who want absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Voters, they're picking progressive candidates. They're picking moderate candidates. It's happening even in Florida where DSA member Angie Nixon notched a big upset in her Senate primary while more moderate winners say they wouldn't touch socialist policies with a 10- foot pole.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID JOLLY, WINS DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR FLORIDA GOVERNOR, FORMER FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE: I reject the DSA. I reject socialism. I'm a capitalist.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL), WINS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN REDRAWN FLORIDA DISTRICT: I reject the DSA. I reject the fringe left socialism that they are promoting. REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL), WINS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN FLORIDA'S 25TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: People have escaped socialism. And when they hear folks from the DSA go on television and talk about, you know, how they want to abolish the Senate which, you know, don't give Trump any ideas, and they, you know, they want to get rid of prisons and, you know, no borders, you know, most Americans hear that stuff, and they say, what is going on?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, so much for the welcome mat. You know, it gets even messier when you try to turn any group into a monolith, right? Because even being a Democratic socialist isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. Angie Nixon told me she isn't big on labels, and she has made it clear she doesn't sign on to every position associated with the DSA.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE REP. ANGIE NIXON (D-FL), WINS FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC SENATE PRIMARY: I want to abolish for-profit prisons because I believe, right now, people aren't educating our children, and they're ushering them into the school-to-prison pipeline because they want to exploit labor.
I don't support defunding the police. I support a comprehensive and clear pathway to citizenship for folks. I believe that Border Patrol should make sure that they are securing the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, yes, it's complicated. And it's obvious now that no side is going to win this democratic civil war by November, which means right about now, it's not about ending with it, but living with it. And how? Can Democrats all coexist in that big tent without anyone trying to walk out or tear it down? Without any fights that will leave the party badly bruised? Because we know that side-eye is real and the stakes are high. I'm talking about sky-high. Democrats are heading into the midterms with a real opening.
President Trump's approval numbers are dismal across the board. Only 33 percent approve of the job he's doing overall. On the economy, 29 percent. On the cost of living, 23 percent. On Iran, 27 percent. Even immigration, his best number among the issues that were polled, just 38 percent. So, President Trump may be on the ropes.
And now, Democrats have 76 days to figure out how to beat Republicans in November without settling the argument over what direction their party should even take. Can they do that under that big tent that they keep talking about or are they going to need something bigger?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[23:05:00]
UNKNOWN: You're going to need a bigger boat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: For the Democratic Party right now, that is exactly what it feels like trying to manage their ever-growing big tent. You know, my first guest tonight, he knows that firsthand. It's got to be a nightmare of a task. So much so that "The New Yorker" just put in a new headline. And here's the question they asked: Is the DNC chair the worst job in Washington?
Well, the man currently holding that job, DNC Chair Ken Martin, joins me now. Chairman, good to see you. I mean, there's an ideological tug- of-war in your party. We've seen some mainstream incumbents strongly reject, that's their word, reject the DSA candidates and the platform. So, how do you keep both wings in the same tent without tearing it apart?
KEN MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, look, I will tell you right now. First, thank you for having me on, Laura. Democrats are unified. We are united, and we're through most of these primaries now, so it's no longer Democrat on Democrat violence. Right now, everyone is focused on the November election.
COATES: Do you think they're really united, though, Ken? I don't want to cut you off, but the DSA, you're saying that all the Democrats and the DSA candidates, they're all united?
MARTIN: Let me say, we are a big tent party. We always have been. As you've heard me say before, we have moderate Democrats, we have conservative Democrats, we have progressives, we have leftists. And the key is to make sure that, despite all the labels that people throw around and the divisions within our party, there's more that unites us as Democrats than those small differences.
Every Democrat I know believes that we should get money out of politics, we should put more money into people's pockets, that we should raise the minimum wage, we should work for universal health care, every Democrat I know that's running for office wants us to get out of these endless wars that Trump has put us in, and every Democrat I know is focused on affordability and making sure that we can actually build stronger communities and improve people's lives. Those are the things that unite Democrats, whether you're on the far left or you're a conservative Democrat or anything in between. Our party is unified.
And look, with 76 days left, I can tell you what, we are focused on one thing, and that is putting a check on Donald Trump's power and giving the American people a sense that their better days are ahead with Democrats in control.
COATES: Let's talk about checks. Fundraising is really what I mean because retired Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman outraised, outspent his opponents. I'm talking about millions of dollars. And guess what? He still lost. So, what does it tell you? That all of that fundraising, it didn't matter in the end when you had grassroots campaigns and voters who saw it differently?
MARTIN: Well, one thing I would say is, look at the results from the last year. Over the last 18 months, we have won over 90 percent of the elections on the ballot, special election after special election. We are winning as Democrats when we're taking on Republicans. And in many cases, we are outspent heavily. And the reality is, the reason Democrats are winning is because people in this country are responding to our positive message because we're focused on the issues that Americans care deeply about.
And I've always said, look, we don't need to outrace the Republicans. We just need to have enough money to be in the ring and compete and get our message out. We're doing that, we're doing that effectively, and we're winning elections as a result.
COATES: There's a whole heck of a lot of money that's going to be spent trying to use even what you just said about Democrats being united to paint everyone with the same brush, including some of the more controversial policies and stances of the DSA. How do you combat that? Are you hoping to be able to use some of -- what? There's $7 million left from Vindman alone. How are you going to combat the enormous campaigns that are going to be spent to try to say Democrats are united as a monolith in everything?
MARTIN: Well, what I would say, Laura, is, look, what the Republicans have been doing this last year is not working. They've tried to create a boogeyman. They've tried to use fear as a tactic, to say the Democratic Party, they're a bunch of socialists. You know what? It hasn't worked. Candidates have been winning up and down the ballot at a historic rate, and we've been overperforming at around a 14- percentage point rate. With a historically unpopular president going into his midterm election, things don't look good for Republicans.
And why are people responding to Democrats? It's because our candidates are running for something, not against something. They're very rarely talking about Donald Trump on the campaign trail. They're giving the American people a sense that they're going to focus on affordability and improving people's lives and strengthening communities, making sure we have access to health care in this country, and taking on this really corrupt system that is rigged for only those at the top at the expense of hardworking Americans. That's what Democrats have been focused on, and Americans are responding to that positive vision.
If the Republicans want to focus on attacking Democrats, bring it on, because guess what? The reality is this fear tactic, the boogeyman, all the stuff that they've been trying over the last 18 months isn't working. And when they're doing that, what they're not doing is giving the American people any sense of how they're actually going to fix this mess that they got us into.
[23:10:00]
COATES: Well, that message is coming. We'll see how you guys deal with it. I mean, a Democrat also just flipped a statehouse seat in Pennsylvania by fewer than a hundred votes. I mean, a district that President Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2024. You had the state rep-elect, Brandon Dukes, telling my colleague, Erin Burnett, that this is what propelled his win. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRANDON DUKES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE HOUSE REP-ELECT: One thing that's important about this district is that the demographics have been changing for the last few years. It's becoming much more younger and more progressive, so that worked in our favor. I think the overall issue that drove people to the polls were change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It is a big win. There's no doubt about it. Is there a concern that a race like this that might look to some people as a local upset would be mistaken for a national trend or do you think this is the trajectory?
MARTIN: Well, Laura, if this was just a one-off, I would say people shouldn't read too much into it. But this is 31 legislative flips that have flipped from red to blue. You know how many Republican flips there have been over the last 18 months? Zero. So, again, if this was a one-off, I wouldn't read much into it. But we are winning in places we haven't.
This is a seat the Republicans have held for 25 years. This is a district that Trump won by 18-percentage points in Butler County, which is a very red county in Western Pennsylvania. So, to suggest or to try to minimize it, and I'm not suggesting you are, but the reality is this: We have been winning across the board.
Just last night down in Florida, right, which is not a blue state at all, as you know, in Florida last night, we flipped the Sarasota County school board, right? We flipped an at-large seat in Jacksonville. We flipped the county chair's race down there in another very red county. The point being is that this is not happening in isolation, this has been happening around the country in election after election after election.
Democrats are winning. We are beating our Republicans. And that overperformance, as I mentioned, is a historic 14-percentage points, and we've won 90 percent of the elections on the ballot. Now, look --
COATES: Well, before you get there -- hold on. Before you get there, because while certainly there has been flipping from red to blue, the DNC is still in the red. There's more debt than cash in the bank while the RNC is sitting on $128 million with no debt. It's a big issue for your critics, which includes the former DNC vice chair, David Hogg, who actually told me this last month. I want you to listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOGG, CO-FOUNDER OF LEADERS WE DESERVE, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN OF DNC: We need a DNC chair who can actually go out there and raise money. That person is not Ken Martin. And we don't need another 18 months to figure that out. That is a decision that can be made now by Ken, by resigning himself, which he needs to do if you're watching this, Ken. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: All right. You've now watched. I want to give you a chance to respond. What do you say?
MARTIN: Well, I'm not going anywhere. The facts speak something completely different, Laura. We've raised close to actually over $207 million. And just by historical context, Tom Perez, who was a chair in a similar environment, apples to apples, he was the last record holder for a DNC chair without the White House. He raised, at this point in the cycle, about $107 million. We have raised $100 million more.
We actually -- this chairmanship and this DNC has raised more money than any party chair on our side in the 198-year history of the Democratic Party. But what we're doing is we're spending it. Yes, we're raising more, we're investing more than ever before, but we need more, and that's because we have a guy in the White House who is auctioning off the federal government to the highest bidder. Of course, their coffers are filled. Of course, they have more money because they're selling the government to the highest bidder.
And, you know, look, I have said this very clearly, we need more to compete. But as I said earlier, we don't need to out-raise the Republicans to win. In fact, we haven't been out-raising the Republicans over the last 18 months, and we've been winning election after election after election.
And the last thing I'll say is this: You know, I've been doing this work for a long time, and I don't mind the critics, but the reality is there are two measures by which you should actually measure a party chair at any level, whether it's a state party chair or a national party chair. Are they winning and are they raising money? And on both of those metrics, this DNC is raising more money than ever before and winning more elections than ever before.
Look, the proof will be in the pudding over these next 76 days. And while I'm confident, I'm not complacent. There's going to be plenty of critics to go around. But anyone who knows me and has watched my record of success over these last many years now in politics, including in our great home state of Minnesota, I don't lose elections. I didn't come here to lose. I'm not going to lose over these next 76 days, and we're going to do everything we can to win.
COATES: Well, answer this question "The New Yorker" posed, whether being the DNC chair is the worst job in Washington. Is it?
[23:14:57]
MARTIN: Well, listen, it's not easy for sure, but it's not the worst job. I think about, you know, my mom who is a home cleaner, who is no longer with us, or my brother who is a carpenter, who wakes up every morning at 5:30 in the morning and heads off to work building things and building this country. There's a lot of people who have tough jobs, you know, and I'm not one of them. I have a job that I love.
There are tough days, for sure. Is there a lot of anxiety out there in this country right now about this election? For sure. But what fuels me has always fueled me, which is a belief that you can remake the world for people and that politics is a great catalyst for change and can help actually improve people's lives. So, as tough as these jobs can be, I'm blessed to have it, and I'm lucky to be able to do this work.
COATES: I'm going to ask you again in November. Ken Martin, thank you so much.
(LAUGHTER)
Up next, A.I. data centers becoming politically toxic as both parties seize on the issue in a way that could impact some major races this November. And tonight, President Trump is weighing in with some advice. Kara Swisher live with me on that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Remember months ago when I told you A.I. was the sleeper issue of the midterms? Well, the sleeping giant has woken up. Poll after poll shows Americans don't want data centers being built next door. They have become the poster child for the backlash against A.I., especially among young people. A new Pew poll found that for the first time, a majority of adults under 30 say they're more concerned than excited about A.I. That number jumped nearly 25 points in just five years. And politicians nationwide are starting to get the message. Just look at this ad from Gina Hinojosa, the Democrat running for Texas governor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Why is my electric bill going up?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Absolutely, happy to help. Data center production and energy use in Texas is skyrocketing to meet A.I.'s needs for your future.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What? Who authorized that?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Greg Abbott. He gave them billions in tax breaks for your future.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): My future? How does this help me?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Absolutely. Absolutely. Great question. Happy to help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And, by the way, it's hitting the cultural zeitgeist. Former NFL star Jason Kelce just put out this ad for his Garage Beer with a pretty out there suggestion for people who don't like data centers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON KELCE, FORMER NFL PLAYER, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES: A.I. data centers waste millions of gallons of water. That's why Liquid Death and Garage Beer decided to team up. We want your pee to cool these data centers.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Go ahead and have another Garage Beer or Liquid Death Sparkling Energy. Then send your pee to the A.I. data center of your choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm not thirsty anymore. And for the record, yes, there is a disclaimer. The ad says, at the end, "the suits want us to tell you to please don't actually send your pee" -- unquote.
Let's talk about all of this with our friend, CNN contributor Kara Swisher. Kara, what a leading for you, my friend.
(LAUGHTER)
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Oh, wow. You couldn't resist the pee.
COATES: I couldn't. I really couldn't. I mean --
SWISHER: You could not.
COATES: I couldn't. All right. Well, look, Axios had new reporting tonight of a memo the Senate GOP sent tech companies, warning them the data center issue could actually cost them a key seat in Ohio, telling them straight up, this has become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle. So, Kara, all the pee aside --
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: -- will support for data centers end up being a huge liability for candidates?
SWISHER: I believe it was me that told you this was going to be a big issue.
COATES: Yes, maybe. I'm taking credit for it.
SWISHER: OK. Please do. When Elon started doing all that nonsense in Memphis with gas-burning turbines to start Colossus there or when Kevin O'Leary is in Utah calling people communists if they didn't go along, and in general, just being able to push these things through with a lot of NDAs and secrecy, it was going to be -- it was going to be a problem because it's physical as opposed to where A.I. is going.
And so, data centers have become a proxy for all the upset about A.I. and the confusion about it and the worry, the legitimate worry about jobs and everything else. And then, you know, the sort of cosplay villainous of tech leaders these days, you know, sidling up to the White House, handing over money, just adds to it. And so, data centers are where it's all coming out. And there's a lot of data centers around this country. It's just A.I. data centers are the ones that are being targeted.
COATES: You know, the president doesn't seem to be thinking about elections. I mean, he is doubling down on data centers, the plan you're talking about. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an A.I. plant or a data center, I would absolutely want it because the jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are just enormous. And if you don't take it, you're going to be left behind because there are plenty of places that want it. So, I would say that maybe you can use a little public relations help. But if I were a governor or a mayor, I would want that plant in my community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: All right. Well, a lot of people still don't. And I wonder what you make of that message because does the argument you're going to get left behind unless you jump on this bandwagon actually make people feel better about the issue?
SWISHER: No, it makes them feel worse. It feels like it's being shoved down their throats. You know, I did a recent podcast with a bunch of people in Utah and Virginia where they're stopping these things. And the mayor of Lansing was really interesting because he tried to do what is considered a good data center, tax back, breaks, electricity guarantees, a closed water system, which has its own issues, by the way, a closed water system, and the citizens did not want that. Like, they just don't want it.
[23:25:00]
And so, I think one of the issues, it's not a P.R. problem, although it is to an extent, it's this idea that the future is, you know, like that commercial. I think that's an excellent commercial to say, who is this for? Is it for us? Why do they get tax breaks? Why do they get all the gimmes?
So again, it's a proxy for everything else but it's physical. And, in some cases, it is abuse of the citizens of Memphis who are very upset about that data center. And so, there has to be ways to do this because we do need these things in this country and it's really important that they stay here. It's just how do we do it and who gets to benefit.
And it shouldn't -- you know, one of the things that Scott Galloway says a lot is a lot of these tech companies, they socialize the cost and they privatize the profits. That's the issue, we all pay the cost for their expansion, and then they tell us we're un-American if we don't go along with it, which I don't think is the case. COATES: I don't either. I think the most elitist have the luxury of
not in my backyard actually meaning something. Most people don't have the luxury and it goes right in their backyard.
SWISHER: Well, put it right next to Mar-a-Lago if he thinks they're so great. Like why not? They're very noisy. They can be very noisy. Something like that. Put it next to Mar-a-Lago.
COATES: That's not happening. But you know where it has been. "The New York Times" has a piece today about Loudoun County in Virginia which struck gold for hosting over 250 data centers. The Times says that the country's revenue collected -- the county's revenue collected from them will cover 40 percent of their total tax revenue next year. I mean, wouldn't you expect more communities then to want these rather than protest? If that's the only thing, about the numbers, if that's their only concern, that's the P.R. move?
SWISHER: Yes. But that's not the only concern.
COATES: Right.
SWISHER: You obviously want those things. You want them to pay for the electric costs. But what about noise? What about water? What about all manner of things? It's like that when they put a stadium in. The same thing. There has been a lot of gimmes to wealthy people. And if you haven't noticed, they're really wealthy. I think a lot of people in Virginia, they're seeing a lot of backlash there.
And there's lots of data centers which is how they're done, if they're not NDAs, if they actually add jobs. And, again, it's against the backdrop, especially young people, of being concerned with A.I. And to say they're stupid to be that way, well, it doesn't really matter politically. It's going to go right into the presidential election.
COATES: I think you're right. I wonder if there will be more commercials that follow that as well. Kara Swisher, thank you so much.
SWISHER: I hope not. I hope not.
(LAUGHTER)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm the king of debt. I'm great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me. I've made a fortune by using debt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The self-proclaimed king of debt once promised to eliminate the national debt in just eight years. Well, guess what? It's now $40 trillion and counting, and there is plenty of blame to go around. The panel is live with me on that and more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Does the number 40 trillion mean anything to you? Well, it should. That's the national debt. And that number keeps growing because of tax cuts and wars and entitlements and an aging population. You know, we hit that number two years earlier than the Congressional Budget Office even predicted. And while it's symbolic, the rising debt will impact America's economic health and your personal financial, too. Think car loans and mortgage rates. Trump has talked about lowering the debt for years. Here's what he said back in his first term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, people don't talk. We have 21 trillion in debt. When this really kicks in, we'll start paying off that debt like it is water. We will start paying that debt down with $21 trillion, a number that is, you know, unthinkable, but that will go down very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Looks like there's a dam stopping that cash flow. I want to bring in Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett and former Trump campaign strategist, Mike Hahn. I'll begin with you, Mike, on this because, I mean, how does the Trump administration justify his economic policies on the campaign trail when the debt is now hitting 40 trillion?
MIKE HAHN, FORMER STRATEGIST, TRUMP 2016 AND 2020 CAMPAIGNS: Well, look, national debt isn't a new issue here, right?
COATES: No, it's not, but --
HAHN: It's over the course of many presidential administrations and also goes quite back to COVID when Joe Biden was president and all the government spending that we had to go through with that. But, look, I think the Republicans have been leaning on the issue of trying to get a balanced budget amendment for the longest time. That's like the core principle of the House Freedom Caucus which is all Republican.
So, you can also thank the Supreme Court, by the way, because they overturned the tariff rulings. The tariff money would have -- going to pay down a lot of the U.S. debt. But, now, we're collecting less than that because of the ruling. So, that certainly doesn't help the scenario.
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: Would it have gone to the national debt or would it have gone to building more vanity projects for Trump? I mean, I think it's one of those myths in American politics that Republican presidents are better on the economy and better with the national debt than Democrats, and it's just not true. Over the last 100 years, Republicans have added more to the national debt than Democrats, and that's adjusted for both inflation and for terms.
And, you know, it follows this predictable pattern where Republicans run on slashing the national debt, then they get into office, they immediately hand out tax cuts to billionaires and corporations, and they launch forever wars that drive up the deficit. That's exactly what Donald Trump has done in his second term.
So, you know, I think it's an issue that obviously both parties are going to have to deal with. We're all going to have to deal with it for generations. But if we're being serious about it, then we need to have this conversation that it's a problem for both parties, not just for Democrats.
[23:34:54]
COATES: And on that point, if the argument is, well, both have done something to contribute, but one person or one party is more at fault than the other, how does that impact voters who are looking and saying, OK, I don't really care, but $40 trillion is the national debt, what's that mean for my kid, my grandkid, me right now?
HAHN: Well, look, at the end of the day, Republicans are going to point to the big beautiful bill that was passed. The average American family saw 17 percent increase in tax returns over the last year. No tax on social security, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. The Trump accounts are also great for kids because they're investing in their future. We're talking about potential down payment on homes when they're 18 years old.
So, these are real life impacts that the Republicans have passed in this term. They have an economic message to talk to, especially when inflation was rampant under Joe Biden. Interest rates were sky high. No one was buying a house under Joe Biden. And Trump has brought that down, granted. We took a little detour with the Iran war, and I think he has acknowledged that, Republicans have acknowledged that. But, overall, the economy is not worse under Trump than it was under Joe Biden.
COATES: A little detour with the Iran war? That's horrible messaging.
(LAUGHTER)
HACKETT: The big beautiful bill added $4 trillion to the national debt. And all of those tax benefits to, you know, average middle-class Americans have been completely wiped out by both, you know, tariffs and the Iran war. So, it's hard to make that argument, that he has been a steward of the economy.
COATES: Well, I wonder if he's a steward for endorsements because we have seen that a few Trump-endorsed candidates, they did lose yesterday, including scandal-plagued Florida Congressman Cory Mills. Maybe that's a bit of an outlier. But CNN analysis found that Trump- endorsed candidates actually have lost at least 10 races for statewide office or Congress. Six of those losses happened just this month. I mean, does Trump's endorsement still have the same weight? Are you viewing this skeptically?
HAHN: Every kind of frontline strategist that comes in, that is running a primary, the first thing we tell them is you go into the Office of Public Affairs and you ask for the president's endorsement.
COATES: Really?
HAHN: It is the most powerful endorsement in Republican politics and it will for -- I think you said the numbers, 10. I mean, the other number is probably like 300 for the amount of people that he has endorsed that have won. In the race, you mentioned Cory Mills. I don't count that one. And the folks that did win weren't any less MAGA than Trump is. So, I don't think that's an indictment on the president at all.
COATES: Do you tell them to campaign with him as well or just get that little rubber stamp and go, really? You think -- I mean, given --
HACKETT: He'd welcome that.
COATES: Why do you welcome that?
HACKETT: Because his policies are toxic and very unpopular. He's a president with a 33 percent approval rating. It's lower than George Bush's was after the Iraq war. I think in swing states, in swing districts across the country, Democrats would absolutely welcome Donald Trump stepping foot.
COATES: I actually asked Congressman Byron Donalds this very question, by the way, who was endorsed by Donald Trump, and he told me that he welcomes Trump on the campaign. Listen to this. Oh, we don't have it? OK. Hold on. We don't have it.
But, listen, he doesn't have -- he doesn't have Ron DeSantis's endorsement, and we know that there has been tension between the two in the past. But in a place like Florida where DeSantis obviously was successfully a governor, people have looked at him very favorably for his policies on the Republican side in particular. Do you think that that person's lack of endorsement, when you counter someone like Trump, that means something locally?
HAHN: I'm not sure about that. I think the president performed incredibly well in 2024 even after Ron DeSantis ran against him. So, no, I don't -- I think the president's endorsement still holds a lot of weight in a state like Florida.
But, again, I would rather have the president's endorsement than someone like Hasan Piker in a state like Michigan or in a state like Wisconsin where Democrat candidates are campaigning with this guy. So, you know, you'd welcome the president on the campaign trail, I'd welcome Hasan Piker to campaign with all these DSA candidates.
HACKETT: We're talking about the president of the United States versus a streamer on YouTube.
HAHN: But you guys don't have leadership in your party. That's the problem.
HACKETT: We have plenty of leadership in our party. We have plenty of great candidates out there who are making the case against Trump every single day like Jon Ossoff.
COATES: Let's talk about Jon Ossoff. Hold on. Let's talk about Jon Ossoff because he continues to ruffle Trump's feathers by talking about White House staffer, Natalie Harp. David Axelrod called Ossoff's comments -- quote -- "gratuitous and unnecessary," and warned it will be a distraction. Ossoff does not seem to be concerned. I want to play that for a second. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D), GEORGIA: I'm trying to make sure that folks in Georgia know the truth about this administration. And, apparently, in the White House, the truth hurts. Well, the White House is obviously deeply offended when it's pointed out that they've broken every promise they made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You said you'd rather have Ossoff. Does his statement impact that choice at all for candidates?
HACKETT: No, I don't think so at all. I mean, I think -- you know, I respect and admire David Axelrod as somebody who dropped out of college to work on Barack Obama's campaign. I've long revered his political wisdom. But I think he's wrong on this. I think Jon Ossoff, by inserting just two words into a soundbite about a presidency totally unfocused of the concerns of the American people, he started a national frenzy. He showed that not only can he both take control and hold attention, but also throw a punch.
And clearly, you know, the fact that they're so offended and outraged by this is a pretty telling remark given the fact that this president has a very inappropriate relationship with this staffer.
[23:39:58]
COATES: Well, we don't know that to be the case, but I'll summarize Mike Hahn's expression and just say he disagrees.
(LAUGHTER)
HAHN: That's a fair assumption. Jon Ossoff should apologize to Natalie Harp. He should apologize to President Trump. He is insinuating something that is disgusting, about a young woman who solely works for the president.
And, at the end of the day, this is a guy -- this is a guy who was trying to run in 2028. He's not running in 2026. And Mike Collins is running a hell of a race down in Georgia, and that race is within five to seven points. And not much money has been spent against Jon Ossoff yet. So, this is a guy who really --
(CROSSTALK)
HAHN: Oh, that's Jon Ossoff.
COATES: You know what? Come on the show, Jon Ossoff. I'll ask you the very question. Sawyer and Mike, thank you both so much.
Still ahead, did the DOJ just suggest it's OK for the president to direct prosecutions of his enemies? The stunning claim made in their defense of the James Comey seashell indictment. Plus, a prayer vigil held for Nolan Wells on what would have been his 19th birthday as the D.A. breaks her silence on the case. The NAACP has joined the legal fight, and their top lawyer, Kristen Clarke, is with me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump's Department of Justice let the veil slip in a new court filing today. The filing had to do with the case against James Comey. You know, the one where the DOJ accused him of threatening Trump's life with this Instagram post of seashells arranged to create 8-6-4-7 that he says he saw on a beach. The DOJ says no senior leader ordered the department to bring those charges. That includes Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was the acting A.G. at the time. So, no pressure campaign. Got it.
But something else the DOJ said is raising eyebrows. In that same filing, the DOJ argues that even if Trump did pressure prosecutors -- quote -- "the chief executive directing his subordinance to exercise core executive functions is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system."
And that's news to me because when I was at DOJ, impartiality was hammered into us day after day after day. In fact, it is the first thing listed in the DOJ's Mission and Functions Manual, which you can see online, which says -- quote -- "Independence and impartiality. The Justice Department works each day to earn the public's trust by following the facts and the law wherever they may lead, without," say it with me, "prejudice or improper influence."
I want to bring in another DOJ alum, Kristen Clarke, who led the civil rights division under President Biden. Kristen, thank you for being here. You saw that. The DOJ claims that Blanche did not know about the Comey indictment until the day before it was presented to a grand jury. Do you buy that?
KRISTEN CLARKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, NAACP: I don't. And the Senate has now confirmed Todd Blanche. But we knew from the start that he was not qualified for this role, that he would lead the Justice Department as if it were President Trump's personal law firm. And now, they're saying the quiet part out loud.
The Justice Department stands apart from any other agency inside the federal government. Todd Blanche is the one person who's not a secretary He is the attorney general. The Justice Department is led by attorneys who are not faithful to the president. They are faithful to the Constitution.
And just as you noted, everything that you learn as a Justice Department attorney, as a Justice Department leader is about being impartial, about following the facts and the law, about being beholden to no one, being, you know, faithful to using this role to stand up for the public interest. You stand up in court on behalf of the United States, not the president who runs the White House.
COATES: Trust is what I hear, and trust is what I constantly think about that can be lost if people do not believe there is not independence or that there is someone putting their thumb on the scale somewhere. And that impression creates a domino effect everywhere across the country.
And I want to talk about what has been happening with the death of Nolan Wells and the tragedy that today would have been his 19th birthday. Instead of calling her son and telling him she loves him and wishing him a happy birthday, they had a poignant vigil for him tonight. They still don't know what happened to their son. And the D.A. says that they are still reviewing evidence before presenting this to a grand jury. This is a very slow pace. How does that impact the trust in the process?
CLARKE: Yes. I mean, the reality is that there is a lot of distrust in government right now. There is a lot of distrust in the work of prosecutors, especially in a place like Mississippi, which has a particular history when it comes to Black lives.
The NAACP has stepped up and has joined the legal team in this case. We are standing firmly behind Nolan Wells's parents who are still grieving. Today, they deserve to have their son home with them to celebrate his 19th birthday. We're committed to bringing the full resources of the NAACP.
COATES: Including asking for a federal investigation. Would that be part of what you'd seek?
CLARKE: Well, right now, all eyes are on the local prosecutors, waiting for them to complete their job. But this is a case of national importance. And it certainly would have been appropriate for the federal government to step in and offer their resources and expertise to ensure that that local investigation is moving expeditiously.
COATES: Would you trust this DOJ federal resources to do that?
CLARKE: You know, the Justice Department is, at the end of the day, a taxpayer-funded agency. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to demand and press that they do their job and protect the public.
[23:50:03]
So, while there is lots to be concerned about with this Justice Department, I believe it's important that we still push and press them to do their job and to protect the public.
COATES: I want to turn to another development in a case that people were captivated by. This is a young man named Karmelo Anthony. He is the high school track athlete who was convicted of stabbing another runner in an altercation at a track meet in Texas. The original judge was replaced with a new judge after the defense slammed how the first judge handled the case along with comments like these after the trial. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Did the jury get it right?
JUDGE JOHN ROACH, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS: Yes, they did. You know why? Because they were picked based upon the law. They listened to the facts. It happened here in this very courtroom. And they got a verdict. And so, that's the process. And whatever they say, they get it right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Obviously, they are appealing. Anthony's team is appealing. Are remarks by a judge appropriate in a case like this, particularly when the appeal is pending?
CLARKE: As a former federal prosecutor, you know well this is very unusual --
COATES: Yes.
CLARKE: -- for a judge to take to the airwaves and conduct -- that was an 18-minute interview where he clearly expressed his biased view about the outcome in this case. It's just not something that you see very often. We know well that Anthony's legal team is calling for a new trial. We know well that they believe that there were missteps in the trial that happened to date.
And for the judge to take to the airwaves, I think was incredibly inappropriate. The fact that he has been recused from the case was the right call. This is the kind of action that could lead to ethics charges against that judge. So, all eyes are, I think, watching to see what unfolds tomorrow.
COATES: The words you said, trust, hanging in the air over all cases like this. Kristen Clarke, thank you so much for being here.
CLARKE: Thanks for having me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DARYN DUPREE, WITNESS, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: We didn't ask him any questions about Tupac. He offered that on his own. We were shook. We were surprised.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Dramatic testimony from the former LAPD detective who says Keffe D told him he was involved in Tupac's murder. We'll unpack it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The Tupac murder trial is going to come down to this: Which Keffe D does the jury believe? The one who told investigators in 1998 he didn't know who killed Tupac or the one who told law enforcement a decade later his own people were behind it? Today, the jury heard both stories.
First, a former FBI special agent testified that in 1998, Keffe D claimed Compton police officers allegedly working for Suge Knight were responsible. Quote -- "When asked what the motive would be for this, Davis responded that he had heard that Shakur was talking about leaving death row records." But then came a former LAPD detective involved in Keffe D's 2008 proffer agreement. This time, the detective said Keefe D described his own crew carrying out the shooting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DUPREE: Mr. Davis had the gun at first, but they came up on the passenger side of Suge Knight and Mr. Shakur's vehicle, so he couldn't shoot across the driver. So, he handed the gun to Dre in the back seat, Andre Smith. He was afraid to shoot. Mr. Anderson grabbed the gun and shot across Mr. Smith into Mr. Knight's car that Mr. Tupac Shakur was in with Mr. Knight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Earlier, I spoke with Gene Deal, the former bodyguard of Sean "Diddy" Combs, and he's not buying what prosecutors are saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Are we ever going to learn the full truth here given that people would rather not speak about this?
DEAL: Well, I believe that the full truth holds with FBI investigators, the full truth holds with documents and certain things that have been sealed, and that the full truth holds with people who was actually there, and that only individual who was actually there, that's here, is Suge Knight.
COATES: What about Keefe D?
DEAL: Well, if you know the Keefe D. story, can you really believe anything that has transpired with him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, Deal's name came as a potential witness in the trial, but he wants nothing to do with it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEAL: I don't see no reason for me to testify when they already have the information. COATES: They still want you.
DEAL: They already have all the information.
COATES: To give some context, that wouldn't be a reason enough? Would you be willing to testify? Obviously, if you were subpoenaed, you'd have to appear.
DEAL: Well, I have to appear, but I can always revoke my Fifth Amendment right at any time.
COATES: How about Diddy? Do you think he would take the stand and speak?
DEAL: Do I think he would? I don't think he would. I don't think that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And right now, they are trying to fabricate some of the things about the East Coast and the West Coast and call it a war like that when I would see some of these guys still hanging out and chilling with each other.
[00:00:04]
You know what I'm saying? But to the tabloids and to individuals in the law enforcement community, they say it was an East Coast, West Coast war.
I heard an individual get on stand just the other day, Mob James. Mob James said that Tupac --
COATES: Inherited.
DEAL: -- inherited the East Coast, West Coast war between Suge Knight and Puffy. No! Tupac and Puff hated each other way before that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Coverage of the trial continues tomorrow at 4 p.m. Eastern on CNN Access. All Access is available as well on Amazon Prime and HLN. If you're following me on social media, you'll never miss any of the updates. And that's it for me tonight. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
