Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Navy to Scrap Pearl Harbor Hero's Name in favor of Trump's Name in the Aircraft Carrier Under Construction; Trump Interviews Cohen for the First Time in Years; Jury Hears Secret Interview with Keefe D. from 2008 Plotting Tupac's Killing. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 20, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:35]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR, AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a CNN exclusive. The Navy is apparently considering renaming a carrier set to honor a black war hero and sources say the new name could be President Trump's.

Plus, the President buries the hatchet with Michael Cohen giving his former fixer a reunion interview. But the real question is what's in it for both of them?

And the bombshell and I do mean a bombshell allegation in the Tupac murder trial and why Diddy's name just got dragged into it again, tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight. Usually it's history that gets the first say in what carries a President's name. Presidents aren't supposed to plaster their own name all over the place while they're still sitting in the Oval Office.

Now, I know I don't have to tell you all that standards have been thrown out the window. But tonight, that break with tradition is going somewhere I just can't ignore.

Because CNN has exclusive new reporting and sources tell us the Navy is considering a new name for an aircraft carrier that it's building. Potentially, President Trump's name. But wait, because there's more.

Because that carrier already had a name. It was slated to honor this man, Doris "Dorie" Miller, a black sailor who fearlessly jumped into action during Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm talking about a war hero.

Miller was a mess attendant, third class in rank. It was one of the only jobs in the Navy that was open to black men. The day of the attack, December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, he had just finished serving breakfast and was gathering laundry when the explosions started.

Well, Miller aided his wounding commanding officer. He took control of an anti-aircraft gun without any training. His story was so powerful that Hollywood put it on the big screen in the movie "Pearl Harbor." (VIDEO PLAYING)

Miller's journey did not end at Pearl Harbor. Just months later, Admiral Chester Nimitz personally gave him the Navy Cross. He was the first black American to receive it.

The Navy later sent him out on a war bond speaking tour, putting him in front of audiences all across the country. Miller was killed in action about a year later when his ship was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine.

Now, one source tells us the Navy is looking to rename another warship after Miller and recommend him for the Medal of Honor. The Defense Department told us they have nothing to announce at this time. Any final sign-off on the award would be up to Congress and President Trump, whose name and face, by the way, have been showing up in a whole lot of places since he returned to the White House.

You've got his spite to get his name on the Kennedy Center, the U.S. Institute of Peace was renamed the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, a big banner with his face hangs outside the Justice Department and the Labor Department and the Agriculture Department and the Interior Department.

As for what's supposed to be the USS Doris Miller, it was actually the first Trump administration that announced it would be named after the war hero. And President Trump had something to say about it back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Last month the Navy announced that the next American aircraft carrier will bear the proud name of USS Doris Miller. That's pretty good.

They won't give me that honor. That's a big boat. That's a big ship.

All right, one day maybe. But in the meantime, you're right, one day maybe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sounds like one day maybe right around the corner.

[23:05:05]

I'm joined now by Doris Miller's great nephew, Thomas Bledsoe. Thomas, thank you so much for being here. I know you and the rest of the family were not notified about this.

So tell me, how did you react when you first heard that the future USS Doris Miller might be renamed and potentially after President Trump?

THOMAS BLEDSOE, DORIS MILLER'S GREAT NEPHEW: So for our family, it was quite a shock to hear that there is worth conversation about the possibility of renaming the Doris Miller carrier. And so not only was it a shock, but it was also a shock that we found out from a news outlet and probably from the Navy. And so it caused a lot of concerns and uncertainty.

And so for us, it immediately became a family group conversation about what is happening, what does it mean. Because, you know, in January 20, 2020 was a big day for us when we went to the naming ceremony and got the opportunity to see what was happening and then to see Doris Miller get recognition in such a great way as we continue to fight for him to get recognition for the Congressional Medal of Honor as well.

COATES: This wasn't just any ship naming as you've talked about. It was set to be the first aircraft carrier named for a black American and an enlisted sailor. So what would be lost if his name is taken off this carrier?

BLEDSOE: So it has a great significance for that. One of the things about Doris Miller's story is not only about him being a hero that he was on that day at Pearl Harbor, but it was also about the individual stepping beyond the means of what they were assigned to do and going above and beyond.

And that 'why not me' moment was very significant, not only for the African-American community, but for Americans overall. It's a testament to how society can put you in boxes, but then being able to step outside that and have great moments, it's such significance.

And even more so when I got an opportunity to hear my great grandfather, Connery, talk about his son, it wasn't just that Doris was a hero, it was that he was a son to someone, a brother to someone. And the significance of what African-Americans were going through at that time really played out their history and really showed one of the first steps into civil rights, one of the first steps into African- Americans being seen outside of what society had placed on them.

And so this isn't just about a name on a ship, it's about an opportunity and a goal, it's about a significance and what it means to be an American, and it's also about how we as a community can grow as one and become one towards one goal as a nation is so important.

COATES: The phrase 'why not me' resonates so deeply for so many people and to hear his story and the impact on our entire country, and dare I say the world. Thomas, we are hearing the Navy is also considering naming another warship for your great uncle and recommending him for the Medal of Honor, something your family, as you have said, has fought for for years. Would that somehow compensate if his name is truly taken off this aircraft carrier, or is this not the either-or?

BLEDSOE: You know, one, it is an honor for him to be -- continually be spoken of in consideration for Congressional Medal of Honor. That is something that my great-grandmother Henrietta constantly worked for and it's been passed on generations to make sure we can see that one day come true. But even if they take his name and rename another ship, it is also about timing.

So we're looking at my mother, my uncles, which is our Doris' nieces and nephews that are in their 70s, and them being able to have the opportunity to see this go to fruition is so important. So naming another ship, although it's a great honor, we're talking about timing of another generation that may miss the opportunity to see something go to the final end.

COATES: If the President, Secretary Hegseth, or the Navy Secretary were watching right now, what would you tell them?

BLEDSOE: What I would say is Doris Miller stands for so much about America and who we are today, and to, as they're contemplating, or maybe contemplating changing the name, to take a moment and realize the significance of what the name is, and the significance of what it truly inspires and impacts this nation today, and in the importance of timing.

And so, although I understand that these decisions are made well above in many different levels, I would really want someone to take the time to realize the true impact of changing the name and what it would do to society, and also young girls and young boys that look up to Doris Miller and his story, and who they want to aspire to be one day, and going above and beyond. Doris Miller, so significant.

COATES: Thomas Bledsoe, thank you so much.

BLEDSOE: Thank you.

COATES: So powerful.

[23:10:05]

Joining me now, retired Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Malcolm Nance. He's also a "New York Times" bestselling author and host of the "Black Man Spy" podcast on Substack.

Good to see you again. It's been a long time, Malcolm. Chief, you served in the Navy for 20 years, and I understand that Miller's story in particular has meant so much to your family.

How do you feel hearing, they may scrap the plan for now?

MALCOLM NANCE, RETIRED U.S. NAVY CHIEF PETTY OFFICER AND PODCAST HOST, "THE BLACK SPY PODCAST" ON SUBSTACK: You know, my father, who served in the Navy in World War Two, was 15 when he ran away from home in Georgia and joined the Navy. He lied about his age.

And that was in 1944, Dorie Miller was already an icon in that community. He inspired thousands upon thousands of young men to see what the ultimate sacrifice for America was.

And it wasn't just what happened to him on December 7th, 1941. It was December 7th, 1943, when he lost his life on the USS Liscombe Bay after a Japanese torpedoing.

What Dorie Miller represents here, and I'm speaking as a chief, okay? And my job as a chief is to one, maintain the dignity and the honor of the deckplate sailors, and to help recalibrate the officers above me.

And when I say this, this honor was not just because he was an enlisted man or a black man who won the Navy Cross, it was the honor of the 643 other men who died with him that day, World War Two, when my dad was out there serving in the Pacific, men were dying by the hundreds.

This was the first Capitol warship named for an enlisted man, named for a person who won the Navy Cross. And the Navy Cross automatically gets you a Medal of Honor review, which was not granted to him. But it symbolizes the moment of every one of our Navy sailors, men and women, for that one moment that encapsulates honor, courage, commitment.

COATES: And yet we are hearing from sources saying that there were internal conversations about renaming the ship, not after one of the other men on that same ship, but after President Trump. Now it would be unprecedented to name an aircraft carrier after a sitting President.

So why even consider this? And what is your reaction to that consideration?

NANCE: You know, Navy carriers and other Capitol warships, yes, they've been named after people, you know, Presidents who has generally served in the armed forces. John F. Kennedy, to name one, right, who was a petty boat commander in the Pacific.

But this is about taking something, a tradition the Navy took decades to do, and to strip it away, to take our own honor away from the sailors who were preparing to build this vessel up from the keel up and turn it into a symbol, not just of American power, of America's strength in every person who gave their life there.

He would be disgracing every man, woman who died in naval service. And let me say something, one thing I would like to say. I'm speaking to the Chief of Naval Operations, the Secretary of the Navy, and especially you, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy.

There are times in your career where you have to drop your anchors. This is one of those times. You stand up for our honor.

Meet your commitment and have the courage to say, this vessel needs to maintain its tradition. We've never done this before. To strip that away from the enlisted men and women and the honor of the diversity, that is our strength.

And the President should be man enough to understand that this isn't about him. This is about those other men and women who died on the Liscome Bay that day, two years after Pearl Harbor. Dorie Miller just represents them all.

COATES: Chief Malcolm Nance, thank you.

NANCE: My pleasure.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRUMP (on the phone): Hello Michael. How are you Michael?

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: How are you doing sir? Welcome.

TRUMP: I'm very good.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: Michael Cohen runs back to Donald Trump, bearing the hatchet and embracing the President once more. What's going on here?

I'll ask a former Trump world insider turned critic that very question. Lev Parnas joins me next.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, it's the sequel nobody saw coming. Tonight, President Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, his former fixer turned enemy turned friend again, appear to have found common ground in a brand new interview.

Now, they're both pointing fingers at a legal system they claim completely ran them over.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRUMP (on the phone): They weaponized you like nobody has ever been weaponized like you have been.

COHEN: Well, maybe just you and I, sir, but.

TRUMP (on the phone): Yes, me too, but I don't consider mine. You know, mine.

Mine was at a level that nobody's ever seen before. But they weaponized you, they weaponized a lot of people. And, I respect the fact that you recanted everything you said and that's a big thing that you did, that's a really big thing.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: This reunion might seem shocking to you, but to my next guest is exactly according to script. In fact, he predicted this U-turn months ago.

[23:20:03]

Former Trump ally and Rudy Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas, joins me now. He served 20 months in prison for campaign finance, wire fraud, and making false statements tied to the 2018 midterm elections. He joins us now.

Welcome to the program. You have known Michael Cohen for years. Why is he doing this? And why now, do you think?

LEV PARNAS, FORMER RUDY GIULIANI ASSOCIATE, AND PODCAST HOST, "LEV REMEMBERS" ON SUBSTACK: Oh, my God, where do we begin, Laura?

So first of all, I wish I was predicting these things, but I wasn't predicting him, but I was involved in them behind the scenes. So I'm going to give your audience something that nobody knows. Michael Cohen started this crusade. Yes, buckle up.

Michael Cohen started this crusade right after Donald Trump won his presidency. He started calling me, we were very close. And I have all the text messages.

So if he wants to, you know, ever go on and debate anything, (inaudible). He started trying to look for ways of trying to get a pardon. He was very pissed off at the Bidens and Joe Biden for not getting the pardon he thought that he was supposed to get and very critical of it.

He started trying to see through how using me as a ploy, because he still knew I had context in the Trump administration. And he also understood that he had no way of getting in, started reaching out to me and trying to get me in touch with George Santos.

This is prior between before Santos even went away and others, even Matt Gaetz at the time when Matt Gaetz was being floated as possible attorney general. So Cohen was constantly trying to figure out ways of getting, you know, and he would always tell me he would. I know Trump better than anybody.

And if I could get him a win, he would forget everything else because I know he and I could get him a win. I know what that win is.

And he kept talking about different things. But I really couldn't understand exactly. I would play him, he then would talk.

But he would always use we trying to bring me into the conversation because we were like, oh, you know, Trump turned his back on both of us type of a situation. But I didn't play along too much. You know, I just would listen more than I talked.

I did introduce him to George Santos because I was curious where that was going to go. And I don't know where I know they were supposed to have a podcast together. I don't know if that transpired or not.

But long story short, Michael Cohen kept pursuing. And then I started hearing from sources close to the Trump world. And Cohen has made reached out and actually reached out to Donald Trump and they've talked.

And I started going on my Substack talking about it, saying that he reached out at that time. I thought it might have been Santos, but I didn't know what I found out today that it was actually Tara Palmieri who gave the phone number, Donald Trump's phone number to Michael Cohen.

COATES: I did. I did see in her post that she mentioned that and I saw that she was teasing towards that post in her Substack and she was talking about that. But I mean, I'm going to go out on a limb. I don't think it's a big one.

I bet Michael Cohen will tell a very different story about either the relationship or what he has done to get to this point. But I am curious in terms of where things stand today.

Does the fact that Trump went on and had this public conversation, does that surprise you that he has done so or even said something to the effect of, you know, I respect the fact that you recanted. What's your impression?

PARNAS: Well, first of all, he didn't recant because he just went on Jake Tapper right before the show and basically said he's just not going to talk about anything. He never recanted any of the things he said. So let's start off with that.

But this is a lot bigger. This is what I want your audience in the whole world to understand. And Donald Trump, you're looking, you know, you're watching and Michael Cohen, you're watching also right now. I want you to understand that I know.

And the real reason why they're doing this, what a lot of things could be true.

One of the things is, yes, Donald Trump wants to Michael Cohen to help him get those 34 conviction out. And that's why Cohen started the Substack letter and started playing along. And that's why he met with Trump.

But something else happened. Something much bigger happened that really pushed them to get close together. And that's something called the Epstein files, because what transpired that nobody realized that nobody's really catching on to an understanding is there was something that came out in the Epstein files that had Michael Cohen's name on it.

It was called the Rule 35 motion, it was a motion that he filed while he was incarcerated. It's telling the prosecutors -- the same prosecutors that prosecuted me, by the way. So just to understand, telling him that he had information about Donald Trump and Epstein and that he was willing to talk.

Now, the fact that that prosecutor didn't believe them and believe him because he was, you know, a liar and they didn't want to play the game with him. That's one thing but the fact that he said that he had information.

[23:25:03]

And then when the Epstein report came out, and when Tara Palmieri and others like Ellie Leonard and others all over Substack started questioning Michael Cohen about a major case called Katie Johnson, a 13 year old girl, the --

COATES: Wait, hold on a second. I have to say, hold on a second. I do want to -- I understand your conversation and your beliefs and trying to thread these things together.

Honestly, Lev, sitting here, I can't fairly try to address or make these comments objectively understood for an audience who does not have the either the insight or the information is supported. And so it puts me in a very uncomfortable position, obviously having this platform to, on the one hand, want to listen to your story.

And on the other hand, want to give people the understanding that even the core public opinion, there's got to be some presumption of innocence. And so here's what I want to do.

Lev, I would love for you to come back on another time. I want to have a chance to talk more and vet through what you're talking about. I think that's only fair and right, particularly when you're trying to name names involving other people.

Because I do think it's important to understand the full context. But sitting here, I'm talking to you with my arms tied behind my back with the inability to really encounter -- it's okay.

I understand. I don't want you to apologize.

But I just want to make sure that you understand where I'm coming from. Because I and of course, Trump and Cohen have never been charged with the crimes. And the Epstein files have not been something and I want to make it very clear also --

PARNAS: And I want to make it very clear, Laura, where I'm not accusing them of doing a criminal activity. This is what I want to make it very clear. What we're talking about is a cover up that's happening that Michael Cohen knows a lot more than he's talking about what else to do with absolutely.

And that's and the one thing I want to say to you also, and just so you understand where you can look at, it's the timing of what transpired.

Michael Cohen, this whole thing, and you can look at the Substack, you can look at the timing, you could look at the reporting, you could look at everything that happened. All of this happened when the rule 35 letter came out. And Michael Cohen was asked, and (inaudible) that he's ever heard.

COATES: I'm going to look at the rule 35. But you know what would be really great? I think the audience would agree. Wouldn't it be great if the Justice Department would give the information that would illuminate all of these issues so we could all see the same things and make our own determinations.

That'd be part of it. Lav Parnas, thank you for joining. You understand my constraint.

PARNAS: Absolutely.

COATES: Up next, alarm bells ringing for Republicans after a new analysis puts the Senate races in Texas and Iowa in play for Democrats. Could this be what motivates Elon Musk to start spending his fortune? A political panel is live with me on that next.

And later, I'm going to catch you up on the dramatic day in the Tupac murder trial that had jurors listening to allegations that Sean Diddy Combs wanted Tupac dead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump dropped another tidbit during this conversation with Michael Cohen. He's not going to run for President again because he can't. But if he did, he says he'd win by a mile.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

COHEN: What do you say to these people who keep bringing up polls when you're not even running for office again? What's the point?

TRUMP (on the phone): I'm not. And I think that we're doing really well in the polls, the real polls. If I were running today, I think I'd win by 25 points. I think we'd win by a lot.

The economy has never been stronger. We're doing numbers that nobody's ever seen before.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: What poll is he talking about? Beats me. Because the latest CNN poll shows 70 percent of Americans aren't happy with the way that Trump is handling the economy.

And those economic jitters are only adding to a turbulent midterm trajectory for Republicans. You know, in fact, the nonpartisan Cook political report shifted its ratings for four key races in deep red Texas and Iowa. The Senate races are now look at this toss ups.

I want to bring in my political experts, Republican strategist Ashley Davis and Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod. Glad to have both of you guys here.

And I understand, first of all, how people feel about polls these days, which is very clear. However, --

ASHLEY DAVIS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: After Michigan.

COATES: -- after, well you can name a lot of states, in a lot of years.

But Ashley, is Trump misreading the landscape here? Like statements that he's doing well on the economy?

DAVIS: Yes, I'm actually surprised that he's saying he's doing well on the economy. I mean, I think that that's just kind of some of his talking points that we all know that he does.

But I do think there is a major issue with the polling. And I just want to go on my soapbox for one second.

COATES: Sure. DAVIS: Because in Michigan, I actually feel that Haley could have

actually won if her voters would have come out if they didn't think she was not ahead by, that El-Sayed was not ahead by 15 points. And so, do people not come to the polls?

And so that's what really bothers me, kind of the suppression of voters of not coming out because you think your candidates bound 15 points. And so, I don't know, it just really bothers me.

COATES: Do you share that feeling?

ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS-WALZ CAMPAIGN, AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, I think it depends. I mean, look, when you see an amalgamation of polls that show that a candidate is in a certain position versus their opponent, then yes, you look at the consistency of the amalgamated polls and that usually gives you a pretty good snapshot of where things are.

Now, obviously what we're seeing at the national level here is that Trump is underwater consistently on the economy. He's underwater on immigration. And that is starting to trickle down into some of these key races.

[23:35:00]

I mean, the Cook political report, you don't get much, you know, more nonpartisan than that in terms of being able to rate some of the races. And the fact that they have actually put Texas as a toss-up is very significant.

COATES: So what does it mean strategically though? I mean, I'm curious, does that mean that Democrats should be investing heavily in that right now because of that? Or should they be more tempered?

ELROD: No, they should definitely be investing heavily in Texas and they are. And also, Talarico has raised a ton of money. I think he's raised over $70 million and counting so far.

So, I think more of that's going to come in. Now, the challenge, of course, we have as Democrats going forward post-Labor Day is that national Republicans have more money, like from the NRSC -- from the RNC.

The National Committee, MAGA, Inc. has $400 million and counting. Now, I'm not convinced that Donald Trump is actually going to spend that money at all.

DAVIS: But there's like a billion dollars combined.

COATES: But you know who has more money than all that? Elon Musk.

And Republicans may actually get him to spend that money because the magazine "Wired" is now reporting that Musk is expected to spend up to $200 million on key midterm races. And by the way, that's including Texas. I mean, how would Democrats combat that? DAVIS: And what he's using that money for is getting out the votes for

people, traditional Republicans. I mean, one things that Democrats have right now is the enthusiasm. And you and I talk about this all the time.

Republicans do not have that right now. One thing I do just want to flag about Cook is he also had Beto O'Rourke winning against Cruz. They had that leaned down or they had it as a toss-up.

And then also in Iowa, both of Joni Ernst's race had it as a toss-up. So it's not like this is abnormal.

And actually, they even had it a toss-up during the Biden-Trump 2020 race for a little bit. So I mean, like, this isn't unusual, especially for Iowa. I'm still, and we were just talking about this in the Green Room.

Listen, I think there's some states that are going to flip. Maybe Republican, maybe Democrat. Michigan may do Republican, Alaska maybe do Democrat.

But I do think that right now, Texas is going to be okay. And Paxson will benefit from that billion dollars of Republican money that's out there to spend.

By the way, we could solve world hunger with the amount of money that people are spending on this race. It makes me sick in the stomach.

COATES: Yes, sickened by the lack of priorities in politics? I think you're in the wrong business, honey. Or maybe just the time.

But tell me, so what do you do if there is a lot of these misgivings among even strategists about the polls and how predictive? And you have this concern that voters are looking at this and thinking, okay, maybe I don't need to do as much because my candidate is either way ahead or way out of it.

I personally interviewed many candidates this term alone who were long shots to lose or to win, and now they are sitting pretty for the general.

ELROD: It's always the push and pull, right?

I mean, at the end of the day, you want to make sure that you are not so far ahead in some of the polls where people, to Ashley's point, stay home. But at the end of the day, here's the bottom line. I mean, the polls are going to tighten, they always do on both sides.

Right now, Talarico goes up. I think those polls are going to tighten across the board.

At the end of the day, you've got to make sure you have a very strong turnout operation. That can literally make the difference between winning and losing. And that doesn't mean that you're just calling people and saying, show up. That means you've got paid canvassers, volunteers on the ground

getting people to show up, making sure you're knocking on doors. That all makes a very big difference. And of course, with gerrymandering and all the other factors that have made all these races even tighter than they normally would be, getting out the vote is the most important thing and investing in that operation is also incredibly important.

COATES: Well, we'll see. Ashley, Adrienne, both you, thank you so much for joining.

Up next, women are rallying behind a mother on trial for the murder of her three children as New Testimony attempts to back Lindsay Clancy's defense of postpartum psychosis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did she make any other statements to you?

SHEILA CAVANAUGH, HOSPITAL CHAPLAIN: She did. She alluded to having heard a voice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A murder trial in Massachusetts is reviving the debate over a mental health disorder for mothers. I'm talking about the trial of Lindsay Clancy, who stands accused of strangling her three Children in 2023 before cutting herself and jumping out of a window.

For the first 17 days of this trial, prosecutors have argued that Clancy planned these murders, and she only killed her kids after her husband left to pick up dinner and medication, waiting for the prime opportunity.

Well, now Clancy's team admits that she did kill her three children, but her defense team says that she suffered from postpartum depression and had been improperly diagnosed with a bipolar disorder and was experiencing psychosis. She was hearing voices that told her to kill her children, and a hospital chaplain who met with Clancy a week after the murder says Clancy told her about those voices.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did she make any other statements to you?

CAVANAUGH: She did. She alluded to having heard a voice, and the voice, according to Lindsay, told her that if she did not follow the command, neither she nor her children would be safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: The prosecution has already rested, and if they're burdened of proof, closing arguments could start as early as Monday.

I want to talk about this with criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon and psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott. Thank you both for being here.

Elyse, you and I have been covering this trial, and I know your defense perspective is invaluable. Prosecutors have sought to portray her as a woman who meticulously planned to murder her own kids and manipulated health care providers. Did testimony in today's hearings that shift the narrative at all in the defense's favor?

ELYSE HERSHON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think it did help the defense. There was one witness today, sort of unexpectedly, the chaplain as you just played, and essentially she was corroborating the theory of defense, which the defense, as we know, does not have to prove.

[23:45:08]

They have no burden here, but they're creating a really big question and a very strong possibility that she was in psychosis. That's something the prosecution, in its job, and you know you're a prosecutor, they have to prove she was not in psychosis essentially. And we're now on the defense case, and they're just creating more and more reasonable doubt for the prosecution.

COATES: Important to note, and I want you to hear Shavaun from a psychologist who treated Clancy and said that she had these thoughts about harming herself and her children. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL ZEIZEL, PSYCHOLOGIST: She was worried about killing herself, and she uttered concerns about killing her children.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: How about, did she relate any intrusive thoughts, dark thoughts, things of that nature during this period of time, October, November, December?

ZEIZEL: Yes.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell me about that.

ZEIZEL: She said she had, quote, "horrible thoughts," unquote. She felt that people could actually hear her thoughts. The thoughts were so loud that strangers could hear them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The defense argues that she was suffering from postpartum depression in the midst of psychosis, and that could not be criminally responsible for her actions as a result. You are a therapist who I'd like to hear from. Shavaun, how would you characterize her behavior? SHAVAUN SCOTT, AUTHOR, AND PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes, I have seen hundreds

of people with psychosis in my 35 years of treatment, and I have no doubt at all that Lindsay Clancy was psychotic at the time, postpartum psychosis. It's rare, but we do see it, and she fits the classic template of that.

She was going without sleep for days, she was agitated, she was having racing thoughts, horrible thoughts, as they described, weight loss, ideas of reference. And, you know, this is tragic because she was reaching out for help from provider after -- from provider, and she was misdiagnosed and received inadequate care, so it's just a catastrophe, but I believe she was mentally ill.

COATES: You know, that is the defense's case in a summation, Elise, that she was begging for help, did not get it. There is a civil matter that is pending, that this is unrelated to the criminal case, but that certainly has been the elephant in the room for all of this, and even in the opening, Elise, you talked about having the health care industry essentially on trial. But from the perspective of these jurors, what they'll be asked to do, I mean, the defense request today was that they want the jury instructions to include involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense.

Right now, she's facing three murder charges. The judge hasn't decided that yet, but do you see a reason that they should include those charges based on what you've seen so far?

HERSHON: It's absolutely a strategic decision, so in first-degree murder charges in Massachusetts, second degree is usually standard on the verdict slip, unless the defense, for some strategic reason, advocates for it to be removed, so it's usually first degree, second degree, and a not guilty.

We have the added verdict of not guilty for reason of lack of criminal responsibility, formerly called not guilty by reason of insanity. That, the prosecution has to disprove she was overcome by mental illness, as we discussed, to move past that verdict into a higher level of homicide. Now, manslaughter would essentially fall in between first and second, and not guilty and not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility.

Essentially, mental illness can be a mitigating factor, so if the jury believes that she was mentally ill, and she was having some sort of psychosis, but wanted her to be somewhat criminally responsible, they could do what's called a compromise verdict, which may kind of seem like an inconsistent verdict to a completely overcome by mental illness, but strategically lawyers do that to give jurors some way to sort of compromise the verdict. It also gives them more things to disagree on, and possibly end up in a mistrial.

COATES: Shavaun, I want to hear more from you and Elyse. We've got more to come. Thank you both for being here, this is a conversation that has been sparked.

Up next, a major moment in another trial the world's watching, the Tupac murder trial, as jurors hear the defendant's 2008 police interview, where he makes a serious allegation about Sean Diddy Combs.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: So then, when you talk to Puff on the phone, does he ask you, was that us?

DUANE "KEEFFE D." DAVIS, SUSPECT: Yeah.

UNKNOWN: And then you say, yeah. What's his response?

DAVIS: He was like, yeah. Oh (expletive).

(END AUDIO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Day four of a trial nearly three decades in the making, the murder of music icon Tupac Shakur. Let's open the case file on today's explosive testimony.

Exhibit A, an alleged confession. The defendant, Duane "Keffe D." Davis, describes what happened the night Tupac was shot in a bombshell 2008 secret interview with LAPD.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: So Orlando shot him across Dre?

DAVIS: He leaned over the window, he rolled down the window, popped.

UNKNOWN: But at any time, was it this car behind you?

DAVIS: Not at all.

UNKNOWN: None of the homies was behind? No, like three or four cars behind? Nothing like that?

DAVIS: Nothing?

UNKNOWN: Just one car?

DAVIS: Just one car.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: That brings us to Exhibit B, an alleged hit job. In that same interview -- 2008 interview, Keffe D. makes a stunning allegation that ties Sean Diddy Combs allegedly to this murder. He claims a massive price tag was put on the heads of both Tupac Shakur and Suge Knight.

[23:55:06]

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: -- he tells you seriously, "Man, I need to get rid of these guys", I mean, he's looking at you in the eyes, and he's, like, scared.

DAVIS: Yes. He's scared, dude.

UNKNOWN: -- you meet him at Greenback's for dinner, you guys step off to the side, he talks about, 'Hey, how much you want, I'll give you a million dollars.'

DAVIS: Yes, we went downstairs.

UNKNOWN: You say, cool.

DAVIS: Yes. Consider it done.

I know after it happened, he kept calling, that us, that us? That us, that us, mother (expletive).

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: Now, we have reached out to Combs for comment on the allegation, but have not heard back from, obviously, his team, since he is incarcerated. He has never been charged with anything to do with Tupac Shakur.

Finally, Exhibit C, a tell-all book. In a stunning moment, police officers joke, Keffe D. could potentially cash in on this case.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DAVIS: And I ain't ever told nobody, that's story.

UNKNOWN: Doesn't it feel good, man. Get it off your chest.

UNKNOWN: Oprah's going to be like, Mr. Davis, we really appreciate it.

UNKNOWN: And then, he'll be like this, "Read my book".

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: And yet, despite all the chilling details Keffe D. revealed on tape, there's a massive legal catch.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: What is said right here cannot be used against you, Keffe. Nothing you say today can be used against you.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COATES: Well, we know that didn't happen.

With me now, trial attorney and legal analyst, Monique Pressley, who's also the host of "The Monique Pressley Show" on YouTube. Monique, this is such a big moment. I mean, assuming Diddy gets called in by the prosecution or the defense, because mind you, he's on both witness lists, do you think that he would actually now have to plead the fifth, given even these allegations that have been stated in front of a jury?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, LEGAL ANALYST AND PODCAST HOST, "MONIQUE PRESSLEY SHOW" ON YOUTUBE: Well, I think the only thing he can do is plead the fifth. I mean, he's already incarcerated on other charges.

COATES: Unrelated.

PRESSLEY: Unrelated charges, but to the extent that they are calling him in and it has anything to do with allegations against him personally and directly, that's the best thing that he can possibly do. But I'm not convinced that they would spend time calling him in. I don't think that the prosecution needs him in order to make their case.

And if they have the eye on the ball for the actual defendant who's in court, then they're not wasting time on calling in Sean Combs or should for them to just plead the fifth and suck up energy. It just doesn't make any sense.

COATES: I mean, Keefe D., oddly enough, is the prosecution's star witness. His words, what they want to use against him, they're saying, believe him. But his words, including those that he said in that 2008 interview, you heard detectives promise him that he essentially would have some kind of immunity. It wouldn't be used against him.

Now, the judge has ruled since, given his later books and memoirs, et cetera, that that may apply to that day, but now everything comes in. Why did it play out that way?

PRESSLEY: Because he wouldn't close his mouth. He was obviously in a position where he was a government operative. He was cooperating with the government after he was caught on other charges, drug trafficking, and so they turned him into someone who helped work for them.

And I think that he became so comfortable that you go years and years without being held responsible that he thought he was free to talk. I mean, listening to the way he was being worked over by those investigators and ultimately by prosecutors is something you and I have probably seen quite a few times.

Whether he was telling the truth or not I think ultimately isn't going to matter either because these are his own statements that are now being used against him, and the defense is now in the uncomfortable position where they're going to have to try to put forth a case or else their client is going down for this whether he did it or not.

COATES: He let his guard down, for sure, when he was speaking with them. You heard laughter in that it's almost as if he got so comfortable, his tone's conversational, which is a really big thing, that they had to hear it as jurors to understand was he coerced into this, what made him say this. He sounded like he was just shooting the breeze, as they say.

And this is what's so interesting about this case in part, Monique. Normally the prosecution wants you jurors to believe the defendant's a liar. He's a liar, don't believe a word he says.

Here they're saying, believe everything he is telling you because this man is the shot caller. That is an odd position for the defense to try to combat.

PRESSLEY: Right, because we have rules and evidence about admissions by a party opponent or by a defendant for a reason.

And when the admissions are against your own interests, they're given great latitude. And they come in for fact. Now, some of the things that he said are going to just come in for other reasons to try to prove whether he's lying or whether he's telling the truth.

But it's going to be hard for a jury to ignore the totality of those statements. It would be different if it was just one thing and they're leaning on him and he's trying to get away with something or get lesser charges on another offense.

[00:00:05]

But this is over a period of years and years, and with a level of detail, you know, about who he passed the gun to. And it coincides with other facts.

So I just don't really see a way out for the defense here. I will be surprised if this is not a conviction.

COATES: Monique Pressley, thank you so much for joining.

I'll be back covering this trial tomorrow at noon eastern on CNN All Access, it's also available on Amazon Prime and HLN. And guess what? Monique will be with me, sitting next to me, analyzing as well.

Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is" with Elex Michaelson is next.