Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Bid To Limit Mail-In Voting; Trump Dismisses A.I. Warnings; ProPublica: Putin-Connected Oligarch Bankrolled Trump Jr.'s Wedding; Macklemore Dropped From Ed Sheeran Tour Over "Free Palestine" Remark. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 14, 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 HOST: That seems reasonable.

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Amen. I think exactly right. And even more so because this can be on any laptop in any place. And so, you need to be even be more aggressive than with a bomb.

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR EMERITUS FOR THE DAILY WIRE, AUTHOR, PODCASTER: And just like nuclear power, don't kill it. It's a really bad idea to kill it.

PHILLIP: Yeah, we did. I mean, we didn't kill it.

JONES: I agree.

PHILLIP: But we tried to have treaties with other countries and maybe they all didn't work, but we tried.

SHAPIRO: Europe did. It was really bad.

PHILLIP: All right. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, nor rain nor sleep nor Trump will prevent a mail-in ballot from getting to you. We've got the breaking news in the Supreme Court's final decision. Plus, the A.I. warnings turn into a horror show. The calls are coming from inside the House. So, why does the President keep hanging up? And later, an offer for asylum? A GoFundMe? Why the backlash over the Lindsay Clancy juror has crossed the line. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

We'll begin with the breaking news just 50 days from the November elections. The Supreme Court handing Trump one of his biggest defeats yet, a 7-2 decision blocking his unprecedented plan to restrict mail- in voting. This means that mail-in ballots will not be impacted for this election.

Remember, the President wanted the Postal Service to create rules that essentially let them decide who gets a ballot by mail and who doesn't. That decision would have been based on states submitting lists of eligible voters. Trump said it was needed to combat fraud. Democrat- led states said it was a power grab and that it was unconstitutional because states run elections, not the federal government.

Now, the justices did not explain their reasoning. We do know justices Alito and Thomas were the ones or the two who dissented. The others voted to block Trump with Justice Kavanaugh writing in part -- quote -- "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious inviolation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections."

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin. He is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and taught constitutional law for more than two decades. Congressman, thank you for being here this evening. I've got to get your reaction to this ruling tonight. Does it put to rest the administration's efforts to try to restrict mail-in voting, at least this election cycle?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), RANKING MEMBER OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Yes, I think it will put to rest at least that particular ploy against the election because a decisive majority on the court repudiated the idea that the president or the post office had any legitimate role in election administration. I mean, it's so outlandish and far-flung that it's nice to see when the Supreme Court agrees with all the other courts that have come to that immediate conclusion, much less did they find that the balance of equities weighed on the side of the government. On the contrary, it clearly weighed on the side of the voters in the states because the election is now just eight weeks away.

So, I think we can put that one to bed but, of course, Donald Trump never sleeps in terms of trying to undermine and attack an election. And so, everybody is now asking, well, what's next?

COATES: My concern is what damage has been done to foster confusion among people. I mean, you're talking about weeks away, the midterm elections, and some of your colleagues have suggested the goal was to muddy the waters, to sort of, you know, stir that pot in many ways. Do you worry that some damage has been done just by the attempts and people possibly being confused as to what they can and cannot do now?

RASKIN: I certainly think that's what the last couple of weeks were like. But there has been such an emphatic reputation of Donald Trump and the whole post office gambit that the word can go out, should go out, and will go out across the country that mail-in balloting is fine. A third of Americans vote that way. Donald Trump votes that way. Most of his cabinet votes that way. And I think the word will very quickly spread in the country that mail-in balloting is safe and it's fine. And to the extent that it just made people more vigilant, well, then eternal vigilance is going to be the price of democratic freedom here.

COATES: Did this turn, though, on the timing with respect to the midterm elections or the substance of the argument? Because Justice Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that Trump might be able to succeed on a case such as this, but concerned about the proximity to elections. What do you think?

[23:05:00]

RASKIN: Well, it's way too late, as even Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged in his concurrence, to begin monkeying around with the basic electoral system. And so, this is a big victory for the states because now, each state can proceed with the election that has been designed by its own legislature and by its governor and by its secretary of state and board of elections, and that is how electoral federalism is supposed to work.

The Congress can kind of supplant the legislatures as to the time, place, and manner of elections if we act in time to make that sensible. But, of course, we haven't tried to alter it in any way, and so Donald Trump and the post office were flying solo and way outside the Constitution here.

So, let us hope that the executive branch of government will now just acknowledge that the midterm elections are unfolding as we speak. They're all ready. There's mail-in balloting in some states. Everything is ready to get going. They should stop messing around with it and stop making other threats against the people's right to vote and to elect our own Congress.

COATES: So far, this year, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump on mail-in voting and tariffs and birthright citizenship, firing Lisa Cook from the Fed, just to name a few. I mean, Democrats often complain, as do, frankly, many people, that this Supreme Court is beholden to the president, Donald Trump. Do you believe that's still the case, was the case or are you optimistic about their objectivity overall?

RASKIN: Well, you know, when they do the right thing and clearly follow the Constitution, then all of us are rightfully happy. I mean, we shouldn't have to be so relieved. I think it's after a series of decisions like the presidential immunity decision where the Supreme Court, which claims to be textualist and claims to be originalist, totally ignored the text of the Constitution and totally ignored the history of the Constitution, and invented out of whole cloth a right of a president not to be prosecuted for felony crimes committed in office under the central auspices of his job. Well, you know, where did that doctrine come from? It's like the stork brought it.

But here, they did do the obvious thing. They did exactly what the district court did, what several judges on the First Circuit Court of Appeals did, and what everybody can see, which is that the president has no role in the administration of elections.

But, you know, another example of that would be the birthright citizenship case. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. It's as clear as day, and yet we still had MAGA justices on the court trying to undermine and overthrow that principle along with the president. So, look, you know, there are certain things the court has done I strongly disagree with, like overturning a woman's right to choose an abortion and, you know, a number of things they've done in the electoral field, but they got this one right. I don't think they really had any choice because it was so plain that the president was trying to intervene in a province where he had no powers at all.

COATES: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you.

RASKIN: You bet.

COATES: Now, I want to get to my opening statement tonight. If the people building the most advanced race car in the world were telling you the brakes might not work, would you want to be inside? Let's up the ante, shall we? If you were driving that car in a race you believed you couldn't afford to lose, would you then floor it?

Well, that's the artificial intelligence dilemma in a nutshell. The biggest names in the industry are saying, let's pump the brakes, everyone from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to OpenAI chief Sam Altman, even Elon Musk who isn't exactly buddy-buddy with his A.I. competitors.

Those calls to slow down come just days after current and former Anthropic researchers sounded the alarm about A.I. potentially wiping out humanity within a decade. And tonight, Anthropic CEO is speaking directly to CNN about why he's worried.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: I continue to be worried about economic disruption, looking at what the models can do. You know, they can solve these unsolved math problems. No one could look at that and say this isn't a potential concern. Nightmare scenario for 6 to 12 months would be that you have, you know, a swarm of these agents that, you know, form some kind of botnet collective and, you know, could take down large segments of the internet.

[23:10:00]

And then as the capability increases, it gets worse from there. And then, you know, perhaps, you get into some of the more extreme scenarios.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Those weren't the extreme scenarios. Well, in non-technical terms, he's worried about rogue A.I. taking over the internet. Imagine if everything we use that requires a connection just stopped working.

But not everyone thinks that fear is based in reality, like President Trump. He went on a multi-post rant, calling the whole thing a hoax. He says A.I. doesn't need guardrails, only a high I.Q. president. He even called NVIDIA's CEO while he was speaking at a tech summit who put him on speakerphone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They're just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it happen. That could be political people, that could also be China. And we're not going to let that happen. It's a hoax. The robots will not be taken over. The A.I. will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look, I can tell you the fear is no hoax. People are scared. They're scared about losing their jobs. They're scared about what A.I. could do in all areas of life. And you can see it with the backlash over data centers. Seven in 10 Americans say they don't want to be anywhere near one. So, the anxiety is real, and the race with China only raises the stakes.

But even with all the calls to apply the brakes, there is a question without an easy answer. Who actually gets to design the brakes? Vice President Vance says he is skeptical over the motivation of the AI CEOs, suggesting their calls for regulation could actually benefit them more than anyone else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier A.I tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them. It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest has been sounding the alarm on A.I. long before it dominated the headlines. Former Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang, joins me now. He's also the CEO of Noble Mobile.

Andrew, good to see you. Look, I mean, Anthropic's envoy says that the implementation of A.I. is going to move at the speed of trust. But right now, I mean, speed and trust look like they're working against one another. Do you see one winning out over the other?

ANDREW YANG, CEO OF NOBLE MOBILE, FOUNDER OF FORWARD PARTY, FORMER 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think the warnings are sincere. The fear is real because I've been hearing the same thing for months, Laura. There are researchers who are saying, look, I'm creeped out, I'm scared, we're going pell-mell. Because of the competitive dynamic you described in the open, you have trillion-dollar IPOs that are on the calendar.

And so, no one wants to raise their hand and be the person saying let's hit the brakes until Jacob Coxon raised his hand and said, look, we really need to hit the brakes.

And I'm thrilled that this is now on the table. The question to me is, where is the leadership from D.C.? Congress does not need President Trump to sign off on a regulatory approach. They can just craft legislation or policy right now because the American people are asking for it.

COATES: I mean, they can just craft it. They have to agree. You know that's a Herculean effort at some point in time, Andrew. But I hear your larger point. I'm going to ask members of Congress about that very notion.

But tell me why you think there are so many of the people who are building the system suddenly saying slow down all at the same time. I mean, are they seeing something with their own models or are they reacting to the public's anxiety? Is this a coordinated P.R. campaign? What?

YANG: You have seen bots break out of their containment environment and then hack other organizations. You're seeing foreign states now trying to use Claude to harm American interests. And these are the things that have come to light.

One of the darkest aspects of this, Laura, is that the A.I. companies say, look, we actually found out about this after the fact. You know, there could be other things going on right now that they don't know about.

So, I think as the models are actually hitting the real world, the freak-out is coming from inside these companies because you can see them getting to a point where you really cannot control them.

COATES: Tell me about the push for regulation because the administration is not buying it. Vice President Vance thinks it will lock out smaller competitors. He made a comparison to sort of the weirdness and the Trojan horse of them wanting to be regulated. You have the former Trump A.I. czar, David Sacks, saying, if these companies are actually scared of their own tech, they should just slow down themselves.

So, why do you think that they are trying to ask for regulation? Is it a ploy for market control?

[23:15:00]

YANG: I think each of them can see the cliff approaching and that they can see the car hurtling off the cliff. They're actually asking folks, look, maybe put up one of those guardrails that will keep us from going off the cliff because they know that the organization's incentives, again, are to go full steam ahead. So, they're raising their hand. By the way, Dario Amodei also raised his hand a number of months ago and said, tax us, and that's an obvious one.

You know, Congress should tax them. How the heck are you not taxing the bots that are going to displace millions of American workers who, by the way, if they show up to work, actually do have to pay tax?

COATES: They're not raising their hand to say find us and hold us liable, though. That's the interesting part. I know I'm the prosecutor, but I think to myself, well, regulation would require some consequence if things do not go appropriately. But we'll leave that for a second.

Wall Street and the tech sector are riding a big A.I. wave right now, Andrew. I mean, do you worry at all about the consequences if the A.I. stops propping up the economy? Do you get hit by any regulation or slowdown?

YANG: Look, I think it's necessary for American companies to strike a balance, say we need to break new ground and compete against China, which is why their prices are getting bid up. But we also need to keep Skynet from casting us into Stone Age or developing super viruses or spoofing us into unwarranted military conflict.

You know, and one of the frustrations I have that I think a lot of Americans share is that it gets presented as black or white. Choose one or the other. It's like, look, you know, this is the most powerful technology of our lifetimes. And you face more regulations to opening a hot dog stand in New York than you do in deploying a model to millions. It doesn't make any sense.

COATES: Indeed. It does not. We'll see. Andrew Yang, thank you so much. And I have a question about what Congress is going to do about A.I., if anything. I've got just the right people to ask. Former Congressman Joe Crowley, Congressman Kevin Kiley, and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna all with me for a special conversation, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, with so many questions about safety, the A.I. landscape feels completely unpredictable. I mean, all of it begs the question, what is Congress going to do about it?

Well, to help us find out, I've joined a group of bipartisan current and former lawmakers, former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley, independent congressman from California who caucuses with Republicans, Kevin Kiley, and Republican Congresswoman from Florida, Ana Paulina Luna. Glad to have all of you guys here today. I'm excited to hear your takes on this.

Congresswoman Luna, I'll begin with you because President Trump, he is calling concerns over A.I. a hoax, his words. It says the only guardrail that A.I. need is actually him. You don't see it as a hoax at all. But is the president wrong here about this? Is he naive or strategic?

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): What I would say is when I've talked with him, and I have discussed this with him directly, I think he's addressing right now what China is doing in regards to external forces, whether that's actually using some of these social media platforms to inundate. But I think that the concerns that exist with the American people are valid and that we should be addressing them. What I will say, though, is that what I want to avoid is a knee jerk reaction because there is national security implication to all this. Also, too, we want to make sure that we're not working on behalf of some of these tech companies that are quickly dominating and developing monopolies. At the same time, understanding that there does need to be a kill switch.

And so, for us and for the legislation I'm currently working on, I'm not in favor of a moratorium. I think that the four biggest companies that we currently have right now leading the entire world on A.I. have come together and agreed that they're going to put their own safety measures in effect.

But I do think that it's important for Congress to have the discussion and look at what we can do from a national security perspective to actually ensure that the American people are being taken care of.

COATES: Are you confident that the fox can guard its own henhouse? I mean, if they're able to put their own regulations and offer all the suggestions. I mean, call me a skeptic, but if you tell me that you're at the forefront of this amazing technology but you want me to regulate you and you can decide how I regulate it, I wonder if it's valid, if it's actually going to be a gauge that you wanted or is needed.

REP. KEVIN KILEY (R), CALIFORNIA: Yes. I mean, this is not an issue that's about any one company or any one industry. This is a national issue. It's an international issue. It is about the future of humanity. And, frankly, Congress has not been nearly in tune enough with what's going on.

I actually first introduced a resolution in 2018 that was adopted unanimously by the California legislature calling for the safe and beneficial development of A.I. And when I got to Congress in 2023, I introduced the Safe A.I. Act.

We're seeing A.I. impacting every facet of people's lives, and it's probably only going to, you know, become more so as time goes on. And so, we need to make sure that the future of this technology is determined not just by those who are in Silicon Valley working in a couple of leading frontier labs, but that all Americans have a say.

COATES: You know, I hear -- when I hear those dates, 2018, 2023, I think to myself of all the probably leaps and bounds as well that have taken place in A.I. technology that Congress and the bureaucratic red tape are not even close to catching up to. I mean, what confidence can the American people have that Congress is the appropriate body to regulate in a timely fashion something like A.I. when social media is so lacking and all the other regulatory agencies for that particular world?

JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: Well, I think it hits the nail on the head. You had an opportunity during the social media boom to have the Congress step in and bring some, you know, modicum of regulation. And we see the results of that. We see children being bullied, people committing suicide because of isolation that we now have. We see the growth of A.I. and cheating in schools and things of this nature that have dumbed down society in so many respects.

We have an opportunity here now to work in a bipartisan way, and I think it really needs to be done in a bipartisan way to build some guardrails.

[23:25:00]

I work with an entity known as the Future of Life Institution. Max Tegmark was the developer of it. It has been around for over a dozen years. They've been working on this. We're trying to bring attention to this to the Congress.

You know, what I would note, it's remarkable. These folks from the tech industry, they didn't just come out and learn about this today and start to talk about it. They've known about this for a long, long time and have kept it back. Why it's happening now, I can't say why, but we should listen and heed what they have to say.

COATES: Well, what is happening is President Trump is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House just next week, and former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, says that A.I. regulation better be front and center in that discussion. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There should be a concerted effort by this government to get off of the lies, get off of social media, quit worrying about ballrooms and ridiculous arches, and come up with a plan to enlist the Chinese.

The Chinese have their own issues. They need control in order to stay in power. So, they may have a different view than we do about regulation, but they can't let this thing go on without having it reined in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, they certainly have a different view as to whether the United States can regulate and rein them in. Do you think that would be a productive conversation with China, for them to be told to rein it in?

LUNA: I think right now, with President Trump's meeting that's scheduled in the coming weeks with Xi, I think that he's going to have a very powerful tool that will be passed out of the House later on this week, and that will be the ability to potentially leverage tariffs.

Now, I know people don't like the tariff world, but if we're talking about something that's of this magnitude and China has come out today just to say to Anthropic that they're not going to go along with any form of regulation, I think that President Trump is, as much as people might not necessarily like what he's saying on Truth Social, is definitely tracking this.

What I would also say, though, specifically on this front is that with A.I. specifically, when you think about the implications that this has as not just a tool, it's not just like going to Google, but the ability of it to potentially be a super weapon, we want to make sure that we're dominating that.

And I do have massive concern when I hear some of these tech CEOs that are wealthier than a lot of people calling for a form of a global governance that we then answer to as a republic or a democracy.

And so, my concern is that we need to make sure that the A.I. that is developed, that will protect us, is being developed and educated on our own principles and our belief system. And I think a part of that is ensuring that these tech companies are making sure that these A.I. systems don't have a bias, that they're truthful and honest. And I think that that's also, too, another part of this discussion.

COATES: Well, how would they determine they don't have -- I mean, the bias aspect? I hear your point about the regulations, and there's a big discussion about what it would entail.

But determining the bias, determining what a super weapon would look like, super intelligence would look like, I mean, President Trump, you say, is tracking it. He's dismissing a lot of this hysteria around it as a hoax. It doesn't necessarily bode well for people to think that he'll have that sort of gravitas-based discussion with China, who already has very little incentive to bend the knee.

KILEY: Yes. We absolutely need to have a dialogue with China on this. But we also need to recognize that they're not that far behind us in terms of their open models, maybe six months behind our frontier models. And so --

COATES: Meaning what, though? What does that mean? That they're going to catch up and surpass or that they --

KILEY: That's the idea, is that if you had and we had -- you know, now, we have this agreement among some of the leaders of the leading labs in the United States that, OK, that we need to pace the frontier, as Dario Amodei put it. But there's this prisoner dilemma because if you do that in the United States and China doesn't do it, then they might pull ahead.

And so, I think that there's a couple of things that we need to do. We need to, of course, talk to them about whether some sort of international agreement can be reached there. But here's the other point.

COATES: Can there one -- you think there will be one? That's my question, though.

KILEY: I think that, given the stakes, you know, that we have to at least try. But here's the thing, is that beyond just saying, OK, we're going to try to slow down A.I. development, the question then becomes, let's assume we slow it down, well, what are we going to do with that time? What we need to be doing with that time is solving the fundamental problem here, is the issue of A.I. alignment, assuring that as models become more powerful, they remain aligned with human interests and values and within human control.

And this is an area where we can collaborate with China and the international community and bring together the smartest people in the entire world to share their experiences and to work together towards solving this problem which, if we solve it, by the way, A.I. can have absolutely incredible benefits for humanity, curing diseases, providing abundant energy. And so, those are the stakes right here.

COATES: But if Congress --- I hear the stakes. Is Congress equipped to regulate it to ensure that the pros outweigh the cons?

CROWLEY: I think they're equipped. It's whether or not they're willing to actually do so. I think Kevin is right. You can have your cake and eat it, too, here, if you do it correctly. You know, we had a nuclear arms race. And, ultimately, we came to an agreement that we could destroy each other.

[23:30:00]

And, by the way, we got it first, they ultimately got it. We may get it first, they're ultimately going to get it, too, and vice versa.

So, I think this notion of idea of who's going to be first, the chicken or the egg, I think it's something that we should be talking to them about to avoid that. I don't like this notion of idea that we're always heading towards a conflict with China. We can find ways to mutually discuss these issues and try to find real solutions for a worldwide crisis, an existential threat to human survival, potentially, and that's what we should be talking to each other about.

COATES: We'll see if the president will have that conversation next week. Thank you, everyone. Congressman, please, stick around. Up next, Democrats demanding answers after ProPublica reports that Donald Trump Jr. let a Russian businessman with ties to Vladimir Putin pay for his wedding afterparty. What's going on here? And later, Macklemore dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour over his views on Gaza and Israel. Why he says one of the NFL's biggest names is to blame.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Donald Trump Jr. may have gotten a little help from a friend to pay for his wedding afterparty, and that friend is a Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin.

ProPublica reports oligarch Umar Kremlev helped finance a lavish celebration on a private island in the Bahamas back in May. Among the lavish details, oceanfront villas, a five-tier funfetti cake airlifted from Florida, and firework shows launched from a barge. And ProPublica reports Kremlev paid for all of it.

Just one month before the wedding, Kremlev received an award from Putin. He and Trump Jr. met a year ago during an event hosted by a boxing organization Kremlev runs. But Trump initially denied knowing who Kremlev was. After ProPublica's story broke, Don Jr. and his wife Bettina called Umar a -- quote -- "dear friend" and his gift -- quote -- "very generous." And they added there was no conspiracy and no mystery.

But Democrats, they're not buying it. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, is demanding an investigation, saying -- quote -- "Umar Kremlev spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the president's son. What did he get in return? We need answers."

Let's ask a Republican on the Oversight Committee, she's back with us, Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. Thank you so much for being with us again on this because I wonder if these ties concern you. I mean, Trump Jr. is an independently wealthy man. Three hundred million dollars, apparently, he's worth. Does he really need help paying for this party?

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): Well, I did follow Bettina's posting, his wife. As you know, they got married several months back. What I would say is, according to her posting, she obviously saw that he was a friend prior. There's no business entities or ties between Jr. and this individual. And in addition to that, with Bettina specifically, she said that this was actually already pre-planned and that their wedding had overlapped with it. So, I don't think that they --

COATES: Overlapped with what? The payment at the wedding party?

LUNA: No, no, no, with the actual celebration, so that they had that as a pre-planned event to do with friends. So, that was the posting that was officially on her Instagram today.

COATES: Does that comfort you? If it would -- I mean, there's the optics, right? I mean, obviously -- hey, I'm all for weddings. Love them. But the optics of being the president's son and somebody who's so tied to Putin financing in this big way, that doesn't give you pause as to what would be the requested thank you?

LUNA: I think that if the optics weren't so coincidentally tied with talks on Jared Kushner, specifically following the Ukraine-Russia peace deal and the negotiations that President Trump is currently engaged with Zelenskyy and Putin on, I think that maybe it might appear as if it was an actual genuine concern.

COATES: But what's the connection you're raising? I don't -- I want to be clear.

LUNA: So, two days before this article broke, there were attacks on Jared Kushner specifically trying to state that he was somehow in the pocket of Russia and not negotiating on the best behalf of the Ukrainians, which I would argue is quite the opposite. I think that this administration has done a good job in opening these negotiations. Also understanding that President Trump just made a statement telling Zelenskyy that he needs to stop bombing the oil refineries because that's impacting diesel prices. But the fact is that this marriage occurred months ago. And so, what gives me pause and reservation about the people that are just now raising this is if this was a genuine concern, why not raise it immediately after it happened? Why wait until two days after there was, I think, targeted criticism and attack of Kushner specifically pertaining to Ukraine and Russia peace negotiations?

COATES: Well, that's Kushner. I'm talking about Don Jr., obviously. And I see that there -- well, yes. Well, Don Jr. is the son of the president. Kushner, obviously, a very important member of the family and son-in-law. But are you suggesting that the issue is the timing of the release of information as opposed to the actual substance of information itself? Because say the information had been released six months ago, nine months ago, whenever before the wedding, would that have been problematic even in spite of what you said?

LUNA: Well, at the end of the day, Don Jr. is not in public office. I don't think, based on their statements, that he engaged in some form of quid pro quo. There are no business dealings. And as Bettina had stated on her Instagram, this was already pre-coordinated before the wedding took place, from my understanding. So, what I would say --

COATES: A lot of people look at this, though. I don't want to cut you off, but the natural reaction is, well, there have been presidents' children before who have not been in office, who have been villainized and accused of being in someone's pocket and capitalizing on their father's, you know, role as the president. Hunter Biden being one prime example of how he was accused. Why would this be optically different for you?

[23:39:58]

LUNA: According to public records out there, Don Jr.'s net worth potentially may be $300 million. I don't think that he would need to take a gift like this unless it was actually from a friend and also two previously coordinated, and they have said that this was something that this individual was doing as a wedding gift towards them. What I would say --

COATES: But how do you know that?

LUNA: Well, that's based on their statements, right? What I would say is based -- I'm not trying to bring up the Hunter Biden stuff, but I assume that's what's in reference to there were conversations that took place. And, unfortunately, the Hunter Biden laptop did have a lot of correspondence between the Communist Chinese Party and Hunter Biden specifically pertaining to business dealings.

So, what I would say is that there's a very fine line, right? Like we don't want people in government influence peddling. But the big difference between this and that was that in the instance of Hunter Biden, there was evidence to make that connection. In this, you have a wedding, you have someone that clearly doesn't --

COATES: But your point, congresswoman, was that somebody who's not in public office should not have the personal connections and finances be questioned. But you've just made the point that you believe that it does relate to one but not the other. If the optics are problematic --

LUNA: There was evidence of Hunter Biden influence peddling because of his laptop.

COATES: Well, this is -- I'm talking about Don Jr. I know that you're very clear in the description of it.

LUNA: Yes.

COATES: But my question to you is, if you have an issue with somebody who is associated with the president receiving or having connections with someone who is a foreign entity that could ultimately influence the presidential administration or try to use that person's role to get opportunities, then why is it not consistent? It would be the same thing, would it not? I mean, you have to --

LUNA: I think, with this particular situation, that this individual was a friend, that Jr. is independently wealthy. Clearly, there's no influence being made financially because he could easily pay for something like that but also to in the sense that there was pre- coordination of it.

And so -- and based on what Bettina has said directly, that this was not like some major controversy that people were taking it out of context. And I would likely assume that she wouldn't have posted that unless they had an actual, you know, receipt correspondence of coordination, something that was pre-organized with their friends and family.

But I would go a step further and say that there's a big difference between someone knowingly using their father's position and there being evidence of that, of which came out in the Hunter Biden, which then resulted in the investigations into the laptop and those emails.

And all I will say is that, specifically pertaining to this, I think that Jr. and Bettina, this happened months ago. Why wait so long if you really, you know, saw that this was potentially an ethical concern? Obviously, they've addressed it.

But also, to moving forward, what I'm trying to say is that I think it's very interesting timing because you have this come two days after criticisms of Kushner, who is also very closely related and associated with the president, who is part of brokering a massive peace deal pertaining to Russia-Ukraine, and there's a $2 trillion trade implication to that for the United States. I think that there's massive guarantees for Ukraine and Russia. I think that that likely might also be a topic of discussion with Xi when he comes next week.

And so, I just think that the timing is very coincidental that, all of a sudden, this is coming out and it's specifically pertaining to a Russian oligarch. If we would have had associated with that, you know, with any other nation, I just don't think it would hit the same.

COATES: So, it sounds like it's worth investigating. Both.

LUNA: Well, I don't think that there's any criminal activity or evidence.

COATES: Just because an Instagram post said that it predated this email?

LUNA: No. There's no evidence. They had a wedding.

COATES: You can investigate that to confirm. I don't want to give you tasks, congresswoman, but I think that there is -- if there is an optical issue such as this, wouldn't it behoove members of Congress to confirm?

LUNA: We opened a short investigation against Hunter Biden because of the evidence in the laptop that specifically pertained to influence peddling. There's no evidence specifically right now of influence peddling. And unless there's a laptop that comes out specifically with criminal evidence, I don't think that opening up an investigation into Don Jr.'s wedding party is something that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.

COATES: Well, as a prosecutor, I know that if you don't have an investigation, you likely will never find the results that would clear or imply someone is wrong. But thank you, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. Thank you. I'm not in Congress. She is.

Still ahead, Macklemore gets the boot from Ed Sheeran's tour after stadium owners accuse him of crossing the line in his views on Israel. How will the entertainment world respond? We'll talk about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A concert controversy is erupting with an unlikely face in the middle of it, Ed Sheeran. The popular singer is in the middle of a cross-country stadium tour and rapper Macklemore was one of the opening acts. But Macklemore says he has now been dropped because he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACKLEMORE, RAPPER: I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: Free Palestine. I want those words to be loud and clear so the people from Gaza all the way to the occupied West Bank know that we have not forgotten them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Outrage over those comments slowly snowballed over the last week and peaked today. Macklemore says New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft forced Sheeran to drop him, saying -- quote -- "Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum: If Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues." Kraft confirmed he banned Macklemore from Gillette Stadium outside Boston over his "free Palestine" comments. Kraft says Macklemore had a -- quote -- "history of anti-Semitic rhetoric" and added -- quote -- "Too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering, but only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate" -- unquote.

[23:50:06]

I want to bring in the executive editor of Deadline Hollywood, Dominic Patten. Good to see you, Dominic. I want to know from your opinion, is he being rightfully canceled or is this stifling free speech?

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: I think it's a combination, Laura. Look, I think part of the reality of this is we live in times where these are nuanced and complex issues. I think that use of the terms like genocide and apartheid are thrown around very loosely. At the same time, I also happen to recognize that this is someone who has been long an advocate of this, of the state of things in the Middle East, and has been very articulate about it.

On the other hand, this is America and this is capitalism. And if the owners of your stadiums don't want you to show up, it's kind of like someone is standing on your property. You get to ask them to leave. Whether or not you agree with that, is that stifling free speech or is that just simply saying it's not good business for us?

I think the most interesting voice in this is the one we have not yet heard, which is Ed Sheeran, who has been distinctly non-political throughout his career. Unlike, say, Macklemore or bands like Massive Attack or Kneecap or others who have spoken out about the situation in Gaza and other situations and have received criticism for inappropriate or perhaps over-the-line remarks of their own, Sheeran has always stayed away from politics. Now, he has been dragged right into the middle of it.

COATES: He has been quiet, and he has not released a statement. But the idea that the stadium tours themselves, they bring in enormous revenues. I mean, you know this. I have to wonder how this is going to impact future artists when they want to speak out about something that's close to their hearts, that their fan base has come to watch them perform, likely knowing the range of their views, and choosing still to see them because they might either agree or compartmentalize or disagree and enjoy their music anyway. They want to speak out, but yet now they know that there is a price to be paid and it comes with where they can perform. How will that set with the entertainment world?

PATTEN: Well, I would say let's hark back to I think you and I both remember, about 20 years ago when the band formerly known as the Dixie Chicks did just that about the Iraq war, and then President Bush, and they took what can only be termed politely as a shellacking for their political point of view.

But I would say I think there's one particular difference here. Macklemore was the opening act on Ed Sheeran's tour. While people came to see him, the vast majority of the fans who were showing up in those stadiums came to see Ed Sheeran. And so, I think on that level, I think that the argument has to go more about are you looking in the sense of, if you're traveling with your buddy, do you owe your buddy a responsibility to not get him in trouble?

But, again, I think in these times right now in America, this notion of free speech and what people are willing to have a conversation about has become so brittle and so divisive that even when someone like Bob Kraft, who put out a pretty reasonable statement saying that he also acknowledges the suffering that Palestinians children in particular have suffered, that there have been too many deaths, when someone brings out a statement like that but yet puts themselves in a position of what is essentially entrenchment on all counts, the notion of dialogue just falls apart.

Anti-Semitism is a great crime and great vice on all levels. But free speech is also something which we're having to now confront and realize what are the limits in which we are going to allow people to speak and what can they speak about.

COATES: Well, that will be an ongoing conversation in this country and beyond. Obviously, money speaks volumes. Dominic Patten, thank you so much. I have a word or two to say about the lone holdout in the Lindsay Clancy jury and the manner in which he's being vilified. My objection to the backlash is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, I object. I object to the villainization of the Lindsay Clancy juror holdout. I mean, are people serious? There are those who have decided that the true criminal is a juror who chose not to change their mind. People are trying to dig up as much dirt as they can to vilify the juror like they are public enemy number one.

We've got Governor Ron DeSantis actually offering the person asylum in Florida. A GoFundMe page has raised thousands of dollars because people predict the backlash this juror experiences will require legal fees and lost income.

Why? Because despite the fact that demonizing this juror will not reverse the mistrial or force the prosecution to offer a plea let alone dismiss the case, some people are asking, how dare this person not go along to get along? Well, I say, how dare you ask for peer pressure to replace unanimity? I mean, is that what you want? Jurors who make their decision based on fear of backlash or being disliked by the other jurors?

It doesn't matter whether that juror was in favor of conviction or acquittal. That juror had just as much right as every other juror in that room to weigh the credibility of witnesses, to evaluate the evidence, and to come to their own conclusion as to whether the prosecution met their burden of proof. Respecting the jury system does not mean you always agree with the jurors.

This judge, in this case, interviewed the juror and concluded that juror was following his jury instructions and could ultimately be fair and impartial. Look, prosecutors, we win, we lose some.

[23:59:58]

But when they lose, can you imagine the prosecution persecuting the jurors who refuse to convict? You'd have a real problem with that, wouldn't you? You should. We all should. A lot of people don't want jury duty.

But now, I want you to imagine having to serve on a jury where you are pressured to go along with the majority even if you believe they have it wrong. What if, based on the evidence, every single bone in your body wants to acquit, but you agree to convict? Because if you don't, you will be Salem's next witch on trial. Is that the juror you want deciding your case? Not me. I object.

Thank you all for watching. Elex Michaelson is next.