Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

News Outlets Sue Trump Over White House Ban; CNN Provides Update On Nolan Wells Case; Trump Says Triumphal Arch Will Be Military Complex With Drones And Snipers; Trump Meets With Mamdani. Aired 11p- 12a ET

Aired September 21, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, CNN and two other organizations sue President Trump over his White House ban. A hearing is set for Wednesday. So why is the president already vowing to appeal? Plus, Trump gives his Trump triumphal arch a rebrand, set to house drones, snipers, and ammo. A veteran fighting to stop it is my guest. And breaking tonight, the long-awaited investigation to Nolan Wells's death finishes with no charges. What the grand jury concluded. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

We've got to talk about this lawsuit, 27 pages. Three news organizations now taking the president of the United States to court over access for the White House. CNN, MS NOW, and Politico say their ban violates the Constitution.

And there are two points from this lawsuit that I really want to highlight. The first, a First Amendment issue, viewpoint discrimination. We talked about it on Friday, didn't we? And the idea is pretty simple. Once the White House opens up press access, it cannot arbitrarily kick out journalists because they do not like what those journalists are saying. Trump has made it clear that this ban is based on coverage that he thinks is too negative toward him, even though Vice President J.D. Vance is now trying to argue this isn't actually a ban, per se.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Not a ban? Well, the president himself called it a ban when he first posted about it on Friday, and then he repeatedly called it a ban in the Oval Office a short time later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A very simple ban. I don't want them in my office. I don't want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can. The ban is because they're fake news. So, we are banning them. Yes, we are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, let's put aside whatever reason Trump is giving for it just a moment because that gets us to the second point, the question of how the president carried out this ban, and that's where due process comes in. Basically, the White House can't just yank a reporter's credentials and call it a day. No questions asked.

Federal courts have said that there is a process that has to be followed. The reporter has to be told the basis for the decision, given notice, given a chance to respond, notice an opportunity to be heard as in due process, and the lawsuit lays out how that did not happen here.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico say they got no warning, no clear standard that they were accused of violating, and no opportunity to be heard or make their case before the access was taken away.

And that all may sound very familiar because we have actually been here before. Back in 2018, when the White House revoked the hard pass of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, CNN went to court, and a federal judge ordered the White House to temporarily reinstate Acosta's pass on due process grounds. The White House ultimately backed down, and he got his pass back. And the judge who made that decision, Timothy Kelly, a Trump-appointee, that is the same judge assigned to this case, a case the president is already talking about appealing.

But here's the strange thing: There's nothing to appeal yet. The government's response? That's due tomorrow. The hearing, not until Wednesday. So, why do you think the president is already talking about an appeal before the judge has even heard the arguments?

With me now to break down the legal and constitutional stakes of this historic lawsuit are trial attorney Ken Turkel and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Greg Lukianoff. His nonprofit organization has spent years fighting speech crackdowns from both the political left and the right.

Ken, I'll begin with you here because we know the media's argument is rooted in the First Amendment, rooted in due process. But the other side, how do you expect the lawyers that are going to defend Trump's actions to defend this?

KEN TURKEL, LAWYER: Well, it's good to see you again. I think that to look at the why behind the what, the first thing I wrote in my notes, what is the why?

[23:04:59]

Because you have to look at the pattern of conduct that President Trump has engaged in with the media from day one. Multiple defamation cases, some of which have settled, I've covered a lot of those with you. I've been on your show to talk about them, and I've always said the same thing. When you're dealing with him, I think looking at it from the standpoint of what is this, a brash, no-notice ban on reporters being at the White House. That's simple. Anybody can see the what here, right?

But what is the why? What is he trying to accomplish? He has good lawyers. They know ultimately what they're going to deal with from a First Amendment perspective.

But I think what he has done, because of the attacks on him, even going back to his first term, and I don't want to really get into the debate of whether he has been attacked more than any president, but I think it's fair that they've come after him pretty zealously from day one. He is constantly --

COATES: Do you mean attacked or reported on him? Because that's the issue here, right? I know he said attacked, but he's talking about press not being able to be there because he believes that they are giving negative stories about him. So, if they're going to respond in kind in a lawsuit and react to that, what will be their core arguments?

TURKEL: On the first, the Democrats are going to say they're not censoring anything. They're not telling him not to say anything. They're denying him physical presence. Yes, I understand the skeptical look, but that's where I think they have to go.

I don't love the property right. I'd love to hear what Greg says about it because I don't know why they led with due process with the property right, citing to a footnote in Sherrill. I like the better due process argument of depriving him, you know, freedom of the press and no due process there. I don't know why they led with that.

Sometimes, that's strategic. But there's not a lot of places to go vis-a-vis that the law is fairly well settled on those things. But that's why I'm trying -- I'm not trying to redirect it as much as trying to give some insight as to why you would do it strategically.

When you say attack, Laura, don't get caught up in that word. It's really just they've come after this president a lot. I think it's safe to say he has withstood a lot of media scrutiny, more than many presidents. He says things that provoke it. I'm not trying to say it's not justified.

But look at the guy at NPR. Oh my God, I can't believe I'm forgetting his name, but he has been there for like 20 years. He looked at the reporters here and said, this is all we're doing, right? He left. Berliner? (ph) Greg, you remember his name?

COATES: Why are you trying to remember that? I want to get your take on this, Greg, on a separate issue for a second.

TURKEL: (INAUDIBLE).

COATES: Yes. OK. Name aside for a second. Let's talk about the Constitution. And obviously, I am curious. Greg, do you believe that the approach -- when you talk about the First Amendment and obviously about due process, it seems to me a legal belt and suspenders approach because both can be true and you need not identify a singular reason why you'd be justified in redressing a grievance of the government also under the First Amendment.

GREG LUKIANOFF, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: I actually think the due process argument is pretty strong, and that's one of the ones that they've had success with in the past. But yes, you try both arguments. And essentially, I think Sherrill is so on point here.

I think what they're going to try to argue is the AP case, where they said that the president has some more discretion to limit people from more intimate settings like Air Force One or the Oval Office, but that's not going to work because the case itself said that you can't punish people from, say, the Brady room, like the main room, on the basis of viewpoint. So, I don't think they have a lot of ways to go legally.

And I don't even know if there is a deeper game here anymore. From the very beginning, we've represented the pollster, Ann Selzer, out in Iowa who got a poll wrong about Trump back in 2024, and he's still, you know, going after her. So, sometimes, I think it's just we've got to smack him on the nose. It's this kind of attitude that essentially you just have to figure out some logic to punish the press. I do wonder why particularly this week, but I think he already knows he's going to lose in court.

COATES: Well, I'll be curious to hear both of your takes as they actually respond as well. Ken, Greg, thank you both so much. You know, major T.V. networks are standing with CNN, refusing to fill in after Trump blocked CNN from taking its turn in the White House pool. So, what can actually happen when there is no T.V. pool coverage of the president? Well, watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: OK, so, there's no microphone because -- there's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there. So, maybe, Tim, this is one example of it backfiring just a little bit. Obviously, the ramifications are right here. Can't hear what the president is saying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:09:58]

COATES: With me now are CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton, Democratic strategist Alencia Johnson, and former president of the White House Correspondents' Association and senior contributor for Axios, Margaret Talev. Glad to have all of you guys here.

OK, first of all, I really don't understand the conversation about whether the president feels that his feelings are heard or he's being attacked negatively or being covered. The First Amendment is pretty clear. And I've never known a constitutional basis or a winning court argument that says you hurt my feelings when it comes to excluding the press.

What is the game plan here? Because, obviously, he knows the First Amendment. He's well aware. He knows what happened in the past. And for 50 years, there has been president, at the very least, on exclusion.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look, I think the president has already acknowledged that there isn't any legal standing. Hence, we're going to appeal before there is even a due process in the case at all, before it goes before a judge. That said, strategically, I think the president is at his best when he's going back and forth with members of the press, whether you like the engagements or not, particularly for his base.

We're in the midst of a midterm where, right now, the focus should be trying to blunt potential losses for House Republicans, which we know history is against us. The president's approval numbers aren't doing that great. There's a string of victories for Democrats in a special election since last year. We know what the reality is likely to be after November.

And so, to me, as a strategist, I'm thinking every interaction you can have with members of the press. Talk about immigration, the positive components of it. Talk about these Trump accounts and how that would do great things for Americans who want to send their kids off to college or buy their first home in 18 years, from birth, that is. Talk about no tax on tips. There are a handful of things that the president should constantly be reminding the American people about, things that he's accomplished.

And then you go on and you say, we have more work to do here, it's not going to happen overnight. And then you try to contrast with your opponents by focusing explicitly on the DSA candidates and trying to paint a broad swath of all Democrats.

COATES: Everything you said --

SINGLETON: But he's not doing that.

COATES: Everything you said, it is helpful to have a microphone, a camera --

SINGLETON: Correct.

COATES: -- a press who's covering it, a press that is giving that opportunity for the American people to receive those messages as well.

And, as you know, Margaret, five major T.V. networks declined White House pool duties in a show of solidarity with the organizations that have been banned from the White House, really in favor of the First Amendment they're holding solidarity with as well. Break down the significance of this. You were the president of the White House Correspondents Association. The idea that the press pool, the White House press pool, will be compromised in some way, that you have him even at a ribbon-cutting ceremony and there's no sound. Walk us through why this is so significant.

MARGARET TALEV, DIRECTOR OF DEMOCRACY, JOURNALISM AND CITIZENSHIP INSTITUTE SY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR FOR AXIOS: The reason there is a press pool, this rotation that the networks share and there's a separate print rotation or digital rotation now, is because for two reasons. Number one, there simply isn't enough space in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, at the U.N. General Assembly, etcetera, for 500 reporters, 900 reporters to crash in there.

COATES: Right.

TALEV: And so, they create a rotation of news organizations that have enough staffing and funding to be able to make the financial commitment to be in those places, to pay their own freight to be there, and to provide coverage that is shared by everybody else.

And that benefits the American public. It benefits the news organizations that use the coverage. It also benefits every sitting president, whether they're a Republican or a Democrat, in good times and in bad times because it gives them a distribution system for them to get their own messaging out.

This is where things get a little bit nuanced. Tomorrow, we're going to see the president at the U.N. General Assembly. The U.N. General Assembly coverage of his speech will be carried on U.N. cameras. That is not a White House press pool situation.

So, I expect we will see that coverage tomorrow. It will be televised. This is not news organizations trying to black out coverage of the president. News organizations are trying to balance now their primary role, which is to inform the public against this decision, not to just gratuitously roll tape and distribute on every single thing because it becomes a very slippery slope at that point.

So, again, I think, tomorrow, you will see the president's messaging from the U.N. General Assembly because that is not a pooled situation. But all of the normal other stuff on the sidelines of the U.N., bilateral meetings with so-and-so, him walking down a hallway, him deciding he wants to gather everybody and say something, that is the function of the pool, and you won't see that, and there won't be sound on that.

COATES: Alencia, I mean, talk to me from the standpoint of a strategist. I mean, you heard Shermichael described what he wants Republicans to be focused on. There will be some silence in what we cannot hear, aside from tomorrow, from the administration. But then there is an actual war happening. And now, you have a media war the president has started. That is a self-inflicted wound if you're talking about the priorities that Republicans want them to be talking about.

[23:14:59]

From a Democratic perspective, what are the consequences and the catalysts for Democrats to use this in a meaningful way? ALENCIA JOHNSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR THE BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN: You know, I think a lot of folks are thinking that this is sucking up a lot of oxygen. This is another one of Trump's tactics to have the media talking about something else. But where the base is now versus 2018, his first term, that midterm, they're actually tuning out because they are frustrated with the chaos, when they can't afford gas or groceries or they can't find a job, and whether that's someone coming out of college or someone who has been in their career for decades.

And so, the issues that you're talking about, Shermichael, the everyday voter and not just the Democratic base, independents and even Republicans who are tired, are thinking about this. This is actually giving Democrats more fuel to say, look, the Republicans actually can't lead on the issues that matter. They're waging war on the press and actually trying to maybe hide some information from you or not actually answer the questions of why we're still in this war, why things are so expensive, why next year things will be even more expensive for college students, folks who are trying to access health care.

So, as long as Democrats continue to keep this message around affordability and that these guys aren't working for you, this is actually really helpful for our case going into November, which is only a few weeks away. I would ask the Republicans, what is actually the strategy for this at this moment?

COATES: Well, two days from now, we'll hear what the strategy is in court about this, but we will continue to cover all the important stories that is not having the media at the center of the story. Stand by, everyone.

We have breaking news tonight. There are no charges in the death of Nolan Wells. The district attorney just released the grand jury's conclusion. We've got the documents in hand. We'll walk through all the new details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news in the death of Nolan Wells. A grand jury report just ruled there was no evidence of foul play, and there will be no criminal charges filed. Wells died after going on a boating trip with his friends on the 4th of July in Mississippi. His death sparked all sorts of questions, some of which the grand jury's report tries to address. The report finds -- quote -- "the position of, the condition of, time of discover, and location of Mr. Wells's body is consistent with drowning." And in a video statement, the district attorney went even further and excoriated the family's attorney, Ben Crump, and others for spreading what she says were lies about the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: The family, the Crump team, and anyone close to Nolan knew that his disappearance and death were not the result of racial hate or violence. Yet the flames of that narrative set against the backdrop of Mississippi's terrible history were fanned by both people who knew the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Moments ago, Benjamin Crump released a statement saying -- quote -- "We don't know how Nolan died, and neither does the State of Mississippi. Mississippi must keep investigating, and if it will not pursue this to the end, the Department of Justice should."

I want to bring in former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aronberg. Let me just first start by saying I've been reading through this grand jury report and seeing what was available to the grand jurors and what was not, including phone records provided by the family, the independent autopsy from their forensic pathologist and others, and just the number of jurors who were involved here. But I don't want to lose sight of what it must feel like for the family of Nolan Wells this evening as they are learning this information.

There is also the grand jury report that says that the GPS data confirmed the account of Nolan's friends, he didn't get in a fight or argument, and he didn't have cocaine in his system, something that had been said about this in the past. Will this, I doubt, but will this end the controversy surrounding this case given that we still don't know how this appears to be a ruling out?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Laura, good to be with you. I mean, this is an unspeakable tragedy, but tragedy is not necessarily a crime. Now, I'm a former state attorney, and I see a D.A. here who actually did her job in the face of a lot of outside speculation and internet conspiracy theories. You know, she conducted a lengthy investigation, she gave the family's lawyers and their independent pathologists an opportunity to participate, and then she presented 43 witnesses to a diverse grand jury, and that grand jury unanimously found no basis for criminal charges.

So, we should always remain open to new evidence, but we can't accuse people of murder based on unanswered questions, speculations or viral videos. So, this, for now, means that the state's investigation is done unless there's new information that Ben Crump and others can provide. I don't think that DOJ is going to pick this up. And if DOJ did, what makes you think they're going to do a more thorough and fairer job than the local prosecutors here?

COATES: You know, I think that's interesting you've said that in that way because, in many ways, the civil rights division was premised on the notion that they must be a backstop for cases when you have little confidence in the local authorities to govern or police what has happened there. We do know this perhaps stands distinct from that.

But Crump did add in his statement that the grand jury report did not determine how Wells suffered a head injury and quote -- "To this day, not one person has explained how they got there." He says it does warrant further investigation.

[23:25:01]

But let's talk about the grand jury process and what's presented to them. Does it strike you as particularly persuasive that there was an opportunity for the family's data, whether it relates to his phone or the independent pathologist and their forensic person being able to speak, even though they did confirm that there were some parts of his internal neck structure that was retained, they say, appropriately by the medical examiner? In layman's terms, break this down for our audience as to why statements like this would not raise suspicion.

ARONBERG: Well, first, the grand jury is not to find the answers in the case necessarily. It's just to find whether there was probable cause --

COATES: Correct.

ARONBERG: -- that a crime occurred, and they could not find any probable cause. And then you have Dr. Mitchell, who was the pathologist, the independent medical examiner, who was hired by the family and Ben Crump, and he also did not find that Nolan was murdered. He found no fractures. He found no deep tissue injuries. He did find some discoloration behind the head that he considered inconclusive and worthy of further investigation.

And then, as you correctly said, there were some parts that were missing, organs and neck structures, but that's not unusual. And so, the independent medical examiner could not fully evaluate the lungs, airway, stomach or possible neck injuries.

So, there are some questions, but the grand jury had access to everything, and they still said, we can't indict anyone, there's no evidence that there was a crime here. And also, all the internet theories about the friends of Nolan's. By all accounts, Nolan's friends loved him. There was no obvious racial animus out there. And so, sadly, this really does look like an accidental drowning.

COATES: Just so I can be clear from what you've said for our audience, it's not normal that somebody would have organs or parts of their body missing. In the autopsy procedure, transferring from one to another medical examination, there are often retained body parts in one and then normally handed over.

But I have to tell you, one thing that's going to rub me the wrong way, and I've been thinking about it since I heard that tape of the D.A., to suggest that Nolan Wells's family who is obviously grieving, obviously grieving, to suggest that they somehow knew the truth and chose to say something different, it's going to stick in my craw.

I hope there is an added sensitivity to this family who is going through absolute hell that their beloved son has died. I think -- time and time again, I've interviewed them, I've spoken to others about this case, I think any villainization of anyone who loved Nolan in this context is wrong. I wish I knew what happened to the young man. I know his family does as well. Dave Aronberg, thank you so much. ARONBERG: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, Trump's proposed controversial arch now supposedly set to house drones and even snipers. Will framing it as a military complex give him the right to build it? I'll ask one of the Vietnam veterans who has been fighting to stop it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Forget just honoring the military. President Trump's proposed triumphal arch may play a critical role for the military. Now, the president says the arch will serve as a -- quote -- "a top-grade military complex" and it will store drones, snipers, and ammo.

This is a vastly different plan than the one Trump first announced. The White House has not provided more details. And, apparently, this was news to many within the administration because sources tell CNN that they were surprised by Trump's weekend missive.

If you're thinking to yourself, I've heard this national security explanation before, that's because you have. It's also how Trump is justifying building the White House ballroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This will be the greatest military complex/ballroom anywhere in the world. There won't be anything like it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Even the military, they can use it like that. And we have -- the ballroom is so much a military component, with the drones and the bomb shelters and everything else that we have in there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in two people who are fighting the arch. Vietnam veteran Shaun Byrnes. He's one of four veterans suing Trump over it. And California Congressman Jared Huffman. He's the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee which oversights over projects on federal land like the arch. I'll begin with you, congressman, if I may. Do you think there is a need for this or is this just Trump's way of building what he wants under the guise of national security?

REP. JARED HUFFMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, thank you for having us, Laura. And I have no doubt that at the Pentagon right now, military officials are scrambling to try to find some rationale to make Trump look like there's validity to this claim. But you and I have seen this playbook enough to know he's just lying. He's lying the same way he lied about vandals at the reflecting pool, about the bunker at the White House ballroom, and so many other things.

So, no, there is no need, certainly no military need, for this giant arch which, a few months ago, he acknowledged in a candid moment was a tribute to himself.

COATES: I want to ask you, Shaun, because you are a Vietnam veteran, and I want to thank you for your service.

[23:35:00]

But I also want to note that you suffered burns over half of your body during a firefight. Do you know full well what sacrifice looks like and service? Does the idea that the arch could become a military complex, does that change your perception of it?

SHAUN BYRNES, VIETNAM VETERAN, FILED LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP'S ARCH: Thank you for having me, Laura, and thanks for this opportunity. To briefly answer your question, an emphatic no. I think to really cut to the chase, this is just another example of Trump trying to build something massive to honor himself. It has nothing to do with national security or anything else. And bottom line, Laura, I think it's absurd, and it's going to be a waste of taxpayers' money.

COATES: You brought for me today and just showed me -- I'm just looking at some of the photographs of you in service. Really remarkable to be holding in my hands just the evidence, if you lack a better word, of what it was like for you to serve at that time. I can only imagine what it was like for you and your fellow soldiers. But can you just tell me, when you think back to these moments of service and now put yourself in 2026, what do you think about this? That the president would be using it in this way or saying he's honoring the military but using it in this way?

BYRNES: Let me begin by saying I was very fortunate. I was flying. I was not an infantryman having to fight my way in the jungles or in trenches or in rice paddies. We were shot at, yes. We were rocketed regularly at the air base in Da Nang, and some of those rockets came in pretty close to the bunkers. But my service was nothing like the service that Marines and Army paratroopers, the 82nd Airborne, those guys out in the field were doing. So, I think that needs to be said right up front. I'm a very lucky guy.

COATES: I appreciate you saying that and talking about what the experience was like for so many. Does that impact how you see the president's actions knowing what it was like for so many people?

BYRNES: This gets into emotion and morality. I'm appalled at what he's doing and particularly trying to erect a massive arch in the center of Washington to himself. You may recall, I certainly do, that maybe a month ago, he was asked by a newsman, what is this massive arch for? His response was, "for me." I quote "for me." Here was a -- here was a man who dodged the draft, who is now trying to put up a monument to himself.

He has forgotten the humility that American presidents have always had. Just a simple reminder, neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson nor Abraham Lincoln who have iconic, beautiful memorials here asked for those or directed that they be built. Trump has no humility and, I would say, no manners and no sense of history.

COATES: Well, congressman, I want to bring you in here because you are the top Democrat on the National Resources Committee which has oversight on federal lands, and you have been vowing to use that power to investigate projects like the arch if Democrats win back control of the House. What can your committee do to stop the arch that the courts cannot?

HUFFMAN: Well, Shaun, in a very powerful way, explained why this arch is an insult to veterans and their families. It's also an insult to Congress and the rule of law because the Commemorative Works Act could not be more clear that in this parkland of the U.S. Capitol, a president can't just build something like this. You've got to go to Congress. You have to go through a very specific process laid out in a law, passed by the bipartisan supermajority in the 1980s.

[23:40:04]

Everybody is used to that process and that law quite well since then. Dozens of projects, including new monuments like the World War II Memorial, went through that process, were approved by Congress, and they're now built.

Donald Trump doesn't want to play by those rules. He thinks he apparently is above the law. So, we are in court with veterans like Shaun. Senator Angus King and myself and some of our colleagues have been filing briefs in that court case. We're also using the limited oversight tools that we have in the minority.

If we win a majority in Congress, though, it's a whole different ball game. We have many more tools for holding Donald Trump accountable and making sure he complies with the law and doesn't just rush to build this thing even though it's blatantly illegal.

COATES: Thank you so much for your service and for both of your words this evening. Shaun Byrnes, Congressman Huffman, thank you.

Up next, the Trump-Mamdani meeting part two. The president meets New York City's mayor on his home turf, and Trump's praise for Mamdani is just as surprising, perhaps, as the first time.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: And on 9-11, could anyone had imagined that Comrade Mamdani would be the mayor of New York?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM EMMER (R-MN), MAJORITY WHIP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: In November, we have a clear choice. You can choose the 12 by 12, dilapidated, government-owned housing, and the crumbs of food that Mamdani the Commie is offering.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP JR., SON OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP: When Mamdani calls for open borders, he conveniently leaves out the fact that millions of people flooding into our country will result in lower wages.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: First, OK, I know what you're thinking. Laura Coates, why are you running the Republican attacks on Mayor Zohran Mamdani from Trumpapalooza earlier this month? Well, let me tell you why. Because today, the mayor, they spent a lot of time criticizing, and I do mean nonstop, met with President Trump in New York City.

And you know what happened? We didn't hear any of that. In fact, Trump yet again seemed to have nothing but positive things to say. Trump told Mamdani -- quote -- "So hopefully you're going to be a great one. I'll be able to say you're going to be a great one and you're off to a start." And later on, he said -- quote -- "I want him to be a great mayor, and he's certainly got potential, got great potential."

So, just how does Mamdani do it? How does he charm his fellow New Yorker to this degree? Well, lucky for us, our own Christiane Amanpour got to ask him that very question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So, I just want to know whether you have a trick, whether you have a sort of a way of dealing with him. What do you talk about of substance behind closed doors?

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Well, I think of the many differences of opinion the president and I have. We have one thing that brings us together, which is the love of New York City. And we are both New Yorkers. And what I focus on in those conversations with the president is how we can make life better for the people who call this city their home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right, my panel is back with me. I mean, Shermichael, is he the boogeyman or is he going to be the great mayor? Because there's a conflict of messaging now when it comes to the number one Republican and what they said about him at his Trumpapalooza.

SINGLETON: Well, look, I wish we would continue to focus on the negatives that you heard in that speech from all of those different speakers. That aside, we were talking about this during the break, I think the president looks at Mamdani as a disruptor. I remember the coverage at the time when people were saying there's no way this guy could win and become mayor of New York City. He was running against the former governor.

COATES: Are you going to say he sees himself in him as a disruptor?

SINGLETON: Well, what I'm saying is I think he sees a lot of similarities in Mamdani, believe it or not. I mean, Mamdani and his political beliefs and philosophies are transforming the Democratic Party in real time. Donald Trump changed the Republican Party in real time. People said Trump couldn't win. They said Mamdani couldn't win. There are a lot of similarities and through lines to both of these gentlemen, and I think Trump sees them and says, yes, I like this guy, and he's a winner.

COATES: I think you like this answer because if you're a Democrat, you're saying to yourself, you know what, yes, I want you to think of Trump as Mamdani. Does that work?

JOHNSON: You know, it's so hard. I feel like you put me on the show all the time to agree with Shermichael.

(LAUGHTER)

But the reality is, I mean, he -- he -- if he wasn't so -- not only -- it's not necessarily just likable. He is bringing something aspirational for something else that we were talking about with like Gen Z and younger voters who don't like either party, but they're seeing what's happening in New York where this is a mayor who's saying, I'm going to work for you and actually do those things.

And then the package that you showed, the fact that in Dallas, as Republicans, we're supposed to be talking about these different elections. They're supposed to be winning. They're worried about the mayor of New York.

And so, there is something that Mamdani is doing that is beyond just New York City, and I wish I was still living in New York City right now. He is influencing the national conversation, not just the national conversation about a politician and a government that can work for you, but he's actually showing how you can get it done.

[23:49:58]

And, you know, I think the more that Trump cozies up with him, the better Democrats have --

SINGLETON: The establishment --

JOHNSON: -- or their messaging.

TALEV: They do both have something that they want to get out of the other one. Actually, in today's case, the one thing that Mamdani had that Trump didn't have was a robust press pool with microphones as well as cameras rolling. The president made sure to insert himself into that venue and stay there to get the coverage that he hadn't been able to get the rest of the day because of the standoff with the media over White House pool coverage.

COATES: I want to have you respond to that more but, on that point, I mean, he was also having to, in some ways, defend meeting with Trump, Mamdani was. Amanpour asked about that very idea. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAMDANI: Well, I think we've both said that we'd be willing to have a conversation if it could benefit the people of the city. And to me, you can hold very disparate opinions and also be able to sit down because that is what this work demands of us. If I was only willing to speak with people who agreed with me all the time, I would be sitting at home looking in a mirror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: That's the point was.

TALEV: He's the mayor of New York City. He needs federal money and permission to accomplish spending that he has promised New Yorkers. And he also wants Trump to back off on ICE and some of the aggressive immigration tactics that are impacting New Yorkers. It would be malpractice for a mayor of a major city not to meet with the sitting president of the United States.

The irony is the president and the party, you saw that in Dallas, are messaging very aggressively about the idea that there are communists and socialists --

(LAUGHTER)

-- in Democratic Party positions, and the president is cutting off media access which is not what Democratic leaders do. But I think this is a master class in how two people, who don't like the other's policy beliefs and may not like the other one personally, see power and access to audiences they want to reach in one another. And so, it is mutually advantageous to have these sessions like what you saw.

COATES: And not nasty, by the way. That's part of it. Go ahead.

SINGLETON: I mean, look, you have to govern. I don't agree with Mamdani, no surprise here, on probably 99 percent of the issues, but I have to recognize that this is a guy who is trying to deliver on the campaign promises to the constituents who voted for him and maybe even those who didn't support him.

That is the goal of this very raw aggressive thing that's difficult and confusing at times called politics. You have a campaign portion and that's great, but once you're elected, you have to deliver on the results, and I think that's what the mayor is doing. And look, I'll just say this quickly. Even when Democrats were criticizing Hakeem Jeffries for his off the record, behind the scenes meeting with Kushner, I even defended him because I said, look, yes, he has to hold people accountable, I get it, that's what Democrats want, but he also has to deliver once he becomes speaker of the House.

JOHNSON: Yes. And that's politics, right? Like, you have to actually work --

SINGLETON: Absolutely.

JOHNSON: -- with elected officials at all levels of government. And also, what is unspoken but also part of politics is that I can also still criticize you and hold you accountable, and yet I still have to work together and have this federal government and local city government partnership to get to some of these campaign commitments.

COATES: Respond to this, Alencia. I don't want to cut you off, but I want you to respond. I want your mind on this because the former DNC chair, Jaime Harrison, points out the unevenness in the responses and the hypocrisy, and he says, "I'm just going to sit here and clock all the outrage. Sanders can appear at an event with Bannon. Mamdani invites Trump to Gracie Mansion. But Jeffries meets with Kushner and folks lose their mind? Guess he forgot to ask permission."

A fair point in terms of how people view the optics for some and not others?

JOHNSON: Listen, I think it is a fair point, and what is unspoken about that is Leader Jeffries is a Black leader, right? And if we want to think about the criticism that happens when it comes to some of our Black elected officials, there is a microscope, right? I think some of this, too, unfortunately, with Leader Jeffries is that there are some disappointments with him and some of his leadership. I may not agree with all of them, but I understand that some people have certain disappointments with Leader Jeffries.

That aside, he actually did have a conversation about how we have to work together. I have to talk to people who are in power. At least we know about Leader Jeffries meeting because there are a lot of people who have those meetings, and we don't talk about them.

And so, I do think the criticism isn't actually even. If you are going to hold one accountable, you have to hold the other accountable as well. We have to think about the conversations we are having when it comes to these leaders. We look at race and identity because that tends to sometimes be where people are not speaking out loud, but where the criticism is coming from.

COATES: Let me give you the final word on this looking ahead because, you know, tomorrow, we are going to see former vice president, Kamala Harris, who will be on the campaign trail with Abdul El-Sayed, somebody who has often been a Republican boogie man throughout the duration of this election for his Senate run.

[23:54:58] Do you think that -- given the state of affairs we are, 40 something days from now, we haven't seen that much of Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail. What is that telling you about how Democrats see their positioning?

TALEV: I think Sayed wants to appeal to as many Democrats as possible and say, hey, ultimately, I may try to improve the institution, but I am not the figure that President Trump is painting to me. Ultimately, former vice president, Harris, wants to remain relevant in the Democratic Party, and ultimately, overwhelmingly, voters are going to turn out on issues around affordability.

COATES: We'll see what happens. Thank you so much, everyone. Great to have all of you here. Thank you all for watching. Elex Michaelson in "The Story Is" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)