Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Time Magazine's Eric Cortellessa Interviews Trump; New York Governor Appoints A.G. James as Special Prosecutor in Cornell Case; "Crook" to Hero? Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 01, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, before we go, you can stream the show live or watch on-demand any time with an "All Access" subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen. Go to cnn.com/watch to learn more. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump tells his party he knows what their midterm problem is and how he plans to fix it. But is he prepared to lose? The Time Magazine reporter who asked him that very question and got an earful from the president is live with me tonight. Plus, the district attorney in the Cornell case removed from the investigation as the state takes it over. We have the new documents that may have led to the decision. And later, conservatives call it 'Nixonmaxxing,' a push to rebrand President Nixon now getting attention from the Department of Justice. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, President Trump has diagnosed his party's problem. After 20 months of a rocky second term, it turns out all the aches and pains they're now facing have nothing to do with him. Instead, he thinks they've come down with a bad case of, shall we call it, P.R. flu?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The only thing we're doing badly at is public relations. In other words, we're doing a phenomenal job, but by a combination of maybe we're doing a bad job in selling it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is it a bad job in selling it or are they telling about a bad job? I mean, let's just look at the newest poll from the AP today. On cost of living, 69 percent say his handling of the issue has been worse than expected. Now, that includes 52 percent of Republicans. So, definitely nothing he's doing, right?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Everyone thinks that the prices are high because of me, but they're not. We're the ones bringing down the price. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's follow along the president's diagnosis, shall we? So, what is the prescription for this GOP midterm flu? Well, Trump has just the thing, a 32-day, multi-week dose of take two of him at night and one in the morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Pretend I'm running, please. Just pretend I am in the ballot. And if we don't win, they'll end up impeaching me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, that was Trump in Oklahoma tonight. Yes, Oklahoma, a state he won by more than 30 points. And tomorrow, he's going to Alabama, just near the Florida border. Iowa, Alaska, Ohio, Nebraska, all on tap. And he apparently already spent time in Texas tonight where his handpicked Senate nominee Ken Paxton is clearly in trouble.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When I was being hit by the radical left very hard, harder than very few people could have withstood it, I was being hit, Ken Paxton was at my side more than anybody. And I have to always remember that because he could be a pain in the ass sometimes. I'll be honest. Is he here, by the way? Oh, there he is. Good. I didn't even know if he's here. I don't care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is he here, by the way? Well, so far, the Trump medicine doesn't seem to be going down easy. I mean, even the man he didn't know was there, Ken Paxton, reportedly said Trump's convention hurt him. And Fox News, of all places, is backing that up.

And look at their new polling out tonight, showing Democrats with an edge. Texas, James Talarico up two points. Iowa, Josh Turek up two points. And even in Michigan, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed up a point. All within the margin of error.

So, Trump is telling Republicans more Trump will fix their P.R. problems, that and cutting out some of the press from his diet, because for a second time in a week, the White House blocked CNN from traveling on Air Force One as part of its travel pool responsibilities.

And Trump is now openly threatening other outlets. In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, he complained about '"The New York Times" coverage of his war with Iran and said -- quote -- "just fake news, fake news, and maybe they'll be next."

And if one thing is clear about President Trump, he doesn't appreciate any second opinions or second-guessing his diagnosis.

When my next guest sat and interviewed him for 75 minutes, Trump told him -- quote -- "You haven't asked me one effing positive question. All of this. What about this? What about that? What about that? What about this? All negative."

[23:05:05]

Well, senior correspondent for Time magazine, Eric Cortellessa, joins me now. He's the author of the new Time magazine cover story, "Trump's Way," and yes, he sat down with President Trump in the Oval Office this past Monday. All right, Eric, I mean, he didn't like the scrutiny. He didn't like the criticism when the questions apparently you were asking, which were open-ended, I should mention. What jumps out at you in terms of his reaction?

ERIC CORTELLESSA, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, I mean, I think there's some clear frustration. I think he feels like he's getting a bad rap from the press or that, you know, the presidency and the perception of it is slipping from his grasp, right?

He sees the polling numbers. He sees members of his own party who may not necessarily be running from him and in total, but who are distancing themselves from his most unpopular policies, the war in Iran, the tariffs that are causing inflationary pressures. Some have distanced themselves from his deportation operation.

And, you know, he sees that things are kind of going out of his control outside the gates of the White House, which is why it was so interesting to watch him develop this fixation on his construction projects, the beautification projects of the White House, these sort of legacy projects, as some of us will call them, because he's focusing on things he can control, marble, granite, you know, gold doorknobs, et cetera, as so much else in his presidency is spinning out of his control.

COATES: Well, one thing that is in his control as the commander-in- chief is a war. And, you know, you spoke to him about that. You spent a great deal of time talking to him about the war. It seemed as though he was angered by the press's reporting of a timeline that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. Are you getting a sense that he is feeling the pressure as the war is dragging on? Because when he's in front of the camera, he is not expressing that. He is suggesting that there has already been success and that everyone should just temporarily accept the pain.

CORTELLESSA: Yes. I don't think he projects any -- necessarily any urgency in front of cameras. I think that's partly because it's just the Trump temperament. I think it's partly his not wanting to signal desperation with the Iranians. He wants to preserve his leverage. He wants to preserve his optionality. It's sort of a Trumpian madman theory like Kissinger had for Nixon, which is he wants the Iranians to think this guy could do anything.

Behind the scenes, my reporting tells me, based off of conversations with multiple senior administration officials, that Trump really does feel a sense of urgency to wrap this up. He would like to, if he can, strike a negotiated settlement with Iran based on both the kinetic actions they had taken over the last seven months and the economic strangulation that Secretary Bessent has been leading to try and get the Iranians to surrender and come to a deal.

And one of the main arguments they are making, and the Qataris behind the scenes, is that they should want Trump to make a deal with them before the midterm so that Congress could ratify it, whereas if there's a Democratic-controlled House and maybe even a Senate come January, it will be harder to get such a deal through Washington under that scenario.

COATES: He has been talking about impeachment as the sort of the -- sort of Damocles that's looming above him. But, really, that's interesting, to think about the idea of the war. But he does express regret over his Supreme Court appointments.

CORTELLESSA: Yes.

COATES: And while there are many who have accused the Supreme Court of rubber stamping him and although they have, he thinks, gone rogue in a number of categories that are meaningful to him, he says that he regrets appointing because -- quote -- "I gave them the position of a lifetime, and they vote against me often." He says he just wants good decisions. Were you surprised to hear him talk about that and talk about the Supreme Court picks in that way?

CORTELLESSA: You know, yes and no. It's not surprising that he feels that way. He has expressed his grievances with them many times publicly through his Truth Social account. I was surprised to hear him as explicitly, to explicitly denunciate them in the way that he did and just say outright that he regretted choosing them. And I think --

COATES: Could it seemed as though he felt that they owed him allegiance by saying that I've given you this lifetime appointment, and you go against me?

CORTELLESSA: Yes. I mean, I said, well, is that what you want? You want loyalty? He said, one thing I love about the Democratic-appointed members of the Supreme Court is they stick together like glue. So, I followed up. Is that what you want? And he said, I do like loyalty, yes. And I think, you know, a beat later, he realized the implication of that, said, no, it's not to me, it's to the country. But he definitely suggested that, you know, they had their position, this vaunted, you know, role in the highest court of the land because of him, and they were not reciprocating in kind.

COATES: I want to talk about the demolition and destruction that seems to be looming of the Kennedy Center or he might call it the renovations of it. And this has been an issue that, you know, I wonder just how much it resonates outside of the Beltway. I think it does for people who are watching this exercise of power in the fixation of the construction projects.

[23:10:03]

And he did refuse to rule out demolishing -- demolishing the Kennedy Center. He defended White House renovations, saying that it was a disgraceful dump before his upgrades which, of course, included taking a part of the East Wing out. Did he seem at all concerned about how Americans are viewing his projects that you have described and others have talked about under the umbrella of so-called legacy projects?

CORTELLESSA: No. He's upset that it's controversial. I mean --

COATES: Really?

CORTELLESSA: -- he thinks that Americans should be grateful to him for, you know, restoring these landmarks. I mean, he believes that. He said this during the interview, that the White House is a symbol, you know, the Kennedy Center is a symbol, and that he wants to reconstruct them to a kind of glorious, you know, improvement that will better represent, you know, the country.

And he basically also said that he wants his imprint to remain on that. He says, if I'm going to spend money, if I'm going to spend time on the Kennedy Center, I think the Trump administration should be recognized for it, which is another way of saying they should have their name on it.

And so, he doesn't seem to be backing down from this battle any time soon, and I didn't sense any ambivalence because he thought it might be a political loser.

COATES: Quickly, you asked him what he might miss about being at the White House. What did he tell you?

CORTELLESSA: You know, it was fascinating. He said the thing he would miss most about being president was this beautiful room, referring to the Oval Office, which sort of brings us back to our initial theme of, you know, President Trump's preoccupation with the things that he can control and less so these things that are slipping beyond his control.

COATES: Unbelievable. Eric Cortellessa, thank you so much. Very interesting.

CORTELLESSA: Thank you.

COATES: Another revelation in Trump's wide-ranging interview relates to one of the most powerful tools of the presidency, of course, the pardon. President Trump was asked if he's considering pardoning members of his own administration before the end of his term. You know, his response was, yes, sure, I'd do that. It comes as Democrats promise to ramp up investigations into the administration if they retake power in November.

With me now, the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus in California, Congressman Ted Lieu. He's also a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, it's nice to see you. I mean, I know Democrats want accountability, but if the president goes on to preemptively pardon administration officials, you have a plan to bypass that extraordinary roadblock?

REP. TED LIEU (D-CA), VICE CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, MEMBER OF HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thank you, Laura, for that question. There has never been a legal case that has tested a preemptive pardon. And so, it remains to be seen what the courts are going to do with pardoning someone who has not yet been charged. And we will absolutely test that next term when -- if he were to do that and we get a democratic administration. We're definitely going to test that pardon.

COATES: Well, let's talk about November because it's just a hop, skip and a jump away. The president is insisting that he has not thought of deploying ICE agents to the polling sites this coming November. But then in the same breath, congressman, he refused to rule out declaring a state of emergency. How concerned are you that the use of federal agents is not completely off the table, given the implications of the consequences of perceived intimidation?

LIEU: Under the United States Constitution, states run the elections unless Congress passes a law. There's literally no role for the president of the United States. And my message to the American voters is simply just go freaking vote because the Trump administration is going to try to suppress your vote. Make sure you go around those obstacles and get 10 of your family members or friends to vote. That's how you stick it to the man who wants to suppress your vote.

COATES: You know, with suppression, if there is a claim that one's vote is being suppressed, the Supreme Court chopping away at the Voting Rights Act might make that a harder task to be able to immediately redress the issue. But we'll see what happens in November. Thank goodness.

Time magazine reports, though, that President Trump has marveled at A.I.'s capabilities and spent hours just last year asking Grok questions about his presidency and his legacy. And weeks before the U.S. captured Nicolas Maduro, he reportedly asked Grok about how Venezuelans would react to Maduro's capture and came away impressed by its answer. Now, you have been at the forefront, congressman, of trying to regulate A.I. What's your impression of the president's focus on this and use of the tool for this reason?

LIEU: It is a known fact that chatbots try to be sycophantic to the person who's asking the question. So, it's not surprising to me that this chatbot would do that to Trump.

Now, when you look at reality, what we're actually dealing with is an unconstitutional war in Iran. We've got this weird situation in Venezuela where no one knows who's in control. And then we've got gas and diesel prices spiking. And Donald Trump is using a chatbot to make himself feel better.

[23:15:00]

Well, guess what? That's not what the American people want. They want relief from cost of living and high prices.

COATES: Have you seen this, congressman, about the firm behind President Trump's meme coin? They're now promoting yet another online contest. This one promises an exclusive dinner with the president of the United States. And the president's critics are accusing him of selling access to the White House. Do you believe that's the case and what can Democrats do to stop it, if so?

LIEU: We're looking at massive grift and corruption from the Trump administration. Trump and his family have made huge amounts of money after he was sworn in this term, and Democrats are absolutely going to investigate any of these cases that look like corruption or smell like corruption.

And I also know that the awful Supreme Court decision that immunized the president only applied to one person, the president. So, if other people engage in transactions with him that are illegal or violate the law, our view is that those people can be prosecuted and will be gathering evidence to hand to the next administration to do so.

COATES: That might be why he's looking at the idea of preemptive pardons. Will you have some response to that, given the power of the president?

LIEU: Again, no one has really tested the legality of preemptive pardons. And so, if you're one of those folks that wants to engage in corrupt behavior with the president of the United States, you will be at risk of being prosecuted. And if the courts decide that you, in fact, can be even with a preemptive pardon, then you're going to go to prison.

COATES: Congressman Ted Lieu, thank you for joining.

LIEU: Thank you.

COATES: Breaking news ahead on the Cornell case, the district attorney who was investigating the alleged rape has just been benched and replaced with New York's top prosecutor. What it means for the case as new reporting reveals a part -- as a part of Jane Doe's story that apparently never made it to the D.A. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news, the governor of New York is appointing a special prosecutor to look into the alleged gang rape at Cornell University. Governor Kathy Hochul says she has lost faith in the ability of the Tompkins County D.A. to handle the investigation. So, she's appointing state attorney general, Letitia James, to take over as a special prosecutor. Cornell says it supports the governor's decision.

It comes after "The New York Times" obtained hundreds of pages of documents related to Cornell's initial probe into Jane Doe's allegations, including the transcript of Doe's hours-long conversation with campus police. In that conversation, Doe recounted being hit and feeling emotionally coerced into sexual activity while intoxicated. She told investigators -- quote -- "I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped."

But that statement was reportedly left out of the six-page report that was given to the D.A.'s office. Documents suggest Jane Doe struggled to understand what happened to her, talking with friends and roommates before she began to consider herself a victim. According to Jane Doe's attorney, she went from denial to shame and ultimately acceptance that she had been raped by people that she thought were her friends. Her reactions were a textbook reaction to trauma.

CNN has learned that Snapchat messages exchanged during the alleged assault include a photo of Jane Doe in a room at the frat house. And tonight, the frustration with Cornell's handling of the case was on full display on campus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I was devastated by what happened to Jane Doe two years ago when I was a freshman, and I'm a junior now and I cried about it then, and I am still equally devastated and pained about it now, and

I am terribly disappointed in our university. We stand with every woman who does not feel protected by her institutions, and most importantly, we stand with Jane Doe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor and former D.A. for Westchester County in New York. Mimi, you've heard the news. Governor Hochul tonight appointing the state attorney general, Tish James, as the special prosecutor in this matter. Is that the right call?

MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: Absolutely, Laura. I applaud the governor for doing this. She has the power under statute to do this by executive order, to appoint the attorney general to take over the case.

And it was really -- it became clear over the past 48 hours, at least, that this was really absolutely essential. If anyone, whether we're talking about the victim here, the people who are accused or could be accused of crimes, and the American public who has taken a great interest in this case for very good reason, you know, for us to have -- for all of us to have faith in a full and fair investigation being done.

And the reason I say that, and I don't say that lightly, I initially really wanted to just applaud this D.A. for reopening the case. That's a hard thing to do. All prosecutors at some point, as you know, probably have to say, hey, I may have made a mistake here, let me take another look at something. And if he had just done that, I think we would maybe be in a different place now. But he didn't just do that.

[23:25:00]

He clearly got very defensive on this network and elsewhere to try to explain why he had done what he did back in 2023, which was not bring charges, not go to a grand jury based on absolutely no investigation except for a statement. And in doing that, in trying to defend himself, he ended up, you know, just really talking about the case and the facts of the case and the victim in ways that made it really impossible for him to be the one to preside over this investigation and for anyone to have faith in confidence in the outcome.

I mean, can you imagine if he had charged defendants here? If you were one of the defense lawyers for those accused who got charged with a crime, you would say, well, of course, he charged a crime here. He had to save his reputation or if he didn't end up charging a crime, Jane Doe would say, well, yes, he couldn't charge a crime because that would mean admitting that he made a mistake before. So, there was no way for him to come out of this with people trusting his decision. So, I think it's absolutely the right call.

COATES: Equal parts optics and condemnation. Jane Doe's attorney says that he sees evidence of a woman struggling to come to terms with what happened to her. Do you see that the same way or do you see some of the inconsistencies that the D.A. pointed out publicly or tried to identify short of the information that he did not have available to him as factored into a decision under the law?

ROCAH: I think it absolutely could be both. And the point is, I mean, we know with a hundred percent uncertainty, I know this from my own experience as a prosecutor, frankly, people know it from common sense, that when someone experiences trauma, they don't have a linear story to tell right away. It's going to make sense. That story may change over time, et cetera. I think everyone kind of gets that concept.

And so, the question is, as an investigator, your job is to figure out whether the inconsistencies in the story, I mean, inherent in the original story, right? There were things that were contradictory. That doesn't mean there's no case to bring. It doesn't mean there is a case to bring. But your job as the D.A. is to figure that out.

COATES: Well, hold on, Mimi. On that point, I don't want to cut you off, but there are two moments that he said that, I think, are very intriguing to people. One, he said it would be unethical for him to continue or to try to investigate or try to direct an investigation, given the written statement. The other point he made was that the law precluded him from acting at all. Are either true?

ROCAH: I strongly disagree with both of those statements. I think that -- I don't understand what he means by unethical to direct an investigation. It was his obligation, I think, to follow up both with her and say, hey, we have this statement, we have a lot of questions, to go to Cornell and say, do you have any other information? We'd like to talk to other witnesses. We'd like to see cell phone evidence. All of the cell phones involved, not just one. I mean, there were so many different avenues for investigation, even if he, for some reason, felt like he shouldn't talk to her again, though.

Again, I cannot imagine making decision whether to charge or not charge without having followed up with her. But there are plenty of other avenues of investigation. As far as I can tell, they didn't try to talk to other witnesses, et cetera, potential witnesses.

COATES: Right.

ROCAH: On the second part about the law being a barrier, it's very confusing. And, you know, short of a whole law course here, the intoxication loophole, as it's called, makes it harder to prove lack of consent in a case like this because it doesn't say, as a matter of law, you are not able to consent --

COATES: Right.

ROCAH: -- if you yourself decided to ingest the substances. It doesn't mean you can't prove consent, though. It is not a bar to a prosecution. It is a bar to a certain type of evidence of lack of consent, is the way I would say it. And to use that as an excuse, frankly, to say there's no investigation to do here, is a huge oversimplification.

COATES: Well, we'll see what the investigation now reveals and decisions that might be made. Mimi Rocah, thank you so much.

What do President Trump and President Nixon have in common? Well, both their supporters think they were targeted by the -- quote -- "deep state." And now, the Justice Department is being asked to actually help clear Nixon's name.

[23:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RILEY MOORE (R), WEST VIRGINIA: People are coming now to the truth, and that truth being that Richard Nixon was absolutely cooed out of office and was framed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's one of the most infamous scandals in modern American history and the one that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon. But are we seriously about to relitigate Watergate more than 50 years later? Well, tonight, "The Wall Street Journal" reports that the Justice Department is reviewing whether Nixon was mistreated by the special prosecutor's office that investigated Watergate.

[23:35:04]

The journal says this comes after a former Nixon aide, who's now a Watergate historian and revisionist, gave a presentation at DOJ where he laid out his theory that the so-called deep state took down Nixon. Sources told the journal the review is preliminary. And a DOJ spokeswoman says -- quote -- "that presentation does not constitute an investigation." But Republicans have recently started to embrace Nixon's legacy as a kind of early counterpart to President Trump. Here was Vice President J.D. Vance just a few months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration. There is a parallel.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, CNN presidential Historian Tim Naftali. He previously was the director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. Also here, executive editor of the Washington Examiner magazine, Jim Antle. Glad to have both of you here. I'm going to begin with you, Tim, because I got to know, are you surprised by this effort to review whether the Watergate investigation was weaponized?

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I'm not surprised by efforts to make Richard Nixon and Donald Trump both seem to be victims of a -- quote, unquote -- "deep state." This particular approach to explaining malfeasance in office has been used by Nixon apologists for some time. And I'm not surprised that Vice President Vance uses the same terms. What would surprise me is if Vice President Vance actually believed what he was saying.

Let's make clear the basis for this argument that the deep state took down President Nixon. President Nixon asked the FBI to do things. The FBI felt it could not do in the United States. So, he created, and we know this from the tapes, the plumbers, who then broke into the psychiatrists of an American activist to smear him, the CIA.

The president wanted to assist the cover up after the Watergate break in. The CIA didn't want to do it. In fact, the president wanted the CIA to go to the FBI and say, stop investigating the money that you found on the burglars in the Watergate Hotel because, actually, the burglars were involved in a CIA operation. They weren't. The CIA knew they weren't. The president wanted to take advantage of the fact the CIA could tell the FBI to back off of CIA operatives.

So, the president was unhappy with his intelligence service because it said no to him when he asked the service to do unconstitutional things. To my mind, that's not some kind of deep state. That's law- abiding civil servants who remember that their oath of office is to the Constitution, not to any particular president.

COATES: Let me bring you in here, Jim, because there is this new trend among Gen Z called 'Nixonmaxxing,' OK?

JIM ANTLE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON EXAMINER MAGAZINE: Yes. COATES: They transform Nixon into an icon. They -- in a whole aesthetic, apparently. The Nixon Museum is selling 'Nixonmaxxing' hats and totes that say "pretty girls for Nixon," just to name a few. And we're also seeing edits like this on social media. Look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIXON: Let me say this. I don't believe that I ought to quit because I'm not a quitter.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So far, as I am concerned, he is not only completely vindicated --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do you think is behind this new move to sort of recast Nixon in this light?

ANTLE: Well, there are a lot of things. One is that Gen Z conservatives view Ronald Reagan as an old person's conservative. He is your father's Republican president. He is your grandfather's Republican president. So, they are looking even deeper into the past for a political leader who they weren't alive for. They weren't even alive in his retirement years when Richard Nixon was actually starting to be rehabilitated somewhat politically toward the end of his life. So, there's that.

There's also just, I think, the idea that Nixon was more willing to use raw political power. And I think the new right, what we're calling the new right, it's really the new new right, they like the Republican government to use the political power it gets and not necessarily be such a limited government thing.

[23:40:05]

And three, Nixon's conservatism, such as it was, was more cultural. It was indeed more of an aesthetic. And Nixon did originally attract a lot of blue-collar conservatives into the Republican Party. So, in those ways that, maybe in their minds, makes him much more of a model for Donald Trump than perhaps Ronald Reagan.

COATES: That's interesting, to think about that. And conservatives of today benefit how?

ANTLE: Well, I think, one, is you're trying to tell a story that you're connecting the present to the past, right? And so, the fight with the deep state, they want to make the case that elected presidents and particularly elected Republican presidents have always been being persecuted by this unelected deep state. So, they connect Donald Trump and Richard Nixon in that way.

And I think they want to tell a story about the silent majority, and they want to tell a story about working class conservatives and how the Republican Party grew. The Nixon new majority was actually able to win 49 out of 50 states. Donald Trump has never been able to do that.

COATES: Indeed. Tim, J.D. Vance recently suggested that Watergate would be received very differently if it happened today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: As I joked with Robert backstage, if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you agree?

NAFTALI: Well, what I -- what I agree with is that we have a president who says out loud what Richard Nixon knew he couldn't say out loud. And he said privately, Richard Nixon had an enemy's list. He instructed his advisers to create such a list. He also wanted it kept secret. He used the IRS or tried to use the IRS against his enemies. Good government Republicans said no to him, and it didn't happen. Donald Trump has been very straightforward about his willingness to use federal power to go after his enemies and to seek vengeance.

American political culture today is quite different from the way it was in the 70s. In the 1970s, Republicans and Democrats alike said, no, the federal government shouldn't do that, that's not the United States. Now, it's acceptable. So, in that way, in that instance, in that example, the vice president is right, but that's a sad commentary on our current political culture.

COATES: Acceptable to some. Tim and Jim, thank you both so much.

ANTLE: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, the family of Renee Good taking new legal action against the administration with a lawsuit that cites the KKK. Could it work? The former acting director of ICE, John Sandweg, is with me tonight, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECCA GOOD, PARTNER OF RENEE GOOD: I don't hate the people who took Renee from us. But what I want them to understand is every single day they get to look at their children and their wives and their sisters and know what they took from our family. They took a mother away from her children. They know that, and they will carry it forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's Becca Good, the partner of Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent 10 months ago. Becca Good speaking out for the first time as she and the rest of Renee's family filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration. Good was shot and killed after a confrontation with ICE agents in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge while she was driving.

Graphic cell phone video captured the moments leading up to the shooting. It was captured by the ICE officer who shot and killed Renee Good, Jonathan Ross. DHS has maintained Ross fired in self-defense. So far, no one has been charged. And tonight, the White House calls the lawsuits from the Good family baseless.

I want to bring an attorney and former acting director of ICE, John Sandweg. John, talk to me about the legal strategy behind filing these two lawsuits. There are hurdles in their path.

JOHN SANDWEG, ATTORNEY, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF ICE: Yes. I think there are two different lawsuits. I think the first one is about money, to be honest. The Federal Tort Claims Act is the traditional path by which you go after federal law enforcement. This would not give you a jury trial. It would be a bench trial. But this is where you establish liability that with the officers, the use of force in this case was unreasonable. But I think the second --

COATES: And the money would be going towards trying to make someone whole, right? Not a money grab. Go ahead.

SANDWEG: It would be based on like a wrongful death, essentially --

COATES: Right.

SANDWEG: -- is what the claim is. But the second lawsuit, I think, is about accountability, right? And let's be real. The architects of this disastrous plan, the surge in the Minneapolis were Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, the named defendants in that particular lawsuit. The challenge is it's very difficult under federal law to hold policymakers accountable. You can sue for wrongful death. You can sue for negligence in terms of how you carry out your duty. So, you can sue the officers, but it's very difficult to sue the policymakers behind that.

So, what the plaintiffs did here was they tried to craft a unique -- somewhat unique theory using these traditional, these old KKK laws or kind of post-Civil War civil rights laws to argue that it's a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the people of Minnesota, and that Renee Good is a victim of that conspiracy.

COATES: In fact, her family spoke out about when the family's lawyers explained why they're using that very statute. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN BERKMAN, ATTORNEY FOR RENEE GOOD'S FAMILY: Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 because masked men were going in disguise on the highway to terrorize their neighbors on account of their race. A 155 years later, armed men went in disguise on Portland Avenue. They went as part of a campaign to terrorize people based on the way they looked.

[23:50:00]

And now, Renee Good is dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you think this statute will hold weight in court?

SANDWEG: I think it's going to be difficult, right? First of all, to prove liability under the statute, you have to show a conspiracy to violate civil rights. It's going to be incredibly difficult to get discovery, right, in which you establish that there was a racial animus here, that, you know, this wasn't just a political demonstration but rather something designed to persecute. I think, in this case, they alleged the Somali community primarily.

COATES: Hold on. Is it difficult to get discovery because they'll be stonewalled or difficult to be able to be entitled to discovery?

SANDWEG: Stonewalled. And I think, too, there's some standing issues here, Laura. And I think that this certainly of the two different lawsuits. The second one, you know, is -- although it sends that political message and seeks to hold the real policymakers who crafted this policy accountable, it is certainly the much more difficult one for them to prevail on as compared to the FTCA claim.

COATES: Well, we'll see. They're pushing this forward and seeing if it's going to be viable. And meanwhile, CNN is learning that ICE is revising who can make traffic stops and when. And only agents who have completed one of six agency training courses can now do traffic stops. Agents who haven't can only provide support. And ICE agents that cannot take part in chases, they got to wear and activate body cameras.

OK, these are all things that are happening, for example, after the death of this particular person. Are these changes too little too late? How will it be viewed as post remedial measures in, say, a civil litigation?

SANDWEG: Yes, certainly long overdue, Laura. Look, there have been over 20 shootings involving traffic stops.

COATES: Yes.

SANDWEG: That's a byproduct that this is not what ICE agents do. And one of the big failings of this entire Metro surge Minneapolis operation is we took agents and we put them out of position. We asked them to do things. They were inconsistent with their training, inconsistent with their experiences, right?

ICE agents, especially over the last 10 years with this border crisis, do not engage in traffic stops with any regularity, do not encounter the public, do not have dealings with people like Ms. Good with any accountability. We saw these Border Patrol agents running around the streets thousands of miles from the border outside of their tactical operating environment. When you do that, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

That's -- frankly, I think that's why the second lawsuit, the lawsuit alleging you're going after the architects of this policy, is so appropriate because, ultimately, they're the ones who bear responsibility for all the chaos and all the violence we saw in Minneapolis because they put these officers in a position that endangered the officers, the public, and the subjects of their arrests.

COATES: But the officer that -- if they believe that officer went rogue or acted outside of his stated duties, would that not help their case?

SANDWEG: It's -- well, it's an odd way to the extent that, you know, could potentially protect the government, if the officer was acting outside responsibilities.

But again, as you know, we saw immediately after the shooting, a rush to judgment, a rush to defend the officers. I think the administration has always seen this case and all those cases in Minneapolis, that any criticism of what happened there, really, they kind of look at as criticism of the, you know, the operation itself and, frankly, the entire immigration enforcement agenda that we're seeing.

COATES: John Sandweg, thank you. We will continue to follow this lawsuit.

Still ahead, two lethal injections failed to kill a 50-year-old death row inmate in Tennessee. I've gotten some legal questions on what could happen next. I'll answer them. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, I've gotten a lot of questions about Christa Pike, so I want to talk with all of you about it. So, Pike was set to be executed in Tennessee yesterday by lethal injection. She would have been the first woman to be executed in that state in 200 years. Now, for unknown reasons, she survived two lethal doses. And according to her lawyers, is now in critical condition, receiving lifesaving care. This is actually the second failed attempt of a Tennessee death row inmate this year.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, who declined to commute her sentence to life in prison, is now suspending state executions pending an independent third-party review of the method.

So, how did we get here? Well, in 1996, Christa Pike was convicted of torturing and murdering a 19-year-old classmate, Colleen Slemmer, and an attack that was carried out with her boyfriend and another friend. And the details are heinous. They lured Colleen into a wooded area, attacked her with a large piece of asphalt, slashed her with box cutters, carved a pentagram into her chest, and removed a piece of her skull.

Now, Pike was the only one sentenced to death. Her boyfriend was 17 and ineligible for capital punishment at the time, but was instead sentenced to life in prison. The friend who was a lookout was sentenced to probation for accessory after the fact.

Christa Pike admits to the crime, but her lawyers argue that the trial jury did not hear sufficient evidence of her history as a child sex abuse victim and neglect or her later diagnoses of bipolar disorder and PTSD.

Now, frankly, it's unclear whether any of these factors would have persuaded the jury's findings for two reasons. First, although in recent cases, yes, courts have been more willing to allow evidence of a victim's abuse of the defendant when raised as a claim by the defendant of self-defense, here, Colleen Slemmer was not the person who abused or neglected Pike and self-defense was not an issue.

Second, it's unclear whether Pike's post-assault diagnosis would have impacted the jury's assessment of her state of mind at the time of the attack.

So, now, what? Well, Tennessee can now make another attempt to carry out the execution, even though her legal team believes it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment to administer a lethal injection again, given the past unsuccessful and, they say, painful attempts.

[23:59:57]

But there is Supreme Court precedent to suggest they, in fact, can carry out her execution, although the ineffectiveness of the injection may simply lead to the consideration of other deadly methods that would eliminate the possibility of a protracted or bungled death. What is now clear -- is not clear is when they could possibly try again.

Remember, you can stream my show live or watch on-demand any time with an "All Access" subscription. Just scan that Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.

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