Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Makes Key Reversals As GOP Fights To Hold Red Territory; CNN Provides Cornell Investigation Updates; Russia Plague Lab Worker Dies Of "Unknown" Infection. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 05, 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]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: We have the blockade on because we are pressuring them economically right now. Look at what's happening to their currency. It's literally worthless. They can't even pay their teachers and nurses. Their economy is collapsing right now. The entire Middle East is aligned against them.
NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: We're all suffering. We're suffering. Scott is happy.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The last bit of your input. A viewer writes, Cornell West is such a blessing. Amen. Who would disagree?
CORNEL WEST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, AUTHOR, DIETRICH BONHOEFFER CHAIRMAN, PROFESSOR AT UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Well, I'm just a crack vessel trying to love my crooked neighbor with my crooked heart.
HONIG: Before we go, everyone, you can stream the show live or watch on demand anytime with an all-access subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
Thank you for tuning in to "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump hits Nebraska on his red state tour as he changes his tune on not one but two of his previous positions. Plus, outrage at Cornell. Protesters demanding action. And now, the new prosecutor in charge, Tish James, is facing questions of her own. The attorney for one of the Cornell students accused of rape will join me tonight. And later, is Russia concealing an outbreak of the pneumonic plague? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, President Trump is entering the fourth quarter of his midterm campaign, and his team is on defense scrambling to cover some gaping holes. Tonight, he's campaigning in Nebraska. Vice President J.D. Vance is in Alaska. They're the latest stops on a very red road trip. In the last five days, they've campaigned in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, and Ohio. Every one, a state that Trump won in 2024.
That's a lot of time on your side of the field, which is 29 days until the midterms, right? And when you don't like what you see, what do you do? You call an audible. And right now, Trump is changing the plays which, frankly, is a pretty big tell because this is a president who doesn't like to give an inch. Take mail-in voting, something I need to tell you, he has repeatedly attacked as fraudulent without evidence. But now, listen to the audible.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: No more crooked mail-in ballots.
If your state has early voting, do not wait. Go out and vote. Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person on Election Day, November 3rd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And then there's the ads. The controversial ones featuring Trump, paid for by the American taxpayer. But tonight, another audible. The president is changing who's picking up the tab. And he says he will now pay for them with funds from his super PAC.
Now, the reversal shouldn't come as a big surprise when you look at the political backdrop of things. Voters, they say they're frustrated with the cost of living, with the Iran war.
And the president himself is deeply underwater. You can see that frustration in, what, poll after poll after poll like this one, for example. Just 27 percent of Latino voters approved of the president. Remember, this is a group where Trump made huge gains in 2024.
That might be big in a state like Texas where the GOP is trying to save a red Senate seat from flipping blue. And Republican candidate Ken Paxton says, it's like he's calling his own plays. You know, Politico obtained audio from a Paxton fundraiser where he complained that his campaign is being directed from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN PAXTON, TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): But I've never been in a race where I felt less control over the like the campaign and like what issues are going to matter because it's all coming, you know, from D.C. And I don`t control message or what we're doing or -- and I can't -- I have no -- I don`t have ability to change anything. So, I have to live with whatever I've got.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Here to discuss the stakes with nearly four weeks left until Election Day, former senior adviser to the Trump-Vance campaign, Bryan Lanza, former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, CNN political commentators Shermichael Singleton and also Karen Finney. Glad to have all of you here.
I want to start with you, Bryan, on the fact that the president has said --
(LAUGHTER)
Why is everyone laughing already? Hold on a second.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: Because he's so eager to talk --
COATES: Karen is, like, oh-oh.
FINNEY: Oh, he's so eager to talk about it.
COATES: OK. Now, I'm going to turn all my attention to you because you had that smile and Karen has already started. The president says that taxpayers will no longer pay for these controversial promotional ads and said that his super PAC will. Why the reversal? Because there has been all of this for days, if not over a week. Why now?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: It has probably just become a distraction, right? I mean, the context of the ads, you know, are what they are. They paint this positive message of what he feels he has done in the first couple of years.
[23:05:01]
But that has just become a distraction.
COATES: Oh, wait. Tom --
(LAUGHTER)
Oh, the facial expression tonight. Tom, your eyes said no. Please tell me what you're thinking just now.
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Positive message? I mean, look, the ads are illegal. They're corrupt and all of that stuff. I love the ads as a partisan Democrat. They are dark, they are gloomy, they are scary, and they don't say a single thing about the most important issue in this election, and that's the cost of living. So, you know what? I love the fact that he's going to be wasting his campaign money, putting out these weird, scary, dark messages about communism creeping into this country. People want gas prices to come down, for goodness sakes.
COATES: Is that how you see it?
MALINOWSKI: -- more of these ads.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No, it's not. When you look at the data, I mean, this is an interesting -- an interesting phenomenon. MAGA is viewed more positively than the idea of socialism. So, there's a point here, number one. Number two, the president, there was a recent survey that came out by Gallup, I believe, like a couple of weeks ago. We actually talked about it on our network. Harry Enten did a whole five-minute segment on this.
Nevertheless, the president also has to get his base to turn out. We know there's some voter apathy that's set in. There's an enthusiasm gap. So, a lot of the messaging, whether you like it or not, is about turning out that ardent base of supporters that you're going to have to turn out in places like Texas where we've already spent almost $200 million and Talarico still has about a point or two ahead of Paxton within a margin of error.
So, I understand the points that the president is attempting to make. I think the point about early voting is something -- Karen, you and I have talked about this -- I've been saying for months now. We should be encouraging our people to vote by mail, to vote early, the entirety, because why? Our folks are older. They're in rural areas. Our coalition has changed drastically from what it used to be. So, you need those people to maximize --
COATES: Yes.
SINGLETON: -- every voting opportunity that they have.
COATES: That's why it's so interesting that the president has pivoted again on this issue, because all those things were true every time he spoke about mail-in voting as problematic and fraudulent-inducing, fraud-inducing. Why do you think he has pivoted on this particular issue? You know, there is whiplash. He's going back and forth still.
FINNEY: Well, maybe somebody got past Natalie Harp and showed him a real poll and said, dude, is that like -- when we say you're under 30 percent, we're not kidding. That's not actually fake news. You can go say it is fake news, but it's for real, for real. I mean, that's what it felt like because these are two big reversals. It's interesting.
Speaking of data, earlier tonight, Kristen Soltis Anderson, one of our colleagues here at CNN, was talking about recent focus groups that she did where one of the things that former Trump voters were saying, they were so angry about, was that he does not talk about them, that it seems to be all about him. So, I'm with Tom. Please, roll out your ads that say nothing about the people, that say nothing about the pain, that don't even talk about the few teeny, tiny, little things. Maybe I would consider giving you credit for having done. They're all about him. And actually, they -- all from these focus groups talked about how frustrated they are, that it feels like it's all about him and it's all about aggrandizing him.
So, if his team thinks that that's a good message -- apparently, over the weekend, one of the things he said, it's like, I know more about everything than anyone ever anywhere. I mean, is that your campaign? It's the golden age of America. That's his message on the campaign trail. Go ahead. Do it.
COATES: Well, that's what's interesting about what we're hearing about Ken Paxton because you just heard Ken Paxton caught in another leaked audio where he is alleging his campaign is controlled by Washington, D.C., which, you know, inside the Beltway, is not necessarily viewed favorably outside the Beltway as being the most in touch with what's going on.
And those in the room say that Paxton did not -- did not explicitly say that the Trump team was that was guiding it, but that they knew who he was talking about. They implied that. Do you think that, in fact, is the Trump team that's guiding him or Republicans were brought beyond the hill with a hand on the scale for Paxton?
LANZA: Well, let me deliver this message to all candidates, Democratic candidates and Republican candidates.
(LAUGHTER)
You want to have control of your campaign? You raise the money. If you want to have other people have control of your campaign, defer the fundraising to Washington, D.C., and we will absolutely take control of your campaign in Washington, D.C.
So, I think this is a message and a cautionary tale to any candidate who's running. Ken Paxton is just the latest example. We have this example every cycle where somebody has enough money, the national committees come in, they have their priorities, they think they have their winning formulas and candidates have to eat it. This is what happens when candidates don't raise money. This is the challenge that Paxton has.
COATES: But wait, before you continue, though, what about the fact that there's this new pro-Paxton ad that features his estranged wife? I mean, it's State Senator Angela Paxton. She says this. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ANGELA PAXTON (R), TEXAS: People have asked my thoughts about this election, and it turns out I have some. Let's talk about the elephant in the room. In a general election, it's not as much about the individual players on the team. It's about getting the whole team across the finish line. Either we hold every Republican seat or we hand the future of Texas to the other team. (END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:10:02]
COATES: What do you think about that?
MALINOWSKI: So, her argument is don't mind the fact that our candidate is a crook and a cheat and somebody who betrayed you vote for the team. The problem is the team chose this guy. The team had a normal, competent, conservative incumbent senator from Texas, right? The team got rid of that normal senator because he was considered slightly disloyal to Trump, and they chose this guy who everybody hates.
So, that argument isn't going to work because the team is the problem in Texas, the team is the problem in the country, the team is Trump, and I think that's why we're going to win Texas.
COATES: How does money come into this? I want you all to -- because Democrats are facing headwinds. You know, they've got the financial kind of headwinds. I mean, the RNC alone. Look at this cash advantage that is there for them right now, 125.6 versus 16.9. I mean, it's after 11 p.m. at night, but the math ain't mathing in favor of Democrats.
So, how big of a disadvantage is this for Democrats? But also, can you look at that number alone and say, this is a good thing and a surefire thing for Republicans? I think neither is true.
FINNEY: Agreed. Look, any Democratic donor, get a checkbook. What are you waiting for?
COATES: It's too late. It's 29 days in.
FINNEY: No, no. Absolutely not. There's still plenty of time to do plenty of work. One of the things, though, that I will say, you know, there's a lot of fury at our donors who are -- if you're sitting on the sideline, I don't know what you're waiting for because the work is being done. The polls are there. The candidates are excellent. They're doing the work. But more important, I wish our party leaders were delivering that message a little more forcefully. Maybe they are privately.
But, look, the other thing that we're doing that I think is important, it goes to something Tom was saying, in terms of a message, in terms of our candidates, our candidates have done an excellent job of keeping the focus on these races, on the people that they want to serve.
Republicans are in a desperate crouch where they're trying to make it about -- Ken Paxson is trying to make it about Talarico and trying to be like, hey, even my ex-wife, who I've cheated on, says she should vote for me, but she won't say my name. You've noticed in that ad, she did not say his name.
COATES: Right. FINNEY: If that's, like, the best you got, you're in Texas, you're in trouble. And if you've got Trump going all these red states and the fact that he flipped on these two things, they're in trouble, and they know it.
COATES: Two quick points. The president just signed an executive order seeking to try to bring down high diesel costs. I wonder if that, first of all, is too little too late. But also, I pointed out earlier that Latino voters, who helped propel the president back into the White House in 2024, they prefer to see Democrats take control of Congress. And that margin, by the way, has doubled since 2024. The president is dismissing this poll, but should he? What do you think?
SINGLETON: I mean, look, I think it's important. I talked about this earlier on Jake's show. If you look at the cross tabs, what it suggests is that still about one in -- three out of 10 Hispanics still support Republicans.
It's probably too late to recover that between now and this midterm, but I think going forward into 2028, there's still some hope to turn this ship around. I think it's a critical voting bloc. I think they're very swingy voters. They've gone Democrat, Republican, back to Democrat. There's an opportunity to regain some of that trust, I believe.
But as it pertains to Texas, I think that the money does matter, Laura. If you were to look at this race two months ago, many Democrats would have probably said, oh my God, we have an actual chance to really win this thing by maybe five points. Whereas we have spent $175 plus million. We've shrunk that gap to just a two-point advantage between Paxton and Talarico.
Now, look, Ken Paxton is certainly not my type of conservative because of his ethical and moral failings. Nevertheless, the money has absolutely made a difference. In Texas, you can't wait. I'm from Texas. You can't wait 40 days and say, let's dump a bunch of money for Democrats and it's going to help us.
A lot of voters vote early in the state. It's a large state. And so, I think there are some fundamentals there that will ultimately benefit Paxton more than -- likely more than Talarico, I would argue.
COATES: And I just want to quickly say, with 29 days, here's what we're continuing to watch, the president's social feed. Rally crowd sizes, posting Senator Tom Cotton's phone number over a daylight savings bill, complaining "The New York Times" intentionally published a picture of the exterior of his Miami resort that made it look bad. You know, just 29 days to go. I'll leave it out there.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you, everyone. Still ahead, Cornell students demanding action over the alleged gang rape as new questions surface about the investigation and about the new prosecutor who is now in charge, Letitia James. The attorney for one of the men accused will join me, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The pressure is ramping up against Cornell University's president over his handling of the alleged gang rape at a frat house. CNN has learned the university's faculty is preparing to introduce a vote of no confidence against Michael Kotlikoff. He was the interim president in 2024 when the alleged rape happened. And over the weekend, he released his first statement acknowledging the frustration surrounding Cornell's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL KOTLIKOFF, PRESIDENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: There are real legal and privacy limits on what we can say, but we will make a greater effort to explain what we can, to provide context about the actions Cornell has taken, and to be more transparent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Today, hundreds of students protested on campus, many calling for Kotlikoff to step down. And tonight, we have new details about the case. CNN has learned that Cornell University's police department drafted letters to obtain phone records to investigate the alleged assault about a week after it happened. But it's not clear if those letters ever made it to Verizon and T-Mobile.
And ABC News has released audio of a phone call Jane Doe secretly recorded between herself and a student she says took part.
[23:20:00]
She asks if he can help her identify the men at the Chi Phi house that night. And here's how that student responds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): I have racked my brain for this mystery. You know, it's possible that both of us, like, remember this, and it's not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Again, no one has been charged in this case. New York Attorney General Letitia James is now investigating this case as a special prosecutor.
And I'm joined by the attorney for one of the former students named in the lawsuit. With us now, Jeremy Saland. Jeremy, thank you so much for being with me this evening. We've talked about a number of cases over the years. But on this one in particular, you are calling for Letitia James to recuse herself, saying that you think she cannot run a neutral investigation. She didn't say specifically that your client raped Jane Doe, but she called the case horrific and unacceptable and that she would investigate fully and fairly. So, what would be the grounds for her recusal here?
JEREMY SALAND, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER CORNELL STUDENT NAMED IN LAWSUIT: So, let's not get ahead of our skis. I have not actually called for that, but I am concerned about her ability --
COATES: Why?
SALAND: -- to objectively analyze the case. There was post by her basically stating in substance that condemning or identifying these young men as people who perpetrated this crime -- almost as a statement of fact.
I'm not representing all of them. I'm representing one of them. He's the gentleman that I'm concerned, who is not, in fact, alleged to have been in the room with any sex acts, not alleged to actually even have raped her. That's not even an accusation against him.
But what we want law enforcement to do is make sure that they're impartial and unbiased. There's a concern if you're already accepting a narrative as true and posting that on social media, you shouldn't do that as a chief law enforcement officer. Fairness matters. Unbiased matters. And let the facts follow through. We find them. This woman is entitled to a thorough investigation. Don't judge it when you have not even looked at the evidence yet and have a stitch of it. You just mentioned moments ago, Laura, about this phone call. That's not my client. It has nothing to do with that.
But there's also text messages where this young woman has, before that, that predate that she says quite the opposite, that she wants to get the rats who told about this, and if anyone says anything wrong, she's going to beat them up, and then in substance that, you know, this is the new way of sex.
So, there's a lot of things that are out there that are conflicting. And I just think that people need a pause, put down the pitchforks of prejudgment, and let the law enforcement do their job. Unfortunately, I don't think Attorney General James started on the right foot, and that's just concerning if you believe in the rule of law.
COATES: And I do. And obviously, due process, very important in a nation when we talk about presumption of innocence. This is a civil matter as it stands right now. She would look at it from a criminal perspective, which is a very different burden. Of course, what's at stake would be quite different.
But I take you at the distinctions and the real need not to try to conflate all the information at once. But your client was in the group chat with the other frat members, I understand it, who are suspected of actually being involved. He allegedly wrote in the chat -- quote -- "the alumni (expletive) is not a bit. Firsthand pov not a bit." Do you want to explain why he sent that message?
SALAND: Right, he did explain that as he was going into the room, that someone was there coming out or in the immediate area and advised him what was going on. You know, listen, my client has taken ownership for pretty ugly, disgusting, not reprehensible, we can call it, too, chats that are inappropriate. But that does not make one a rapist. And we know that because he's not accused of being a rapist.
And that does not make someone complicit because there are more facts that the public has not learned yet. For example, he very specifically says he went and checked to see if she was OK, and asked her if she was OK at some point. And in his response, he says in substance, I wish one of my friends (ph), if she was not OK, if she really was being victimized at some point, that I wish I would have noticed that. But there's a lot that --
COATES: Did he check -- just so I'm clear, did he -- I want to hear your response, but did he check on her before or after the Snapchat? Give me the chronology here.
SALAND: The snaps, to my recollection, were first, and then he goes into the room. And I think he says away from the keyboard for one of his roommates. But he goes into the room. And there's a message from her to another person involved in this where she thanks him for making sure she was OK and checking on her. In substance. These are my words now. I have the text in front of me.
So, my point of is, you're a former prosecutor, the rule of law matters. There's a lot of things that are incredibly inconsistent. Even presenting this audio recording of this other young man, personally, but just in general, you're only hearing his voice and his words.
[23:25:01]
What about what she said before and after? There's a sort of completeness. So, I just ask that people -- you know, we, you know, Laura, have made effort to reach out to the court and file to say, let her stay anonymous. We're not looking to expose her. We're not looking to cause her more problems. People are being harassed and doxed. And there's so much information coming out that are accurate and inaccurate from different sides.
Let's let the rule of law go, let's listen to the facts, and then we can have judgment. And hopefully, this change. We'll do the right thing, and do this unbiased.
COATES: I want to talk about Cornell's findings because Cornell did find your client was responsible for attempted sexual exploitation of Jane Doe and imposed a no contact order between him and her along with writing a reflection paper. Square that with people's impression of Cornell's investigative finding, it seems, and his statement that he did not do anything wrong.
SALAND: So, you know, unfortunately, and this is wrong for this particular interaction here, I would argue. And I think it's borne out in the actual language of what happened in this hearing. In fact, we're in court challenging the findings of this hearing that this was biased from the beginning. In fact, during the proceeding, one of the individuals, who was a panel member, was routinely doing other work. I could see it in the reflection in the glasses. I mean, multiple efforts to make a record to say this needs to stop. You can't just condemn these young men without paying attention.
At one point, one of the hearing panel members was driving a car for 45 minutes during critical defensive testimony, and I said, this has to stop, this isn't fair, and the proceedings still went on.
So, you know, there's more here than what you realize, meaning he was found not responsible for any sexual assault, he was found not responsible for seeing her naked, and they found him responsible for an offense he wasn't even charged with, for attempting to see her naked against her will as opposed to just see her naked.
This was, you know, something that we believe is wrong. In his mitigation paper, he maintained his innocence, and he said, if I did not understand and recognize if, in fact, she really was in trouble, which I don't know if that's the case in the courts or whatever, maybe we'll bear that out, but I wish I would have noticed it. So, you know, I stand by what I've said about him. He's not responsible. He's not guilty. He's innocent. And I'm sorry that I'm rambling and going on with you, Laura.
But one thing I'd like to add, there has been a very reckless means by which this has been reported. When you call these people the Cornell Seven and they've been accused of rape, my client was never accused of rape. My client was never accused of anything along those lines. And I think part of that, when the plaintiff's attorney filed this complaint, it started off reflecting that they were all rapists, but if you look down in the actual allegations, he's not accused of doing any of that.
So, I would just say, pause, put down those pitchforks. You're a former prosecutor. Let's listen to the evidence, then we'll make judgment, and let the courts, if it gets there, do the same.
COATES: I agree, which is why I have a pen, not a pitchfork in my hand. I've never referred to them as the Cornell Seven. But your point is taken for those who may have chosen to do so in violation of due process. But, obviously, not myself. But Jane Doe did speak to some frat members weeks after the alleged assault. Did your client talk to Jane Doe after that incident?
SALAND: My client, well, again, he wasn't involved in any incident.
COATES: Right. Did he talk to her afterwards or even prior to her filing of this lawsuit? And if so, what has been the nature of their communication and reaction -- interaction?
SALAND: Yes. I don't believe so. I have no recollection of that. I don't think they had any relationship whatsoever. And, in fact, while the gentlemen were in the same fraternity, these young men, I believe that the individuals who were accused of the rape and the sexual allegations were in a class below or were friendly. My client was not part of that friend group directly.
But, you know, again, I think there was no interaction before or afterwards though, obviously, there has been interactions with her, Jane Doe, and some of the other parties.
COATES: And really quickly, when you said he went to go check on her, is that the moment in time where he was accused of attempting to see her naked against her will? Is that what you're suggesting?
SALAND: I'm not suggesting anything. I believe, if I recall correctly, I don't think they specify a time. They just say that when he went into the room or at some point, he attempted to see her naked. I don't believe they specified a time of it. Understand that Title IX is not a court, as you know.
COATES: Correct.
SALAND: It's not a court of law. You're dealing with people who are not trained professionals. Hearsay doesn't exist. You know, the rate of confrontation is really minimal at most. So, not an easy process.
COATES: For anyone. Jeremy Saland, thank you for joining me tonight.
SALAND: My pleasure.
[23:30:00]
COATES: Still ahead, we have a very unsettling question. Is Russia dealing with a mystery outbreak of the pneumonic plague? You heard me. If they are, what should the U.S. be doing right now? We'll ask the former director of the White House Office of Pandemic Response, next. Plus, it was the Time magazine article that gave Trump the record for covers. But did it also just sink his press ban? We got the new legal filing just out tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's three words no one wants to hear together. The plague quarantine Russia.
[23:35:00]
That's four words. They got the plague quarantine Russia. You get my point. That's why, tonight, an incident in Siberia is raising all sorts of questions. Russian authorities have quarantined dozens of people after a 28-year-old lab researcher fell ill and died from a pneumonia of unknown origin. She worked at a plague research institute in Siberia. Local authorities say they have not found any evidence her illness is linked to her job. Several people who had contact with the lab technician have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and rhinovirus, the common cold.
Today, President Trump said he is concerned about it and said the U.S. will offer any help to Russia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a rough disease. You know, that's a disease that we used to be able to control. But somehow, those microbes have gotten stronger and smarter. They're like an army. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now to break down the medical and national security implications, retired Air Force major general, Dr. Paul Friedrichs. He led the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy.
General, thank you for being here. People hear the word pneumonic plague. They hear one death. They hear dozens quarantined. That could trigger a lot of panic. Level set this for me. How concerned should the public actually be?
MAJ. GEN. PAUL FRIEDRICHS, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY AND BIODEFENSE: So, I think that you framed it exactly, rightly in asking that question. I don't think the public should be very concerned right now. This is a lab that has focused on this type of research since 1935. It's tragic that this lab worker has passed away. It's also really unfortunate that the Russian government has not been more transparent in sharing information about this outbreak. And we've heard conflicting reports about what exactly happened.
I think, right now, the most important thing everybody needs to do is to pressure the Russian government to tell us exactly what happened. What was she doing? What was she working on? When did she become ill? Did they treat her with antibiotics before she passed away? I mean, there's a lot of basic information that still needs to be provided so that we can understand what we're dealing with.
COATES: Is that -- is that a pipe dream, that pressure on Russia would reveal that transparency?
FRIEDRICHS: I hope not. I mean, President Trump and President Putin seem to have a pretty good relationship there. And, you know, as President Trump has said -- he has talked about his very good relationship with President Putin.
This is a great opportunity for President Putin to show what that relationship is like and help alleviate some of the concerns that this mixed messaging has created because plague is bad. You're exactly right. Plague is not something that anyone wants to get. But plague is also treatable. We have antibiotics that should be able to treat people who have been infected with the plague.
Something about this doesn't quite add up, and we need to understand that better.
COATES: What about it to you gives you some level of skepticism?
FRIEDRICHS: Well, the fact that we can't get the same story twice is the first thing. You know, this is one of the things that we encounter frequently when there's an outbreak. The first reporting is almost always wrong because it's the very first bits of information. People put two and two together and come up with five, which is why we need to keep collecting information. And I think that, you know, one of the things Russia could do that would alleviate a lot of concerns is to invite the World Health Organization or the European Union or doctors from our CDC to go to Russia and actually get the facts and corroborate what has been level set on what we know to be a fact, like this lab has done this kind of research for nearly a hundred years --
COATES: Right.
FRIEDRICHS: -- and what we don't yet know and what we're doing to find the answers to that.
COATES: Here's Dr. Ashish Jha who is, as you know, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, warns, saying -- quote -- "The number of labs working on dangerous pathogens is growing worldwide. That means incidents like this will happen more often in the months and years ahead." You also mentioned the risk of A.I. being used as well. Do you agree that these incidents might become the new normal?
FRIEDRICHS: Well, I don't think they're going to become the new normal. But I agree with Dr. Jha. And this is the point that we made when I was in the White House also, that after COVID, many nations discovered they did not have a lab that could do research into really worrisome pathogens. That research can be very important for their public health system. So, they're building these labs. That's good, if the labs are built to the right standards.
But what's going to be difficult is to find all of the people with 20 years of experience to work in all of these brand-new labs. Turns out it takes about 20 years to get 20 years of experience. So, we're going to have a lot of labs with a lot of inexperienced people in places that are not accustomed to doing this work. That means that human error and mistakes are more likely to happen.
That also means that we need a really good global body to help these countries and these labs as they stand up and then also help monitor these labs.
[23:40:03]
The World Health Organization is the perfect organization to do that.
COATES: General Friedrichs, thank you so much. Very insightful.
FRIEDRICHS: Thank you.
COATES: Breaking news, up next, the news outlets banned by the White House hitting back in court with a brand-new filing. Did Trump's own words just help their case? Plus, the Supreme Court begins a new term with a major P.R. problem. I'll tell you that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Just in tonight, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico are making one more appeal to stop the president's ban on White House access for reporters. The filing argues Trump's White House offered zero new evidence that the ban was actually based on national security grounds. Instead, the news outlets say it is about -- quote -- "viewpoint discrimination." They point Trump's interview with Time magazine where he said -- quote -- "I don't think anybody should be forced to bear fake news, constantly bad stories, because I've done great things."
[23:45:05]
I want to bring in Harry Litman, former deputy assistant attorney general and host of the "Talking Feds" podcast, who has done some pretty great things. Let's start with the fact that Trump's own statements will be used as exhibit A to say that this is really about his feelings about the substance as opposed to, they say, national security.
HARRY LITMAN, PODCAST HOST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: And B, C, and D. He made this really easy for him. There's no doubt that it's viewpoint discrimination. That's where we start. They've tried to say, well, there's national security reasons. The judge, a Trump appointee, said, I don't think so. So, we've got solid viewpoint discrimination, and what the administration is going to have to try to say is we can do it, anyway.
COATES: But if, for example, national security is one of lists of reasons, does that reason overshadow when Trump (INAUDIBLE) others?
LITMAN: No. And it's totally clear. Viewpoint discrimination, you can't use national security. And this judge has already said they didn't. I want to make one point, which is we're now at a preliminary injunction. So, it's from back when Trump did this 10 days ago, and they're still fighting that. And what's going on since, like on the plane, that's a different fight that will probably get folded into this. But this is the initial you're out of here, no press pass. They're not going to be able to sustain it.
COATES: And now, it's appealable.
LITMAN: It will be appealable if it becomes a preliminary injunction. It's kind of lawyerly. But the TRO, no. Preliminary injunction, which -- that's exactly what the plaintiffs were asking for today. That would be appealable.
COATES: I want to talk about the filing. I mean, the networks (INAUDIBLE) the court to move beyond the due process argument and call this, as you talk about it, not just viewpoint discrimination but textbook First Amendment retaliation. Is that distinct?
LITMAN: No. That's exactly what viewpoint discrimination is. The due process part was really a low-hanging fruit for Kelly, so he used it. But the viewpoint discrimination really is front and center, and that's what they'll go into. And as I say, Trump has made it easy for them. It's just undeniable viewpoint. He doesn't like what they said.
COATES: A lot of precedent on First Amendment cases for good reason.
LITMAN: Highest principle in the Constitution.
COATES: The Supreme Court has been the one to give the precedent. Let's talk about being the first --
LITMAN: All right.
COATES: -- October, which means it's the first day of the Supreme Court new term. They have quite a list, about 28, 29 cases already. More are to come. But they are starting from a deficit of trust. And there was a new poll, a Gallup poll, that shows just 46 percent of Americans trust the justices. That's down from 80 percent in 1999. That is quite an overshadowing experience and one that tells you a lot about the faith people have in what used to be a very storied institution.
LITMAN: Yes, it used to be the most storied and credible in the country. Now, it's plunged. And I think what has happened is that the people who have become so unhappy with Trump, they've connected the dots. They've seen. There was an article about how even where Chief Justice Roberts' vacations, they give him grief. It's because people have made the connect. Well, look what he has done. Look at his sort of autocratic tendencies. Then look at the court, immunity, enhancement of executive power, all the shadow docket and the like. So, it's that shadow that is now on them. It's very hard to, you know, lose.
COATES: Which is scary because, on the one hand, you want to -- it's hard to compartmentalize the cases that have -- are based on sound judgment versus those that are perceived as political and still have faith in the court in the end. It's very difficult to think about all of these and impacts us all.
LITMAN: Yes.
COATES: Harry Litman, thank you so much. Hey, up next, it was a novel use of artificial intelligence in court, A.I. video of a deceased man forgiving his killer during his sentencing. The judge at the time thought it was a great idea. But tonight, a much different decision says the video was a mistake. The victim's sister is live with her reaction, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A.I. is everywhere these days, but I want to rewind to a full year and a half ago and revisit a story I covered on this show about A.I. in the courtroom. An Arizona appeals court has now overturned the prison sentence of a man convicted of manslaughter after an A.I.- generated victim impact statement was shown during his sentencing. The victim's sister used A.I. to recreate the image and likeness of her brother so he could directly address his killer. This is a part of what the judge saw.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day, on those circumstances. In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives. I always have, and I still do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The man being depicted there was 37-year-old U.S. Army veteran Christopher Pelkey, who was shot and killed in a road rage incident in 2021. And the judge said he loved the impact statement after seeing it. He gave the convicted defendant the maximum sentence when prosecutors asked for less.
[23:55:00]
But the appeals court judges say showing the video was a fundamental error, and they write in their ruling, "Indeed, rather than documenting an event or recording a particular moment, the A.I. video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister."
Now, the conviction still stands, but the defendant will need to be re-sentenced.
Christopher Pelkey's sister, Stacey Wales, joins me now. Stacey, thank you for being here. So sorry for your loss and what this must feel like. How do you and your family feel about the appeals court's decision to now overturn the sentence based on this?
STACEY WALES, SISTER OF CHRISTOPHER PELKEY, USED A.I. TO CREATE IMPACT STATEMENT PLAYED IN COURT: Of course, we're disappointed, Laura. But we saw this coming. We knew that this was always going to be an appeal. Even before the A.I. version was even created, our attorneys let us know that this is a murder trial, and they go to appeal. When they found something to appeal on, some kind of process error in their minds, that's what was granted and given to the appellate court to review.
COATES: I want to read more of what the judges wrote in their ruling, Stacey. Quote -- "It erases the interpretive distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice and opinions." This is your brother. You knew him best. How do you respond to the court's reason that these were words you believed your brother would say and not specifically words he did say?
WALES: His tenets, what he stood for, are all over the writings that I wrote for that A.I. to say. Chris's own videos that he made, interviews that he had given in PTSD graduation from PTSD treatment programs that he was in before he died, validated the tenets of forgiveness, loving God, loving people. That was spoken about in the A.I. script that I wrote.
His social media accounts are still up. And he even wrote a screenplay of his life, which was authored by Chris before he died as an exercise in his PTSD training that he went through. And that was read in court as well.
One of the things that's unfortunate is many people think that the judge based his decision solely on this A.I., which was not true. This was the culmination of over 35 letters that were sent in from people that knew Chris and 10 people that went down there and spoke speeches in person about Chris, including Chris's own videos and Chris's own words that he penned.
The A.I. video was the last thing that again culminated this for the judge. And so, when the judge reacts, that he thought this was genuine, the soundbite makes it sound like he's only talking about the A.I. But we believe that what he meant, that was genuine, was the reflection of what he had heard and the A.I. say compared to what he was learning about Chris in the 48 hours before he handed down the sentence.
COATES: It's so important to get that full context, Stacey, and see the breadth of information before the judge at sentencing. I remember you compared A.I. to the first photographs that were used in court. Why do you believe it's so important to embrace this technology in the courtroom or do you still believe that?
WALES: I absolutely believe that. I've done a little bit more research since this all came to light again. It took about 15 years in the 1860s for photographs and five landmark cases for photographs to go all the way up to the Supreme Court in order to have photography be admissible in court without controversy and without it being so difficult for people to imagine that this new medium can be helpful in court.
And I do believe that's what we're seeing now. That's why I take this so seriously because the courts need to be prepared for the A.I. that's coming. It is a presentation tool and it is another medium in which humans use to connect with each other. And that's part of the storytelling process in the Arizona Victims Bill of Rights that lets us believe that we have the right to use it.
COATES: It would be so interesting to see the way in which A.I. is enveloped into our system of justice and at what particular stages, whether it's during the victim impact moments or perhaps even introduced as a tool in the evidentiary portion of it.
In any event, Stacey Wales, I'm so sorry for your family's loss and that this continues to be a part of your family's journey. Thank you for joining us.
[00:00:00]
WALES: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Remember, everyone, 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. Thank you so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson," that's next.
