Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Touts GOP Momentum That Senate Forecasters Aren't Seeing; Susan Collins And Troy Jackson Faced Off In First Debate; Olympian Exonerated Of Damaging Reflecting Pool Demands Probe; Cornell Taps Ex- DOJ Official To Probe Handling Of Rape Allegations. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 06, 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, President Trump says Republicans are on the up and up, all thanks to his rallies, but the evidence tonight points in another direction. Plus, Democrat Troy Jackson takes on Senator Susan Collins in their main debate. We got the highlights and the one very revealing moment about her and the president. And the Olympian cleared of vandalizing the reflecting pool goes after the Trump administration with a new push to hold them accountable. That's tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, President Trump is surveying the field with 28 days to go until the midterms. From where he's standing, Republicans are heading in one direction, up. How far up? Well --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: By the way, I'm going around doing rallies. The Republican Party is starting to go right through the roof. Somebody said today, I wonder why. Well, I had to get out, I had to do it. We had to explain what we're doing. There has never been a time like this in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Through the roof? Well, the Senate map would like a word because major election forecasters are moving Senate ratings for GOP candidates the other way, like, closer to the floor.

Let's start with three races from the Cook Political Report. The biggest eye-opener? Kansas. Yes, Kansas. It was lean Republican. Now, it's a toss-up. Next, New Hampshire. Cook has moved it from a toss-up to lean Democrat. Then there's North Carolina, from lean Democrat to likely Democrat.

But wait, there's more. Larry Sabato's crystal ball is moving two more Senate ratings leftward. Alaska, that has gone from a toss-up to lean Democrat. And even South Carolina is moving a notch towards Democrats from safe Republican to likely Republican. You know, now, we're learning a top Republican super PAC is pouring millions into the race to help Senator Darline Graham. Larry Sabato looking to his crystal ball to explain why he thinks the map is moving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY SABATO, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR POLITICS AT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, AUTHOR: You have a very unpopular president in the low 30s. I mean, that is really bad for a presidential approval right at the end of a midterm election. He said prices were going to go down on day one. Well, they've gone up, and a lot of it has to do with the war he started, which has been unsuccessful and is extremely unpopular.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, let's talk for a second and make one thing very clear. All these are forecasts. These aren't results. And the polls that help inform them, well, we know, we know that polls can sometimes get it wrong. So, we don't actually know exactly what November is going to bring. It could be a wave. It could be a trickle. It could be something else entirely.

That political gravity is getting harder for Republicans to ignore. And even though Trump may like his view from the rally stage, the picture is far less rosy for many Republican candidates. That may explain why Senator Susan Collins is saying the Trump roadshow isn't coming to Maine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGG LAGERQUIST, MAINE NEWS ANCHOR, MAINE SENATE DEBATE MODERATOR: President Trump this week said that he might actually visit Maine. Will you stand with him if he does?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I don't think that President Trump is going to come to Maine. I'm not exactly his favorite senator. I --

LAGERQUIST: So, yes or no? Do you have a yes or no to that?

COLLINS: I would say that he is not coming to Maine.

LAGERQUIST: OK. Fair enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to begin with the chair of Democratic National Committee, Ken Martin. Ken, it's good to see you. I mean, it's fair to say, she says, he's not going. But let's talk about Kansas, shall we? Because that's a state where a Democrat has not won a Senate seat in nearly a century. You know, that's now considered a toss-up. Are you really seeing that kind of momentum in these traditional GOP strongholds?

KEN MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, look, we have a glorious headache right now. We are able to expand the map to areas we haven't competed in in generations. In fact, we haven't won that Senate seat, a Senate seat, in Kansas as a Democrat in 94 years, as you mentioned. And we're seeing it not just in places like Kansas, but in Nebraska. In Mississippi, we've got a great opportunity with Scott Colom. Even in Florida right now, Angie Nixon is gaining fast right there in the Senate seat, David Jolly is tied in the governor's seat.

[23:04:59]

So, while the Republicans are shrinking their map and Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are heading to ruby red states to try to save their asses, Democrats are actually expanding the map and creating new opportunities all over the country.

This is what I said last year, right? That when you organize everywhere, you can win anywhere. And that's what we're doing. We're putting red states into play all over the country right now. I like our chances with 28 days left but, as I've always said, while I'm confident, I'm not complacent. We still got a lot of work to do.

COATES: All right. If they're saving their asses, where are you spending your assets? Where's the next place to go?

MARTIN: Well, look, I mean, this is, like I said, a glorious headache to have. We have so many opportunities here. And we'll have to make tough decisions here over these next 28 days, right, on where we spend our resources.

But the Democratic Party and the DNC, in particular, have been spending money all year long, actually over the last 20 months since I've been chair, on building the infrastructure we need to meet this moment right now so we can compete all over the map.

COATES: So, what goes into those -- what's factoring into that decision? The moment is really 20-something days away. Where are you going to spend the money?

MARTIN: Well, we're already spending the money. We've been spending money in Kansas. We've been spending money in Nebraska, and in Mississippi, and in Florida, and in red states, purple states, and blue states. That's a decision I made very early on in my chairmanship, that we're actually going to put investments into the states to do early year-round organizing so we communicate with voters early and often.

So, we're prepared for this moment, that we're not just starting a relationship with voters two to three months before an election, but we've been building relationships with voters throughout the country over the last, you know, 20 months since I've been chair.

Look, you know, I've always said this: The reason I never lost a statewide election in Minnesota, our home state, is not because I'm some genius, but because we actually invest in organizing, in relationships, and actually building a relationship around shared values with voters early and much before we ever get to an election.

But let me say this: I've never believed a poll that shows us up any more than a poll that shows us down, Laura. But what we've seen over the last 20 months since Donald Trump was inaugurated is record enthusiasm for Democrats and a Republican base that's demoralized.

COATES: Well, hold on a second. I want to ask about the DNC because they're in a cash crunch. You've got donors appearing to be sitting on the sidelines. Obviously, you want to gain momentum, you want to capitalize on these shifts in what's now competitive, but how confident are you that the party can actually afford to keep these races competitive? Because the RNC, they're much more flash.

MARTIN: They are more flash, and the reality is it should not surprise anyone. You've got a guy in the White House right now who is auctioning off the federal government to the highest bidder. Of course, their coffers are more filled than ours. I mean, the bribery and the corruption we're seeing at the highest levels. Of course, they have more money.

But the reality is they've had more money all this time over the last 20 months, and we're still winning elections at a record rate. Ninety percent of the elections on the ballot, we've been winning, despite the fact that they've had more money, despite the fact that they've out-raised us.

I've always said this, Laura. We don't need to have more money than the Republicans. We just need to have enough money to compete and be in the ring, and we've been doing that.

And look, the things I'm looking at, not just the enthusiasm for our Democratic candidates over the last 20 months, but I'm also looking at the fact that there has been a huge swing away from Donald Trump with his winning coalition. Latino voters, women, young voters, independent voters, and working-class households have all swung away from him.

Just a recent poll showed that Donald Trump won white working-class households on election night in 2024 by 34 points. You know where he sits with them today? Minus four. That's a 38-point swing with the core constituency of the Republican base, which is white working-class households.

COATES: It is, but here's one more poll. Here's another poll, though. You had another poll that talks about, I mean, it's the AP poll, and it goes even farther. It finds at least half of American voters, they don't trust either party to solve important problems or help people like them. I always wonder whether or not there is a plan for either party to vote against an incumbent or for something else. Do you think people are voting, in a swing away from Trump, voting against Trump and also for Democrats or is this something different?

MARTIN: Yes. I mean, I think that's a fair point. But remember, midterm elections are always a referendum on the sitting president. That has just been true as long as I've been alive, and it will be true again this cycle.

But I think the unique thing this cycle is that our candidates, writ large, up and down the ballot, have been running for something, not just against Trump. They're not -- they're very rarely talking about Trump. They don't need to. Trump does his own damage himself.

COATES: They talk a lot about Trump, Ken.

MARTIN: Well, look, that's not completely accurate. I mean, look at what our candidates are running on. They're running on affordability. They're running on health care access. They're running on fixing this corrupt system that only benefits the rich and the powerful at the expense of the working class.

COATES: They often associate each of those factors, though, with President Trump. As you just rightly pointed out earlier in our conversation, you have suggested, of course, the RNC has more money because of the corruption at the top.

[23:10:03]

MARTIN: Of course.

COATES: That's the point you made. So, there is that through line that people are suggesting. These are allegations, obviously. But talking about him, is he kind of the avatar when you're talking about all these issues?

MARTIN: Well, I mean, look, I mean, it's important for us to actually talk about Trump but not spend all of our time resisting Donald Trump because one of the lessons that we learned from '24, Laura, is that the Democratic Party brand is not that great. You just showed that, right? And if all we do is spend our time talking about Donald Trump, then we're not giving the American electorate and voters a sense of who we are, whose side we're on, and what we're going to do to improve their lives.

And I think there has been remarkable discipline on the behalf of Democratic candidates across the board over the last 20 months focused on that message frame of affordability, corruption and, of course, health care access. All of our candidates are focused on that, very rarely talking about Donald Trump.

COATES: Well, we'll see in about 20 or so days whether that will pan out in favor of Democrats.

MARTIN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Ken Martin, thanks for joining. You know, there's at least one person who thinks the poll is dead wrong. President Trump insists his rallies, his rallies will single-handedly save Republican candidates at the ballot box.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Ken is doing much better now than I've -- everybody is. Since starting three, four days ago, since starting the rallies, it has brought a whole new awareness to how great the Republicans are doing, how great the economy is doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, executive editor at the Washington Examiner, Bob Cusack, Democratic strategist Deja Foxx, and White House correspondent for Bloomberg, Jeff Mason. OK, well, the president, Bob, says that his rallies are turning the tide in Republicans' favor. Is that what you're hearing and seeing or is he watching a choir that he is preaching to?

BOB CUSACK, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, his style plays right now in Oklahoma and Alabama. That's where he should stick. If he goes to Maine, the chances of Susan Collins winning plummets. That's why she does not want him in Maine. And I think she's a very good candidate.

But Trump's numbers, as Larry said, they're abysmal right now. And he cannot go to these purple states, especially blue states like Maine. And I think it's going to be a real problem for candidates because they need the Trump base to get out, but they don't want Trump, they don't want to stand by Trump.

COATES: Is he the albatross for Republicans, and then the counter, like, wings for Democrats? Are they able to seize on this?

DEJA FOXX, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, it's a good question. I think, in this moment, people are looking at Donald Trump as forever worse, seeing their gas prices and their groceries going up, and watching as Republicans largely are engaging in culture war issues and leaving behind the things that are keeping them up at night. And Donald Trump is not helping in that regard at all.

And so, I think the candidates who are focused on the people in front of them and not the person in the White House are going to be the ones who really shine on election night.

COATES: A big issue, the war in Iran and affordability. I want to talk about the war in Iran because the president just last night, Jeff, he talked about the war and its potential impact on Americans. There's also an existing impact on Americans we'll focus on, obviously. But the comments, they have triggered a lot of backlash, particularly this moment. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have to stop them from having a nuclear weapon. So, I was riding in Iowa, I made a speech there, and I passed a gas station, $1.95 a gallon. I passed another station, $1.85 a gallon. We'll have it lower than that in a very short period of time. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over very soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, obviously, he rode in a time machine because even when I had my '99 Pontiac Sunfire with the stick shift, it wasn't a dollar something to pay for my gas. So, what is the reporting like back here, Jeff, when we're talking about the rhetoric? I mean, is this just Trump speak or is he not concerned with the idea this is easily fact- checkable?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, things that are easily fact-checkable don't necessarily --

COATES: Dissuade him.

MASON: -- dissuade him.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I was in the convention center for the Republican convention a few weeks ago when he was talking about the fact that there were no empty seats. And literally, as he was saying that, because he was saying that, I was taking video of the empty seats at the top of the stadium not because I was interested in that as a reporter, but because it was a fact-checking thing because he was making it a story.

So, I don`t -- you know, the president likes to will things into existence sometimes with his comments. I think that's probably a decent explanation of him -- of why he's saying that his -- these rallies are changing everything for Republicans. I think he really --

COATES: But how about the point about --

MASON: -- wants that to become a reality.

COATES: Yes.

[23:15:00]

I don't want to cut you off. I'm sorry. But what about the point that he continues to make that this is short-term pain for long-term gain? Does that satisfying voters?

MASON: Well, I mean, not if you believe the polls. And that's -- he doesn't want to believe those polls right now. The reckoning will come, if it comes, on November 3rd. And if he gets what he wants, then the Republicans will stand up to what usually happens historically, which is the party in power loses a lot of seats. But the polls don't show that that's what's going to happen.

COATES: Obviously, Democrats tried to seize on this, and they've heard those remarks. I mean, Congressman Robert Garcia had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D), CALIFORNIA: I'm not sure what the hell the White House thinks they're trying to clean up. We all have ears and eyes. We have to ask ourselves. Why did he single out these two cities? Does he know information that we may not know? Is he just saying insane things?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The administration says that he was taken out of context with the reference to Los Angeles and San Diego. I see by your faces what it looked like, really. Deja, what is your -- tell me your expression.

FOXX: I mean, Donald Trump wants you to believe him over your bank account, believe him over your own eyes, believe him over your own ears.

And in this comment in which he singles out San Diego and L.A., and as commander-in-chief makes these really, I mean, outrageous statements, I just feel like it's not lost on me that we seem to be holding our president, our commander-in-chief, to a lower standard than Twitch streamers, than, you know, than influencers, even. And it, to me, really reads as someone who is not well, one, and who does not take their job with the responsibility it deserves.

But I think the internet reaction to this has largely been eye-rolling and moving on. But I think it's worth holding our president to a high standard.

COATES: Well, he was asked twice, Bob, twice today, to try to clarify what he meant by those California comments. He chose not to engage. It seems to be a missed opportunity to address or spin or try to undermine the criticism.

CUSACK: Yes. I mean, this puts Republicans in a tough spot running for re-election because they're going to have to answer this question.

COATES: Right.

CUSACK: But at the same time, I still think the media needs to -- you just interviewed Ken Martin, and he's talking about health care, he's talking about inflation, Democrats want to reform the Supreme Court. How? How are you going to make things affordable? They have not said.

Twenty years ago, a very similar election. Democrats were in the wilderness. They had an agenda. This year, they have no agenda. There should be specifics. And I think Democrats are going to have a great night, but they should be answering these questions. What bill is H.R. 1, the first bill of the Congress?

MASON: You know, what's probably helpful to some Republicans is that a lot of them aren't in the halls of Congress right now. They would be asked that question.

CUSACK: Yes, that's true.

MASON: I mean, all of us would be asking them that in the halls of Congress, and they haven't had to answer that because of, at least on the House side, the recess. So, that helps them, but those questions aren't going to go away.

COATES: It's a question for anyone who's in office. What are you going to do now, right? It's one thing to get the job. How are you going to keep it and make us happy? Stand by, everyone. We've got a lot more to talk about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TROY JACKSON, U.S. SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: He went out and did what he did, and you don't regret that today. So, what will it take for you to admit that you're ever wrong?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Democrat Troy Jackson pressing Republican Senator Susan Collins in their first debate. A lot at stake in this very close race. We've got the highlights for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, if Democrats want to retake the Senate this year, then flipping Maine will be crucial. Republican Senator Susan Collins is locked in a very tight race with her opponent, Troy Jackson, and the two debated for the very first time tonight. But with much of the debate, Collins, well, she played defense, trying to distance herself from President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: I think it's pretty clear that what we're seeing right now with the affordability issues is, you know, because Senator Collins is not being willing to stand up to Donald Trump, voting with him 96 percent of the time. I mean, she advanced the big, bad bill out of committee.

COLLINS: He knows that I voted against President Trump's signature legislative accomplishment, the one, big beautiful bill. I have voted nine times to end the war in Iran. I have been the most outspoken opponent of the tariffs with Canada.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But there's one issue in particular that Troy Jackson believes will really galvanize voters, Collins' vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, who then voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Eight years ago today, Maine women went to D.C. and begged Senator Collins not to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, but she did it, anyways, even though they begged her. He helped overturn Roe versus Wade. And today, she says she has no regrets.

LAGERQUIST: You said at the time that he said that he considered Roe v. Wade settled law. Do you feel at any level that Brett Kavanaugh lied to you on that day?

COLLINS: I do not feel that he lied, but I think that he should not have said it was settled law because, to me, that meant that it would not be overturned. But to be fair, you cannot ask a nominee how he might vote on some hypothetical future case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I think look up the word "precedent."

[23:24:58]

Joining me now, deputy editor for the Maine newspaper, Midcoast Villager, Alex Seitz-Wald. Thanks for being here, Alex. Look, Jackson tried to tie Collins to Trump. Collins tried to show voters that she often breaks with the president. Who made the stronger case tonight?

ALEX SEITZ-WALD, DEPUTY EDITOR FOR MIDCOAST VILLAGER, FORMER SENIOR NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER FOR NBC NEWS: You know, both candidates surpassed my expectations going in. But I have to say, I think Troy Jackson did what he needed to do. He passed the threshold test. This was the strongest, I think, I've seen him. He kind of woke up. He showed that he could hold his own on stage against this titan of the U.S. Senate of Maine politics, Susan Collins.

And expectations were low for him. I mean, he comes from this tiny logging town of 237, hard up against the Canadian border, an associate's degree from the University of Maine at Fort Kent. He kind of struggled in the gubernatorial debates this year when he ran and came in third. And even a lot of his allies were telling me they were concerned, you know, how's he going to handle foreign policy questions or federal budget questions, things that he would not have dealt with as a state senator. And just last week, he had to apologize for some in-artfully worded comments on the Israel-Palestine situation, but I think he held his own and he did what he needed to do.

At the same time, Susan Collins showed why you should not count her out. She was commanding. She was disciplined. And even up until the very last second, as the music was playing, she got in one last final attack, noting that Troy Jackson is not a Patriots fan. So, never count Susan Collins out even when the music is playing.

COATES: I mean, she's a seasoned politician. Just saying. But the latest poll shows Troy Jackson with a slight edge over even the seasoned politician as Collins. But when Maine voters were asked who they think will win, they overwhelmingly say Collins. I mean, she has proved her doubters wrong in the past. But why there is a disconnect between the edge that Jackson has and the thought of who might win among voters there?

SEITZ-WALD: I can't tell you how many friends, family members, other parents in my daughter's class who don't like Susan Collins or, you know, or Democrats. They're going to vote for Troy Jackson, but they're convinced that Susan Collins is going to win.

I think, you know, she has been around for so long. She has won so commandingly in the past, and she has won in times when nobody expected it. You know, in Democratic wave years, when Barack Obama in 2008, a huge year for Democrats, she got something like 68 percent of the vote. She won in 2020. So, she has been a really effective case that she delivers for Maine. Almost any town around me, you could find a project that she helped fund and one that, you know, I think would be universally popular.

But Jackson is kind of making the case, that's nice that you bring money home for Maine, but let's zoom out and look at the bigger picture and what's going on nationally about Trump, about fuel prices, up 80 percent over last year. Heating is a big deal in Maine as winter comes. That's where he's focusing his argument, that, you know, that's not enough, that that's crumbs that you're bringing back to Maine.

COATES: Alex Seitz-Wald, thank you so much for joining. I have my panel back with me now. Let's unpack this because, Jeff, Trump yesterday teased adding a campaign staff in Maine. I mean, listen to what Collins said about that tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAGERQUIST: President Trump this week said that he might actually visit Maine. Will you stand with him if he does?

COLLINS: I don't think that President Trump is going to come to Maine. He's talking about going to a lot of different states. I've heard nothing from his office. And I'm not exactly his favorite senator.

LAGERQUIST: So, yes or no? Do you have a yes or no to that?

COLLINS: I would say that he is not coming to Maine.

LAGERQUIST: OK. Fair enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is this good or bad?

MASON: Well, an example of her political prowess in that, she used that tricky question to say, I'm not his favorite senator. That's exactly the message that she needs to get across as a Republican who's four points behind her Democratic opponent, and she effectively did that.

I think the other thing she said was, I don't think he's coming to Maine. That's another way of saying I don't want him to come to Maine, and that's clear that it wouldn't be helpful to her for him to come. She's also not wrong in that he's got a long list of states that he's going to, a lot of them are red, and that doesn't apply to Maine in this case.

COATES: Which is counterintuitive if you're trying to secure a majority. You want to go to places that will actually convert people, not necessarily solid red places.

Deja, I mean, she's talking also -- I mean, Troy Jackson is talking about Justice Kavanaugh, obviously as a way to persuade voters to look at her through that particular lens, the impact on Roe v. Wade. Is that advantageous for Democrats?

FOXX: Yes, that's right. I got my start actually as a reproductive rights organizer, and it has been interesting to watch how abortion is playing out as an issue in this midterm election, whether it was Trump sort of instructing the DOJ to kick that ball until after midterms or this moment where Troy Jackson really zooms in on her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

[23:30:09]

And, you know, I also think another theme I've been tracking, and I think it's particularly relevant to this race, but the moment we're in, is a real reckoning around the abuse of women and the relation to the abuse of power and men in power. And I think his ability to associate her with those issues, men in power who are abusing power, the overturn of Roe versus Wade, really discredits her in a lot of ways.

CUSACK: Yes. I mean, I think there are a couple things here. Collins works with the other side of the aisle. She gets things done, OK? And she brings home the bacon for Maine as the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. She's a survivor. I think that Jackson is not a strong candidate compared to her. She has survived. She's won tough elections. It's all about the Trump drag. I think mentioning Kavanaugh is something he got to mention repeatedly.

COATES: Because it is effective?

CUSACK: But in this context, if Democrats win the Senate, Trump doesn't get another Supreme Court justice, period, after what Republicans did to Merrick Garland, and I think that's the message he's got to drive home. Do you want another justice that Trump picks? Because if Schumer is the majority leader, there's no vote if there was an opening on the Supreme Court.

COATES: Well, talk about the idea -- obviously, the Supreme Court, we know from just yesterday, the first day of the term, they have a very low approval rating, essentially. They're not trusted by a lot of Americans the way they used to be for a variety of reasons.

But then, to his point, there's this new CBS poll that found that 43 percent of Maine Democrats wish that there was someone other than Jackson as their nominee. And yet this is still neck and neck. I mean, what does this say about Collins? Is it the Trump drag or is it her?

MASON: That's a great question. I mean, what I found most interesting about all the polls we've talked about tonight, but also that I've seen in the last month, is that the polls show Jackson is ahead, and yet when they ask Maine voters who they think is going to win, it's Collins. I mean, that's fascinating.

In that, there's got to be some sort of voting activity reflected in those views. It's not just we think that she's going to win because she always wins. It may also mean we're going to vote for her, and that's not what we're saying in the other poll.

CUSACK: And people want to back a winner.

MASON: People want to back a winner, and she is very popular. I mean, as Alex was saying in the previous segment, you can't -- you can't count her out. And yet the polling is real in that the president is absolutely a drag on a lot of these close races across the country. Surely, that is also a factor in Maine. Whether it will take her out or not is another question.

CUSACK: Well, we should mention that the polling last time was way off.

MASON: Way off.

CUSACK: She was supposed to lose. She won by nine points.

MASON: Right.

COATES: It could also mean name recognition is that powerful in politics.

FOXX: I think what it actually points to is that people are hungry for a sort of outsider moment, but they're not sure that we're even going to deliver that. There is this entrenched entitlement of incumbents. And though people are hungry for a change, I'm not sure that everybody feels that it is possible within our system.

COATES: Great points, everyone. Thank you so much. Hey, still ahead, Trump backs down from his taxpayer-funded ads, only to announce a change that could still be illegal. Plus, the man wrongly charged and later cleared in the reflecting pool case not going away without a fight. The major request he is now making, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The Olympian wrongfully accused of vandalizing the reflecting pool in the National Mall is turning the tables on the Trump administration. Canoeist David Hearn wants inspectors general from the DOJ and Interior Department to probe the case. He wants to know how he got blamed for the damage over the summer.

The DOJ's case unraveled when Trump's own Interior Department confirmed that insulation problems caused the damage, not Hearn. Last week, a D.C. judge barred federal prosecutors from trying to bring this case again.

Now, Hearn's attorneys are demanding a -- quote -- "detailed and comprehensive investigation" into the -- quote -- "shocking and indefensible treatment of Hearn." Now, so far, no response from the Trump administration.

We're joined now by one of David Hearn's attorneys, Norm Eisen. Norm, good to have you. Tell me what you're trying to accomplish by going this route.

NORM EISEN, CNN COMMENTATOR AND LEGAL ANALYST, ATTORNEY FOR DAVID HEARN, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER, CO- FOUNDER OF "THE CONTRARIAN," FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP'S FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: David Hearn has always said, Laura, that this case is about more than him. If he can be scapegoated and blamed for a botched, rushed installation of the new liner of the reflecting pool and criminally prosecuted up to 10 years in jail, any American can be targeted.

So, it's about, yes, uncovering the truth of how David Hearn was wrongly treated, the accountability for that, but it's about protecting all Americans, and we're just getting started.

COATES: Do you think that the inspector general will pick up this request? Do you have any confidence in that?

[23:39:49]

EISEN: Well, overconfidence in the ability of this administration's own greatly weakened inspector general corps, as we write in our complaint with my wonderful co-counsel at the Washington Litigation Group at Steptoe, would be a mistake, given the pattern of how the inspector general corps has been undermined and hollowed out.

But it's a good-faith request and it is the first of a series of steps that we are considering to make sure there's accountability for the people who did wrong here and that there is justice for Mr. Hearn, so this doesn't happen to others again.

I mean, it's so extraordinary. We hammered starting -- Laura, you and I grew up in super court and superior court in criminal trials here in D.C. -- the day after the arraignment was the first of seven filings we made saying David Hearn is innocent. Look, your own evidence, government, your own evidence shows the reflecting pool was unchanged before and after he touched it.

COATES: But the president continues to say that vandals are the cause, not the contractors. I mean, the case was thrown out. A judge at the DOJ could not revive it. But just listen to what the president is saying, again, blaming what he calls vandals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, we had vandalism there and we have it about as vandal- proof as you can get, but only sick people do that. And we have their pictures, but sick people do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Given the president's continued assertions, do you have any notion of whether the Department of Justice will fully let this go, even in spite of a judge saying stop?

EISEN: Well, you can never be confident. And one of the most bittersweet conversations was with Davey. When I called him, he was on a bike ride. He's still an incredible athlete. He competes in bicycle races now. He was on a bike ride training. I called him. I explained the good news. You know how remarkable it is to have a case dismissed with prejudice -- COATES: Yes.

EISEN: -- and the judge writing, it's because there's no case, and the president and others are still targeting an innocent man. But I said, Davey, I have to tell you, this administration, we don't have faith in the Department of Justice anymore. That's why today's complaint to the inspectors general was just the beginning. We are actively considering additional legal remedies. I look forward to coming back on with you as this story continues. We are fighting for Davey, but for every American, Laura.

COATES: I want to talk about these ads the president has been running with you. Obviously, once the ethics czar. We want to lean into that insight from you in particular. I mean, these are campaign-style ads. He has been running them with taxpayer money. There was a shift now, that he says he's going to pay for the ads from his super PAC going forward. He's not going to reimburse, I would mention, the government for the money already spent.

Is he trying to evade any legal scrutiny by trying to take this route now or does it somehow reflect to you that the knowledge of what he was doing was improper, and what about the non-reimbursement?

EISEN: It was an admission, a rare admission, tacit, implicit from Trump, that he was breaking the law, two bodies of law. But now, he has bumped into a third area of illegality. First, violating the appropriations law, the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Hatch Act. There's a series of laws that say, of course, you can't spend your and my and hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars on political ads. Who would have even thought of such a thing?

Then there's the copyright laws. We represent JMSN, the artist whose "Love Me" soundtrack was illegally utilized by the Trump administration. We just sent a letter to them, cease and desist.

COATES: Did they respond?

EISEN: They never responded, except with Donald Trump saying, oh, I'm going to do it a little differently. Today, we sent a letter to Trump's super PAC saying, you better not use that music, we're coming after you if you do. So, there's the copyright laws.

But, Laura, third, when he said, oh, well, I'll direct my super PAC to do it, paraphrasing. He's not allowed to do that. You can't have the president directing a super PAC. That's a violation of the campaign finance laws.

So, my colleagues at Democracy Defenders Action, the JMSN case is one of our over 300 legal matters, like the Davey Hearn case, one criminal, one civil, pushing back on this authoritarian regime and the law-breaking.

COATES: Unbelievable to think about all that has transpired in less than 30 days now to the election. Norm Eisen, thank you so much.

EISEN: Thanks, Laura. [23:45:00]

COATES: Still ahead, another phone call between Jane Doe and one of the accused Cornell fraternity brothers. Could their conversation impact what Attorney Tish James decide to do? Plus, Cornell in damage control are now hiring the former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, to step in. We have a lot to talk about, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Cornell's response to the alleged gang rape at a frat house is now getting an independent review. The former deputy assistant A.G., Sally Yates, will probe Cornell's response to Jane Doe's allegations. It will be part of a broader review into how the university handles alleged sex crimes.

Meanwhile, ABC News has released a portion of a different phone call between Jane Doe and one of the men she accuses of taking part. Now, according to ABC, this call happened about three weeks after the night in question in 2024.

[23:50:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I'm so sorry about all, like, the backlash you're getting from this, by the way. Oh, dude, I'm so sorry. No, I'm very like -- I feel so bad for you, dude.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: In response, Jane Doe told the fraternity member -- quote -- "I was completely and totally intoxicated and then given multiple sedatives. And then I was surrounded by upwards of 8 to 10 men. This is classified as a gang rape."

I want to talk about it with former New York prosecutor and current defense attorney, Mark Bederow, and former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger, also with us. Thank you both for joining. Berit, what do these phone calls show when it comes to a burden of proof for prosecutors looking at this case? Anything?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, this will be an important piece of evidence that prosecutors may want to look at. I don't think it gets you all the way over the line, but it's certainly a significant piece in a case like this. Here, you have one of the accused who is, you know, essentially admitting some involvement in what happened although the details are unclear.

But what you really see from my perspective is just sort of an effort to try to do damage control here. He says, you know, a few things in the call that kind of minimize the experience that she was having while, you know, saying, I'm sorry, but he goes on to talk about, you know, not sure how things got so crazy, really minimizing the fact that he was involved, at least, as we believe in some of these Snapchat messages, and sort of sending this out to other people. So, I think it's one more effort of damage control, but certainly will be something that the prosecutors will look at and perhaps want to put in part of their case.

COATES: And we should mention, of course, there has been no criminal charges. This is in the infancy of an investigation, renewed in some ways. And one of the things he was talking about, Mark, is the idea of feeling sorry about the backlash she's getting. I think they'll look at that very closely, as to whether he's admitting some culpability or simply acknowledging the reaction that she is facing.

You know, Jane Doe insists that the frat should have known that she'd been drinking heavily because she was -- quote -- "visibly intoxicated" as she arrived at Chi Phi. Mark, does the fraternity have some responsibility to step in if she is visibly drunk?

MARK BEDEROW, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR: Well, if she's visibly drunk, anyone there should be a responsible person and not take advantage of her. But in what we're talking about now, about whether these young men committed crimes, you know, I didn't hear anything on that recording that would be classified as a damning admission by the young man in terms of lack of consent, which is going to be the issue if he or others are going to be charged. You hear the alleged victim make statements, which would certainly support a prosecution, but you don't hear the other individual affirm any of those statements.

So, I don't think anything you heard is necessarily going to be in context that damning but, certainly, the more individuals that were there, the more fraternity members that were there, as human beings, you'd like to think that someone would, you know, assess the situation and perhaps take a better look than what happened here.

But, ultimately, what the attorney general is going to have to determine is whether this was criminal. A simple phone call recording these men, you know, it appears to be a controlled call or certainly designed to gather some evidence. I'm not sure it gathered much that would be of too much use to the prosecution, frankly.

COATES: You know, it's always, as you mentioned, a part of the investigation and different pieces may fit in. The conclusion may very well end up being the inability to indict or seek a prosecution. We don't know that. It could also be the opposite.

But one of the men in the lawsuit has claimed that he was a victim of sexual misconduct because he was too incapacitated to consent, and this claim is one of several where the accusers say they were the victim of sexual misconduct by the accuser.

When you look at that, Berit, what do you think about that particular statement? Is that a losing hand or is that something that will be reflected in the overall investigation to figure out whether anyone in that area or in that room had the ability to consent?

BERGER: Look, an investigation should go through every single allegation of sexual assault regardless of who it comes from. You should not investigate an allegation just because it's a man who's making it. They should absolutely look through those to see if there's any validity to those, to see if there's any proof, and they would apply and they should apply the same standards that they use when they're evaluating Jane Doe's allegations of sexual assault.

[23:55:00]

Will they be able to prove that? I don't know. I haven't seen any proof or heard of much proof that they would have to offer in support of those allegations. But, absolutely, any review either by Letitia James' office or by Cornell when they're doing their own review should certainly look into whether those allegations were taken seriously, whether those were followed through, and if there's any proof of them.

COATES: This conversation will continue as well the investigation. I want to thank both of you, Mark Bederow and Berit Berger, for coming.

And 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 thanks for watching. Here comes "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)