Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Tries to Rescue His Senate Pick as Democrats Eye Texas Upset; Senate Nominee Breaks with Trump; NYT: Trump Advisers Helped Pro-Russian Government Ahead of Midterms; The Life of A.I. Insiders. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 07, 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]

JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: He kept those around from Donald Trump, so they're the same thing.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And this one's for you, Chuck. Can we introduce decorum back into our conversations and avoid profanity? It's become acceptable, and it is truly not necessary. Let's all do better.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: There may or may not be a "New York Times" article written about how many times I've cussed, but I will just say that we try not to get folks to cuss on the campaign trail. When you're running for office, there should be some decorum, because I always think when I'm trying to teach a candidate how to do this, it's like they're talking to their grandmama. Whatever you would say to your grandmama, you should be able to do that.

PHILLIP: It's actually the rule for the show.

(CROSSTALK)

Thank you very much for joining us. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump rallies in Texas to rescue his sinking Senate pick, Ken Paxton. But another Republican in a tough race who wasn't there? Governor Greg Abbott. Well, his challenger, Gina Hinojosa, is my guest. Plus, as Republicans break with Trump on tariffs and Iran, new reporting suggests he may be about to take new military action before the midterms. And what do the people building A.I. really believe? The journalist who got an inside look at the bizarre world of A.I. power players is here with me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, you don't want a Texas-sized problem on your hands with just 27 days until the midterms. That's exactly what President Trump is dealing with, a problem of his own making. His hand-picked candidate for Senate, Ken Paxton, is facing a serious threat from Democrat James Talarico. So, the president headed back to Texas tonight and, by the way, this will be his third visit in less than a month. Now, he was interrupted by protesters, I mean repeatedly, and he tried to boost Ken Paxton, and I mean repeatedly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, you need to go and vote for Ken Paxton for U.S. Senate. If you get elected on job performance, you're going to have a blowout because there's nobody like him, right? Even Ted Cruz agrees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Vote for Ken. Get him in there. It's so important. It's vital. And I think you will. I think it's -- there's no way you vote for the other guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And tonight's rally came hours after new, secretly recorded audio emerged of Paxton blaming the Iran war and high gas prices for his campaign struggles.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN PAXTON, TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE (voice-over): It's the war, it's gas prices, it's diesel. I mean, it's -- put money. They have a lot of trucks that are diesel. People are feeling the pinch. So, that's -- that's probably the biggest problem and that, of course, drives up food prices and everything else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Paxton's campaign says he was only saying what every Texan already knows, and that the president is doing everything he can to bring prices down. But Paxton sure is keeping his spokesperson busy because just two days ago, audio leaked of him saying Washington was calling the shots of his campaign. And then last week, another recording of Paxton saying Trump's midterm convention hurt his poll numbers. Trump claims, no big deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: After this week's leaked recordings from Ken Paxton, do you have any regrets about endorsing his --

TRUMP: No, no, no. Not at all. He was a great attorney general. I think he'll be a great senator. Ken Paxton was great. He was considered the best or certainly one of the few best, but the best attorney general in the whole country. And no, I would have no regrets at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, no regrets? But, apparently, there has been room for improvement because Trump has given Paxton plenty of feedback over the last several weeks. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't really like the way Ken talks. I don't really like the way he looks. I don't like it. I don't like anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't like the way he dresses. I don't like the way sometimes he talks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He may not dress right, he may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I've ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Some people don't like the way he dresses or some people don't like the way he interviews or talks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, if Paxton loses, it would be a black eye for Trump, it would be a huge setback for Republicans trying to hold the Senate, and it would be a blue breakthrough for Democrats. Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office in more than three decades.

[23:04:58]

And the Senate race is not the only one that Democrats think they can win. They also want to beat the governor, Greg Abbott, and he is facing his own tough race against Democrat Gina Hinojosa. He wasn't at Trump's rally tonight. And his reason for skipping? Scheduling conflicts.

My first guest tonight is Governor Abbott's challenger, Democratic State Representative Gina Hinojosa. Representative, thank you for being here. Now, you know the governor, Governor Abbott, says he could not attend tonight's rally because of a scheduling conflict. He also didn't appear, by the way, with Trump when he was in Texas last week. Why do you think Abbott is a no-show? Are you buying the scheduling conflicts?

GINA HINOJOSA, TEXAS GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: No, I don't. What you should know about Greg Abbott is what comes out of his mouth is rarely ever the truth.

(LAUGHTER)

The truth is, actually, Trump is underwater in Texas. But Abbott is also underwater in Texas. So, it just doesn't help him to show up with Trump. And, really, it is because people know who has been in charge for the last 12 years in Texas. It is Greg Abbott. And they know that it's harder to make it in Texas than it was 12 years ago, and that is why we have seen now four big polls in four weeks that show I am beating Greg Abbott despite the fact that he has spent $120 million in this race.

COATES: Well, as you know, Trump won, and I'm using him as a kind of avatar for the conversation around Republicans in general, but he won the majority of Hispanic voters in Texas in 2024, according to exit polls. There's a new poll that found that 70 percent of those voters now disapprove of the job that Trump is doing today. How do you translate that frustration into affirmative votes as opposed to people saying, I'm not in it at all?

HINOJOSA: Yes. Well, listen, we're not taking any votes for granted. And yes, the Latino vote that you referred to is essential to winning in November, and we have made sure to really reach out and engage the Latino community.

Listen, Latinos, just like everybody else, are upset about this high- cost economy. It is really hard to make it in Texas, and so that's why you see polls swinging back away from Trump and away from Abbott, frankly.

And my message is to secure the American dream, the American dream, which was the promise of if you work hard, you can have a good life, right? That was the American dream. That was what I grew up understanding our country, absolutely, Texas, was about.

So, the American dream in Texas can be had if we save Texas schools, put money in your pocket. That is my plan. That's my agenda, to deliver to the people of Texas. That's what they're looking for. That's what Latinos and all Texans are looking for. And you can learn more about my agenda @ginafortexas.com.

COATES: You mentioned this discrepancy between the amount of money that has been put into the race on behalf of Governor Greg Abbott versus Democrats within your state, you intentionally as well. Governor Greg Abbott holds a very big cash advantage over you, and some within your party are sending some warning signals. You have the Illinois governor, J.B. Pritzker, telling "The New York Times" there has not been enough attention on your race and that your race is winnable with -- quote -- "the right support." He's donating to you.

Why do you think it has taken so long for the party to send money your way? We're about 27 days away from the day.

HINOJOSA: Well, listen, playing in Texas is playing at the high roller's table. No doubt. It's an expensive state to run in, but it is because the payout is so big. We know that they're going to try to redistrict next year again if I don't win. That takes -- it will take, eventually, 10 Democrats out of Congress from Texas, right? We need a governor in Texas who will veto rate maps. That is what is at stake in this election. I will be that governor. So, yes, it is a high price to pay, but it's because the payout is so high.

And, listen, we've been dealt a tremendous, a phenomenal hand this election cycle. And so, if we're not playing at the high roller's table in 2026, what are we even doing as Democrats? This is an opportunity of a generation to win, to win that, we may not have again, and that's why we are doubling down, giving this everything we've got.

We have shown we don't have to spend as much as Greg Abbott. We just have to spend enough to tell people who we are and what we're about, and that's why I've searched in the polls recently, because more and more people are learning about me.

COATES: Well, let's extend your analogy about the high roller's table.

[23:09:57]

Given the stakes and knowing that it has been about 30 years since there has been a statewide office holder or elected to office as a Democrat, why do you think or do you think the party has supported you enough? Are they treating you as if you are a gamble or an absolute bet?

HINOJOSA: Well, listen, there's no absolute bet in any election, right? But what we have demonstrated is that this election is neck and neck. Yes, four polls show me winning but, really, it's neck and neck. It's basically a dead heat. And we need to get out, it's about turnout, every last voter in Texas, because they aren't with us, right? And so, yes, it takes money to do that. Unfortunately, that's the way our political system works.

But, listen, what you do with cash is you, when you're in politics, is you tell people who you are and what you're about. That's actually Greg Abbott's record. People know who he's about. They know his record. It's his problem. And so, we don't have to spend as much as him. We just have to spend enough to tell people who we are and what we're about. That is what we're doing in these final 27 days. We are doubling down to win in November.

COATES: Let's talk about money because you're pitching sending Texans a $1,500 check to every household from the state's rainy-day fund. It sounds a lot like Trump's pitch that he mentioned -- well, he mentioned it again tonight. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If Republicans win the House of Representatives and the Senate, if they win the House of Representatives and the Senate, I'm going to give all adult citizens in the United States of America $5,000.

(APPLAUSE)

And only Republicans can do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, obviously, the number you're talking about is different. You haven't had this caveat at the beginning of it to say how people would get it, depending on who was actually in office. But tell me why you think your plan would be different and differently received from voters. Does this mean that you support in part Trump's plan?

HINOJOSA: Well, so, my plan -- Trump stole my idea. But we actually can pay for the plan in Texas. We have $27 billion in a rainy-day fund that Greg Abbott has hoarded. We've never had so much money in that fund. It has been historically at $10 billion.

I would send back to the people $1,500 because that money doesn't belong to the politicians. It belongs to the people. I call it the Greg Abbott corruption tax in light of the fact that we are paying into a system that is full of grift. Greg Abbott has given a billion dollars in no-bid contracts to his donors.

So, look, there's no faith in government. We need to show people that government can do something to make our lives a little easier. We pay for this government. It should be working for us. So, this is an effort to restore trust and give people some money at a time when Texans are struggling in a way that I've never seen before. Texans need help and relief.

COATES: You know, obviously, Congress needs to sign off of Trump's proposal and Texas legislature. They would have to approve yours as well. Republicans presently still control both chambers. Do you think you have the support to make this a reality if you win?

HINOJOSA: I would be surprised to find legislators who would vote against $1,500 for their constituents. I haven't heard of any in Texas yet. Look, Republicans have been saying forever they want to shrink government. I say put your money where your mouth is and send that money back to the people of Texas. Again, it doesn't belong to the politicians. It belongs to the people, the corporations. They've gotten their money from Greg Abbott. It's time for the people to get their money back.

COATES: You know, President Obama, he has been hitting the campaign trail with Democrats across the country. I'm sure you know. You actually campaigned with them earlier this year. I'm curious if he gave you any campaign advice.

HINOJOSA: He just said, stick with it. He was very complimentary of our campaign. He praised me and thanked me for my courage to do this. And he was very supportive. He was just generally supportive and told me to keep with it. He came to visit us early on in this campaign. I was very appreciative for his support. It helped give us a lot of attention in this race. And here we are now, 27 days away from Election Day, and we are doubling down to win, to bring it home for a win. COATES: Representative Gina Hinojosa, thank you for joining.

HINOJOSA: Thank you. Appreciate you.

[23:14:57]

COATES: Up next, more Republicans openly breaking with Trump on his war with Iran as he now reportedly considers new military action just before November. Plus, the first debate in the Iowa race for Senate as the candidates spar over Trump's standing today and what may come after November.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN MURPHY, DES MOINES BUREAU CHIEF, THE GAZETTE: Do you believe President Trump has committed any impeachable offenses?

JOSH TUREK, U.S. SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I have no interest in looking at impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: With the midterms just around the corner, yet another Republican candidate is breaking ranks with President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE ROGERS, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: And here in Michigan, we know that Canada is not our enemy. We need to end this tariff war now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was Michigan Senate nominee Mike Rogers rejecting the president's trade policy against Canada, a complete 180 from just two months ago when Rogers called tariffs necessary.

[23:20:00]

So, how did President Trump interpret Rogers's sudden pivot?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I viewed him as saying that he thinks Canada should make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here to discuss, New York Republican councilman, David Carr, and senior vice president and chief content officer of "TheGrio", Natasha Alford. Good to have both of you here.

Let's start with you, councilman, on this because the tariffs, they have put Republicans on defense all over the country, but especially in places like Michigan. So, will voters buy this sort of change and about face from Rogers?

DAVID CARR, MEMBER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, I think what he's doing is speaking to the reality on the ground, right? All politics is local. Michigan does about $80 billion a year in trade value with Canada.

And I think what he said in his statements is that it's time to bring the deal home, that the president was right to call out our trade partners for benefiting on trade deals that we got the short end of the stick on. I think he's saying it is time to close the deal. I think he's the right man to help do that with the president.

I think the president is right. It's about making sure Canadians come to the table and realize they have something that they have to put forward in order to make this tariff situation disappear.

COATES: And yet many voters might see and think there was no issue with Canada before the president started an issue with Canada. They might not see the full context that you are describing. They will look at this and say, why are you making an enemy of the people of the north?

NATASHA ALFORD, AUTHOR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER AT THEGRIO: Yes. Tariffs right now are deeply unpopular. If you look at a recent AP poll from September, it showed that the majority of Americans, in the 60 percent, think the tariff policies that the Trump administration promoted went too far, right?

But also, just this about face can seem a little bit disingenuous, right? You know, he wasn't just saying, you know, tariffs are a good policy, he actually was bragging and saying that, you know, the left is fearmongering when they talk about tariffs and orders are up, you know, in the auto industry. So, he was really a champion of this. So, people will wonder, what is the about face about?

And when El-Sayed is taunting and saying, really, you know, Donald Trump doesn't want to come here because he's deeply unpopular and his candidate can't speak for himself, he's speaking to the edge, the slight edge that he has in this race right now.

COATES: Travel with me, both of you, to Iowa because the Senate race is one to watch. And you've got Republican Ashley Hinson, Democrat Josh Turek. They faced off on the debate stage. And Turek was pressed on a different "I" word. Not Iran, but the potential prospect of another Trump impeachment. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURPHY: Do you believe President Trump has committed any impeachable offenses?

TUREK: I have no interest in looking at impeachment. I think that we need to look forward, not back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is that the right call, the right approach?

CARR: I think it's politically the right move by him. But I think the reality is that voters know that Democrat majorities in the House and Senate means impeachment is going to be back on the table, because the reality is over the last eight or so years, Democrats have not been able to walk away from trying to get this president out of office.

And I think that for him to try to distance himself from others in the party for whom this is going to be front and center in their agenda, I think it's just not going to ring true.

COATES: Do you think that Democrats have the appetite to have an impeachment proceeding, the trials all over again? I do wonder about there's the prospect, and then there's the political reality of whether they want to spin the wheels and potentially be successful at it.

ALFORD: When you hear someone like Turek say, I want to look forward and not backward, he is trying to emphasize that Democrats are not just against Trump, right? Democrats have generally been painted as being really strong on saying why they hate Donald Trump, but not being able to articulate how they're going to make people's lives better, at least in a way that really sticks.

And so, when him saying that, I think he's trying to really adhere to that lesson, that messaging, that this is what I stand for. He even gave Donald Trump some credit for some things in the big, beautiful bill that he agreed with, right? These are not things that you would normally expect from a Democrat.

But let's keep in mind, Iowa was a state that Donald Trump won three times before. So, Turek is no fool. He knows that he's trying to win over voters who may have voted for Donald Trump before. So, why lead with talking about impeachment or leaning into it, he certainly didn't rule it out, when you could instead say what you're going to do for the American people and try to portray yourself as someone who's bipartisan?

COATES: Well, on that very point, I mean, Ashley Hinson, she was pressed on how she could call herself a top ally of Trump and then claim to be bipartisan. This was a bit of a dancing on the head of a pin. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ASHLEY HINSON (R-IA), IOWA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'll be President Trump's ally when it is important for Iowa, but I will push back on him. He knows this because I talk to him regularly on things that are wrong for our state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, she has been in Congress the entire time. Is it too late for that message to work?

CARR: I think you can be an ally of the president and still be independent and still fight for your district and your community when you think that there's a difference of opinion.

[23:25:00]

And I think that it's Turek who has really been disingenuous on this issue because -- and I think Congresswoman Hinson called it out, the tale of two Tureks, the one who in the primary was a fire-breathing Trump hater but now on there saying, no, we're not going to impeach the president, I'm not in favor of that, I want to work with him. So, I think he's the one with the credibility problem on this issue.

COATES: How do you see it?

ALFORD: I think history shows that even if you want to be independent, as a Republican, Donald Trump will punish you for that if you are not on brand, you know, on cue with whatever is the message of the moment. So, she may say that. That may certainly appeal to some voters who are moderates or independents. But will she really be able to, you know, stand on business when the time comes for it? Many people have shown that they haven't been able to. So, we'll see.

COATES: We'll see in about 20-something days. At this point, David and Natasha, thank you so much.

CARR: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, two of Trump's top political advisers facing questions after a report says they were doing work in the Balkans for a pro-Russia government. Wait until you see Trump's reaction. Plus, Russia says nothing to see here over that mysterious death at its bio lab. Does the White House buy that? I can't wait to hear from former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. He's live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Another massive headache tonight for Republicans after a new report from "The New York Times" exposed a stunning foreign entanglement at the highest levels of the Trump team. Two of Trump's top political advisers, Chris LaCivita and James Blair, the very men tasked with helping Republicans keep control of Congress, quietly travelled to the Balkans in recent days. Their mission? Help a pro- Putin government stay in power while reportedly pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it.

What's the president's take on all this? Well, at first, at first, Trump claimed he had no idea who else his advisers worked for and promised, if there's a conflict, I will terminate them immediately. But he appears to soften his tone two hours later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, they're allowed to do that. They have a lot of clients, and it's OK. I'm a client of theirs. They have a consulting firm, I guess, separately, as all people in Washington do. That's pretty common.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, CNN senior political commentator, former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Thanks for being here. I'm eager to hear what you have to say because it's not uncommon. It's not uncommon for Washington consultants to cash in on foreign clients. But the distinction here for many may be the timing. I mean, you've got LaCivita and Blair supposed to be helping Republicans keep power. So, why would they help a pro-Putin government win their election right now?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AIR FORCE VETERAN, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it's not just the timing. That's important, you know. What else are they doing? You know, why -- obviously, if I was a Republican who was running for office, I would want them focused on me. But the other thing is just, yes, they work with foreign clients, but usually not foreign clients that are clients of a state that is an enemy. I mean, that is the thing.

And so, when the president earlier today said, if there's a conflict, I'll fire him, for a second, for one second, Laura, I was pleased, like, whoa, maybe he's actually going to take a stand on this, and then, of course, two hours later, he softened up. That happens all the time, and it is always folks that are associated with Donald Trump that end up doing this kind of Putin-adjacent kind of things.

And I think if I was a Republican in Congress right now, I would be extremely furious about this because this has an impact not just on the politics, but on our soul as a nation.

COATES: You know, Politico is actually reporting that there is deep frustration from GOP operatives over this reporting. And one operative put it bluntly, if this doesn't show how checked-out Republicans are, not sure what does. Do you agree?

KINZINGER: Yes, that's a fantastic point. I think there is a level of acceptance that this is going to be 2006 or 2010, which is going to be just a crushing for the Republicans. So, if you are a political operative -- this is the other thing. It's like -- I try to remind people that the cynicism that surrounds politics now never really used to be that way, at least as I remember it.

You know, there was a belief that you would go and work for a candidate or work for somebody because you actually wanted them to win. In the process, you get paid because it's your job. Now, what you see in politics is just mercenaries that are out there, you know, charging 10 to 20 percent on every media purchase. They all build, you know, beach houses on the coast somewhere. Now, they're going to the Balkans working for pro-Russian governments.

The cynicism that has crept into politics, whether it's in operatives or even elected officials, is sad to me because America and American politics used to mean something more than just, I'm going to go out and get rich.

COATES: I wonder what that cynicism will translate to at the polls. A catalyst or a rejection of participation? We'll have to see.

You know, Axios' Barak Ravid is reporting tonight, congressman, that the Pentagon has ordered the military to be ready to potentially resume combat operations against Iran before the midterms. What do you read into that?

KINZINGER: Well, I mean, I think it's apparent that there's, you know, maybe a plan to resume combat operations.

[23:35:00]

I think the stalemate we're in right now is bleeding the American people, the world, frankly, with energy prices. We're not seeing any advance, really, at this point. And I thought, speaking of cynicism, the most cynical thing we were hearing was that this was going to be resumed after the midterms.

And look, if the war is so important, as the president says it is, the midterms should have no impact on whether or not you use military action. What should have an impact is what is in the U.S. interest, what is the best way to achieve the mission. I think, right now, we are in Iran so deep that there's no way we can just pack up everything and leave, then we would be leaving Iran astray.

But the one piece of advice, and he won't listen, but that I would give the president is take your time to actually sell the American people on this, talk about what we're doing there, talk about what the mission is, and prepare the American people for it. And, unfortunately, he spent his whole time pretending like this war was won on day two. Well, not really happening.

COATES: I want to turn to the mysterious death of a Russian lab worker. I mean, the president says, well, insists everything is under control. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Is the plague in Russia a bioweapon?

TRUMP: Well, we don't think so. We're going to find out soon enough. But we don't think so. And if you listen to them, it's under control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you think Trump would demand answers when he talks to Putin about this?

KINZINGER: No. I mean, look, think back to term one when Trump, with Vladimir Putin, said he took Putin's word over the word of our own CIA. Vladimir Putin does not tell the truth.

Here's the reality. This broken vial theory that somebody broke a vial -- and by the way, if you broke a vial and you're exposed to the plague, you get on antibiotics. But this lady still died. They are locking down five hospitals. The FSB is in town. That doesn't happen if it's just a typical virus. So, I hope the president is right that we don't think there's anything there. But I don't -- you know, pardon me if I don't feel comfortable by him saying because Vladimir Putin says there's nothing there. We know that in the Soviet days, the Russians were using the plague. They were trying to genetically modify it to be both antibiotic resistant, much more passable and airborne. And so, this is a real concern.

I actually would suggest right now that we stop all flights in and out of Russia, I think Europe should do the same, until we know that this isn't what it could possibly be because the risk is just too high. Even if it's five percent, it's too high of a risk.

COATES: Adam Kinzinger, thank you.

KINZINGER: You bet.

COATES: Still ahead, the people closest to the A.I. race making some stunning personal decisions based on the advancements they're seeing. The reporter who spent months talking to them will be my guest. Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDY SPIVEY, CHRISTA PIKE'S ATTORNEY: She is very aware that the state tried to execute her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Convicted killer Christa Pike alive and talking after her botched execution. Tonight, her victim's mother is speaking out on what should happen next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the mother of Christa Pike's victim, Colleen Slemmer, is speaking out for the first time since the botched execution. She told local reporters she knew all along Pike would survive, and she does not think she'll end up being executed. Adding -- quote -- "It doesn't matter what I think, they're going to do what they're going to do." Pike was convicted of torturing and brutally murdering Slemmer, who was just 19 years old at the time.

Today, a Tennessee judge ruled the state must preserve all evidence related to her botched execution after attorneys for Pike argued they warned the state of her difficulties finding veins for an I.V.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPIVEY: All of this was foreseeable and foreseen. What happened to Christa is exactly what the state was warned would happen. And there are so many questions that need to be answered, not by Christa, but by the state of Tennessee. But one of those questions has to be how much suffering is enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest has successfully represented death row inmates who experienced failed executions, including the botched lethal injection of Alabama inmate Doyle Hamm in 2018.

Columbia law professor, Bernard Harcourt, joins me now. Professor, I'm glad that you're here. Tell me, do you think that they can successfully stop another attempt at an execution based on what they are calling torturous behavior?

BERNARD HARCOURT, CORLISS LAMONT PROFESSOR OF LAW AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, I think there are three solid grounds that they can mount to try and stop the execution. I mean, one of them is the double jeopardy clause itself, which prevents -- usually, we think of double jeopardy in terms of preventing another trial --

COATES: Right.

HARCOURT: -- if someone has been acquitted, right? It turns out that double jeopardy extends to sentencing and it may well extend to executions.

COATES: May well, meaning it's not --

HARCOURT: Well, it's a fascinating situation. In 1947, the Supreme Court dealt with this situation in the case of an electrocution that was botched. There was a case down in Louisiana, a young African- American young man, 16 when he was convicted and sentenced to death, 17 when they tried to execute him down in Louisiana. They had a portable electric chair down there. Basically, it was on the back of a pickup truck. The sheriff came down to conduct the execution.

[23:44:58]

And he was drunk, and so when he tried to set it up, he got the wires all crossed, and there was a jolt, and the young man, Willie Francis, survived. And so, the big question back then in 1947 was, can they do another electrocution? The state of Louisiana said they were going to go forward with that. An attorney represented him. A young pro bono attorney brought his case up all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And the United States Supreme Court ended up saying that you can't -- in this case, you could have a second execution because it was an accident.

COATES: Human error.

HARCOURT: Human error, and that's what they said.

COATES: Well, in this instance, though --

HARCOURT: But the rule --

COATES: Go ahead.

HARCOURT: The rule would be that if it's not an accident, right, then you can't have a second execution.

COATES: But would that extend to the fact that intentionality, I mean, not being an accident doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is intentionally trying to prolong an execution or botch it. How do you distinguish between something like a malfunction due to a drunk, you know, warden, essentially, as opposed to the inability to carry out the execution here?

HARCOURT: Well, here, I think it wasn't an accident because the lawyers had warned them that there was going to be this problem. And that's actually the situation that arose in Doyle Hamm's case back in 2018 in Alabama. I had spent seven months telling them that they weren't going to be able to find a vein. I had a medical expert, the best medical expert, Dr. Mark Heath, here from Columbia, who had examined Doyle Hamm, looked at his veins, and was telling everyone, you're not going to find a vein on him to insert the catheter.

COATES: So, does that mean that they should try an alternate way? If the state -- if the state is entitled to carry out an execution and they're being told you won't find a vein, is the alternative then you cannot honor the state's ability to do so or find an alternate means of execution?

HARCOURT: Right. Well, you know, I mean, I think the argument for Ms. Pike is that you can't have a second execution, period. It's not a question of using a different method because since it wasn't an accident, it doesn't fall under that exception that the Supreme Court had carved out, right?

COATES: So, how do you reconcile for those who are critical? There are many who would look at this and say, you know, it's hard to square somebody who has never said that she did not commit the heinous act against this 19-year-old girl, that for 30 minutes, a prolonged torture of that young woman. But now, she can make an argument that the state's execution attempt is too torturous for them to carry it out.

HARCOURT: Right.

COATES: Square those two things for the court of public opinion which, frankly, has weighed in very heavily here.

HARCOURT: Right. Well, I mean, I think -- I mean, that's -- that's another argument, which is simply that she has been tortured at this point, right? And you have to understand that what we do when we sentence someone to death and when we execute them is we don't plan on torturing them. That's not the plan. The plan is to end their life and to take a life for a life.

Now, you know, methods of execution have all been developed over history to be instantaneous. That's always been the effort. That's always been the motivation. Believe it or not, electrocution was intended to be instantaneous.

Actually, Edison was involved in the construction of the electrocution method, electrocuting an elephant, actually, but it was intended to be intentional, quick, immediate. That was true also of hangings, firing squads, et cetera. This by no means was quick and immediate. It was a torturous and elaborate process.

COATES: I'll be curious to see whether the courts view that as a reason they cannot continue, again, under the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. It's fascinating for a lot of reasons. Thank you for being here.

HARCOURT: Thank you.

COATES: Bernard Harcourt, thank you so much. Still ahead tonight, he interviewed more than 150 people at the forefront of the A.I. race, and what he uncovered, absolutely fascinating. Kevin Roose is with me tonight on his brand-new book that peels back the curtain in a way we haven't seen before, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, it seems like nobody can agree on what a future dominated by A.I. actually looks like. Some experts can't even agree on what A.I. even is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EZRA KLEIN, PODCAST HOST: How do we even think about this technology? So, I talked to Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, and he says, look, these are software programs, this is software. Then I read, or even before that, I read a piece from the OpenAI chief scientist who says, this is an alien mind, an alien mind. So, what is it, man?

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID ROBINSON, FORMER OPENAI SAFETY EMPLOYEE: An alien mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's a former OpenAI safety employee who quit just last week. Now, my next guest has spent years chronicling the rise of A.I. He has interviewed more than 150 insiders, including some of the biggest names in the industry, Sam Altman, Dario Amodei. It's all in his new book, "The AGI Chronicles: The Inside Story of the Race to Create an Artificial Superintelligence."

Kevin Roose joins me now. Kevin, the gap between software and alien mind, I mean, that's pretty wide. You've spoken to dozens of people who are at the forefront of A.I. How can the people building this technology have such different ideas about what they're actually creating?

KEVIN ROOSE, AUTHOR: Well, they have different roles.

[23:54:55] So, Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, he sells the chips that make all of the, you know, A.I. systems work, but he's not interacting with these models in their sort of raw estate.

I put a lot of trust in the people I talk to who are researchers, who are building these models, who are training them, who are seeing how wild they are and what kinds of mischief they can get up to if you leave them unattended.

And I think the alien mind description is very apt. We know that these systems are very powerful and getting more powerful by the day, but even the researchers building them don't know exactly how they work. They are intelligent. But it's not human intelligence. It's a new kind of intelligence born out of A.I.

COATES: It seems like every single week, that there is another warning that's going out and that A.I. could be catastrophic. Others are saying, well, it could be a good thing. You heard Bezos as well. But since you have finished your book, which is "The AGI Chronicles," you say, and these are your words, you don't think we're all effed anymore. Why?

(LAUGHTER)

ROOSE: Well, I think what is making me slightly more optimistic is how pessimistic everyone else is getting. So --

(LAUGHTER)

-- for a long time, I was worried about A.I. The people building A.I. were worried about AI. The people in San Francisco, inside the A.I. bubble, were worried about A.I. But everyone else was not thinking about it much at all. They were using ChatGPT --

COATES: Right.

ROOSE: -- to, you know, do their homework or write some memos at work or something. But they weren't thinking about existential threats or loss of control of these systems.

Now, everyone is talking about this. I am hearing from people I haven't spoken to in years who are texting me, you know, are we all going to die? And in a sort of funny way, that makes me feel more optimistic, because I think we are starting to take the risks seriously, which means that we might actually be able to, you know, avert some of them.

COATES: You know, you write about this condition called being AGI- pilled, where people see a radically different future that makes them change their behavior. I mean, some A.I. employees have stopped contributing to their 401Ks, stopped wearing sunscreen, apparently.

And you write, "I met others who had started looksmaxxing -- working out, buying new clothes, injecting themselves with gray-market Chinese peptides -- because they believed that as soon as superintelligent machines took over, intelligence would no longer be a high-status trait among humans and all that would matter is how hot you were."

I mean, is that just bizarre Silicon Valley subculture or is that a trend?

ROOSE: Both. I mean, it is definitely a minority of A.I. insiders who are looksmaxxing because they think that the end of intelligence is near. But those people exist. I talk to them. They are quite sincere that they believe that we are going to be creating something that is smarter than us. Right now, A.I. is smarter than us at some things and way dumber than us at other things.

But what people inside the industry see is that these systems are improving at a consistent pace, and that there is no obvious reason why they are going to sort of top out at around the level of smart humans. They think that five or fewer years from now, we could be the second smartest species on the planet, and A.I. could be one or 10 or a hundred times smarter than us.

COATES: When do you think that is going to be? Better than us at all things, possibly?

ROOSE: I think it could happen sometime within the next three or four years.

COATES: Wow.

ROOSE: But that is contested. Some people have shorter timelines than that. You know, what was really interesting to me is a few weeks ago, when that guy quit OpenAI, Jacob Coxon, some of his co-workers said, we think there is a 10 percent chance or greater that A.I. could wipe out humanity in the next 10 years. And everyone around the world thought that was the most insane thing they had ever heard. They devoted entire news segments to it.

The reaction in San Francisco was 10 percent. That's it. A lot of people building this technology are convinced that it poses an existential threat to humanity, and they still get up every day and try to build it, anyway.

And so that is the question I was trying to answer writing this book is, why? What do they see? What future are they driving us toward? And is the future that they are driving us toward actually one that lots of people should support?

COATES: Real quick, what is motivating it? Is it a God complex? Is it a view of power? Is it a mere curiosity?

ROOSE: I think some of them see what Jeff Bezos and others have said. They think that the future is going to be abundant and happy and utopian. They want to get us there as fast as possible. I think for others of them, there is this sense of, we have to get there before the bad guys do. You know, someone is going to build this technology. It is not that hard. The recipe only has a few ingredients.

[23:59:55] And so, if we, the safety conscious A.I. company, don't build it first, China will or some more malicious A.I. company will or maybe a terrorist group will. And so, it is in our moral interest to race, to do this as fast as we can because the alternatives are all worse.

COATES: Wow. Kevin Roose, thank you so much. This is interesting. The book, again, is called "The AGI Chronicles: The Inside Story of the Race to Create an Artificial Superintelligence."

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

And thanks for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.