Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Sells Fear And Financial Promises To Midterm Voters; Trump Critic Investigated; Musk To The Rescue; Trump Not Happy With Guilfoyle, Considering Firing Her. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 12, 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]
TARA SETMAYER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, THE SENECA PROJECT: And we don't have a long enough conversation about what happens with illegal immigration.
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER FOR NATIONAL REVIEW, AUTHOR: Inflation, bad. Russia, also bad.
SETMAYER: Yes, there you go.
ROTHMAN: Two bads.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right.
SETMAYER: Pop sticker. Democrats, there you go.
PHILLIP: So, OK, related to this, if election integrity is so important, another viewer asks, why is it acceptable for the president to offer bribes for people to vote for a party?
SETMAYER: It's not. Right?
JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: Yes, I was like, you can give me $5,000 today.
PHILLIP: I mean, is it a bribe?
PETER MEIJER, FORMER MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY AT THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: I mean, is student loan forgiveness a bribe to folks who?
HILL: Yes, it's not a bribe.
MEIJER: I mean, is that?
HILL: That's an obligatory benefit.
PHILLIP: Or was that really, if you don't vote for me, you won't get the student loan?
HILL: He put the contingency on it.
MEIJER: If there was a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate and a Democratic President, you never would have gotten that.
PHILLIP: Come on, Pete.
HILL: No, I never said it. You're trying to shift the illegality. You're trying to shift it.
RAVI GUPTA, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AUTHOR: More than the illegality, it's the pettiness of it. It's like the fact that, okay, only if we win, even though we have a line up session and we theoretically could pass it either way, I would just not advance this $5,000 for you if you don't give me what I want. To me, it's everything you need.
SETMAYER: And it's more than the COVID checks, which is going to blow up the deficit even worse, but let the fiscal hawks figure that out.
PHILLIP: So, I've got two comments here about this golf course story. The first one says, we need more judges to not only yell at Trump's actions and crimes, but enforce consequences. Should there be consequences for defying the court?
ROTHMAN: Well, the consequences are that the courts continue to rule against you and it makes you look horrible, which is the point I was trying to make earlier in that segment. The thing that stands out to me is the degree to which the administration says, more than once, untrue things to judges and get reprimanded from the bench as a result of it.
PHILLIP: It makes you look bad, but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
ROTHMAN: Well, the courts don't have a military, right? But the thing about our country is that we defer to the courts because there's political power behind that and it's buttressed by Congress and it's buttressed by the electoral system. And the electoral system responds to that. This is all part of the system, we shouldn't short-circuit.
PHILLIP: So, one more comment on this. I'm positive that somehow the golf course renovations will also become a matter of national security. Honestly, just mark your clock by that one.
MEIJER: Exactly.
PHILLIP: All right, before we go, you can stream this show live or watch on demand with an all access subscription. Scan that Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, political doomsday or promised payday? How President Trump is refining his midterm pitch. Plus, Trump attacks Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. He says he has nothing to do with the DHS search of her home. So, what's the investigation actually about? And, he's back, at least his wallet is. How Elon Musk is stepping in to help Republicans try to avoid political disaster. That's all ahead tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, President Trump is throwing just about everything at the wall with 22 days until the midterms. I'm talking more rallies, more promises, and now, his vision of a political doomsday scenario if Republicans lose.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I will be the last Republican president because they will add about 12 more electoral votes. They'll add four more senators. They'll add 10 more congresspeople, approximately.
They're going to rig the Supreme Court. They say 13. Who wants 13? You know, when I build a building, I never have a 13th floor. I go 12 to 14 because nobody wants to be on the 13th floor, OK? And nobody wants to have 13 judges. And they don't either. They want to have 23. Is that a real number?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, technically, you would have a 13th floor. The number is -- never mind. The president was campaigning in Youngstown, Ohio tonight, trying to give Republicans running there a boost. GOP Senator Jon Husted at the rally, so was the GOP candidate for governor, Vivek Ramaswamy. And both have something in common. They are trailing in the latest CNN polling. Husted is six points behind former Democratic senator, Sherrod Brown. And Ramaswamy is faring even worse against his opponent, Amy Acton, down eight points.
And remember, this is a state that Trump won by double digits in 2024. And look at the rest of Trump's roadshow this week. He's going to Alaska tomorrow, Arizona and Montana on Wednesday, Georgia on Friday. All those, yes, states that he won in 2024. The map, it may have been red then.
[23:04:58]
But the polling from many of the Republicans running in those states now, not so much. Many of those candidates are trying to walk a fine line. They're trying to distance themselves from Trump's unpopular policies like the Iran war, like tariffs, while still banking on his support. And the president's answer to their polling problems? More him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think the rallies have had a massive impact. You see the numbers go up every time I have a rally. It's beyond the area, too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But, privately, some Republicans are saying the exact opposite, frankly. One House Republican running for re-election put it this way: Trump is dragging down the party. And that may explain why the president is once again dangling his Trump dividend, promising voters they're going to get a payday if Republicans keep control of the House and the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm going to give all adult citizens in the United States of America $5,000. If the Democrats win, you will have an economic depression. If the Republicans win, you will each have $5,000 in your pocket and economic success for our country like we have never, ever seen before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in my all-star panel, CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton, former senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, Adrienne Elrod, pollster Frank Luntz, independent journalist Aaron Parnas. Glad to have all of you guys here.
Shermichael, look, this new ad is from the Oval Office. The president is driving home this $5,000 promise to voters. We've heard this before during that midterm convention. Is this a sign of desperation or doubling down on what he really thinks will get support?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think he's trying to motivate his base and people with the possibility of some type of economic reprieve. Now, look, as a conservative, we can't afford that. We're $40-plus trillion in debt. I have no clue where the money would come from.
COATES: Isn't that a really big issue, though?
SINGLETON: Of course, it's a big issue but, at this point, 22 days before midterms, you want to get people out to vote for you as much as you possibly can. There's a little hyperbolic rhetoric in the messaging here from the president, but I think this is all about turnout at this point.
COATES: Hyperbolic messaging says false promises to me. Is that a problem when you're thinking about the fact that he has already been low in his poll numbers, given that people think he has not delivered on his previous campaign promises?
AARON PARNAS, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: Yes, of course, it's a problem. But I also think -- I mean, Republicans have the House, the Senate, and the White House right now. They are giving out $5,000 after the election Give it out now. Give it out over the past 18 months. They haven't been able to pass any legislation outside of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because you have a Congress that is essentially at a stalemate.
Republicans can't get an agreement amongst one another, let alone with Democrats, and so Trump is really just throwing everything he can at the wall with the hopes that something catches on with voters at this point.
COATES: He hopes he catches on, again. He's saying, pretend that I'm on the ballot, pretend that I'm -- you know, he's going to places that we know he has gone before and been successful. One would think you would not always want to preach to the choir. I mean, is there a world where this plan strategically would work to drive Republican voters to the polls and also have them pretend across other states that he is there?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HARRIS-WALZ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I think it's a little too late. I think he would have done something like a year ago when voters were still really feeling the -- I mean, they're still feeling the impact even more so of the affordability crisis. But I think this is something he did a year ago where people are actually, like, getting the checks, feeling how -- you know, feeling the impact of it. But right now, it feels a little too late. I mean, right now, early voting is happening in almost every major swing state that matters in this election cycle.
Voters are frustrated. I mean, I've gotten texts. I'm from Arkansas. I've gotten so many text messages over the last two or three days from my Republican friends in Arkansas saying diesel prices are out of control. What can we do? I say vote Democratic. That's the bottom line. You have to vote against the party that's in power to try to make a difference, to try to have a balance of power. People are feeling it. Long story short, a little too late.
COATES: Well, Frank, I mean, "The New York Times" just spoke with a slew of Trump voters, including, by the way, in Michigan, a very important state for them. And one retired worker said, "Trump is not making sense. It confuses me, and then I just get disgusted and tune out. He's losing touch with the American people." Another saying they're going to stay home.
I mean, the idea of this red undertow we're hearing about, forget the blue wave, but the idea of a red undertow where it's not so much that Republicans are going to go for Democrats because they believe in their policies, but because they don't believe that they should even maybe show up or that he is dragging them down and, therefore, he will not be successful.
FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER, COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: It's a problem for both political parties. You have Democrats having a schism between the Democratic socialists and the mainstream of the party, and that is causing issues, challenges, particularly in the northeast. On the Republican side, you've got MAGA Republicans and more mainstream Republicans.
We have a disintegration of our two-party system and a rising frustration and anxiety as people face these challenges.
[23:10:04]
I say to people that there are only two words that matter right now, turnout and affordability. If you believe that you're going to be able to afford life, housing, health care, food and fuel, you can still vote Republican. If you believe that those are out of control and it's out of your ability to change things, you're going to vote Democrat. I do not see any gains among, ideologically, the Democratic Party even though their candidates are doing quite well right now. And for the Republicans, they better focus on day-to-day issues and day-to-day concerns and be able to show that what they promised is what they've delivered because if they don't, the Democrats are going to have a very good night.
COATES: I want to hear from you on this, Aaron and Shermichael, but I want to ask you, Adrianne, you know, the philosophy is that voters want something to vote for, not necessarily against something. If Trump fatigue is driving this as opposed to Democrats being able to persuade, what does that tell you about the Democratic messaging so far?
ELROD: Well, look, I think it's a couple of things. Number one, you've got to remember, just as Aaron was saying, Republicans have the House and the White House right now, so it has been hard for Democrats to really get their message out there because we don't have any power.
We've got some amazing candidates running in 2026. We've got some people who are emerging for 2028. And as we get past the midterms, you'll hear more from the 2028 candidates. But the bottom line is we have to continue, Democrats, to figure out ways to get our message out there. There is a two-track system where we hold the Trump administration accountable, but we also talk about how we're going to make lives better for the American people.
And the one thing that keeps me up slightly at night as a Democratic strategist is making sure, and slightly worrying, that Democrats, when we get back in control, we're going to have to figure out how to govern. It's going to be that much harder, even if we take the House and the Senate, with Trump and the veto power, even if we get things passed that will make the lives of the American people better, that will reduce, you know, the burden of terrorists, that will maybe reinstate the health care subsidies, the ACA, the Affordable Care Act. And if he vetoes them, then those policies will not be felt by the American people because they won't be enacted.
So, it's going to be a constant struggle, but I think once we get past this cycle and you start to hear from more 2028 candidates about their messaging, about our platform, what we stand for as Democrats, it is going to help drown some of that out.
COATES: Yet, I mean, asking people to wait even for short periods of time is very problematic for politicians, right? Because you look at people who are wealthy, who can endure the burn, and you ask, wait until 2028, that feels problematic to the everyday voter who's thinking about fuel and groceries and health care and child care and mortgage interest and all sorts of things.
And so, I ask you, there's this moment that we had at a rally this weekend where the president got incredibly candid about really how he sees his support still and how he sees his presence and the loyalty of voters. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It's amazing. When you stand up here, it's just like the love. I could say the stupidest things and you'd clap. You know, I love you so. I'm sure. But we don't say the stupidest things. We say things of common sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm not sure they're in on the joke. It seems a little bit antagonistic. But tell me what this tells you about his views, about his rapport even still.
PARNAS: What it tells me is that no matter what the election cycle it is, as long as Donald Trump is either president or on the ballot, 30 percent of America will always be with Donald Trump no matter what happens. They will clap at everything he says. They clapped at that despite him essentially mocking them.
Now, I will say this: When you look at polling consistently across the country, Trump is bleeding from two specific groups that helped him win in 2024, Latino voters because of the ICE raids and young men, specifically young people generally, but young men who are looking at what Trump promised them in 2024 and saying he hasn't delivered for us. And so, I think you don't necessarily need a Democratic message when you have such bleeding Republican support right now.
COATES: Talarico -- I want to hear this because you're from Texas. I've got to ask you about Talarico, Shermichael, because Republicans, they thought they had an opening by attacking him for his absence. But the supporters of Talarico, they are pushing back. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JILL FOX, DEMOCRATIC VOTER FROM TARRANT COUNTY: -- and things out and about. And so, it's, you know, clear he has been relentless. And so, you're going to get run down, you're going to be exposed to things. Mitch McConnell was MIA for, like, three months. So, it's really kind of laughable to me that Republicans would try to make that a mark against one of our candidates.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Did GOP overplay its hand there?
SINGLETON: Look, I don't think that's necessarily as relevant as the structural advantages that existed in Texas and elsewhere.
COATES: What's not relevant? I want to be clear I understand.
SINGLETON: This piece that the lady was talking about, referencing Mitch McConnell. This was a social media thing. The party as a whole strategically was not focused on messaging to voters that James Talarico was at a mental institution. This was a social media viral thing by some conservative provocateurs.
[23:15:00] That said, though, we're outspending Democrats in Texas by three to one, I believe. We have significant cash advantages that will allow us to structurally engage and turn out our voters. And you look at how well President Trump did in the state of Texas.
And the presumption of the argument from my Democratic friends that, somehow, Democrats will usurp that, I don't mathematically see how you get there. Now, Beto got very close, and even that wasn't good enough for him. So, again, Ken Paxton is an unpopular person but, to me, the fundamentals electorally have not changed in terms of Republicans' advantages. And the financial advantage we have, I think, helps us.
ELROD: Except for the fact that Talarico was polling ahead of Paxton in almost every single poll, which is not where Beto was in 2018.
SINGLETON: He did poll against Ted Cruz several different times, one. And then number two, I would argue that a lot of that polling data that you're referencing heavily skews Democrats as opposed to subgroups of Republicans who typically are very difficult to poll and get into surveys.
LUNTZ: It's a pollster. Don't believe this crap. We are making projections that we should not be doing. I would have said to you that Kamala Harris, based on some of the polling in 2024, was going to get elected. The polling is faulty. It doesn't measure who's actually going to vote. And there was over-reporting of Democrats in 2024. There may be under-reporting of Democrats in 2026. I say to you, that's not what polling should be used for.
And we need to be honest. People making decisions based on this show, based on what they're being told. I want polling to explain why we feel the way that we do and not to try to project what's going to happen 24 days from now.
SINGLETON: But --
COATES: You said it's a pollster.
LUNTZ: Yes.
COATES: You spent your career doing this.
LUNTZ: And I will tell you, I love doing this. You and I were talking before. I got Hillary Clinton wrong in 2016. I absolutely thought she was going to get elected because I was reading the polling in the exit polls. I'm never doing that again. You make a mistake, shame on you. If I do it twice, shame on me. I'm not doing it again.
COATES: All right. Well, the true poll, guess what? Election Day. You out there are the truth. Stand by, everyone. We want to hear from you at home as well. Just text us your questions and your comments, 818- 972-7272. The panel is coming back to answer them later in the hour. Give me your first name, your city. I want to know who I'm talking to, so do they.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I don't know what they're doing with it, but I can tell you this: She's a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The president going after Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar just hours after federal agents searched her home. He says he's got nothing to do with that. So, what is the investigation really about? I've got "The New York Times" reporter who has been looking into it. He's going to join me tonight. And later, can money solve the Republican Party's midterm problem? Elon Musk is sure trying to find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I understand they're looking at her very carefully. I've always found her to be totally crooked personally, but that has nothing to do with me. I think she's a terrible person, just a complainer
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's the president insisting he had nothing to do with the search of the home of Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Federal agents removed boxes from her D.C. home after the DOJ obtained a court-issued search warrant. It's unclear what exactly is in the warrant. It was executed just three weeks before the election.
Now, there is, of course, this 60-day DOJ rule, not legislative, but a DOJ rule that you may have heard about. The DOJ tries to avoid launching investigations or filing charges 60 days before Election Day with respect to those who are involved in the election. But those are just guidelines, not a hard and fast rule.
And Congresswoman Omar, who is running for re-election, believes that Trump is weaponizing the DOJ, saying -- quote -- "For 10 years, Trump has targeted me with faceless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation."
Let's bring in Devlin Barrett from "The New York Times," who has been reporting out this story all day, and former federal prosecutor, Brendan Ballou, here as well. Devlin, I want to start here because I got to know what more you're learning about this warrant and the allegations that she could be facing.
DEVLIN BARRETT, AUTHOR, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right. So, we're told by sources that the warrant lists a series of potential charges that are under investigation, including things like false statements on immigration documents, false statements on a passport document, conspiracy. So, they're clearly focused on the idea that either her or members of her family misrepresented or just said things that were false in their immigration paperwork which, to be clear, goes back years and years.
And you can see, what they've been looking at for a long time has been this question of what were the circumstances under which she first came to the country and essentially paperwork filled out by her father, not her, and were there any false statements in that paperwork and did any of those false statements essentially carry over into subsequent things like applying for a passport, renewing your documents?
COATES: Brendan, let's talk about this because people are going to think to themselves, well, if it was the action of a father, why would she be the one being investigated? Was she a minor? Was she an adult at the time? But also, what would be the answer to that? If there was a false statement in the past that then led to that person's citizenship and then they next applied for yours, is there an intent thing that's missing here?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes. You know, it's possible that there's some sort of aiding or abetting crime like 18 U.S.C. 2.
[23:24:57]
But it's also possible that, you know, she's not the actual target of the investigation here, at least nominally, that they're trying to go after her family members.
I think the really interesting thing about that would be, OK, if they are targeting her family members, would the sort of analysis that we've been talking about so far with this case, you know, could this be conceived as a selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, things like that, would that apply to the family members if they're the ones that are being targeted here?
I think that's going to be a really interesting question. I think the magistrate judge that approved the search warrant, based on the reporting that we've seen so far, may or may not have gotten into those deep, weighty First Amendment issues. But that's also because, you know, at a search warrant stage, you don't have who's in counsel making these sorts of arguments. But I expect if an indictment is actually brought, they certainly will start making them.
COATES: And, of course, it would be probable cause as a standard for a warrant. And, of course, trying to figure out for a warrant to be valid and for it to be, you know, agreed to by a judge, it has to know that you're going to find what you think is evidence of a crime in that location. They have to be very, very specific, as you know.
But, you know, back in 2024, Trump railed against the DOJ because they responded to a court filing in his election interference case that was very close to the election. He called it election interference, as a matter of fact. You know, there's that 60-day rule. You know, are these actions considered important to be within the contemplation of this 60-day rule and won't she just claim the same?
BARRETT: She almost certainly will claim the same. I don't know that the 60-day rule matters so much for the judge, but it matters greatly for the Justice Department's credibility. And the thing that the 60- day rule is supposed to prevent is overt investigative activity that makes it look like the DOJ is taking sides in an upcoming election. That's the purpose of the rule.
And it has long been understood across DOJ that something like executing a search warrant at a politician's home or business is an overt act because you can just see it on the street. And look what happened today. You saw cameras out there. We were just watching film of that search warrant being executed. That is, by definition, of every former DOJ person I've ever spoken to, overt. So, this is in the heartland of what the 60-day rule is designed to prevent.
But, to be fair, there are exceptions to the 60-day rule, such as if you think someone is going to destroy evidence, if you think there's an ongoing crime that you're trying to stop. Now, we don't know. We have to have some respect for the things we don't know yet. We don't know if any of those exceptions apply.
COATES: Right.
BARRETT: But we do know that these issues have been investigated for a long time prior to this, for years, and no charges have ever been filed. And now, we're getting a search three weeks before the day of election.
COATES: You know, Trump said that he has nothing to do with this search whatsoever, but he has made his opinion of Omar quite clear. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You should get the hell out. Throw her the hell out. She does nothing but complain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites, she ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: How about Ilhan Omar? She comes from Somalia. All they have is crime and squalor. And she comes into our country, and she says, my Constitution allows me. She's talking about our Constitution. What they've done to Minnesota, these people from Somalia, what they've done to Minnesota, should never be allowed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Brendan, it's hard to imagine that someone could believe that the president has no opinion of what has transpired, whether he was involved or not, but has no opinion of what has transpired in this event of today. There's a credibility issue there. But also, his words have been routinely used against the Justice Department and other matters that they have tried to have a legal approach to, and they use his own statements as fact against him. This is likely to be the same scenario.
BALLOU: Yes. This may be good politics. I don't know. But it's certainly bad law. What's going to happen here is, let's say Congressman Omar is indicted, let's say one of her family members is indicted, all of these statements are going to be evidence used for a selective or vindictive prosecution defense here.
I mean, we were just talking about that 60-day guideline. You know, this informal or non-binding idea that you're not supposed to be bringing these sorts of overt investigative activities right before an election, you know, that may -- violating that informal rule may not be a reason to suppress the search warrant or suppress the evidence, but it is further evidence that the reason why this case is being brought and the reason why it's being brought right now is for political purposes.
So, again, this may all make sense in a political calculus. I can't say. But in terms of prosecuting an actual case, all of this is unhelpful for the Department of Justice.
COATES: Well, we shall see what will certainly be unfolding in the days and weeks to come.
[23:30:00]
I don't know what's in it, I don't know what they've got, but I'll be following the story. Devlin, Brendan, thank you both so much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, CEO OF TESLA MOTORS, LEADER OF DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was Elon Musk in May of just last year. And man, was he wrong. Up next, the incredible amount of money he is now spending to help Republicans win in November. So, what changed? I'll ask Kara Swisher that very question, next. And later, Kimberly Guilfoyle poised to face Democrat-led investigations over corruption allegations. So, what happens if Trump decides to fire her? And remember, the panel is here, sticking around to answer your comments and questions tonight. So, text them, 818-972-7272.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Two hundred and seventy-six million bucks. That's how much Elon Musk spent to boost Republicans in the midterms in just the last three months, making him far and away the top-known donor for Republicans this very election cycle.
I want to put that into perspective. Musk donated $158 million to the Maine super PAC, backing Republican Senate candidates. And the super PAC for Senate Democrats? The total amount they raised from all donors last quarter is still less than Musk's donation. Now, you remember when Musk said this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?
MUSK: I think, in terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future.
UNKNOWN: And why is that?
MUSK: I think I've done enough. If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I don't currently see a reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now is CNN contributor and host of the podcasts "On" and "Pivot," Kara Swisher. Kara, so good to see you.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Thank you.
COATES: I mean, he's not exactly sticking to what he said last year.
SWISHER: Good to see you.
COATES: But what do you think changed to make him think he now has a reason?
SWISHER: Because the Democrats might take over the Senate and the House, and he's in their crosshairs, presumably. With Trump, he has been able to foist off all kinds of investigations that would have been happening, say, if Kamala Harris won or if Democrats were in charge, and he has managed to sort of kneecap a lot of these agencies that were looking into some of his business practices. And so, as I said, when he was backing Trump, it's existential for him to continue to do this from a business point of view.
COATES: Well, on that point, I mean, he's devoting a lot of money to the Texas Senate race in particular. He gave $10 million to the super PAC that backs Ken Paxton. His organization also launched this massive field operation in Texas where, by the way, many of his companies are based. Is this mainly about protecting those business interests, then? SWISHER: Of course. Everything is about the money, Laura. You have to keep that in mind. I mean, he can talk as much as he wants on Twitter, but everything any of these tech people do is about money. And so, putting in, you know, a couple hundred million is just an investment, and then he gets billions out in contracts. He doesn't have to deal with any kind of investigations with any problems, say, around Tesla or anything else. And then, in Texas, you know, Governor Greg Abbott has just done whatever he wanted. And so, it's more problematic if it's James Talarico and a Democratic governor.
COATES: His strategy, though, is less chainsaw in the open public and more subtle, shall we say, with his spending his time around. He's not doing these massive campaign rallies or million-dollar giveaways for voters. What does that tell you that he -- tell you? He's worried about these donations maybe being so public or backfiring?
SWISHER: Well, we know he did. No, I just think he was repellent to voters when he put on -- you know, he also got into legal trouble with those, first of all. Second of all, I don't remember when he put the cheese head on. I mean, I think that lost the -- he was trying to get a judge put into place. He spent $25 million there and lost badly. There he is with the cheese head. I mean, he looks ridiculous.
And so, I don't think anyone wants to see Elon Musk in politics and especially when he's, you know, sort of sauntering around, acting like kind of a jerk. And the chainsaw was just cruel. It's just, you know, he's in his 50s. This is unusual for someone to behave like this.
And so, you know, it's better just to use the money, just to have money and spend the money. I don't think money is -- this election is about money, though. That's the problem for him.
COATES: Well, he is trying to amplify over the weekend the baseless conspiracy theory that James Talarico is in a mental health facility. He didn't make the claim outright, but he replied to those posts, saying, --quote -- "The Talarico campaign is hiding something big that voters ought to know about." I mean, this is the largest known donor in the election saying things like this.
SWISHER: Right. Yes, concerning. I don't know. He does this all the time. He, like, floats all kinds of weird conspiracy theories. Some of them are outright, you know, racist, white supremacist, stuff like that. But he boosts them, and he boosts them on that platform.
And so, that's one of his biggest influences. The reason he bought it is to have the influence of Twitter. I mean, I think the problem is how much influence can he have without -- you know, how much influence can he have if there are Democrats in charge? People will start investigating him, I think, and that'll be a problem for him. He might, you know, have Donald Trump still, but it's not as effective unless he captures the Senate and the House.
COATES: The lame duck may be the most impactful. Kara, thank you so much.
SWISHER: Thank you. COATES: We've been getting lots of questions from all of you at home. So, let's start answering them right away. My panel is back with me right now.
[23:40:00]
We've got Anita. Anita from Seattle asked this question. Why isn't Trump attacking the Republicans who are speaking out against him this time? Well, Frank, do you have the answer?
LUNTZ: He is, and it's something that we're not used to. To me, the biggest shock of the last 30 days is that at a Trump rally, they were booing the Senate Republican leader, John Thune. I've never seen that before. This is the guy who's responsible for trying to get the president's agenda through the Senate, and they're attacking him. There is a problem within the GOP.
Candidly, there's a problem within the Democrats as well. There's a breakdown of party discipline and a rise of an independent approach within the parties that we haven't seen before.
COATES: Let's go to Colleyville, Texas. Mark asked this question. What is Ilhan Omar's remedy if the accusations about her turn out to be not true? I'll take this one. Well, it would be premature for her to have a legal remedy. There's actually been no indictment pending. I'm sure she could articulate vindictive prosecution should that come in. But, right now, she has to, in many ways, wait for the probable cause findings to lead to anything substantial, if at all.
Curtis from Maryland asked this question. If the Talarico absence was a social media thing, then why have the candidate for Senate and the president give it fuel? Seems like desperation. Shermichael?
SINGLETON: Call it what you want, but we haven't spent a single dollar on advertisements digitally or on television about this. We just haven't. We're talking about the border, we're talking about the economy, we're talking about the tax Trump credits for children. I can just tell you because I'm working on some of these races within RSC. We're not focused on this. We're focused on, to your point, Frank, trying to talk about the issues that actually motivates voters. That's why it doesn't matter.
COATES: All right. Mike from Long Island City, New York asks, what can the Democrats do if they win? Their winning may only fire him up more to keep steamrolling Congress, start more wars, and knock things down for his petty projects. An optimist. Aaron?
PARNAS: Well, twofold. First, they can launch investigations, they can subpoena the hell out of Trump and his family, they can look into all of his businesses, they can make life a living hell for anyone inside the White House and outside of the White House that have assisted the Trump family and the Trump administration. And then second, as Adrienne was saying earlier in the program, they could pass legislation and force Trump to veto it, which would make the 2028 race even worse for Republicans. So, twofold. COATES: Good points. Rajiv from Fort Lauderdale, Florida asks, do you think the trend of candidates running for public office and refusing to debate their opponents will continue to grow? Adrienne, what do you think?
ELROD: Look, I think it's a mistake. I mean, the bottom line is especially -- I mean, I think you're talking about a lot of incumbents right now who don't want to debate some of the Democratic challengers in a cycle that is favoring Democrats. At the end of the day, with all the noise going on, with social media, with so much coming at voters, with so much money being spent, people still want to see a real debate about the issues. The debates still very, very much matter. So, I think refusing to debate is a problem.
COATES: David Jolly has refused to debate Byron Donalds. It's both sides, right?
ELROD: Well, I think that's a problem, too. I mean, show up and debate. If you actually want to serve the people that you're seeking to represent, debate your opponent.
COATES: All right. One more question. Josh from L.A. asks, why can't Republicans help Trump stay on message?
(LAUGHTER)
Shermichael?
SINGLETON: I would be super rich if I knew the answer to that. Look, I've made this point for a long time now. Every single candidate must run their races individually. And the White House and the president, if that means critiquing him, disagreeing with him, they must permit it, particularly in the Senate if it means keeping the Senate.
COATES: Quick. This is a good question. Ed from -- wait, I want that back, Ed from Vermont. They're going to kill me. Ed from Vermont had this question. It comes back to it. Essentially, what was the point of polling if it doesn't forecast the election results? I don't understand the argument that polls are worthless. Frank?
LUNTZ: Because you can't -- you have to tell the truth about the data. And to me, what I'm looking at now more than anything else is that the Democrats can't wait to vote. They can't wait. Election Day cannot come soon enough.
And Republicans are looking at it. And for the most part, they think things are OK. And so, they're going to stay home. That's why Donald Trump is across the country, and that's why you can't call it with less than three days to go. But I'm looking at that turnout, and that's going to determine the success on Election Day.
COATES: Thank you, everyone. Really insightful responses. And also, a quick programming note, CNN and Jubilee are teaming up to host a town hall with James Talarico. That's this Wednesday here on CNN starting at 8 p.m. Eastern and streaming live with an "All Access" subscription. Still ahead, you know it's bad when even the president considered firing you. Ambassador agrees Kimberly Guilfoyle on very thin ice tonight over her alleged pay-to-play scandal. We've got news on this to talk about, next. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: What is your response to Republican criticism of your diesel deal with Russia?
TRUMP: Well, I think these are Republicans that can't really be serious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:45:01]
COATES: They're serious. There's a lot of them. But will it make any difference? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, Kimberly Guilfoyle's ambassadorship seems to be on life support. After a barrage of ethics complaints and a new State Department inspector general probe into alleged pay-for-access schemes, the president himself is publicly signaling that her time might be up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, we're looking at it, yes. We're not happy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Guilfoyle's lawyers, they are aggressively pushing back. They're calling the accusations a distorted debt dispute, saying, "When Ms. Guilfoyle was preparing to leave private life for public service, she did what any professional does and tried to close out her outstanding receivables. Asking a client to pay for work already done is not corruption. It is the opposite of corruption" -- unquote.
[23:50:02]
With me now, Democratic Congressman from New York, Gregory Meeks, who is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, welcome back. I am curious if you think firing Guilfoyle is enough to resolve this or does Congress need to step in?
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: Well, I think there needs to be more. I mean, this just seems to be another incident where someone affiliated with Donald Trump is in a get-rich-scheme or trying to figure out how they can benefit for themselves personally as opposed to serving the purposes of being an ambassador in this case of the people of the United States of America.
So, it seems to me that it's more of the same, people making money or trying to make money, and I think this is the problem that we're having with the loyalists of Donald Trump, particularly when they're assigned in foreign places. It is, as we see with him and his family, whether it's Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner and others, they're making billions of dollars.
And now, you see a case right where this ambassador seems to insist on someone to try to put some money on, you know, send it through American Express so that it cannot be found, so she needs to find a hundred thousand dollars.
So, no, it seems to be a pattern that's going on and continues to happen under this administration.
COATES: Some would see distinction between, say, a Kushner and what has happened with Guilfoyle, but I will note that this isn't something that you have just thought of in the last day or two or reactive to most recent reports. Nearly two weeks ago, congressman, you wrote a detailed letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You demand an answer about Guilfoyle's alleged conduct. He actually set a deadline of this Thursday. Have you received any response from Rubio yet?
MEEKS: Absolutely not. We haven't heard anything back from the State Department, and that's a problem. Again, we are trying to hold accountable. Initially, what we heard from Rubio was basically still defending her. But I think that more and more, in a bipartisan way, not only Democrats are screaming for her to step down and be fired, Republicans are also.
And so, again, as we move on through and with this administration, we don't want to be held accountable by the Congress or come to Congress. So, no, I'm still waiting to hear. I don't even know what investigation the OIC is doing at the State Department at all, even though we requested that kind of investigation to be pursued.
COATES: Congressman, if the president of the United States no longer had her as an ambassador and you've heard him state already that he's not happy, they're not happy, looking into the issues, would that undermine the argument that this administration is turning a blind eye or encouraging the type of corruption you alleged?
MEEKS: Well, no. I mean, they have turned a blind eye. This is being forced upon them. They just got caught red-handed with someone that they did not expect to be exposed. But, you know, again, I think it also applies for the members of the Senate to not just rubber-stamp any appointment that the president decides to put forward.
We need to have -- there should be due diligence in looking at particularly those who are just going there because they are loyal to the president of the United States. That is not the way that we should be operating.
COATES: Let's talk about Russia because many are criticizing the way the president has operated under this controversial deal to buy Russian diesel, a deal the president justified just yesterday by claiming he secured an immediate energy ceasefire, but that truce fell apart within hours, congressman. But here's how the president responded today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Russia already violated the ceasefire and attacked Ukraine last night. Do you have any reaction?
TRUMP: Well, I'm not -- I'm not sure about that, and we'll take a look. But all I know is that Zelenskyy and Putin have to get together and end that ridiculous war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think they're going to make a deal. I think actually Putin wants to make a deal more than Zelenskyy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Even Republicans think this deal is a gift to Putin. How concerned are you about what the president is doing here?
MEEKS: I'm very concerned. Look, the one that started this war was Vladimir Putin, not Ukraine, not Zelenskyy. At each and every turn, we see that this president is doing something to help Russia and Putin. You know, just a few days ago, just before we broke from Congress, they passed the sanctions bill, which I knew that Trump would not really enforced.
And that's why I was not for it. I wanted it to be more like a bill we passed in April that would have prevented him from getting around sanctioning Russia.
[23:55:00]
So, here he goes where he's clearly working on behalf of Russia, blaming Zelenskyy when it is, in fact, Russia that does not want to stop. Russia continues to bomb Ukraine. Russia continues to kill innocent Ukrainians. And what Ukrainians are trying to do is to defend themselves and their country.
So, it seems as though at every step, we heard what he's had to say to Zelenskyy when he first came to the White House, and we saw him roll out the red carpet for Putin when he came to the United States. So, it's clear that Donald Trump is in cahoots with Vladimir Putin, with Putin, and I think he wants to be like Putin himself because he would like to run this government in the same way.
COATES: We'll see how the voters feel in about 20-so days. Congressman Gregory Meeks, thank you.
MEEKS: Thank you for having me.
COATES: And a quick programming note, you can catch me on CNN All Access tomorrow afternoon covering the sentencing of Duane "Keffe D" Davis for the murder of Tupac Shakur. Coverage begins at 1 p.m. Eastern.
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.
Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
