Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

"Release the Files" Turns Into "Let Maxwell Testify"; Trump Eyes 5-Seat Pickup In Texas, Pushes Redrawing Congressional Map; Harry Enten Reports On The Results In High-Stakes AZ Democratic Primary; Dentist Accused Of Killing Wife By Poisoning Protein Shakes. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 15, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And a quick note before we go. My debut book, "A Dream Deferred: Jesse Jackson and the Fight for Black Political Power," will be released this fall on October 28. This book takes a look at Jesse Jackson's political legacy more than 40 years later. I appreciate it if you scan the Q.R. code on your screen to pre-order today.

And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media, Instagram, TikTok, and X. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, calls to release the Epstein files are morphing into calls to have Ghislaine Maxwell testify in a major new escalation of the controversy the president can't shut down.

Plus, a 25-year-old Gen Z-er trying to upset the Democratic establishment in Arizona. Live election results are just a few moments away.

And later, Trump eyeing a controversial move to make Texas redder just in time for the midterms. Congressman Jasmine Crockett is in studio to respond tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, President Trump appears to be unable to put that Jeffrey Epstein genie back in the bottle. If anything, the controversy is heating up and more intense even tonight. Because get this: There are now calls for Epstein's convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, to testify before Congress.

Republican Congressman Tim Burchett tonight wrote a letter to the House Oversight chair demanding as much, saying -- quote -- "I respectfully request you invite Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell to testify in a public hearing before the committee. Should Ms. Maxwell refuse the invitation, I encourage you to use subpoena powers."

Now, Burchett is not alone in this. And Trump's attempts to have people move on don't appear to be working, which is much to his dismay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring. And I don't understand why it keeps going. I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going. But credible information, let them give it. Anything that's credible, I would say let them have it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Anything that's credible, let them have it. Well, that would fall to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, who today refused to take questions on Epstein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Nothing about Epstein. I'm not going to talk about Epstein. I'm going to be here for as long as the president wants me here, and I believe he has made that crystal clear. No, I'm not going to talk about personnel matters. No, I'm not going to discuss personnel matters. I think we all are committed to working together now to make America safe again. Only on topic, guys. Our memo speaks for itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: If that memo speaks for itself, then there is no client list of rich and powerful people, there is no evidence of blackmailing, and Epstein's cause of death was suicide. So that memo is saying case closed. That's the government's official position.

But it turns out that's not good enough for a lot of people. And I do mean a lot. Only 3% of Americans are even satisfied with what the government has shared on the case. And that's according to a new CNN poll, 3%. That includes someone who might actually have some power or influence. I'm talking about the Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We should put everything out there and let the people decide. Pam Bondi, I don't know, when she originally made the statement, I think she was talking about documents. As I understood it, that were on her desk. I don't know that she was specific about a list or whatever. But she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I think she thinks she did. Now, just when you thought the story couldn't get any more bizarre, Trump today introduced a completely new dynamic to it by blaming it all on some familiar political targets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did she tell you at all that your name appears in the file?

TRUMP: No, no. She's -- she has given us just a very quick briefing and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen. And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by Biden, you know. And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Almost like the old hits. But it's a claim with zero evidence. And you know what? It's also a claim that not even his most fervent supporters are buying.

Leading us off tonight is someone who knows this case inside and out, prominent women's rights attorney Gloria Allred, who had presented more than 20 alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

[23:05:04]

Gloria, welcome back. I have to ask you. Ghislaine Maxwell, as you know, is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors. Now, there are calls for her to testify in front of Congress. Would she put a lot of these questions to rest if she did because, remember, she did not testify in her own defense for her criminal trial?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yes, I think she could answer certain questions, Laura, that have not been answered prior to this. The real question, of course, is, would she testify voluntarily even without a subpoena? She may be in the process of an appeal from her conviction.

It's possible that she would file habeas corpus, and I'm sure her lawyers would not want to interfere with that process by having her testify at this point. But she may wish to testify at another point if asked and when her appeals are exhausted or any petitions are exhausted.

COATES: What would you want to hear from her if she were to speak before Congress?

ALLRED: Well, I would like to know more about Mr. Epstein's plan and scheme to prey on underaged girls, to sexually traffic them, to recruit them. I'd like to know more about his emails, his texts, his electronic communications, anything that she can add that might lead to the truth of the matter. I'd also like to know what she knows, if anything, about his recording of victims, whether she knows anything about recording of images of victims in terms of sexual images of adults or child victims.

COATES: Absolutely. Stomach-turning, just the content of what you're seeking, and I can only imagine what it's like for the victims who are hearing about a lot of this now. And actually, I want to go right there because a lot of this is being discussed in the political context, whether there have been documents released, whether there has been transparency, Democrats, Republicans talking about the campaign trail promises and beyond.

But I wonder, from your perspective, having represented dozens, at this point, of people who are connected with him, you're in touch with the alleged victims, what are you hearing from them, that this is something that continues to be in the zeitgeist?

ALLRED: Well, it's traumatic and it's triggering for a number of victims to suddenly have all of this in the public eye again. You know, I think many of them still want accountability, they still want the truth to come out, and they still would like to know more about the evidence. There is fear among some of them.

Of course, I don't think that even though I'm in favor of transparency and have been even with the last administration, I think many of them fear that if there were images recorded without their knowledge and without their consent, sexual images, they don't ever want those to be seen by the public. Some of them may not even have seen them themselves. They don't want their names out there made public. They would want that redacted. They don't want to be identified in any way, even without their names, that could lead someone to conclude who they are.

Bottom line is they want their privacy, they want their privacy to be protected, but they would like to know more about not only what happened to Jeffrey Epstein, whether it was suicide, whether it was homicide, but exactly how he was able to engage in his scheme to prey on underaged girls and adults and get away with it for so long.

Many of them would also be interested in the names of others with whom he may have socialized or knew who may also have been involved in exploiting or sexually abusing some of the victims.

COATES: Gloria, do you believe the attorney general, Pam Bondi, that there's no there there?

ALLRED: Well, what I'd like to see is the entire file of the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York who filed charges against Jeffrey Epstein.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ALLRED: And my experience with prosecutors is that they don't do that and especially in a high-profile case unless they have thoroughly investigated and are ready to present evidence which they believe might prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[23:10:01]

So, I'd like to see the file. I probably, for the first time, ever concur with Speaker Johnson that the Department of Justice should release the file. I don't think that anyone should go through it and decide what's credible or not. I think the file should be released but, of course, with the redactions to protect the victims wherever possible. So yes. And I think that should be done as soon as possible. Let the public decide.

COATES: Gloria Allred, thank you so much for joining.

ALLRED: Thank you.

COATES: Joining me now, Republican strategist Lance Trover and Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross. This has been captivating so many people. President Trump can't believe it is and wants it to stop.

But Lance, you do have sources telling CNN that the president is privately urging aides to let this story essentially die down. Time reporters, it's pretty boring stuff. But, as you heard Gloria Allred talk about, even Speaker Johnson is saying, essentially, give them what they want to hear in terms of the actual files themselves that were transparency. Why do you think this is something that President Trump is so invested in not discussing any longer?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think because the FBI did a very thorough review upon him coming into office. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino were two of the biggest leaders in wanting to get what's out there, and they discovered, I think pretty clearly, that he committed suicide, which is the question that has been out there for now a number of years, as to whether he actually did or not.

My sense is that is what happened, and that's the -- you know, that's the conclusion that was reached, and that's why the president is saying, hey, we figured it out, he committed suicide.

COATES: The irony, of course, is that you'd be asking them to trust the FBI, which President Trump for a long time has said, do not trust, don't listen, there's a lot of mistrust here. Can they have it both ways, and especially now naming people like Comey, Obama, if that's the case?

TROVER: Well, yeah. Look, I don't -- I don't know about the Comey, Obama stuff. I know that Kash Patel and Dan Bongino -- I mean, these are guys who have talked about this for years. And so, I have faith in them and people in the FBI who conducted an exhaustive review of this over several months, and that's the conclusion they reached.

And, by the way, no one is really disputing the fact that he committed suicide, not Dan Bongino, not anybody, when all of this kerfuffle was happening last week. It seems that conclusion is still in place. Now, it's going into whether, you know, how he preyed on women in the such. And maybe -- maybe this -- Ms. Maxwell needs to come before Congress.

COATES: Well, Ameshia, many people are questioning that part of this suicide aspect and that's why it has so many legs. There's no evidence, according to DOJ, about that very notion.

But this CNN poll I find very fascinating because it is showing that half of Americans are dissatisfied with the information that has been released by the Epstein files. But Democrats, as you see here, are actually the most dissatisfied by 16 points. Is this the right political advantage for Democrats?

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think Democrats are hoping that it is. This is the first time of the Trump administration that there has been pushback against him that is sizable amongst multiple groups. We've heard from, you know, some of his acolytes who are saying, hey, release the files. Pam Bondi said they were on her desk, and they magically have disappeared into thin air.

But with that being said, I think that for Democrats, this is something that they can latch onto. Being mindful that several other things they have tried have not worked from, you know, the appeals against the big, beautiful bill Act to, you know, all of the illegality of the deconstruction of the federal government. We were talking --

COATES: So why would this work?

CROSS: -- in 5,000 other ways.

COATES: Why would this work as opposed to -- I mean, those seem very policy-based. This is essentially transparency-based and calling them out for not having promises kept. Is that where the Democratic Party voters are?

CROSS: To a certain extent because mistrust of government and questioning the FBI and questioning, you know, the processes that they've taken has been something that has been a through line regardless of your part. So, I think that they are able to, in some ways, you know, catch the ravenous wolf, so to speak, because people want to know more.

But also, this has been something that, regardless of political party, people have questioned for quite some time. They wanted to see the Epstein files. They wanted to see who was on that. They want to see who was engaged in it. They wanted to, you know, in some ways, find protection for the victims. Obviously, they've already been abused, but there has to be some level of closure, and that this would help them to a certain extent.

I think the Democrats need to continue pressing. And clearly, it touched President Trump's buttons in ways that other things have not.

COATES: Certainly. Lance, is this -- I mean, you talked a lot at the beginning of the term about mandates and what they voted for. This was part of the campaign. Is this -- are the Epstein files and transparency part of the mandate that Trump has to follow?

TROVER: Yeah. Look, again, I go back to -- to me, the conclusion was reached, that he committed suicide. If there are other questions out there that voters have and people have about in terms of how he preyed on women and what he did and they're available and those redactions can be made, then I see no reason not to put that stuff out there. I think it's a fair request and it should be done.

And I have an issue with Ms. Maxwell if she wants to come before Congress, too, and talk about it. That's going to put people's minds at ease.

[23:15:00]

But to me, the conclusion is reached, that he committed suicide. That seems pretty clear.

COATES: Well, that's part of the conversation. There's a lot to unpack here as well. I wonder if she would actually testify in front of Congress knowing that -- I'm not sure how it might or might not help her. We'll see. Thank you both.

Up next, President Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott pushing a plan to redistrict the state in order to gain five Republican seats. Democrats calling it an all-hands-on-deck kind of moment. So, how are they going to respond? We'll ask Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:19:58]

COATES: The midterm elections historically have not been kind to the party that holds the presidency. But the White House, well, they're floating a new strategy for how to hold on to the House come 2026. Ready for it? Redraw the maps.

Tonight, a source telling CNN that President Trump held a call with the Texas House republican delegation, where he pitched flipping as many as five House seats if they were to redistrict.

Trump posting after that call, I keep hearing about Texas going blue, but it is just another Democrat lie. With the right candidate, Texas isn't going blue any time soon.

And Texas Republicans do seem to be moving forward, returning next week for a special session to begin the process of redrawing the maps. And yes, it is a highly unusual move because congressional maps, well, they are normally redrawn every 10 years based on the census. And the maps were just approved, what, in 2021. The president signaling other states could actually redraw their congressional districts as well.

Well, California's governor, Gavin Newsom, responded tonight, saying that he is ready to play ball if they do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Gerrymandering. And let's be fair. We've seen this weaponized by both parties for decades. But these guys, this is a whole another level of weaponization coming from the right. The ground is shifting from underneath us, and I think we have to wake up to that reality.

We could do a special session. I could call for one today by if I would choose to. We can then put something on the ballot. And I can call a special election. We can change the Constitution with the consent of the voters. And I we will win that. Many people understand what's at stake in California. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She is also a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees.

You know, congresswoman, when I heard about this, you were the first person I wanted to hear his opinion on this because, coming from Texas, are you concerned about that Republican effort to redraw those congressional line? And if you are, which I'm assuming you are, what can you do about it?

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Yeah. So, first of all, we've got to educate people. So, thank you for having the conversation. This is bigger than just Texas.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CROCKETT: You know, a lot of people kind of look at this and be like, well, this is a Texas problem. No, it's all of us problem. It's the entire country as well as the world that needs to be concerned because, first of all, when we think about the fact that this administration has talked a lot about a third term, whoever controls the House is going to be the person who has to certify the election.

So, you know, these guys don't play by any rules. They break everything. And right now, they are trying to not only rig the midterms but potentially rig the next election by making sure that we have more of this complacent -- complicit folk continuing to run the House because, honestly, they just do whatever he tells them to do.

COATES: Hmm.

CROCKETT: They don't do what the Constitution calls for, and they don't do what their oath calls for.

COATES: I'm old enough to remember and young enough to remember when gerrymandering was a horrible word.

CROCKETT: Yeah.

COATES: The idea of redrawing maps, both sides hated that particular issue, Democrats, Republicans, although I do hear Governor Gavin Newsom saying that he is suggesting perhaps something similar. Should he?

CROCKETT: Absolutely because --

COATES: It will truly be tit for tat, without being respected.

CROCKETT: You got to -- you got to meet the moment. You got to meet the moment. And the reality is that we need to be in a fair position. Honestly, Donald Trump would not be causing the havoc that he's causing if it wasn't for North Carolina deciding that they were going to cheat as well. They ended up controlling the Supreme Court in North Carolina. And so, they decided to redraw the lines. When they redrew the lines, they added three seats for Republicans. It is not reflective of the people in North Carolina.

Right now, you have 10 Republicans and four Democrats when it comes to the congressional makeup. But when you look at how the state voted, they barely voted a little bit over 50% for Donald Trump. But every other statewide election, governor on down, they voted for the Democrats. So, it's a 50-50 state. And the congressional delegation used to be seven and seven, reflective of the people.

And so, what we have now, though, is the state of Texas, ever since the Shelby v. Holder case, they have decided you know what, thank you, hallelujah, because they have always been found to be intentionally discriminatory.

When we ended up adding two new seats in the state of Texas, somehow, that was because there were 95% people of color that were added to the state --

COATES: Hmm.

CROCKETT: -- but when it came down to it, somehow, they worked around every single person of color that they could find to create two new Anglo seats. Right now, what they are going to do is they are going to further dilute the voices of Black and brown people so that they can accomplish this sinister goal of making sure that they can squeeze out and cheat and get these seats.

[23:24:57]

COATES: To remind people, of course, North Carolina is one of those states where a judge said it was surgical precision they were using to try to gerrymander in this way. And, of course, Shelby v. Holder rolling back the Voting Rights Act under Section 5 --

CROCKETT: Absolutely.

COATES: -- which continues to impact everyone even today.

A big story right now that's happening, even aside from gerrymandering and redistricting, has been about what's going on with Jeffrey Epstein and the campaign promises that then candidate Trump was making about transparency.

You were on the House Judiciary Committee. Democrats on that committee are calling for Trump administration officials to testify about how they've been handling this entire investigation. What would you ask them?

CROCKETT: Oh, I mean, there's a long list.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CROCKETT: But I can tell you that I serve as the ranking member of oversight as the subcommittee on judiciary. We just had a hearing today, and they decided to go after our nonprofit organizations. But what we did is we focused on what the American people want to hear about and what we should be doing, which is actual judicial oversight. And so, we should be calling in Pam Bondi. We should put her under oath to testify in front of judiciary on the House side.

COATES: About Epstein?

CROCKETT: About Epstein, absolutely, because --

COATES: What do you want to know?

CROCKETT: Well, first of all, she said, oh, you know, I've got the files on my desk. Then the next thing you know, she said, well, wait a minute, there are no files. Which one is it? When were you lying and why are you lying? What is the cover-up?

We know that your boss indicated that he was going to release the files. What is the hold up on releasing the files? And how are you going to go about determining what is relevant? Right? What is -- I forgot the exact term that he used, but that's basically what he said. Right? Like, what is going to be your process?

But, ultimately, I want to know not just about specifically the Epstein files, but how she is running this DOJ because I don't have any confidence in the way that she is running this DOJ.

COATES: Because you're intimating that somebody else is running it or that she is a puppet or what?

CROCKETT: I -- I believe that she's okay with violating the law. I believe that she's --

COATES: In what way?

CROCKETT: In all ways. When we talk about the firings, I have questions about the firings that she has done to so many of those people that work for the DOJ. Are you firing people in retaliation for them actually doing things that they should be doing?

COATES: So, congresswoman, I have to ask you. I'm sure you perhaps have heard by now that President Trump had a lot to say about your colleague, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but also yourself as well. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: AOC, look, I think she's very nice, but she has very low I.Q. And we really don't need low I.Q. Between her and Crockett, we're going to give them both an I.Q. test to see who comes out best.

Now, I took my test. I took a real test at Walter Reed Medical Center, and I aced it. I got every one of all those questions right. Now, it's time for them to take a test.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: What is your reaction to what he is saying?

CROCKETT: It is absolutely ridiculous that I live rent-free in his mind in a time in which the American people are suffering. It has already been reported on.

As it relates to the inflation, we know that the job numbers were bad. We know that this big, ugly bill is going to directly harm so many people, not just the 17 million that are going to lose their health care, but everyone else whose health care premiums are going to go up because trillion dollars is being taken out of the health care infrastructure.

There's a lot of things he could be working on. But for some reason, he is constantly focused on me. And personally, I've never met the man. I have no interest in going to the White House and meeting him or talking --

COATES: That might surprise people, that you've never met.

CROCKETT: I have never met him. But for whatever reason, I live rent- free. And, honestly, the biggest concern that I have is that every time he does something, he has minions that see it as a dog whistle, and then it only increases the attacks on myself as well as any other colleague.

But he absolutely consistently buys into this idea or continues to put it out there that women of color somehow are low I.Q. Let me be clear. I have a lot more education than he does. This is just what it is, degree wise. I have earned my degrees. My daddy didn't have to make a phone call to get me into anything because that wasn't a possibility. Okay?

So, we can stop playing games as if I am somehow lesser than while he has somehow hoodwinked enough people to become president of the United States mostly because they thought he was a good businessman. But that is just because he's a nepo baby. I promise you, if I was a nepo baby and maybe a man, that I probably could, too, be president rather quickly even though I am unqualified.

But he needs to focus on doing what he has sworn an oath to do, which was to take care of the people in this country.

[23:29:57]

And right now, I have not seen any policy that is going to help the people writ large in this country.

COATES: Congresswoman Crockett, thank you.

CROCKETT: Thank you.

COATES: We got breaking news out of Arizona tonight. The polls are closed. Results are now coming in for a special House primary. The Democrats have been watching very closely. We got Harry Enten standing by live at the magic wall with a race call next. [23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking tonight, CNN is projecting Adelita Grijalva will win this special Democratic primary to replace her father, the late Texas Congressman Raul Grijalva. Grijalva currently leads with more than 60% in a race many were calling a real test for Democrats. The top issues, age and generational change. She was being challenged by a 25-year-old activist and political influencer named Deja Foxx. Her campaign gradually leaning heavily on social media, appealing to a younger generation of voters.

I want to bring in chief data analyst Harry Enten, who's at the magic wall for us. Harry, what can you tell us about these results tonight out of Arizona?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I mean, you said it at the top there. I got a little playback of my ear here, so I'm going to take my earpiece out and I'll put it back in. Look, Grijalva blowing out. We're talking about a 40 plus-point win. My goodness gracious. Over 62% of the vote. You can see it on your screen here. Dark blue is Grijalva and it's dark blue across the political map.

What are we talking about? We go to the county with the most amounts of votes, Pima County, home of Tucson. You see it there. Very much matching up with what we see. District-wide there with an over 40- point win.

I think there were so many folks who were saying, oh, in New York City, Mamdani was able to beat Andrew Cuomo. But here's the thing, Foxx is not Mamdani and Grijalva is not Andrew Cuomo.

And the whole thing that I should note in closing here is that Grijalva had the endorsements of both U.S. senators from Arizona as well as from Bernie Sanders as well as from AOC. So, we were missing that left center matchup that we really had in New York City.

COATES: Important to note, too, I mean, the generational divide, Harry, and the party was really front and center in this race. How important is that issue, though, to Democrat voters?

ENTEN: Yeah. I would say this. Look, in this district that obviously did not work out too well for Deja Foxx. But if we talk about, you know, the country as to why and we look at Democrats, right, Democrats net favorable rating of Schumer and the Jeffries average here, Democrats under the age of 45, just a plus three net favorable rating. Compare that to Democrats age 45 and older. They are far more favorable towards Democrats.

And I think when we get these results in, you know, days, weeks, and we look at who came out and voted, I really wouldn't be surprised if we had a much larger turnout from older voters versus in New York where we had historic turnout from younger voters.

The last little thing I will note is this is a heavily Democratic district. Kamala Harris won it by over 20 points. So, the fact that we have Grijalva winning this primary, she's probably as close to a shoo- in as possible in the general election. Of course, we'll have to wait and see.

COATES: We will. Harry, thank you so much for the information.

ENTEN: Thank you.

COATES: I appreciate it. Joining me now, Matt Grodsky. He is a Democratic strategist and a partner at Matter of State Strategies. Also, here, Amanda Litman, the co-founder and president of Run for Something and the author of the book, "When We're in Charge."

Amanda, let me begin with you here because this race has really become and it had been kind of a litmus test of this generational divide we were seeing at play in Democratic Party. Grijalva won decisively tonight even as a 25-year-old Deja Foxx was eyeing an upset. What is the message that you take from this and would go to party leaders?

AMANDA LITMAN, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, RUN FOR SOMETHING: I don't think this race was, really, quite the litmus test. You know, as the results just noted, this was not quite the same as the New York City mayoral election. I do think what this tells us is that young people running for office face an upward climb. We know this.

Bernie Sanders earlier tonight joined a call with more than 2,000 young people across the country who are thinking about running for office and told them, when he first ran for office, he lost multiple times before he was able to win. That's just part of running for office. It takes time to get good at this.

COATES: You know, one of the ways, Amanda, that we see a difference in how people are running, not the so-called traditional way. You had Deja Foxx trying to replicate the success of people like Zohran Mamdani and AOC, by the way, who've used social media to try to appeal to a broad and young audience. She fell short in this instance.

But is it important these days to think about non-traditional ways, maybe as a -- quote, unquote -- "influencer politician?"

LITMAN: Absolutely. I think it's really important to be where people are. Deja's campaign pushed Adelita to be also present online, to have conversations with voters. And while she came up short, she absolutely pushed the conversation forward, and I think will ultimately make Adelita a much better congresswoman representing the district.

COATES: Matt, let me bring you into this, too, because despite the comparisons, as we've just noted, this race is very different from the New York mayoral election, although that's still very much on the brain for many people. Both Grijalva and Foxx, they are progressive. Grijalva was even endorsed, as we noted, by Bernie Sanders and AOC. But Foxx really leaned into her experience as a working-class teenager to make her case.

Was it enough for her to frame herself as being of a new generation or is there something more strategic that has to happen? [23:40:00]

MATT GRODSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I -- I think it's -- it's tough there because I think, as what was mentioned at the onset of the segment, that demographics are different in this district than they are in New York. It's overwhelmingly older voters that are voting. So, for someone that's 25 years old, it can be a little bit more challenging.

But I think the takeaway for young voters across the country that are thinking about running for office, as Amanda certainly knows, is when you have charisma and you have an ability to get into some of these other spaces that traditionally Democrats are on end, that doesn't just help you establish a brand but it can help you in a general election where ultimately is when we need to perform.

COATES: What about enthusiasm? I want to show you these poll numbers that show -- Harry shows us that the current democratic leadership is viewed less favorably among younger voters. Can you talk a little bit about -- is there an enthusiasm issue for voters at this juncture or is this really propelling people forward as they're looking towards the midterm elections?

GRODSKY: Yeah, I think there's always going to be a generational tug of war that happens. I think, by and large, we need more young people to be joining our party. We obviously did not perform the way we wanted to with that demographic in 2024. So, we need the Democratic Party to be cool again, and that's going to mean attracting young people to vote and run.

But the reality is also that you're going to have people from, you know, the old generation and the new generation in the party. So, you're to have to find a way to message together and make sure that you're bringing people into the tent. So, we're going to work out those kinks, I'm sure, but, you know, it's definitely a thing that we're working on at this stage.

COATES: And Amanda, you heard President Obama just yesterday talking about essentially if you want to reach people, I'm paraphrasing here, you've got to figure out how to do it, how to speak to them in the way that they were going to receive it. Talk to me about the look ahead to 2026 midterms. Do you expect to see more potentially competitive races based on the idea of that tug of war you mentioned, the old and the new, or is there -- is this issue itself being overstated and people want something more concrete and policy-based?

LITMAN: I think we're going to find out in these midterms. But I will tell you, Run for Something has had more than 60,000 young people raised their hands to say they want to run just since November. That's more than we had in the first three years of Trump's first term in office. More likely to cross the entirety of his first term in the next couple of months.

So, we're going to get a chance to find out because these young people are going to get in this race and push the argument forward, communicate new ways, and give people, especially in these democratic primaries, a chance to really decide what we as a party believe.

COATES: Thank you both.

GRODSKY: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, a sensational murder trial is underway in Colorado. It mixes claims of poison, an affair, and a very curious internet search history. The opening arguments, we're going to talk about next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Allegations of poisoning and murdering a spouse and a plot to kill more. That all coming out in the Colorado courtroom today. It's a trial of James Craig, the dentist who allegedly poisoned his wife's protein shake. Opening statements commencing as he faces charges of first-degree murder, solicitation to commit murder, evidence tampering, and perjury. Craig has pled not guilty to each charge.

But the prosecution says that Craig was an unfaithful husband with financial issues, whose wife stood in the way of a brand-new life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN BRACKLEY, PROSECUTOR: He didn't go into that room to save Angela's life. He didn't go into that room to fight for her life or support her. He went into that room to murder her, to deliberately and intentionally end her life with a fatal dose of cyanide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: As for the defense, they're saying the prosecution's case is all based on assumptions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEY WHITHAM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This case, from the very beginning, started with blinders. So, as a defense, we're going to ask you to remove the blinders from this case and to look at everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Implying that Craig's wife, Angela, may have been suicidal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITHAM: She wasn't about to tell people about her internal struggles. She wasn't about to tell people about her marital struggles. She was saving face. She wanted attention.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Joining me now, Neama Rahmani. He is a former federal prosecutor and the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. Neama, this case is fascinating for so many people. The defense says the prosecution's case, though, is built entirely on speculation.

But in the prosecution, they have Google searches about poison from James Craig, proof from ordering poisonous materials, and also texts where Angela says -- quote -- "I feel drugged." The prosecution wants all that to be strong evidence. Is it?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Very strong evidence, Laura. Really, the prosecution here, they have a trifecta of evidence. It starts with that internet and YouTube search history, which is very powerful, shortly after those poisons show up at the home of the defendant.

[23:50:00]

So, when you have that type of strong evidence plus the motive, we are talking about an extramarital affair, financial motive in terms of life insurance. His lover was scheduled to come to his home a week and a half after the murder. So, he had a short window of time to commit this murder.

And it's not just the search history and that motive. We are talking about his conduct in jail after the murder, the prior bad acts, soliciting another inmate to kill the lead detective in the case, trying to suborn perjury, and fabricate this story of mental health issues and suicide, to have a witness essentially say that Angela was suffering from mental illness.

But I think when you add those three layers of evidence together, it's a very strong case first-degree murder for the prosecution.

COATES: Obviously, he is presumed innocent. They have to carry their burden. It belongs to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all that you have just described.

And the defense is not going to let the jury forget about that. They're implying Angela Craig had mental health issues and that this may have been a suicide. You also have doctors and nurses, though, who treated Craig, testifying that she had answered no to questions about any suicidal ideation. Will that argument then be rendered moot based on that alone?

RAHMANI: Potentially. Yes. And like you said, the defense has to attack these three key pieces of evidence.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAHMANI: So, they're going to start with the digital and forensic evidence. They're going to say that the search warrant was brought over. The judges denied that argument already. But they are preserving it for appeal. And we're talking about searches that were conducted on a secret email at Craig's office. So, they're going to say it's not reliable. Next, they have to move to that motive. And interestingly, they're really leaning into those extramarital affairs and saying that Craig is someone who has had affairs throughout the years and has been on sugar daddy sites.

And I expect that they're going to present some sort of evidence of mental illness that didn't really come out too much during opening statements as to exactly what they'll be.

And with respect to that last category, we know that jailhouse informants can be unreliable. Sometimes, they can lie to save themselves. So, I expect them to go after the informant testimony very aggressively.

COATES: You know, the idea they're going to say as the defense, unfaithful, yes, murderer, no. You decide. But then, as you mentioned, there's the alleged plot to kill four other people. I mean, the prosecutors say that James Craig tried to convince a fellow inmate, as you say, to kill the lead detective who is investigating his wife's death, and another officer, and two inmates. So, how does this compound the allegations that he has killed his wife as well?

RAHMANI: Laura, that's why it's such a difficult case to defend. And taking a step back, jurors are going to ask themselves, you know, if someone is going to kill themselves, are they're going to poison themselves slowly so that they have to go to hospital three times over the course of 10 days? Probably not.

And then you have Craig's conduct in prison. Writing letters, talking to inmates, trying to double down on this plot. So, that's why you have this solicitation of murder charges, the subordination of perjury charges.

We almost went to trial recently, and the previous defense lawyer in this case had to withdraw from the case and cited that Craig was trying to commit criminal acts and he was going to do something repugnant.

So, this is the type of defendant that really refuses to accept any sort of responsibility, at least according to the prosecution's theory of the case.

So, sometimes, we have prior bad acts, but these are acts after he was arrested. So, I think that's something that is going to be very problematic for the defense. It is something that they will a tough time explaining in this case.

COATES: I'll be following this case. Neama Rahmani, thank you so much.

Up next, in the midst of all the hot takes on the new "Superman" movie, there's actually one that everyone might be able to agree on. I'll explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, Warner Brothers, CNN's sister company, isn't alone in celebrating "Superman" box-office success. It's a lot today, actually. But according to the dog training app, Woofs, Google searches for adopt a dog near me have served 513% since it was released just this past Friday. It's all thanks to the breakout star of the film, Superman's loyal and mischievous super dog companion, Krypto.

Here is the story that is pulling on everyone's heartstrings. While writer and director, James Gunn, was writing "Superman," he was also struggling to train his new rescue dog, Ozu. One day, he thought, how difficult would my life be if Ozu had superpowers. And Krypto was born. Gunn even used Ozu as his CGI model.

It's fair to say that this super dog has quite the debut. "Superman" made $217 million worldwide in its first weekend, making it the third biggest opening of the year and setting a new box office record for a solo "Superman" movie.

But it has not been without controversy. Some on the right are calling the movie super woke with a view as pro-immigrant themes, while others say it is meeting the moment.

[00:00:02]

One thing we can all get behind, Krypto and a better tomorrow for all rescue dogs, like my Hershey.

Thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.