Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Authorizes Release of Some Epstein Documents as Fury Grows; Trump Denies WSJ Report, Vows to Sue Paper's Owner; Laura Coates Interviews Former Attorney General Eric Holder; Laura Coates Interviews Rep. Jamie Raskin; CBS to End Colbert's Show. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 17, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is CNN Breaking News.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: We begin with the major breaking news out of the White House after resisting calls to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Tonight, Donald Trump appears to be giving in at least a little bit. He is now directly ordering the release of some documents tied to Epstein. Certainly not all, but some.

And I quote. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony, subject to court approval. This scam, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now."

Now, A.G. Bondi says they're ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.

Now, Trump's sudden shift comes after "The Wall Street Journal" tonight published a new report about Trump's relationship with Epstein. Now, according to "The Wall Street Journal," Ghislaine Maxwell collected letters from Epstein's associates for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump, the journal reports, was one of those associates.

The journal says one of the letters bears Trump's name. They describe it as body. The journal says it contains several lines of typewritten text framed by an outline of a naked woman that appears to have been hand drawn with a heavy marker. Trump reportedly signed the note, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Now, some context here. This was three years before Epstein's first arrest, and Trump's long friendship with Epstein is no secret. But tonight, Trump is flat out denying "The Wall Street Journal" report. Quote -- "This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. It's not my language. It's not my words." He went even further on True Social, vowing to sue "The Wall Street Journal." He says he even called Rupert Murdoch, the paper's owner, and told him not to have the paper run it. Quote -- "I told Rupert Murdoch it was a scam, that he shouldn't print this fake story. But he did, and now I'm going to sue his ass off, and that of his third-rate newspaper."

There are so many questions tonight. We're going to try to get to all of them. The former attorney general, Eric Holder, will join me in a moment for his first reaction to this news.

But first, one of the top White House reporters who has covered every inch of this story, senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo. Marc, it's not an understatement to call this a huge change of plans for the administration. It has been nothing to see here for days. And now, this. Why?

MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: They had to. I think they knew they had to for a while. On Monday, I wrote about the three different sort of plans that they had in the works --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CAPUTO: -- for this moment. One of them was to have a special counsel or a special prosecutor or --

(CROSSTALK)

-- master. Well, they sort of did. It depends on how you ask them. The other one was to petition the courts. The other one was just to un- redact those things they already released. And essentially, all of those things are coming to play.

Now, what hasn't been reported up until now is that Trump's statement happened after a meeting in the White House that was scheduled earlier in the day, where the top White House officials and Pam Bondi were on the phone to discuss, okay, we need a new path forward. They knew the pressure was too great. They knew they needed to do something.

But in the end, this is karma. Karma is the law of action and reaction.

COATES: Hmm.

CAPUTO: And for years, the right wing, the MAGA base, Trump and his followers have pumped up the stock of the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy. And now, they've got to dump it because they realize there's kind of no there there, but no one believes them. So, they need to do something, and this is what it looks like.

COATES: You wonder if this is going to scratch the itch by having some pertinent information --

(CROSSTALK)

-- go. But, well, Laura Loomer, for example, was in part of the MAGA- verse, frankly, and has been very critical of Pam Bondi, particularly after the binder incident, to the influencers who revealed that they'd this all before. She called the journal's report B.S., totally fake, and she had been calling for an independent investigation and criticizing A.G. Bondi before tonight. You have others, including the vice president, calling this essentially B.S. and saying this is fake.

Has this, in a way, turned the tide for Trump, by having this story?

CAPUTO: It depends on which sort of ocean you're talking about when we talk about the tide being turned.

[23:05:02]

What is advantageous to the president is this: He was (INAUDIBLE) his MAGA base. They were not thrilled, to put it charitably, with the position he was taking, including Laura Loomer, who is sort of emblematic of this.

When the journal came out with its report and talked about this letter, didn't have a copy of the letter, didn't show them the letter, and might not even have the letter, we don't know, that has the effect of allowing Trump to make it him against the media, him against the establishment, and that helps bring his face toward him again. And so, that's what he's talking about with a -- quote -- "hoax."

COATES: But, you know, it's like the if you give a mouse a cookie phenomenon. If you tell me there's grand jury information, I'm going to give you. But that's a fraction of the overall file and the rest of it is not having to be released through a judge's permission. Doesn't this -- don't they expect there to be more questions based on this cookie?

CAPUTO: I think so. And they understand that there are people who are just not going to believe it at all. But they had to do something, and this is the something they had to do.

COATES: There really was not an alternative in the idea of releasing maybe more information or explaining further the memo. I mean, A.G. Bondi has been under fire for quite some time over this. You had the report just two weeks ago not even -- actually last week about Bongino not showing up for work one day. There were questions you were telling me about, whether he, in fact, had this beef and beyond.

Does this quell any of the behind the scenes drama and the tension between, say, a Bongino or Patel and Bondi in the White House?

CAPUTO: I am led to believe that it is increasingly or highly unlikely that Pam Bondi and Dan Bongino will ever get along. So, I doubt --

COATES: Both might remain.

CAPUTO: So far, they will remain. How long that lasts, who knows? What is clear is Donald Trump had a close personal friendship with Pam Bondi before he ran for office.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CAPUTO: And for Trump, those longstanding relationships matter. And so, the likelihood of him getting rid of Pam Bondi, as a number of people have speculated, is pretty slim. How long she wants to stay in the job and be a heat shield for all this is unclear.

It is true, her messaging on this was awful from the get-go because she over-promised and under-delivered, and that's putting it mildly, but in the end, again, this is karma.

This was a day that was going to arrive for the Trump administration one day anyway, which was you had all of these promises of all of this secret information that was going to be revealed, and in a light most favorable to everyone who has looked at the files, there wasn't the there there that they were promising, so they were sort of screwed from the get go.

COATES: It almost seems like they'd hoped that the accomplishments of the administration would overshadow the promises of this particular file. But it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. We're about seven months in.

CAPUTO: Right. Well, good luck. It has become an article of faith for the MAGA base.

COATES: Yeah.

CAPUTO: And so, you're basically telling people that an element of their religion, that their liturgy, that their Eucharist isn't true. And at a certain point, there is faith and there are facts, and some facts are not going to be able to overcome that faith.

COATES: It's hard to tell people to trust the FBI. And there is no deep state if they've been building that for all this time.

CAPUTO: Right. Yeah. The government is terrible as lying to you --

COATES: Yeah.

CAPUTO: -- except for now.

COATES: Right. A hard one. Marc Caputo, thank you so much as always.

CAPUTO: Thank you.

COATES: Joining me now, Attorney David Schoen, who was hired to represent Jeffrey Epstein nine days before Epstein died. He has also served as one of President Trump's lawyers for his second impeachment. And former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida who worked with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, Dave Aronberg.

David Schoen, let me start with you here. Do you welcome the attorney general, Pam Bondi, releasing any and all pertinent, that's a key word here, everyone, pertinent grand jury testimony in this case?

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT, FORMER LAWYER FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Generally, I don't welcome the idea of exposing grand jury testimony because of the kinds of things in it. You know, we have -- rule 6 is very clear that even the government attorney is prohibited from disclosing grand jury testimony for a number of reasons, privacy reasons and otherwise. That's 62(b)(6).

But, look, in this case, you're right, a lot of pressures come for the release of the documents and so on. I don't like the idea of abandoning rules simply to satisfy prairie and interest or curiosity, something like that. There are a lot of sensitive -- sensitive issues that can be in grand jury minutes.

I'll put it this way. The courts have been all over the place with respect to these Epstein documents in disclosing things. Judge Delgado in Florida disclosed grand jury minutes from the first Epstein case 16 years after the fact. Judge Prescott, in the defamation case in New York, disclosed thousands and thousands of pages of documents, this kind of stuff that these folks who are so curious in this ought to want and there's nothing more.

[23:09:54]

But just last year, Judge Gardephe in the Southern District of New York, at the request of -- she's in the news now, I know -- Mr. Comey's daughter, the prosecutor in the case, withheld the documents in that case. She persuaded him to withhold them based on law enforcement needs still in 2024.

So, I don't like the idea of abandoning rules just because there's this public outcry and demand. I don't know what people are looking for. There's no client list. And if they want to watch, you know, movies, that's another issue.

COATES: Well, you represented him for -- I think it was nine days before he died. It was death (INAUDIBLE) to suicide, as you well know. In the few days that you represented Epstein, did you have access to any of the grand jury testimony?

SCHOEN: No, I did not. And we wouldn't ordinarily, that stage of the case, have access to grand jury testimony. You know, that's something you have to move for. And sometimes, you don't get it at all. Sometimes, until a witness testifies. That sort of thing.

But it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But, you know, as you say, I mean, there was some pressure brought here to seek the records. I think, you know, give them credit. I mean, they are going out to ask for the grand jury minutes to be release now. I'm not sure the judge is going to do it.

COATES: Yeah.

SCHOEN: But maybe he or she will.

COATES: And Dave Aronberg, even if the judge does so, we're talking about a fraction of the overall file that would be available, we're talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of pages that were built in, we're told, about the overall file. And now, the grand jury, but a fraction of that. What do you expect to see coming out of the release?

Keep in mind, everyone tries to, you know, obviously, say that prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. And so grand jury testimony might read very differently to people than say in a courtroom, in a court of law before a trial jury with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the probable cause in a grand jury. But what do you expect to see come out of the release?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: There's some evidence against Jeffrey Epstein, much of it of which has been given to the public anyways. I don't think you're going to see anything great, especially because there's a condition that Trump is putting on this. It must be pertinent, which means it has nothing to do with him.

(LAUGHTER)

And that's not going to satisfy the MAGA base. They want to see the whole file, the whole enchilada. They're not going be satisfied with grand jury files, especially ones that are redacted. So, this is to placate the base.

But ultimately, there's going to be a day of reckoning. They want the files. And Trump is reluctant to do so because his relationship with Epstein is featured in the files, even though there's no allegation that he was part of a sex trafficking ring. But the fact is that this is an embarrassing story, and he doesn't want to go any further. But by keeping them secret, it perpetuates this story.

And, as I like to say, the alligator is always hungry. That MAGA base, they're fed on conspiracy theories and they want answers. They're just never going to get it because the facts are counter to what they believe.

COATES: You raise a really important point. I'm going to get to you on this, David Schoen, because part of the reason you don't want to release grand jury testimony and know that probable cause ruling is because there is a presumption of innocence still and there's a lot of intimations and assumptions and inferences that could be raised just by virtue of appearing in various forms.

I don't know what might be contained and was not contained in it, but you have said, David Schoen, that -- even on this program earlier this week, that Epstein did not have -- he told you that he did not have any dirt on President Trump. So, what do you make of "The Wall Street Journal" reporting on the collection of letters that apparently were gifted, they say, to Epstein for his 50th birthday in the early 2000s that allegedly includes a racy note with the president's name and some kind of graphic drawing of a woman?

SCHOEN: Well, he has said he didn't do it, and it's not his, so I take him at his word for that. But I think the book thing, again, it's a non-issue. These are a bunch of guys who were wealthy folks, friends with Epstein at the time, socialized with him. They knew he was into sex. They're making these sorts of male jokes and that sort of thing. But I have to disagree with one thing. Dave Aronberg is my friend, but I don't believe for a second that President Trump is not allowing the disclosure of these documents because he's worried about himself. He is not. All of the stuff about him and his friendship and excluding Epstein from his club and his life years and years ago is all out in the public domain already.

But here's the danger that you were mentioning, Laura, and you're also right about your cookie example, but here's the danger. For example, in the Virginia Giuffre case when Judge Preska released those documents, her rationale basically was most of the stuff is in the public domain.

So, what happened? There was an accusation that Al Gore was on the island. He denied it vehemently. It's very difficult to retract allegations once they're out there. People hear it. Oh, gee, I know Al Gore was a part of this ring, though. That's not true. That's the problem with, you know, just releasing things willy-nilly without any kind of filter. And we don't just pander to this Tucker Carlson base because they want to see it.

But I think you're right with your cookie example.

[23:14:59]

Once you get a little bit, people are going to want more and more and more. And I don't think this is the kind of thing you should come to. We don't break down the system and the rules just because of curiosity.

COATES: Well, I'll ask you, Aronberg, about my if you give a mouse a cookie example. What say you?

ARONBERG: Well, I've got to push back against my friend, David Schoen. I do think that there's some new stuff in those files that Trump doesn't want out like this birthday card. Now, I know Trump can say this is hoax. But you noticed that Attorney General Bondi has not denied that the birthday card appears in the Epstein file. I think that's telling. It looks like it's in there.

And if you push it too far, Ghislaine Maxwell can come up and say, yeah, I'm a witness, that was in there. So, you got to be careful here. And if you start suing based on this for defamation, that opens you up to depositions and discovery. You don't want that.

So, I'm with you also on the cookie example, Laura. Yeah, you never appease these guys. You know, you can never appease the alligator. They're always going to want more. And eventually, they're going to bite your face off.

COATES: It's too bad I don't have cookies to sell from my girl scout daughter. I would have made a fortune tonight, fellas. Thank you both.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHOEN: Thank you. COATES: With me now, former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh and CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton. Neither of you bring up cookies.

(LAUGHTER)

But I take the example. Shermichael, let me ask you. I mean, the unsealing of grand jury testimony is a fraction of it. You have heard from the MAGA base, who is so invested based on campaign promises and discussions about this. They want it all. They want the whole kit and caboodle.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah.

COATES: Does this even scratch the itch?

SINGLETON: I don't know. I really feel like the cat is sort of out of the bag a little bit. And I think even if they do release some information, Laura, I got to tell you, I think Pam Bondi here is really damaged. And I know the president is standing by her, but I think you do run the risk.

Next year, the president was able to build an intriguing coalition of disparate voters who don't typically vote, nontraditional voters, in order to win last year. A lot of young men in particular who just completely say, I don't care about politics, voted for him because of the sort of manosphere. Now, a lot of those very well-known individuals are talking about this.

And Republicans cannot afford with the slim majority we have in the House to lose any of the individuals that turned out for Trump in November next year when we're facing midterms, trying to save seats and maybe win even more.

So, this is going to be very, very challenging politically. The White House has to be careful with how they handle this moving forward.

COATES: I'm just going to add to what you said, we have a poll out that talks about men under 35, I believe, let's show it, whether they're satisfied or dissatisfied with the amount of info released. I mean, this is -- 65% of men younger than 35 are dissatisfied. That adds to what you're talking about.

SINGLETON: That's a real problem. Again, if you look at certain districts where we have vulnerable Republicans, purple folks who are running in districts that maybe Trump barely won or maybe the few that Vice President Harris won, you're looking at maybe putting four, five, six, seven, eight Republicans up for really challenging races if they need to sort of pull together that very interesting unique coalition in order to win. So, this is a problem. They got to address it.

COATES: Well, Joe, I want you to address that point. But I'm really curious about this because in the land of, you know, one step forward, two steps back, some people are wondering if "The Wall Street Journal" story gives a two step back when it comes to even supporting Trump because you've got some early reaction from the MAGA world, including, you know, Benny Johnson saying -- quote -- "What a weak, pathetic hit piece." Laura Loomer saying -- quote -- "Someone is getting fired at 'The Wall Street Journal.'" You've got Charlie Kirk saying -- quote -- "This is not how Trump talks at all. I don't believe it."

Could this be a charge he needs?

JOE WALSH, PODCAST HOST, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yes.

SINGLETON: Uh-hmm.

WALSH: There'll be a certain -- there is a circling of the wagons right now. But -- but they're up against a mountain that has been going on now for six years. Yeah, Pam Bondi is messed up. But who's to blame for this? You had Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., J.D. Vance, Pam Bondi, every right-wing talker for the last six years out there telling his base, this is the motherload.

Laura, nothing animates the base more than the deep state. The deep state, the deep state. And this Epstein scandal, Trump and all of his cheerleaders said was going to finally expose the deep state. And now, Donald Trump says no, nothing to see there. To Shermichael's point --

COATES: So, your point, essentially, just to underscore it --

WALSH: Yeah.

COATES: -- that this is much less about the actual facts here, but more symbolic of the wealthy elite getting away with something and don't trust the government, which, of course, is running counter to what Trump is now saying. Trust us. There's nothing to see. I think more to see here.

WALSH: They --

COATES: Do you have both ways?

WALSH: Yes. They -- no, you can't. They've envisioned Donald Trump as the great slayer of the deep state. That's why this issue so resonates with the base, because he has turned on that.

COATES: Hmm.

WALSH: And to Shermichael's point, a lot of these voters are not Republicans. If they're disillusioned, they're not going to vote next year.

COATES: Tell me what you're thinking about this sort of pressure campaign on yet another media outlet, "The Wall Street Journal," where he's threatening to sue.

[23:20:00]

What's the impact on the base?

SINGLETON: I really -- Joe and I were talking about this. I'm a little -- I'm skeptical about this article. Why didn't they publish a copy of this supposed letter? How many individuals did they speak to verify the veracity of whatever single individual said, hey, I've seen this thing, it really exists? I'm skeptical. I want to see this. I want to make sure that the journalist or journalists, plural, who were involved in writing this thing can come forward. And we need to ask them, where did you get this information from? And have you verified this information?

And so, the Republicans who are coming to the president's defense, I think they should do that because we have no proof outside of this one article that we don't know if it's real, if it's not real.

So, I don't know, Laura. You got to be careful with publishing things and you're not proving to the public that you've actually seen as a journalist that said thing exists. You're just going off of what's a hearsay. You're a lawyer. That's not even a mess of what most court proceedings.

COATES: The theme of the word -- theme today is apparently transparency and who will be satisfied with the lack thereof or its existence. Shermichael, Joe, thank you both so much.

There's much more on the breaking news ahead. Former Attorney General Eric Holder is standing by with his reaction to all this. I'm eager to hear what he has to say next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Our breaking news tonight, President Trump directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to -- quote -- "produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval." This after "The Wall Street Journal" published an article stating that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a body, their words, letter for his birthday in 2003. The attorney general saying tonight that she's ready to go to the courts tomorrow.

With me now, former attorney general under President Obama, General Eric Holder. A.G. Holder, welcome. I mean, this attorney general, Pam Bondi, says that she's going to court tomorrow to try to ask the court's permission to release grand jury testimony, as is required. How long could that actually take for the public to see any testimony? And would you have supported that process?

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE: Well, you know, essentially, you have to know the facts. And I don't know, I don't have the files in front of me, don't have the ability to make an assessment about if the release of this material will somehow compromise law enforcement operations, reveal unnecessarily the identities of people, including, you know, victims. So, it's kind of a hard thing to make the judgment on.

I'm a person who tends to favor transparency. I always want to make sure, on the other hand, that we are protecting the privacy rights of people and particularly people who are victims.

You know, it's an interesting thing. I mean, you might think one of the ways you might handle this is to have somebody in the Justice Department, perhaps a disinterested U.S. attorney, curate the materials and then release them in that way. But they have so attacked the Justice Department, so attacked career prosecutors, that that kind of possibility is not there.

And, you know, they've also just raised doubts about the ability of people in law enforcement, in government generally, to do things in a disinterested way. And so, they've closed off a number of options that they otherwise might have.

COATES: You're right, the credibility seems to be in a deficit, particularly among those who are calling for the release of all materials, even in terms of the sensitivity factors you have raised. And now, it's kind of the seed has been watered and now that big plant is here. But what kind of position is Bondi in, and how do you think that she's handling things? It's kind of a rock in a hard place.

HOLDER: Yeah. Well, when you identify yourself as essentially the lawyer for the president as opposed to the disinterested attorney general who represents the people of the United States, uh, there's a certain amount of credibility that you are forfeiting by taking that position, but that is the way in which she has operated.

And even the statement that the president made tonight, essentially directing the attorney general to go into court and to file a motion, again, that's inconsistent with the way in which attorneys general conduct themselves with Justice Department and see themselves -- you know, you are part of an administration, yeah, but there is a wall, generally, between what happens in the Justice Department and what is demanded by people in the White House. You know, the politics is separated from law enforcement.

COATES: You have not been the attorney general for now several administrations, and yet the president is claiming that the -- this is his words -- that the files were made up by Comey, Obama, Biden administration. You were under the Obama administration. Were you aware of any of this?

HOLDER: No. There's a whole bunch of stuff about this that doesn't make a lot of sense. That is simply absurd.

COATES: Let me ask you as well. I mean, Epstein was first prosecuted, I think, in 2006. He was released from jail in 2009. That's when you became the attorney general under President Obama. Maurene Comey prosecuted Epstein in 2019. She was successful in part in terms of trying to secure the indictment and, of course, Ghislaine Maxwell. Was there any thought of Epstein being investigated and prosecuted again during your tenure?

HOLDER: Yeah. I don't know. I mean, that stuff never rose to my level. There might have been investigations going on in Southern District of New York, other offices, but it's never anything that reached the fifth floor of the Justice Department where the attorney general sits.

COATES: Yeah.

HOLDER: So, I'm not really in a position to say, you know, what was going on.

COATES: Do you have concerns about the impact of firing a career prosecutor like Maurene Comey? I mean, obviously, we don't know all the reasons and what has been happening. But what is your take on her being fired and impact on line prosecutors who are not political appointees?

HOLDER: Yeah, I think that is a -- it's a travesty.

[23:30:00]

The notion that you would fire a great prosecutor like Maurene Comey -- I know her -- I know her reputation. She has dedicated her -- a substantial portion of her professional career to the Justice Department to enforce the law, has done so fairly, has done so extremely well. She is then dismissed for, I don't know, because who her father is or because of the role she played in connection with the Epstein matter. You know, it's just abhorrent.

But it's also part of a larger picture where this administration has fired career prosecutors, career agents at the FBI simply because they were doing their jobs and doing so in a non-political way. And now, so what has happened to Maurene Comey is unfortunately consistent with what they have been doing in other places.

And they have weakened the Justice Department. It weakened the reputation of the Justice Department. They have really kind of put themselves into a corner where they're going to have to rely on the credibility of the Justice Department and members of the Justice Department, including the attorney general. And they've eroded that confidence in the department, by the way, in which they treated members of the Department of Justice.

COATES: I want to talk more broadly about the picture, literally the maps that we have in this country. We talk about politics and districts. And right now, you are working with Democrats on redistricting. President Trump is suggesting that Texas should redraw congressional maps to pick up five seats. In response, Governor Newsom of California and Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they're calling for California and New York to do the same in order to gain Democratic seats.

We know the problems of gerrymandering and the legacy that it has left in this country. Is this tit-for-tat redistricting the right thing for this country?

HOLDER: I think, first off, what we need to do is try to do redistricting when we -- when we're supposed to do it. It's every 10 years, not mid-cycle.

Republicans are trying to redistrict in Texas because they're afraid that they're going to lose the House in 2026, because of a terrible budget bill that has taken health care away from people, that has people concerned about the way in which they're enforcing immigration policy, having masked men snatch people off the street. We see inflation ticking up. They're really concerned. They think they're going to lose control of the House in 2026.

And so, what they're going to try to do in Texas and Ohio is to gerrymander even to a greater extent than they already have. I mean, we're suing Texas already with regard to the gerrymander that they put in place in 2020.

So, you know, that's why I stand for -- for fairness. We're going to fight them with regard to what they try to do in Texas. If they put and enhance gerrymandering on top of the ones they already have, we will sue. I'm actually pretty confident that we can win that case.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HOLDER: So, we will see what happens. What I will also say is that people can join us in this effort to fight gerrymandering if you text democracy to 36787. Text democracy to 36787 and be a part of this fight against gerrymandering.

COATES: With the weakening of the Voting Rights Act and, of course, the formula in Section 5, is individual and civil litigation the only tool available or is there more that can be done under federal law?

HOLDER: Well, yeah. I mean, we have weakened tools under the Supreme Court rulings that, unfortunately, we've had to -- to deal with. But they are still tools that we can use. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is one that still remains.

But I think people need to get involved at a grassroots level and hold accountable people who -- politicians who will try to put in systems where politicians are choosing their voters as opposed to citizens choosing who the representatives ought to be, and vote those people out.

If people, politicians in Texas try to gerrymander, I think they're going to try, mid-cycle, give more seats to Republicans than they deserve. Those politicians need to be held accountable. People need to get to the polls and vote them out.

COATES: General Holder, thank you.

HOLDER: Thanks for having me.

COATES: As you know, Democrats are demanding more information on Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump. I wonder, are they satisfied with Trump's calls to now release grand jury transcripts? We'll ask Congressman Jamie Raskin after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Moments ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson made his first comments on President Trump's call to unseal relevant or pertinent Epstein grand jury testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Look, I think he has been very consistent. He wants to release all credible information and evidence. That's in furtherance of his goal and what he stated. That's the position of all House Republicans, everybody in the party that I know. We trust the American people, they can draw their own conclusions.

So, he's in the process of releasing the information that can be released, that's not held up by a court or involves, you know, victims of crimes or something like that.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. Speaker, how do you see --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Any comment on "The Wall Street Journal" report about the letter that President Trump sent to Jeffrey Epstein years ago?

JOHNSON: I haven't seen it. I can't comment on it. I've been a little busy today.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What are your thoughts on --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: President Trump may hope that disclosing the testimony will quiet critics. Don't expect Democrats to stay silent. New York Congressman Dan Goldman posting on X -- quote -- "What about videos, photographs, and other recordings?

[23:40:00]

What about FBI 302s (witness testimony)? What about texts and emails? That's where the evidence about Trump and others will be. Grand jury testimony will only relate to Epstein and Maxwell."

Well, Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin joins me now as well. He is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, welcome. Does this decision by President Trump to now ask the attorney general, Pam Bondi, to produce in this important -- any pertinent grand jury testimony from the Epstein case, does that satisfy you and your party?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, everybody can see through it. It's slicing the baloney extremely fine. First of all, as my colleague, Dan Goldman, points out, grand jury testimony is a tiny fraction of what's in there. We're interested in the emails, the correspondence, the phone calls, the interviews and so on.

The grand jury testimony, which relates just to Epstein and Maxwell is very small part of it and, of course, most of it is going to be excluded anyway under grand jury rule 6(e), which I'm sure whoever wrote the Truth Social for Donald Trump understood perfectly.

And then when they say only the pertinent part of it, that's the critical qualifier and it runs throughout everything that Trump and Bondi are saying now. They only want the credible evidence. They only want the pertinent evidence. They only want the authenticated evidence, which puts completely under their unilateral subjective control what they turn over.

And that's the opposite of what the bipartisan resolution is asking for. We are asking for all of the records, the documents, and the investigative materials relating to Epstein and to Maxwell and the investigation, as well as all individuals, including government officials who are implicated by it, as well as the flight logs and so on.

If you look at this fraudulent, transparently deceitful Swiss cheese resolution that the Republicans have put in as a fig leaf cover story on the rules committee, which they plan maybe to bring to the floor sometime next week or the following, it's just riddled with all of these loopholes and exceptions, just mirroring what it is that Trump and Attorney General Bondi are saying, and they've got all of these weasel words like, well, we only want the credible evidence in their view, the authenticated, the non-false.

If you think about it, Donald Trump today rejected, I think, what any reasonable person would accept, at least upon first blush, based on what we know, the evidence of this letter that he submitted for Epstein's birthday, which came out several hours --

COATES: Well, hold on. Before we go there, congressman, I want to unpack a little bit of what you've said, just for the audience's sake. First of all, when you talked about Rule 6(e), you're talking about redactions that are likely going to be made for people who have sensitive information, maybe victims in the matter, people who would like their names redacted in that effort.

But also, grand jury testimony, as you rightly point out, is a fraction of a larger part of whatever evidence the DOJ is compiling when they are presenting a case to a grand jury.

But this adds a hurdle, right? For grand jury testimony to be released, you got to have a judge's buy-in. The rest of it, the rest of the non-hold part of that Swiss cheese, Trump could release right now through Pam Bondi if he wanted to.

And on this resolution, the House Republicans advance one tonight. Obviously, it's not binding. It just calls on Pam Bondi to release all credible files.

So, are Republicans weakening their resolution on the Epstein files now?

RASKIN: Well, it couldn't be much weaker than it already is. It basically defers to Bondi and Trump to decide what they think is credible, what they think is true, what they think is authenticated. It's just riddled with exceptions like that.

A lot of the very specific language that we've got in the bipartisan resolution that Massie and Khanna offered specifically identifies things we want like flight logs, like the names of individuals and other organizational entities that were involved with them. All of that disappears in what they're saying there.

But the real point is that it vests unilateral subjective interpretive control in Attorney General Bondi and the guy she says she works for, Donald Trump, to decide what they think is relevant and credible and authentic and true.

And the reason I'm raising this thing about, you know, the birthday letter is --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RASKIN: -- Donald Trump has already denounced that and said it's completely false and he's going to sue "The Wall Street Journal". So, that's something that obviously would not come in. Clearly anything that mentions him or invokes his name is not going to come in. And that's the opposite of what we need and that's the opposite of what everybody in Congress and the country is asking for.

[23:45:02]

COATES: I mean, given his reaction tonight -- I mean, "The Wall Street Journal" has this story out, Trump's relationship with Epstein. You know there was a friendship there.

And the alleged birthday letter that he gave Epstein, I take the point that you're raising that if he has such an issue with even the intimation that he produced or created this letter or this drawing then, surely, he will have a similar viewpoint about anything that mentions him in a grand jury testimony or otherwise as well.

But the big question tonight, of course, is, what do you plan to do about it? If anything, is this now an invitation for a more strenuous and vigorous attempt to get testimony from, say, a Ghislaine Maxwell or other witnesses or even Pam Bondi to testify and account for the why?

RASKIN: The Judiciary Committee Democrats unanimously sent a letter to Chairman Jordan saying we need to invite in and, if necessary, subpoena Attorney General Bondi, subpoena the FBI director, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, anybody else who has got relevant information to come and bring us all the documents they've got and to testify about what's out there. That's obviously what we should do.

Chairman Jordan has not said no. He has said that the attorney general will be coming in. I think he has mentioned September several times, but he says to testify generally to the committee about a bunch of stuff and we can ask what we want to ask. Obviously, the situation is far more of an emergency than that.

COATES: Congressman Raskin, thank you. RASKIN: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, President Trump threatening to sue the -- quote -- "ass off of Rupert Murdoch." Stay with us.

Plus, the other shocking news tonight, Stephen Colbert announcing that his late-night CBS show has been cancelled.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking tonight, the president threatening to sue "The Wall Street Journal" over their new report alleging that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein what they call a body letter for his birthday in 2003. He says he'll sue "The Wall Street Journal", News Corp, and Robert Murdoch, the owner of the paper, noting that he'll sue the -- quote -- "ass off of Murdoch."

CNN has reached out to "The Wall Street Journal." They declined to comment. For more, let's bring in CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, "The Wall Street Journal" included Trump's statements denying the story in their piece. But how serious is his threat to sue?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: I don't think it's very serious from a legal standpoint, but I do think it's very serious from a P.R. standpoint. Trump has a long history of threatening media outlets with lawsuits. He doesn't always follow through, but he does have at least two cases pending against other news outlets. And we all know he settled with Paramount just two weeks ago. He also got paid by Meta and by Disney. He has a pending case against Google.

So, he feels empowered. He feels emboldened by these legal settlements with other media outlets. I think he's puffing his chest out against the journal, saying, I'm going to sue you like I've sued everybody else. That's almost a direct quote from what he told the journal earlier this week.

That is why it's so notable, Laura, that the journal went ahead with the story, right? They were not deterred by Trump's legal threats. They went ahead, they published. And now, the chips will fall where they may.

COATES: We shall see. I mean, one of the things that Trump wrote in this post, saying -- quote -- "Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so." What's your reaction?

STELTER: This is a new chapter in this long, operatic relationship between Trump and Murdoch. You know, these two men go back decades. Trump thinks he has Rupert Murdoch in his pocket. Murdoch sometimes thinks he has a mutually beneficial relationship with Trump. But this has broken down over the years, you know. By 2020, by the end of Trump's first term, the two men barely spoke. Rupert was pissed at Trump, thought he ignored his advice about COVID. And after the January 6th attack, Rupert Murdoch said, we're making Trump a non- person.

So yes, they've reconciled recently, they are back in each other's good graces, but this shows how easily that relationship can break apart. And I interpret Trump's threats tonight as he's going to war against Rupert Murdoch in "The Wall Street Journal" or at least he wants people to think that that's what he's doing. Look, we will see if he files through and actually files a lawsuit.

But at least for now, Trump wants everyone to believe that he is at war with this media outlet. And that, I think, is all part of an attempt to throw up a lot of smoke, throw up a lot of confusion, Laura, and make it hard to know what is really true about this story.

COATES: One thing that appears to be true in a very different context that I want to get your reporting on that broke tonight is CBS's decision. They tonight announced its plans to end the late show with Stephen Colbert. The program has been a staple on late night TV, going back to David Letterman in the 90s. What do you know about this decision?

STELTER: This is a total gut punch for the late show staffers and for a lot of Colbert fans out there.

COATES: Hmm.

STELTER: There are millions of those fans. CBS says this is a financial decision. We can put the statement up on screen. They say this has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with Trump, it's purely financial. And the reality is, yes, CBS and other broadcast networks are under a lot of financial pressure. CBS does have to pinch pennies right now because it's going through a merger and it is also seen more and more -- basically harder and harder to attract advertisers to the late-night time slot for those comedy shows.

So yes, the financial pressures are legit but, come on, I think everybody is looking at this and wondering if CBS is succumbing to political pressure because we know that the parent company has been desperate to get its merger approved by the Trump administration. That's partly what the settlement was about two weeks ago. And so, there are a lot of swirling questions.

And the reason this is not going to go away, Laura, is we are seeing Democratic senators jumping on this and demanding answers from CBS.

[23:55:01]

Who would have (INAUDIBLE)? We live in a world now, we live in an age where a late-night comic losing a show becomes a political hot potato. But that's where we are.

COATES: Well, I had the honor to be on that show once, and I can't tell you how exciting it was for me. Obviously, this neon yellow suit that I chose to wear. But let me tell you, the idea that he's not going to continue to be a staple after next May has sent shockwaves through the industry to say the least.

Brian, I know you'll bring us to reporting as only you can. Thank you.

STELTER: Thanks.

COATES: And I want to thank you all for watching. "The Source" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)