Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Seeking to Unseal Epstein Docs That May Not Quell Controversy; "Laura Coates Live" Presents "America Asks"; Police Arrests Arkansas Murder Suspect; Is Kamala Harris Leaving Door Open for 2028?; Democrats Sound Alarm on New Texas Midterm Map; Ex-NBA Star Gilbert Arenas Indicted on Gambling Charges. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 30, 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: The truth of the matter is that we're all more vain than we'd like to let on.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: It will all be good.

UNKNOWN: Absolutely.

UNKNOWN: Mix the Ozempic with the Cheetos.

PHILLIP: That's right. Okay. Everybody, thank you very much. But first, a special programming note. This summer, we are taking our show on the road for little field trips. We'll be broadcasting this roundtable debate from the Food Network Kitchen. We will have food and drinks, maybe some Celsius (ph), I don't know, and some lively conversation. You don't want to miss it.

Up next for us, thank you for watching "NewsNight," "Laura Coates Live" is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, a MAGA letdown in the whole Epstein saga. What's really in the grand jury testimony might have some people saying, is that it? Plus, breaking tonight, an arrest in the murder of an Arkansas couple. How a multi-day manhunt finally came to an end. And later, when a poker game not just a poker game. The alleged scheme tonight that led to federal charges against former NBA star Gilbert Arenas. All that tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, if there is one thing everyone says they want in the Jeffrey Epstein case, it's transparency. Americans say they want it. Lawmakers are demanding it. President Trump's allies from Kash Patel to Pam Bondi, well, they promised it. Now, that turned out, even after four weeks. Yes, a month of fallout. People close to the president still insist he's all about transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Donald J. Trump, I'm telling you, he's got nothing to hide, his administration has got nothing to hide, and that's why he has been an advocate for full transparency in this case.

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I'm pushing aggressively for the full release of everything that is possible. And, by the way, so is the president. He has said the same thing. We're using every mechanism within our power to do that and to do it as quickly as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, the president himself today seemed to say that he wants to release the files after, apparently, mishearing the question, but the Russia investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I want everything to be shown, you know, as long as it's fair and reasonable. I think it will be shown and it should be shown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What we're really seeing so far from the Trump administration? Well, transparency would be a stretch. You got to squint really hard to even try to see through the smoke and mirrors. Now, turn that squint into a side eye when you read the latest memo the DOJ submitted over the release of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell investigations.

Remember when the DOJ asked for those transcripts to be unsealed? Right? I bet you thought there were a bunch of different transcripts from a bunch of different witnesses, witnesses who were giving firsthand accounts or eyewitness testimony. Well, you'd be wrong. Because, apparently, they include testimony from only two witnesses, and both of them were law enforcement officials. No alleged victims, no firsthand accounts, no corroborating witnesses.

But, you know, I've been a prosecutor. Let me tell you, that's not actually so unusual. It's actually how a lot of grand juries frequently work. Because the bar for an indictment isn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's at the trial. This is the grand jury, meaning probable cause.

So, prosecutors often rely on law enforcement officers to really put -- summarize the evidence rather than a parade of witnesses. They'll need to present enough to get an indictment, not prove the entire case beyond a reasonable doubt. And they can use hearsay.

Sometimes, you know, officers will fill in for one another during a grand jury, and they're actually giving you, the grand jurors, their officers' notes. Sometimes, prosecutors read the transcript of a former witness from a different grand jury if that first grand jury that they wanted to indict in front of actually expired before they could.

Now, I'm not saying that's the ideal scenario, but it goes to show the reality of the difference between probable cause and a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But here's the thing: The Epstein case is massive. We're talking more than 300 gigabytes of data, paper records, video, photographs, audio. Yet the slice that Trump's DOJ is pushing to release, it is about as thin as it gets. And perhaps, conveniently, it's also the only slice the administration doesn't actually directly control because that, remember, needs a judge's approval to be unsealed.

Now, a Florida judge has already denied that request. Now, the DOJ is waiting for a New York judge to weigh in.

[23:04:57]

As for all the other files, the rest of those -- what? Gigabytes? Well, the president could declassify those tomorrow. He could do it right now. Just hasn't.

In a moment, I'll be answering the questions that you at home have been sending us to answer. You can keep sending them in tonight at cnn.com/epstein questions and be a part of the program as well.

But first, you know who I want to hear from? Former federal prosecutor at the SDNY, Sarah Krissoff, legal correspondent for Business Insider who covered Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial, Jacob Shamsian, and senior reporter at "The Bulwark," Will Sommer. Glad to have all of you here.

I'll begin with you, my tablemate, this morning -- this evening. Excuse me. What time is it? I don't even know. Will, is this all a delay tactic? Is that what they're doing? Because, obviously, they could release the bulk of things. We're talking about the grand jury components of it. I mean, they seem to be adding fuel to the fire and prolonging this. Right?

WILL SOMMER, SENIOR REPORTER, THE BULWARK: I think there was -- the administration saw that they had to provide people who were interested in this case, and many of whom are Trump voters. They had to give them something.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SOMMER: And so -- but they didn't really want to. And so, they -- they went to something that is very limited in its scope, the grand jury testimony, and also something that they can't really get --

COATES: Right.

SOMMER: -- in many cases. The judges seem very reluctant to release it. So, then, they can say, oh, well, we tried and move on. But the reality is they have all these other files that they seem to have no interest in releasing and instead kind of going on these quests to interview Ghislaine Maxwell or ask the judges for the transcripts. That suggests they really don't want the public to see the vast majority of the information they have.

COATES: Kicking the can down the road means everyone wonder why. And also, Sarah, first of all, if the DOJ is saying the witnesses in the grand jury transcripts were actually members of law enforcement, not victims, that would probably largely mirror what was said publicly at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. So, why isn't the judge, you think, signing off on releasing the testimony?

SARAH KRISSOFF, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: I think the judges here are just taking their time, that the -- the Department of Justice has now submitted the testimony to the judges. They've said this is the testimony we -- you know, the portions of the testimony we want publicized, these are some redactions we would propose.

And now, the judges really have to look at this and analyze it and figure out if they're going to release it. I mean, the judges may, you know, look at these factors they have to consider. There are whole bunch of factors they have to consider. How long ago the testimony was, whether -- you know, what the defendant's position regarding the release of the testimony is. They might weigh those and say, listen, this public interest here is just not enough to overweigh or overcome all of these other things that weigh against releasing this information.

COATES: Well, we'll see what's in there. And, of course, again, it's just a sliver of what is part of in comprising the entirety of a file. But Jacob, like I said earlier, I mean, there are tons of evidence and documents. I don't know if it's evidence that implicates or exonerates. I do not know. We have not seen it all. That's part of the strive for transparency being asked.

But they could release, the administration could release things on their own. They don't have to get a sign off from the judge on things that are not grand jury-related. Of course, there still the discussions about victims and protecting people and privacy concerns, I'm sure. So, why hasn't the administration, in your opinion, released even portions of the rest?

JACOB SHAMSIAN, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, BUSINESS INSIDER: Yes. So, that's the odd thing. We don't really know. They haven't really given a sufficient explanation of why that is. They said, you know, a lot of this is child pornography, sexual abuse material.

COATES: Hmm.

SHAMSIAN: But, you know, obviously, no one is asking for that. We know for a fact they have all these email records, financial records. We've seen a bunch of it at the Maxwell trial. We know that they seized more than 70 electronic devices from Jeffrey Epstein, hard drives, computers, iPads.

So, you know, they have a ton of stuff that isn't, you know, necessarily going to cause the same problems that grand jury testimony would and that they could seemly just release any day now, and they haven't really given a clear answer of why they don't just do that. COATES: I mean, Will, on the one hand, you might have the stalling tactics of going through a judge for grand jury releasing. Then you've got the legislative branch, Capitol Hill, Speaker Johnson, hoping that this August recess, which is now at five-and-a-half weeks long, that that might make people have a little bit of amnesia. Is that really the strategy? I mean, obviously, it seems like people are willing to wait until they get back.

SOMMER: I mean, look, he sent the House home early to avoid a vote on this. But I don't think it's going to work. And I think if you look at both what's going on in right-wing media, I mean, they're keeping them occupied with this crazy stuff about burn bags. Every day, they're coming up with some new thing about Obama committing treason. Ultimately, they're going to run out of those kinds of things to throw out.

[23:10:01]

COATES: Wait. What is the burn bag thing?

SOMMER: Oh, well, Trump doesn't even understand it himself. It's this idea that the FBI found burn bags full of evidence, essentially that Obama cooked-up the Russia investigation.

COATES: Hmm.

SOMMER: And so, this was the latest sort of diversion they threw out today. And so, ultimately, they're going run out of those things and people are going to start talking about Epstein again even more than they are already, I think. And, you know, in broader, more independent circles like Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan said this is a line in the sand.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SOMMER: These are people who are not willing to move on from it. And the administration and Mike Johnson really don't have an answer to that.

COATES: And, by the way, I mean, Joe Rogan is somebody who's credited for that 11th-hour endorsement that really seemed to push Trump over the edge in terms of at least the manosphere, so to speak, among others.

But Sarah, speaking of Capitol Hill and the Senate, Senate Democrats, they're trying to force the DOJ's hand on the Epstein files by trying to invoke this little-known federal law. That law actually requires an executive branch agency to fork over what's requested when solicited by at least five members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Now, assuming they have those five members, is there any chance that that will successfully force the hand of DOJ?

KRISSOFF: I just don't think it's going to work. I mean, it is a -- it is a move and there is precedent for it. But I am sure the administration is going to fight it every step of the way. And then, ultimately, it's going to turn into litigation. That is going to take a very long time and really not lead to the release of materials here, I think.

COATES: Sometimes, you got to make a move to stay in the game. Right? Well, Sarah, Will, thank you so much. Jacob, stand by. I'm going to use your expertise on this case to help me answer some questions from people at home who are eager to weigh in. And remember, you can send us your questions by going to cnn.com/epsteinquestions as well.

Let me hear -- I got one here. Jacob, I got a question for you immediately. This is from Jack. Jacob, Jack asked this question. Did Epstein have any connections to foreign intelligence? You've done some extensive reporting on this, I understand. What did you learn?

SHAMSIAN: Yeah. So, I just published a deep dive into this whole issue. There's a lot of smoke but no fire, basically. So, we know Jeffrey Epstein was close to Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel. We know that he met with William Burns, who later became the director of the CIA. He sorts of had all these other various high- powered connections.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SHAMSIAN: And there's also this sort of apocryphal quote connect -- where Alex Acosta supposedly said that Jeffrey Epstein belonged to intelligence. That's why, you know, he didn't push harder on -- on the -- on the case against him back in Florida years ago.

But I spoke to four sources who have had access to all these records that the FBI seized from Jeffrey Epstein's homes in Manhattan and the U.S. Virgin Islands back in 2019, and they said, you know, of all this vast universe of material, all these, you know, terabytes of stuff, there wasn't really anything there that indicated any kind of connection with the Mossad or the CIA, anything in the world of intelligence.

And moreover, you know, there would be signs in the litigation, in the -- in the criminal case against him, in the Ghislaine Maxwell, and there wasn't really anything there to say. So, it doesn't really seem so.

COATES: All right. Well, here's another question. A. Sloan asked this question. Why can't alleged victims name men involved in Epstein's sex crimes? You know?

SHAMSIAN: I will say there had been a number. Right? There was a civil case against Prince Andrew, which he denied any wrongdoing. That case settled. There was another case against Alan Dershowitz. He also denied wrongdoing. There was ultimately a settlement where the accuser said, I might have confused him from someone else. So, this has happened a bit. There have been a few other cases that haven't quite made it as far.

And, you know -- and I will say also, there's a risk to speaking up. Right? Like, we don't really --

COATES: Yeah. SHAMSIAN: -- know what these victims' lives are like years later. It's a sort of personal decision to make. We don't really know what the scope of what the experiences are.

COATES: We do know at least one who has committed suicide just several months ago, citing the weight of all that she had been through in a case like this.

Here's another one. This is from Jennifer. I'll answer this one. Jennifer asks, how could Maxwell's testimony be independently corroborated? Well, it's a great question. There are a lot of ways it could be corroborated. You got victim testimony that could be more than the he said, she said. You've got law enforcement accounts, surveillance records, perhaps, just to name a few.

It will all be important in assessing the credibility if she does go before Congress or otherwise to figure out, well, even if there's limited immunity, how could they really understand whether she's being truthful or not? They have to do it independently. Otherwise, you have somebody who has a real vested interest in saying what you want to hear, possibly. Right?

[23:15:02]

Jacob asked this question. Jacob -- Anne asked this question, excuse me. Where is Alex Acosta now? That's the former U.S. attorney for -- down in Florida who gave that sweetheart deal to Epstein back in 2008, the one that Maxwell is citing to say, hey, I should have been included and never prosecuted anyway.

SHAMSIAN: Right. So, he -- he resigns from the Trump -- from the first Trump administration as labor secretary back in 2019 after Jeffrey Epstein was charged again and this sort of came back in the news.

Since then, I think he has sort of led a private life. He hasn't really gone for any public positions as he had in the past. He served on a couple of corporate boards. I think -- as I understand it, he sorts of, like, does consulting for some private companies. But, yeah, he's -- I mean, he's laying low. He's not really out there anymore.

COATES: I'm sure people want him not to lay low. I know even Congressman Raskin, as we've talked about, is wanting to talk to him even years ago when this first came. Let's see what happens now.

We got another one. I'll answer this one. This is from Doug, and he asked this question. Will Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit make Epstein files subject to discovery?

That's a good question because say this went to discovery, "The Wall Street Journal" could try to get information and communications from Trump about Epstein to try to prove that they did not have actual malice or that there was truth to what they were reporting.

But it doesn't mean they have the access to the files more broadly. They have to show what they would have relied on in publishing to prove there was no actual malice or that there was no reason to believe that there was not truthfulness to their reporting that may or may not be in the files like what they actually have access to.

Jacob Shamsian, thank you so much. Really helpful.

SHAMSIAN: Thanks so much for having me.

COATES: Up next, the breaking news out of Arkansas. The suspect behind the mysterious and tragic killing of a couple at a state park is now in custody. There are details on his arrest next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We got breaking news in the manhunt for a suspected killer. Police have just revealed they arrested a man who was accused of killing a husband and wife on a hiking trail in Arkansas. Clinton and Cristen Brink were attacked while hiking with their two daughters over the weekend. Investigators say they were killed on a trail at Devil's Den State Park in Northwest Arkansas.

Tonight, police say 28-year-old James Andrew McGann is the man who killed them. He faces two counts of capital murder. He was arrested about -- at a barber shop 40 minutes north of the state park in Springdale. And just moments ago, the head of the state police became emotional while announcing McGann's arrest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE HAGAR, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE: We were able to take a monster off the streets and bring relief to Clinton and Cristen's precious girls and to the rest of citizens of Arkansas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now is Daniel Brunner, a former FBI special agent and co-founder and president of Brunner Sierra Group. Daniel, he's emotional for obvious reasons. What a terrifying and tragic experience. I mean, investigators did not release a motive or much less anything really about the suspect. We know that he was arrested at a barbershop in Springdale and worked at a local school. What does that tell you?

DANIEL BRUNNER, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF BRUNNER SIERRA GROUP: Well, it tells us not very much, as you're saying, that there's not much that's going to be put out in the initial press conference. They don't want to -- the law enforcement doesn't want to give too much information from the beginning.

There's a lot of evidence that needs to be collected, there's a lot of motive needs to be determined, and there's a lot of information that still is out there. So, I'm sure they're going through his phone, they're going to go start interviewing his coworkers, they're to start interviewing his family members to determine if there was a predisposition for this family or if this was just a random attack that he just happened to run into them on the trail.

So, there's lots of different questions that are still up in the air, and it's going to be very difficult to get that from law enforcement. So, at this point, we really just have to, you know, speculate at this point where this is going, what was happening, and to determine exactly what his motive of why he killed these two individuals and to leave the two daughters unharmed. So, there's a lot of -- there's a lot questions that are still out there.

COATES: I mean, investigators talked about the sheer number of tips that they received based on the photo and a sketch they released yesterday. But can you explain a little bit as to why they might be reluctant to divulge publicly information. Do they have concerns about it compromising the integrity of the investigation or false leads? What?

BRUNNER: There's lots of different variety of it. So, all we have to do is go back to the Boston bombers situation where, incorrectly, two individuals were identified in the media by the FBI and Boston Police Department as the suspects of the bombing, they were -- they were put on the newspaper --

COATES: Yeah.

BRUNNER: -- as the suspects, and erroneously was wrong information, as we've now found out. So, they have to be very, very careful unless they are positive that they have an identified individual. For example, unless he was captured on CCTV actually committing the crime, I think they'd be very, very hesitant about saying that this is the suspect, this is an individual.

[23:24:57]

Up until this point, it was a person that we want to inquire about, a person of interest that we want to question them. So, those are the things.

Having the public participate and having the public as a part of the investigation is a huge part. I've run numerous fugitive investigations where I've utilized the public at large. You're just multiplying the number of eyes that are out there. So, it definitely is a big help.

COATES: Of course, he is presumed innocent. So, they say that he is the suspect. I'm curious to see how the investigation unfolds. Daniel Brunner, thank you so much.

Up next, former Vice President Kamala Harris revealing her plans for the future and trying to be governor of California. Couldn't make the list. So, what about another one for president or something else?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, the former vice president, Kamala Harris, is saying thank you next to the 2026 California governor race, a move that's raising some questions about the 2028 presidential race.

Harris wrote -- quote -- "In recent months, I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their governor. But after deep reflection, I have decided that I will not run for governor this election." Adding, "For now, my leadership and public service will not be in elected office."

The current California governor, Gavin Newsom, praised Harris and her political career. But one unnamed California House Democrat is telling CNN just last week -- quote -- "There's no groundswell for her candidacy. In fact, I think it would only fire up Republicans."

Joining me now, pollster Frank Luntz and CNN political commentator Karen Finney. So, Karen, read the tea leaves for me. Why is she not running for governor in California?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think a couple of reasons. Number one, I just don't think it was in her heart right now to do it. I mean, that's -- you know, she ran what most people get two years to do in 107 days. And I think, you know, the most important thing, if you run for any office, you have to know in your soul that you want to do it and that you're willing to make the compromises, I mean, not the compromise, but the sacrifices to be able to actually execute in that office.

The other thing I think is worth talking about is she would have to have a conversation with voters about her version of what happened in 2024. I mean, there are still a lot of questions --

COATES: As to why she lost.

FINNEY: As to why she lost. I mean, you know, the DNC is doing an audit. There are a lot of questions about what happened and how did it happen, what happened to the money. So, I think, you know, you have to be prepared to have that conversation and put forward your own vision for, and this is why I want to be governor of California.

And the last thing I'll say, I don't know if this was part of her consideration, but it certainly was something that occurred to me, if she were to run for governor right now, she would absolutely be a target for Trump, and that would be a distraction from a lot of the other work that is being done to try to, whether it is find places where there are compromise or, you know, push back on what Trump is doing. So, I think it was the right decision.

COATES: How do voters see it? What do the polls tell us?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER, COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: They tell us that she was the frontrunner by far --

COATES: Uh-hmm. For the governorship? LUNTZ: -- for the governorship. That's not just among Democrats, but among Californians. I believe that she would have run -- if she'd run, that she would have won. To me, I go back to --

COATES: Even in spite of what Karen described?

LUNTZ: Yes, because I go back to 2024, and it was one of the worst campaigns. Now, remember, after her convention, she was leading. After that debate with Donald Trump, she was leading.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LUNTZ: She could have won this. But in the end, she never told people what she would do in that first hour, in the first day, in the first week. And these are things that the voters wanted to know, that she had taken positions that were different in 2024 than when she was running in 2020. And voters want consistency.

But the most important factor on immigration, which is the number one issue, and on affordability, which was the number 1.1 issue, she didn't have an answer. She chose to focus on Donald Trump rather than the things that were affecting people in their day-to-day lives. And that's what any politician watching right now needs to focus on because that's what the voters are talking about.

COATES: Well, one thing, though, she says in her last statement that she was not going to run for now. Right? But that she wants to help elect Democrats across the nation. Do you have concerns about her campaigning given her defeat and what you've articulated?

FINNEY: No. I actually think she'll be a huge hit on the campaign trail. I mean, she was, you know, MVP in 2022. I think people will be excited to see her on the campaign trail. It's a very different thing when you're out there as a surrogate for someone else than when you are out there making the case for yourself.

So, I think, you know, there's a lot of love for her within the party. I think people feel like they recognize it probably would have been worse if she hadn't, if we hadn't had the switch. I mean, just given the way the polls were going, she saved us from -- you know, 75 million people voted for her. She got 10 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did. So, at least for the candidacy of a woman, she did help move us forward.

COATES: Uh-hmm. Do you agree, Frank?

LUNTZ: No.

COATES: Tell me why.

LUNTZ: I think she actually set it back. I think that if someone like Westmore had decided to run, he would have run a better campaign because there would have been more substance to it.

[23:35:03]

It's not just --

FINNEY: Hold on. Hold on --

LUNTZ: Let me finish. Let me finish.

FINNEY: Okay. Go ahead.

LUNTZ: It's not just what your gender is. It's not just how you look. It's what you stand for and what you represent. And at the time -- and she had every opportunity because of that debate to prove to the American people she was up for it. I don't think things have changed since then.

Yes, I agree with you that she is an awesome spokesperson for the Democrats. But for the independents, for the people, that switch between '20 and 2024, they switched to Donald Trump not because of Donald Trump, not all because of him. Some of those switching away from her, Latino -- Latinos --

FINNEY: So --

LUNTZ: -- union members, younger male voters, three different groups that moved to the Democratic Party because they didn't see that she was the answer.

FINNEY: But Frank, here's -- okay, but you're ignoring a lot of what was actually going on. For two years, Donald Trump's team was in the manosphere, reaching out to men, Latino men, Black men, young men.

And remember that when Barack Obama won, he had, at the beginning of his campaign, a year out. They looked at the electorate and said, I cannot win in this electorate, what's the electorate I can win in? It's got to be blacker and browner and younger. And that's what they spent the primary doing so that when he won, he actually won. It was the electorate that they knew he could win in.

She did not have the benefit. I hate re-adjudicating 2024, but she didn't even have the benefit of trying to do that to win those voters over. She had 107 days --

COATES: Hold on.

FINNEY: -- to try to make to those voters.

COATES: On that one point, I'm curious, though, because shew as a part of an incumbent administration.

FINNEY: Yeah.

COATES: Is it just they did not have their thumb on the pulse of what the electorate was that they needed?

FINNEY: Well, no. But, again, in 107 days, when you're trying to make the case for yourself, it is you don't have the same amount of time to actually have that conversation with voters and to go where they are, frankly, because a lot of it, you know, it's a matter of time. I mean, time is undefeated in the campaign. It's the one thing that is finite.

COATES: Quickly.

LUNTZ: Before you get out, she did not have an answer for affordability, because things were more expensive. She did not have an answer for immigration, because it was a mess at the border. She did not have an answer for the things that mattered most for most people, and I don't think that that has changed.

You can blame race, you can blame gender, you can blame Trump's campaign. In the end, look at yourself. We're all responsible for what we say. We're all responsible for what we do. And she didn't have what it took to be president --

FINNEY: In 107 days.

LUNTZ: In 2024, she had more --

FINNEY: In 107 days.

LUNTZ: -- she had more money than God, and she's still --

FINNEY: In 107 days.

LUNTZ: Yeah. She had more money than God. She won the debate, and she lost.

FINNEY: -- 107 days.

LUNTZ: And she lost.

COATES: I think the name of Karen's book is going to be "107 Days."

(LAUGHTER)

You know who's happy, though? Probably Governor Gavin Newsom. Frank, Karen, thank you both so much.

LUNTZ: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, California Governor Gavin Newsom claiming that Republicans are rigging the 2026 midterms with their newly-drawn congressional map in Texas. What are Democrats going to do about it? One of the lawmakers whose district would be totally upended in this new map, he is going to join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: When President Trump wants something from his Republican Party, well, he usually does get it. Look no further than the proposed congressional maps in Texas. Usually, as you know, redistricting happens every 10 years because that's when the census occurs and it's completed every 10 years. But the president pushed Texas Governor Greg Abbott to draw a new map to squeeze out maybe five more Republican seats in that state.

Exactly what the Republicans did with this new map that is out today. It actually gives Republicans 30 seats. Democrats will make it eight. That is sharply different from the 13 seats Democrats hold and the 25 the GOP currently occupy. State lawmakers are thinking to approve the new map in the coming days.

But this redistricting battle is set to go, frankly, national. California and New York are now threatening to redraw districts to add Democratic seats. And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Republicans are trying to rig the game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), FORMER SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The Texas redistricting, what the president has talked about at other parts in the country, is indicative of the poverty of ideas that the Republicans have, and they have to resort to this kind of gimmick -- this kind of gimmickry in order to try to hold the House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Texas Democratic congressman and chair of the House Progressive Caucus, Greg Casar. Thank you for joining us, congressman. I mean, your district would be eliminated, it could be under this new map, and you may have to run against a fellow progressive congressman, Lloyd Doggett. What would that mean for voters in your district to have voted, well, you both in previously?

REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): Let me be really clear about what -- what's at stake here. This is about something so much bigger than any one of us in Congress. This is about millions of Texas voters who will have their voting rights taken away just because Donald Trump is demanding it. I think that Texans should get to pick who their member of Congress is, not the guy in Mar-a-Lago who doesn't care about anybody here.

[23:45:05]

And so, yeah, sure, they've merged my district with Congressman Doggett's and that's deeply wrong, but they're not doing something to us. What they're doing is telling Texas voters that you no longer get to pick who you send to Congress. No. Donald Trump gets to say he wants 30 seats because he doesn't want to get held accountable.

And look, Texans aren't scared of a fight. I'm not going anywhere, and we are going to fight this tooth and nail with everything in our bodies because, basically, Trump is trying to shred the Voting Rights Act of 1965 right here in Texas, and then he wants to spread that all over the country.

COATES: So, would you end up actually trying to run against Congressman Doggett if these new maps do hold? CASAR: Congressman Doggett and I are united in fighting back against this illegal map. To be really clear, the 35th district that I represent, which would then be merged into Congressman Doggett's, a Supreme Court, including its conservative justices, said that in order to protect the 1965 voting rights of Central Texas Latinos, that this kind of district should exist.

So, it is -- it is not legal what Donald Trump is doing, and that's why I just left the Texas Capitol, where our brave state legislators are considering filibusters and quorum breaks and everything we've got to make sure that we drag this fight out, and then bring in governors like Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, and others who can start to say, you know, we'll fight back in democratic states to try to stop Texas from ripping the Voting Rights Act to shreds.

COATES: I mean, if gerrymandering in this way becomes the blueprint, obviously, it goes far beyond Texas. You've mentioned a couple different options for Texas Democrats to fight back, whether it's lawsuits. But some of those challenges, as you know, litigation can take years and you might not have the luxury of time. What is going to be, do you think, the most immediate way to challenge and reverse course?

CASAR: We absolutely should take this up in the courts, but we can't necessarily rely on this very right-wing Supreme Court to save us.

That's why I think it's so important that if you're watching at home, that you reach out to your governor, that you reach out to your legislators, and encourage your governor to take Gavin Newsom's lead and say, look, if we want to get to fair maps everywhere, then we've got to make sure that there is an actual cost to people like Greg Abbott because Greg Abbott right now should be rebuilding our state from those floods. He should be providing relief. But instead, he's focused on redistricting.

We should stop calling these folks who are Republican representatives. They're really just Trump's water boys. And we need to make sure that people are pushing back all across the country because if they're able to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with such impunity here in Texas with no cost, then they've already said next they'll go to Missouri, and then they'll go to Ohio after that.

COATES: Hmm.

CASAR: And we cannot have continued unaccountability from Donald Trump. He's trying to rig these elections before anybody gets a chance to vote.

COATES: Well, congressman, some are arguing the route that you're talking about, accountability. Others are saying to be proactive about -- it was something similar in terms of increasing the number of Democratic-held seats in blue states as well. Do you support that?

CASAR: I -- I absolutely think that what Governor Newsom is doing is the right thing. They should be presenting maps in Democratic-held states that will eliminate Republican members of Congress and say that if Texas moves forward, then, of course, states like California and New York will have to move forward. That, hopefully, would stop what Texas is doing. Or if Governor Abbott and Trump move forward with their voter suppression plan, they have to know that there's a cost to it.

And I hope that my Republican colleagues across the country start to take note that Trump's antics in Texas could cost them their seats elsewhere.

COATES: Congressman Greg Casar, thank you for joining us.

CASAR: Thank you very much.

COATES: Still ahead today, the shocker in the sports world tonight. Former NBA star Gilbert Arenas indicted on federal charges tied to gambling. What he has been accused of, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: He was known as "Agent Zero" on the court, but he's about to become a criminal defendant in the courtroom. Tonight, three-time NBA All-Star Gilbert Arenas was arrested in connection to an illegal high- stakes gambling ring. He is one of six people being indicted for conspiracy and currently face up to 15 years in prison if he's found guilty on all charges.

Now, among the allegations, prosecutors say Arenas rented out his Encino California mansion, host underground poker games, that he directed one of his co-defendants to arrange these games. He's also being charged with lying to investigators about his involvement. The prosecutors say the picture you see here, well, implicates him, a poker table bearing his name in his famous number zero jersey.

[23:55:00]

Arenas's attorney responded today, saying -- quote -- "He is presumed innocent and has the same right as any other citizen to that presumption."

Bring me now, Rachel Nichols, an analyst for Fox Sports. Rachel, I mean, this indictment, it alleges that Arenas conspired with several other individuals to stage these poker games. What else can you tell us about what was happening, allegedly?

RACHEL NICHOLS, ANALYST, FOX SPORTS: Well, his attorney is right, we can presume innocence, but it does make it a little bit harder if you splatter your photo and name across the illegal poker table. Not so smart.

Look, Gilbert has gotten in trouble over and over again in his career. IQ-wise, he's one of the smartest players I have ever covered. So, you wonder why he keeps putting himself in situations where he's doing, frankly, dumb things. He has gotten in trouble for having license plates that he ginned up to run a bunch of red lights, 60 red lights in a couple years.

He, of course, was part of the famous locker room incident in Washington, D.C. in 2009 where he was charged federally for bringing guns into the Washington Wizards locker room. Now, he pled out on that, but that charge and the fact that he did eventually plead guilty may play a role in this case if he is found guilty or if he does strike a plea deal, Laura.

I don't know if that will affect the leniency that they have on him and what kind of punishment they give, the fact that he already has a federal account against him that he has pled guilty to in the past. These charges, three of them, carry a five-year maximum prison sentence. Now, those can be served concurrently. And, of course, as you know, my lawyer friend, you know, deals can be made, but the fact that he does have this history is going to be a factor here.

COATES: You wonder to what extent -- you know, this is surprising. The idea -- as you've said, you've covered many things. That was years ago that he was accused of doing those things. We had that plea. And here we are in 2025. And now, seeing this indictment, a federal one. I mean, he has since become a successful podcast host. He's got a post- MBA career. He's got over a million subscribers on YouTube. How will that all be impacted with this arrest?

NICHOLS: Well, look, I don't think anybody who daily tunes into his show is doing it because they consider him the most upstanding moral sort of citizen in America. So, the expectation for Gilbert has always been that he's going to kind of play on the edge of things, that he plays with fire, and that he does occasionally get burned. So, I think his audience would stick with him.

The issue for him is going to be that his show is sponsored by a sports gambling company. And you have to wonder, these are gambling- related charges, if they are going to keep with funding and sponsoring his show. So, it's the off season right now. There aren't any shows going on. We will probably have to wait to the outcome of this trial to find out what's going to happen going forward with him.

COATES: I'm old enough to remember when people didn't want to put the word gambling in the same sentence as sports. That has changed dramatically. It reveals just how much it has really become part and parcel to sports and entertainment.

NICHOLS: Yeah. I mean, this is one of the dangers that was discussed when the Supreme Court repealed the law that enabled gambling to go into sport. The leagues really embraced it.

Did you know that last year, Laura, Americans spent $150 billion, with a B, dollars, on legal sports gambling, and the leagues themselves benefit from sponsorships by these gambling companies who want to advertise to these people spending the money? This is about $8 billion going to sports leagues, American sports leagues, just last year. That's all expected to have a 15, 20% increase this year. So, when the culture of all these sports is gambling, gambling, gambling, gambling, gambling, you are obviously influencing players, ex-players to say, this is kind of okay, even if you're on the outside edge of legality. There are two current NBA players under federal investigation for illegally gambling on the sport that they play.

COATES: Well, this one -- of course, these allegations, and they are allegations, they relate to poker. Not necessarily you might think, oh, this is somebody gambling on a game, we're trying to throw a game in some way. But you bring up a good point about maybe how public perception may shift in terms of how people either look down their nose or do not on gambling more broadly. I wonder how it will play out here. Any ideas of what the response has been in the sports world today?

NICHOLS: Again, I think this was very unexpected to happen today. But I don't think people were shocked or surprised because of Gil's history. And some of the allegations in the complaint are things that have opened some eyes, obviously, not just the gambling, not just that Gill and his alleged co-conspirators were taking a rake, that they were taking some of the profits from the gambling, but they also hired -- this was a formal operation, Laura. They hired chefs, they hired valets.

And they also, allegedly, according to the Justice Department, hired young women, is what the complaint says, to serve drinks, give massages, and provide -- quote -- "companionship for gamblers."

[00:00:00]

And there was money taken out of their pay as well.

COATES: Hmm.

NICHOLS: So, this is a wide-ranging investigation, and we'll have to see how it continues.

COATES: Certainly will. A lot to unpack there as the days go by. Rachel Nichols, thank you so much for joining.

NICHOLS: Thank you.

COATES: And hey, thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.