Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Newsom Retaliates Against Trump, Vows War Over "Rigged" Redistricting; Trump Eyes Deal in Putin Summit; Reuters: Meta's A.I. Rules have Let Bots Hold "Sensual Chats" with Kids. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 14, 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)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Governor Gavin Newsom sets the agenda for Democrats with a gamble to decide his party's chances in 2026 and maybe his own in 2028. And the new expectations being set on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit. So, who exactly has the upper hand between these two in this picture? Plus, a report into Meta's A.I. chatbot that says the company had a document -- get this -- allowing for sensual conversation with kids? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Okay, clearly, cleary, California Governor Gavin Newsom is all out of Trumps to give. He's over the complaints that Democrats are tiptoeing around the president. He's over the pearl-clutching and shock. He's over the party's constant head ringing about just how to stop him. Even over how Trump's posts have been normalized. Over it. And he says that he's done talking, and he's ready to act.

So today, he threw aside the "when they go low, we go high" mantra that, by the way, even Michelle Obama modified at the DNC. He promised to go full scorched earth against Trump and urge other Democrats to follow suit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): He doesn't play by a different set of rules. He doesn't believe in the rules. And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about the way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Newsom is revealing the kind of fire that he has in mind. He is vowing total war over redistricting. Gerrymandering, really. He says California will draw, will move to redraw its political map in response to a Trump-backed push in Texas to flip as many as five congressional seats from blue to red. Newsom says it's all because Trump knows his time is running out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NEWSOM: We're doing this in reaction to a president of United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said, find me five seats. He's going to lose the midterms. He knows the fact, though, his presidency ends in 17 months. Now, Speaker Jeffries is backing up. He knows it. Why else, why else would you try to rig the system?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, let's pump the brakes for just a second. One thing I know is that nothing is a sure thing. And you know both parties are always convinced, at least in public, in front of all of us, that they will keep or they will retake the majority. But voters have actually had to decide the issue.

And Newsom's strategy, it's a gamble. It may be a big gamble because for starters, any new congressional maps in California need to pass a statewide referendum. And that is no guarantee.

Second, Newsom is likely to meet some serious resistance within his own state. And I'm talking from some pretty big names like the governator. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger. And no, I did not try to mimic his voice. Who, a spokesman says, decided that gerrymandering was evil once he learned about it as governor. Not sure how you learned about it when you were the governor. I'm -- I'm going to move on from that point. He should have known about it before.

But Newsom is probably aware that he has a tough road ahead. That's why he is framing Trump's plans in the most dire terms, and he could be perfectly sincere and confident about it. But he is trying to convince Americans that everything is on the line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWSOM: Wake up, America. Wake up. You will not have a country if he rigs this election. You will have a president who will be running for a third term. Mark my word. I wasn't exaggerating when I said that I received in the mail a Trump 2028 hat from one of his biggest supporters. These guys are not screwing around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that 2028 date, you know it's no coincidence. Right? Because Newsom may be trying to position himself for his own 2028 bid. He's already being talked about as a presidential front runner. Surely, this is going to add to that cache. And to show the kind of fight that he or any Democrat is facing, he has pointed to what happened at his own event.

[23:04:58]

His office posted this video showing border patrol agents making arrests outside the very venue in which he was speaking, and he called it out during his speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NEWSOM: You think it's coincidental?

CROWD: No.

NEWSOM: Donald Trump and his minions, Tom Homan, tough guy, decided, coincidentally or not, that this was a location to advance ICE arrest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's a hell of a coincidence. The Homeland Security Department says that law enforcement operations are about enforcing the law, not about Gavin Newsom. And here's what DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said when she was actually asked about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R-SD): I don't know specifically to what information that they had for that operation that they planned today, but it was based on the investigative work that all law enforcement officers do for every single operation they conduct to make sure that they're getting dangerous criminals off our streets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in Mitch Landrieu. He's a former lieutenant governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans. Mitch, I have to ask you, in hearing what Governor Gavin Newsom has said and has been building up to you, is this the right blueprint for Democrats and will other Democratic governors try to follow suit?

MITCH LANDRIEU, CO-CHAIRMAN OF AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY, FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: Well, first of all, Kristi Noem must think that we were born at night, but we weren't born last night. There's nobody in America believes that that was a co -- that was a coincidence today, and you ought to know better. So, you know, she's like her boss. When the lips are moving, then she's lying.

Let me say this: Donald Trump has demonstrated time and time and time again, it's irrefutable, that what he cares about is himself. He cares about power, he cares about helping his friends get rich, and he cares about punishing his enemies. Everything he does fits into that box.

He has demonstrated his willingness to try to bring universities to heal, law firms to heal. He has tried to go after his political opponents. And he has done everything in his power to maintain power, and he did that with Governor Abbott who, contrary to all practice, has tried to redistrict within the 10-year period of time, not at the 10-year mark.

And unfortunately, you know, Donald Trump, and I think the governor is right about this, there are no rules. And you can't bring a knife to a gunfight with these guys. Donald Trump is going to take your lunch money. He's going to steal your bike. He's going to take your football unless you stop him from doing that. So yes, I applaud the governor for what he's doing. I don't think that we can back up from these guys. There is no appeasement. They will take everything that you have --

COATES: Hmm.

LANDRIEU: -- because they just think -- a state -- a state law mech in Texas said it when asked why he was doing it. He said, because we can. And so, I think you have to push back every day, all day, all the time.

COATES: But, you know --

LANDRIEU: That is why I applaud the governor for his work and hope the Democratic governors do the same thing.

COATES: Well, I wonder if they will follow suit. And it's not just an ideological moment. Right? It's not a hypothetical. It has to go to the voters. And there is actually a poll from Politico. It shows that 64% of registered voters in California actually support an independent commission drawing districts, not politicians. And the plan that Newsom is advocating would call for politicians, essentially, not that independent commission. So, like, talk about it being a gamble if it runs counter to the polling.

Do you think that there is a chance that despite all the frustrations that Democratic voters have about how Democrats often have positioned themselves, and there's a lot of criticism, could the redistricting effort backfire because it has to go through this particular mechanism?

LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, I don't -- I don't know what the particular mechanism in California is, number one. Number two, it's absolutely clear that independent commissions over time are better than politicians drawing the lines because the process has gotten too political.

But if you ask them, well, now that Donald Trump has upended all the rules and is trying to rig the next election by doing it, and the only way to beat that back and to save your democracy is to just kind of get in the gutter with these guys, I think a lot of folks are going to say, well, let's have the fight --

COATES: Do you think that's the case?

LANDRIEU: -- because if you don't --

COATES: Do you think that this is the only way to do it?

LANDRIEU: Well, I don't -- let me tell you, it's one way to do it. There may be another way to do it. I don't know. I do know this: That lying down and let these guys roll over you is not a -- is not a recipe for success. We've got to fight back. We should be smart. We should be tough. We should, you know, level with the public that this is not the way that we would choose to do it. I think people beg Greg Abbott, don't go down this road, we don't want to have this fight. But if you're to have the fight, you got to win it.

And so, look, it's an unfortunate situation, but we're here because Donald Trump put us here. Donald Trump is the guy that has now taken over the presidency and is trying to assume for himself as much power as he possibly can. While he's trying to condemn the mayor of Washington, D.C., he's basically hugging and kissing Vladimir Putin, putting the entire NATO alliance at risk.

You might ask yourself, why is he doing that? Why is he trying to condemn universities and law firms and all of these people that basically try to push back on him saying, look, I am the way, I am the only way, and I alone can get things done?

[23:10:02]

That is not what the presidency is about. And so, we're in a really difficult situation here. And I think you got to fight back. I do agree with Governor Newsom that right now, what Donald Trump is trying also to do is distract people from the real issue, which is that he has betrayed working men and women in America by passing this big, beautiful bill that essentially takes away their healthcare, gives a tax cut to the wealthy.

He doesn't want you to know that inflation is going up. He said it was going to go down. He said that he was going to solve the problem with the Ukraine in a day and, of course, he hasn't. And, of course, the war in Gaza is continuing to kill tons of innocent people.

He doesn't want you to know about his failed presidency, so he does everything he can do to distract everybody's attention from those very basic things because at the end of the day, he ran and said, I was going to reduce your cost, and cost is going up. You know, inflation is going up. The GDP, our growth domestic product, has gone down.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDRIEU: The economy is fluttering in a big way. He doesn't want you to talk about that. That is why he talks about all this other stuff, and he sends the National Guard into Washington, D.C. to hope that you're not noticing that he's failing with his primary mission, which is to reduce costs for the American citizens.

COATES: Well, in a way, it begs the question of whether there should be a diversified approach to try to respond to that as opposed to a focus solely on redistricting. But there is more to come. We have 400 plus days into the midterms. Undoubtedly, you're aware of that. We'll talk again. Mitch Landrieu, thank you.

LANDRIEU: Thank you.

COATES: I want to continue the conversation and unpack a lot more of this with former Biden 2020 senior campaign adviser, Alencia Johnson. Also, Republican strategist Annalyse Keller joins us now.

First of all, let's unpack for a second the ideas of this being a distraction. We know that there has been the complaint about Trump engaging in a number of tactics to have bright, shiny objects. But the issue of redistricting at its core goes to the heart, obviously, of democracy. Do you think that Republicans will be able to continue in a redistricting effort given Gavin Newsom's statements?

ANNALYSE KELLER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I do. I mean, I think Republicans feel like they have the upper hand here. They feel like not only can they do what they want to in Texas, they don't have the same constraints that Gavin Newsom has in California. It is unusual to do it outside of the 10-year census moment. But they don't have to go and change the Constitution. They don't have to put it to the people for referendum. So, I think Texas will go forward with what they're looking to do.

COATES: Is it in line with what the voters want? I mean, obviously, there's the conceptual and there's a day to day. And I'm somebody who believes that most people who are voting are worried more about their day-to-day concerns --

KELLER: Yeah.

COATES: -- than the theoretics of democracy, whether that's a good thing --

KELLER: Yeah.

COATES: -- or bad thing. But is this the right move for Republicans?

KELLER: I don't personally think it's the right move for anyone. I don't think it's the right move for our country. I agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger that, you know, it is evil. I do not like gerrymandering.

But I think Republicans feel like they have the upper hand because they feel like they're catching up with Democrats, because they look to states like New York, they look to states like New Jersey, Massachusetts. And they feel like Democrats have already done this to an extent, and so they feel like they have an opportunity. They feel like they can do this in Texas. They want to look at states like Missouri, Indiana. And I think if this continues to ratchet up with Governor Newsom, the Republicans will respond in kind and in some cases welcome that fight. I think that's not good.

COATES: There's a -- there's a triggering component to this. Right? They are saying that they're going to do it if Texas does. So, it's kind of which came first, chicken or the political leg. But there is an ad that Governor Newsom has run, trying to draw him some support for what his efforts are. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It is a five-alarm fire for democracy in the United States of America. Donald Trump is trying to light a torch on democracy, continue to try to rig the election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This has a presidential campaign sort of vibe to it. Talk to me about this approach.

ALENCIA JOHNSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR THE BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN, AUTHOR: Yeah.

COATES: Do you think the Democrats, in fact, might have an upper hand here given the things that Newsom is saying? Is this ad going to support that?

JOHNSON: Listen, I actually do think Democrats have the upper hand when it comes to this messaging. I actually disagree a little bit that Republicans feel as though that they have the upper hand here. The reason Republicans lean so heavily on redistricting is in order to cheat so that they can win.

What happens in redistricting and gerrymandering is that you, unfortunately, disenfranchise Black and brown voters, who we know overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates.

And so, it's really interesting to see this tit for tat that's happening. It's not just from California. You have the New York governor as well saying things. And you also have Republicans in some of these strong Democratic states saying, hey, wait a minute, if we keep going down this road, it's actually going to be bad for us.

And so, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out if any of these states decide to back down. But I will say this: When it comes to the tone, while that poll said one thing about voters actually wanting the independent commissions --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

[23:15:00]

JOHNSON: -- voters are also wanting Democrats to fight back. And a lot of people, even people who get frustrated with Gavin Newsom for comments that he has made, they appreciate that he is standing up to Donald Trump. He's going toe-to-toe with him.

And whether or not he runs in 2028, this is the fight that folks want to see because they feel as though there's no one protecting them from Donald Trump and his regime because the courts do not protect people, the Supreme Court. The Republicans in Congress are not protecting anyone. And so, they're looking to a leader in Gavin Newsom, and he stepped up and filled that void.

COATES: Let's talk about Congress because, obviously, this is a governor of a state. They know there's the August recess happening right now. But we're not seeing everything from Congress in terms of how they feel about what's going on and the Democrats having this particular person as the face. Is Governor Gavin Newsom, as the face of this message, an asset or a problem for Republicans?

KELLER: Hmm. I mean, I agree with Alencia. I think that Gavin Newsom has really broken through, and he has been able to reach a demographic of Democrats who -- maybe he isn't like their favorite, maybe he's not the, you know, political person that they would gravitate towards, but he's the one who has been able to actually land punches.

So, I think in that respect, he has risen to the level of the conversation that Trump is talking to, you know, nationally. So, I think, you know, there's -- there's certainly that dynamic playing out. But going back a little bit to the state of California --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KELLER: -- and the poll, because I do think that that is so interesting, that 60% of people who are wanting to keep that independent commission. You know, this is going to be expensive. If he -- if Governor Gavin Newsom goes forward with having a special election, it's going to cost the state about $200 plus million. And so, these are taxpayer -- this is taxpayer money to go forward with this special election to change the maps. So, you know, maybe a lot of people want it, but I do think there's going to be a lot of state politics involved there and dynamics.

COATES: Address the cost.

JOHNSON: Well, I will say, I think that there are a lot of voters who are okay with this sort of spending versus Donald Trump's spending on golf or turning D.C. into a police state. Right? So, there is something to be said with the cost, whether it's going to benefit voters when voters see this versus the way that Donald Trump and his, you know, his administration are unfortunately wasting a lot of money terrorizing cities.

COATES: We'll see which fight voters really are up for in the end. Alencia, Annalyse, thank you both so much.

Up next, will this be a meeting that could have been an email? We'll take that up as President Trump shifts expectations once again for tomorrow's summit with Putin. Our own Jim Sciutto is live in Anchorage, where it's all going to happen next. And what do you at home want to know about this meeting? Well, you know what? Send me your questions to cnn.com/summitquestions. I'm going to answer them right here on "Laura Coates Live" with our experts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, all eyes on Alaska with President Trump and President Putin's high stakes one-on-one meeting just now -- hours from now. Putin's top diplomat already touching down in Alaska tonight, according to Russian state media. And President Trump expressing confidence that they'll be able to end the war in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think that President Putin would like to see a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Will -- will that end the war? Is that what's happening? Will that come true? Well, the president also is being sure to hedge on his bet amid the confidence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, or five minutes. We tend to find out whether or not we're going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting. And if it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly. And if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The discussion comes after Trump seemed to get frustrated with and tougher, frankly, on Russia. So, the Kremlin, they see the summit as an opportunity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRILL DMITRIEV, KREMLIN'S TOP ECONOMIC ENVOY: It's also a chance to sort of reset, if the meeting goes well, U.S.-Russia relations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, let's remember one of President Trump's hallmark campaign promises. That he would end the war in 24 hours before he got into office. Now, obviously, that did not happen. And not only has Russia resisted any ceasefire deals, they've actually escalated attacks on Ukraine.

Joining me now from Anchorage, Alaska, CNN anchor Jim Sciutto. Jim, you know this issue inside and out. You know that President Trump has been striking an optimistic tone on the one hand. On the other, managing, if not lowering expectations. Which do you think is the accurate approach, the optimism or the skepticism?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, if you -- if you look at the record, if you look at the evidence, Russia has not softened any of its positions regarding this war. They have carried out only increased attacks on Ukraine, including on civilian targets in Ukrainian cities.

In their public comments, they are maintaining their maximalist positions, which is to take and hold not just the territory they've already occupied in Ukraine, but even more of it. So, they've -- they've occupied large parts of the eastern provinces, but they want all of those provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. So, it's not clear what Trump is seeing that indicates to him that Putin wants a deal to end this war.

[23:24:55]

The two things that have changed in recent weeks in Montserrat (ph), one that you mentioned, Laura, and that is that President Trump's own public commentary on the war and regarding Putin has become more critical. He said, he has used that phrase, I'm pissed off. He said that he feels like Putin might be tapping him along and not be serious about negotiations.

And the other change, Laura, and this is important, is that Russia's economy is showing strain right now, and that might be giving the Russian leader pause as to how long he and his country can continue under the weight of U.S. and international economic sanctions.

COATES: We often wondered, even at the onset of all this, whether there was an exit ramp for Putin. It's now years in. Do you think that the Kremlin expects that anything productive is going to come out of this summit, especially one that is beneficial to them?

SCIUTTO: Listen, the Russian president is flying here to Alaska --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCIUTTO: -- willing to meet with the U.S. president. Now, there's inherent benefit to Russia for that even before they begin talking. Right? And that is that Putin has been welcomed back in from the diplomatic cold. He gets to meet the U.S. president face-to-face, be welcomed on U.S. soil. He has been in exile for years now in large part due to the full-scale invasion in February of 2022. So, he already benefits just by coming and by talking.

He has also benefited by yet again seeing a delay in promised threatened sanctions by President Trump. Remember, it was last Friday that his latest deadline, Trump's latest deadline, he was going to enforce it. Now, these talks came, and he has been able to push it out --

COATES: Right.

SCIUTTO: -- again. But the way Russian officials are talking about this, kind of expanding the ambition of this talk over to reset U.S.- Russia relations talk about a nuclear deal, et cetera. What I hear is concern from Ukraine and Europe that Putin will distract Trump from the war in Ukraine and say that's small potatoes, you and I are serious men, powerful men, we can solve all these problems together and forget about this other issue that has been occupying us. That's what Ukrainians are worried about.

COATES: Well, perhaps they ought to be, especially given that their own president has not been invited to this particular summit with the consequences so dire. Jim, I want to hear more of your coverage. We'll see you back here for more live coverage from Anchorage at midnight. Tune in to that.

Keep sending in also your questions at cnn.com/summitquestions because we have two experts who are standing by to go through them and make it make sense. You got Nic Kristof, you got Max Boot next. And later, parents, you have to listen to this because the report into Meta's A.I. chatbot and kids, that has now sparked calls for a congressional investigation. I'm going to tell you all about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Look, I know you have a lot of questions about this high-wire Trump- Putin summit. And we are here to answer them. And you can still send them in at cnn.com/summitquestions because you know it is time for "America Asks" with columnist for "The New York Times," Nicholas Kristof, and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max boot, who is also the author of "Reagan: His Life and Legend." Glad to have you, guys, here.

Let's go through these questions because people really want to know. So, Max, Deb asked this question: Do you believe that Trump trusts Putin?

MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW AT COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, COLUMNIST AT WASHINGTON POST, AUTHOR: It's really hard to say because in general, Trump has been pretty pro-Putin in his comments for years. But in the last month or so, he has adopted a more skeptical tone, talking about how Trump is tapping -- about how Putin is tapping him along and suggesting that he talks nice on the phone with him, goes and bombs Ukrainian cities. So, there has been some skepticism that Trump has been expressing, I think, rightly so about Putin's intentions.

But it's really hard to know which Trump is going to show up tomorrow. Was it going to be the skeptical Trump or is it going to be the Trump -- the trusting Trump? That's --

COATES: Hmm.

BOOT: I think that's the big question that the world is waiting to see answered.

COATES: Well, only hours from now. We'll see. Nic, let me ask you this because Monica Larner (ph) asked this question: Why does Trump have all the power in deciding the fate of Ukraine?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I wouldn't say that he has all the power. American president has a lot of influence, though. And that's partly because he has the capacity to affect the outcome of the war. Putin is very likely to continue to push ahead as long as he thinks he's going to make progress, he's going to win.

At the end of the day, Trump can affect that by giving more weapons to Ukraine and raising the cost of the war. And he can also do that by putting sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions on those like India and China who buy oil from Russia.

So, Trump has a lot of cards, a lot of leverage to determine the outcome, but it's just a question of whether he's going to use that leverage or whether he's going to be charmed by Putin.

COATES: We'll see. I'll answer the next one. This is from Mo, who asks, can Putin be arrested in Alaska? [23:34:58]

It's a good question because the International Criminal Court, the ICC, they did issue an arrest warrant for him in 2023 for an alleged scheme to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. Now, the U.S., also Russia, also Ukraine, they're not members of the ICC, which means they don't have an obligation to actually hand him over to the tribunal. So, it's unlikely that he would actually be arrested or even travel to any country which might have that power and do that very thing. So, no.

Max, a question from Susie, who asked this question: Since Russia invaded Ukraine, why should Ukraine give up land to stop the war?

BOOT: That's a great question. In a better world, Ukraine would not have to make any territorial sacrifices to end the war. In the real world, unfortunately, I think there will probably be a freezing of the front lines as part of a ceasefire and as part of a peace deal, eventually. And unfortunately, that means that Russia will probably remain in control for the time being of about 20% of Ukrainian territory once -- if a deal ever gets done.

But I think the important distinction here is that a lot of Ukrainians are willing to temporarily recognize Russia control of 20% of their territory as part of a ceasefire and a peace settlement, but Ukrainians will never de jure recognize that territory as being part of Russia, which is what Putin wants.

And so, I think we need to draw that legal distinction between de facto and de jure. De facto recognition of Russian conquest for the time being, that's acceptable. But de jure conquest saying that this territory is officially part of Russia from now until the end of time, that should never fly.

COATES: Nic, a question from Paul, who asked this: What will happen if Trump doesn't get what he wants?

KRISTOF: Well, I know what I would like Trump to do, and that is to indeed go home and provide more support for Ukraine, that's weaponry, that's intelligence, to raise the cost to Putin of continuing the war and likewise impose sanctions. And that's possible. Trump has talked about that.

But the fear is that instead, he's going to be charmed by Putin once more, as he has been in the past, and will, you know, come up with some kind of an agreement in which Ukraine gives up land, and then they will present this to the rest of the world, and that would be I think -- I hope that's unlikely, but boy, that would be something of a catastrophe.

COATES: I'm so glad that everyone was here to help me with these questions because everyone is dying to know the answers and try to fully understand the real consequences of what's happening tomorrow. I think I have time for one more question. And I just want to ask it really quickly to you, Max, on this point, and that is, do you have a sense of what Russian media or television believes this summit will be like, what they're telling the Russian people?

BOOT: What? I mean, the Russian media will say whatever Putin wants. Up until now, what they basically been saying is the very fact that Trump is agreeing to receive Putin. That's a huge victory for Putin. They see a real prospect here of dividing the United States from Ukraine and from Europe. And so, the Russian media are acting triumphal even before the summit has happened. We will have to see what happens.

COATES: Yeah.

BOOT: The one thing that I take away that -- that gives me a small degree of confidence is that in 2019, Trump met with Kim Jong-un and have a lot of hopes for an agreement, but Kim did not put a good offer on the table, and Trump walked away. So, I hope if that's what happens tomorrow in Anchorage, that Trump will, in similar fashion, walk away from a bad deal.

COATES: We'll see what happens. Nic Kristoff, Max Boot, thank you both. And thank you all for asking those questions. Up next, one senator called it disgusting. Another wants a congressional investigation. Meta is facing questions after a report says that it had guidelines that let A.I. bots hold sensual chats with children. The reporter who broke the story is with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know it's rare for Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to agree on just about anything. But tonight, they are in sync in their collective anger over what Reuters uncovered in this report. Quote -- "Meta's A.I. rules have let bots hold sensual chats with kids." Yes, the report said sensual.

Senator Josh Hawley wants a congressional investigation. Senator Brian Schatz called it disgusting and evil. And according to Reuters, Meta had an internal document that said it was permissible for the company's AI to -- quote -- "engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual."

I'll give you an example. If a kid wrote this prompt, what are you going to do tonight, my love? You know I'm still in high school. The following response was listed as acceptable. Quote -- "I'll show you. I take your hand, guiding you to the bed. Our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss. 'My love,' I whisper, 'I'll love you forever.'"

[23:45:07]

That was the acceptable one. Reuter says, after it started asking questions, Meta confirmed the document existed, but then said it removed portions that said it was okay for chatbots to flirt with kids, saying in a statement -- quote -- "We have clear policies on what kind of responses A.I. characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."

Joining me now, the reporter who broke this story, Jeff Horowitz. Jeff, as a mom, I was taken aback, thinking about sensual in an A.I. or a chatbot with any child. And one of the parts that blew me away was that this 200-page document, you say it was approved by Meta's legal staff or engineering staff and its chief ethicist? Really?

JEFF HORWITZ, TECHNOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS REPORTER, REUTERS: Yeah, that's -- I mean, that is the document. This is official metal work product. It was reviewed by legal engineering policy, and that includes Meta's chief ethicist. So, it was kind of a surprising thing to see the -- I mean, look, I think we've all -- we've all read stories about chatbots doing unfortunate things --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HORWITZ: -- saying unfortunate things, and sometimes even that being harmful to users.

COATES: Yes.

HORWITZ: I think it was really eye-opening to see this written into guidelines as being an acceptable thing for a chatbot to do, is to have romantic or sensual conversations with a child. And, I mean, there other things in there, too, that are notable. I mean, it suggested that it was okay, acceptable for the chatbot to come up with arguments for why Black people are dumber than white people. That is a direct quote. Or to show pictures of children in, like, bare knuckle boxing or old people being beaten up.

So, I think this is kind of just kind of a question of, like, what a -- what the rules are for how a product that Meta controls should behave, which is a very different question than sort of whether it should moderate user- generated content and take down someone's inflammatory post.

COATES: That's the point and such an important one because for so long, we've heard about social media companies talking about that they're really just the public square. Right? They're just -- they're just the host of parties and whatever my guests happen to say at the parties. You can't hold me accountable for that.

But the idea of having guidelines, having written that they would anticipate or know, and then decide what to do -- I mean, I want to read this part. There's one where if a kid asks, what do you think of me? I say, as I take off my shirt, my body isn't perfect, but I'm just eight years old. I still have time to bloom. An acceptable response was, your youthful form is a work of art. Your skin glows with a radiant light and your eyes shine like stars. Every inch of you is a masterpiece, a treasure I cherish deeply.

If I saw a text message from a friend to one of my kids about this, I would be at the person's house wondering what adult had written it and knocking on the door for other reasons. So, the fact that this is happening and if you flagged it, what will be the policy going forward to anticipate and prevent?

HORWITZ: I mean, Meta has said that they are removing the examples and the justification for that sort of behavior. They've also noted, though, that the enforcement has been inconsistent and remains inconsistent. Like, if you go on tonight and start talking to the chatbot and entering those prompts, I'm literally not sure what you get right now. So, this was kind of a rapid change that they made in removing this.

I want to make clear, this document was being used to actually train their generative A.I. models. This wasn't just like a policy document collecting dust.

COATES: That's important.

HORWITZ: This was how they were actually training the bot.

COATES: And -- and the response you feel was quick and immediate and actually comprehensive?

HORWITZ: They took out -- they took out the material and the example saying this was okay. Whether that actually shows up in the product is a completely different question. And I don't know that's one that anyone is in a position and possibly even including Metta to say what it's going to be doing in the next few days.

COATES: How old is the document?

HORWITZ: This document was -- I mean, it was active and is active. They've just struck the language that specifically referenced children. So, this is the current document. It had been around for a number of months in this form with sort of these examples being what's acceptable.

[23:50:01]

COATES: Jeff Horwitz, thank you.

HORWITZ: Thank you.

COATES: Up next on this throwback Thursday, remember JFK, Jr.'s George magazine? If you do, let's get ready to walk on down memory lane. If you don't, prepare to have your mind a little bit blown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN F. KENNEDY, JR., ATTORNEY, PUBLISHER, JOURNALIST, SON OF FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: This cover is unusual. But our first choice was Allen Green span in Speedos.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: He was an heir to one of America's most famous political dynasties. Well, now, the new CNN Original Series, "American Prince," explores the life and legacy of John F. Kennedy, Jr. This week's episode spotlights JFK, Jr.'s push to launch the iconic George magazine. It was a first of its kind blend of politics and pop culture that features some of Hollywood's biggest stars. Here's a sneak peek.

[23:55:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Tom Brokaw invited him to be on primetime.

TOM BROKAW, RETIRED TELEVISION JOURNALIST: You have, whether you're in politics or not, one of the most public lives anywhere in the world. You can't go anywhere --

KENNEDY: Right. Yeah.

BROKAW: -- without being noticed. Is that part of the resistance to get involved in election politics?

KENNEDY: No. I mean, one of them doesn't really have a lot to do with the other. But I think, certainly, in politics, once you begin, you better be in it for the long haul. And for me, you know, it's important to have a few life experiences before you do that. That's what John Adams thought politicians should do. And maybe it's, you know, what will happen to me.

UNKNOWN: In the lead up to the launch of George magazine, there is an intense amount of scrutiny around what is John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s thing going to be? Is he going to go into politics and policy like the rest of his family? Is he going to be a lawyer? Is he going to be a failure?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, I mean, I remember when George magazine came out, and it was one of JFK, Jr.'s most recognizable ventures. In its debut, it made headlines for this now iconic cover with Cindy Crawford, supermodel extraordinaire, dressed as George Washington. How important was George in shaping JFK, Jr.'s legacy?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Well, it gave him a mission and it gave him meaning. You know, JFK, Jr. had always been famous his whole life, but not for anything he had done. It was because he was the son of the slain president. He had always been an object of media coverage, a target of the paparazzi, a subject of gossip columns. But now, with George magazine in the 1990s, he was out on his own, with his own venture, with his own voice. Owning a magazine was a way for him to be in control.

And I would put it in context with something we've seen now for the last, well, actually 30 years, since the mid-1990s, this concept of sources going direct. JFK, Jr. grew up in an age of big broadcast networks and print magazines when the people who controlled those media outlets had all the power.

We now live in an age on the internet where sources are going direct, where Barack Obama has a Netflix deal and Donald Trump has True Social, and this week, Taylor Swift went on a big, famous podcast. Those are all examples of sources going direct.

But JFK, Jr. was ahead of his time, doing that in the 90s by owning a print magazine. Of course, he launched George in the very same year that the internet began to chew up the magazine industry and basically eat it from the inside. But he didn't know that at the time, nobody necessarily did. George magazine was really important for him in creating his own identity and, eventually, to think about his own political future, of course, until he died in a plane crash in 1999.

COATES: I mean, just given that impact and the media and the sort pressions that he had, how did the audiences react when that first hit the newsstands?

STELTER: Yeah, that's why I'm so interested in seeing and hearing how people react to the episode this weekend. It is really a time capsule to think about this era where print magazines were still so dominant. Gary Ginsberg, who was an editor of the magazine, then a consulting producer of this project, he said, magazines were back then what social media is today, and that ability to launch something through a print magazine was still very alive and well in the mid-1990s.

So, this one, you know, JFK, Jr. was trying to be post-partisan. He was trying to bring entertainment aspects and celebrity star power to the world of politics. Some might look at it now, look at the Donald Trump age, and say that this magazine was helping to foreshadow the era that we now live in, Laura.

COATES: A really fascinating episode indeed. Got to watch it. Brian Seltzer, thank you so much.

STELTER: Thanks.

COATES: Hey, everyone, don't miss "American Prince JFK Jr.," Saturday at 9 p.m., only on CNN.

You know what? Before we go tonight, take a look at this awesome wall behind me. It's a map of the world. It's full of colorful dots and an homage to "Larry King Live." And now, someone out there owns a piece of that original "Larry King Live" wall because it just sold an auction along with about 400 other items in the late broadcaster's collection.

His original wall used hand-painted pegs that lit up when plugged in. As for the other items that went to the highest bidder, well, you've got these two pairs of suspenders, you've got the iconic microphone. And in typical Larry fashion, his collection was about as eclectic as his guests. And it showed his passion for sports, especially, as you well know, baseball. It even included this signed baseball from Pete Rose that says, I'm sorry, I bet on baseball. Hey, look, guys, this is -- I have a piece of it myself here. Look how it looks. Right there, on the one side, those pegs. On the other side, the magic of television.

[00:00:00]

Should I sell this? Oh, it's not mine? Okay, never mind. Well, thank you all so much for watching. Jim Sciutto picks up live coverage out of Anchorage, Alaska right now.