Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump's DOJ Indicts New York Attorney General Letitia James; Judge Blocks Trump from Deploying Troops in Illinois for Now; Government Shutdown Goes from Bad to Worse; VA Gubernatorial Candidates Spar Over Violent Texts from AG Candidate. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 09, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A quick programming note. This Sunday, get a glimpse into the heartbeat of New Orleans and the music that influenced generations of genre-defying tastemakers. That's next on the new episode of "New Orleans: Soul of a City," this Sunday night at 10 p.m. right here on CNN.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Donald Trump's retribution campaign finds its next target. And Letitia James is already signaling what her defense is going to be by mirroring the president's own words. Plus, a federal judge filled up a roadblock for Trump's planned Chicago troop takeover. What about the order? Is he going to abide by it? And have you been in a TSA line lately? If you have, did you see the video with Kristi Noem about the government shutdown? How the political blame game is getting nastier than ever. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, you know, the president is trying to knock over the next domino on his enemies list. And this time, it's a different James. The New York attorney general, Letitia James. And can you guess who he's using to do that? You'd be right. It's his handpicked U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan.
But I want to break down this indictment against James in plain English. I want you to forget the legal codes. Here it is. They say that she bought a property. She claimed it would be used for personal use only as a second home. Instead, she rented it out to a family of three.
Now, here why -- here is why the prosecutors want you to care. You know buying a house isn't like a tap mobile for Apple Pay. For the 99% of us, you're not writing a check for the full price. No, you're getting a mortgage. You know the bank is looking for a reason not to give a good one to you. But if they do, they want to know what you're going to use that property for. And you're likely to get a better loan term if they're going to live in that house. If it's an investment property, you're looking at higher rates, probably.
And this is where the math meets the math. Prosecutors say that the banks suffered because when she claimed it was for her, she got a note rate of 3% rather than 3.815%. And between that and a seller credit, she probably saved 19 grand over the life of the loan. In other words, they are arguing that she gamed the system.
Now, here's where it gets really interesting. They say she lied to the bank, but not the IRS. They say she told the truth on her taxes, filed it as rental real estate, reported the days that it was rented, reported the rental income as well.
Now, for the deja vu part. The prosecutors say that her misrepresentation, as they're saying it is, that it harmed the bank. They don't allege how in this indictment. They don't allege when they were harmed. They don't allege why they were harmed. And remember, they don't actually have to at this stage. I mean, it's an indictment. It's a probable cause standard. It's not the beyond a reasonable doubt that comes at trial. But that's coming.
But it's the reference to the bank that I want you to pay attention to. Do you remember a case where someone was accused of misrepresenting information to a bank? And without specific evidence that the bank was financially harmed or the loan was not repaid, the government indicted for fraud? Think back. Oh, yeah, the civil lawsuit that James filed against Trump and his organization. And won.
Now, you just got a preview of what James's first line of defense is going to be. Political retribution. They're not going to call it that. They're going to call it vindictive, selective prosecution. And these things mean something in the law. And they're going to claim that they brought this case because she had the audacity to bring one against him. And the president, you know, has not been quiet about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You have an attorney general who's a total -- stone total crook, New York State, Letitia James.
Letitia James, a really bad one, is now demanding that I pay $370 million in penalties where I did absolutely nothing wrong.
She's got serious Trump derangement syndrome.
Did you ever see the pictures of her campaigning? I will get Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, James will also argue that she never hoodwinked anyone.
[23:05:00]
And she's going to point to the very thing they list in the indictment. Her tax return and any other statement of proof that told them she was a landlord. And make no mistake, the prosecution has a big hill to climb.
But the two charges on the indictment, bank fraud, false statements to a financial institution, well, take a look at what those statutes actually say. Bank fraud starts with -- quote -- "whoever knowingly executes or attempts to execute a scheme." So, you can guess what the key word there is. By the way, I said knowingly, right? And for false statements to a financial institution -- quote -- "whoever knowingly makes a false statement or report." Oh, there it is again, knowingly.
What does this mean? That the prosecutors, Lindsey Halligan and her office, whoever ends up prosecuting this case, they got to prove that James had the intent to defraud and deliberately lie to the loan provider. Not that there was a mistake or a typo. And that might be a tall order, depending about how the evidence comes in and what she argues in her defense. But it will be the government's burden to prove that portion of it.
Especially difficult perhaps to a prospective jury when the last U.S. attorney in that same district, in that same office, did not think there was enough evidence to even charge James. That's the guy that Trump pushed out.
Let me tell you about a little secret here, okay? Yes, this is going to be about the credibility of Letitia James. It is her credibility that is being challenged here and in a federal indictment no less. But because of Trump's statements, the ousting of that top prosecutor who say he didn't have enough evidence to indict her originally, the prosecutors know that the government's credibility will also be questioned by the future jurors in a potential trial.
See, James was accused of reverse engineering charges against Trump to fulfill her campaign promise. You know, ironically, that may very well be her first line of attack against her own indictment. And, frankly, she's already saying so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: These charges are baseless. And the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. I'm a proud woman of --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: She goes on to say and talk about "no weapon formed against me will prosper." But, you know, Trump's list of perceived enemies is long. My next guest may be on it because of his efforts to hold Trump accountable. He did prosecute the second impeachment of Trump over the January 6th attack. And now, of course, he is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. I'm talking about our first guest, Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, who also taught constitutional law for more than 20 years.
And so, congressman, I have to ask you, thinking about where things stand right now. First, it was James Comey. Now, it's Tish James. We often hear about it being the president's DOJ. That takes on a whole new meaning now, doesn't it? REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, sure it does. Uh, you know, he's on a campaign of wrathful, vindictive vengeance, um, against his political enemies. Uh, it seems like he wants to charge anybody who was involved in any investigation or prosecution against him with analogous crimes. I think he wants to get them back, you know, tit for tat, precisely. And sure, anybody can assert that a prosecution against them is a vindictive selective prosecution --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
RASKIN: -- but I think Ms. James has a lot going for her here because he made it so clear publicly he was after her, and then he had to remove his own hand-picked prosecutor, Mr. Siebert, in the Eastern District of Virginia because they interviewed dozens of witnesses and they simply found that there wasn't enough evidence to go forward.
So, they got rid of him. He installed a puppet prosecutor. And what do you know, a couple days later or a couple weeks later, you know, they come up with, uh, this prosecution. So, I think this is going to be a very tough test for this Department of Justice to meet here.
COATES: There are going to be critics who are saying, look, is this a taste of her own political medicine, given she campaigned on trying to prosecute Donald Trump, and now, she'll make similar arguments about being persecuted politically in this realm? Is that a fair assessment or are they missing the mark?
RASKIN: Well, I mean, this is why we have the rule of law, uh, because that is what a court will have to sort out.
[23:10:00]
I mean, if she follows Mr. Comey, undoubtedly, she is going to plead that this is a selective and vindictive prosecution, that it reflects outrageous misconduct by the Department of Justice. They may even say that her appointment was flawed the way that Comey's lawyers have. But in any event, they will actually be able to look at the actual evidence and what was said and what was done in each case.
And, you know, if it's just like a question of everybody prosecuting the person who prosecuted them, we will be in endless cycles of political and prosecutorial vengeance. So, let's hope that we can really have courts that focus on the rule of law and try to apply the law to the facts.
COATES: Is it time to do more than hope? Do you believe the courts, in fact, will do that?
RASKIN: Well, uh, the district courts and the appeals courts have been, uh, acting in very muscular defense of the rule of law here. Uh, more than 400 cases have been brought against the Trump administration for this reign of lawlessness and vindictive prosecution and denial of birthright citizenship and eliminating statutory and programmatic grants that have been made and so on.
And the plaintiffs against Trump are winning more than three quarters of the time in district court and in appeals court. It's only one court in a land which seems to have a crush on Donald Trump and reverses everything, and that, of course, is the Supreme Court, which has been gerrymandered and stacked and packed by Mitch McConnell and by, you know, this Donald Trump form of injustice.
COATES: Let's talk about one court that is, in part, seeing the way you're describing, and that is the effort by Trump to deploy the National Guard across the country. A federal judge blocking him from doing that in Chicago and Illinois, more broadly, for at least 14 days. You know that guardsmen have already been sent and seen outside the ICE facility near Chicago. Do you think that the administration will honor that order?
RASKIN: Well, um, you know, that's a coin toss, how they respond to it. But one thing that you can see is that every court in the land that is addressing, uh, the deployment of National Guard and troops into cities at the district court level has said, based on the facts, that there's just no factual justification for it. All of this is pretextual, all of it is political, which is why Donald Trump keeps talking about Democrat-run cities and blue cities, and that's clearly where they're targeting, uh, these forces.
But the governors are not asking for him to come in, the mayors are not asking for him to come in, and we don't use the military for ordinary law enforcement purposes.
In any event, if what he's saying is that there are insurrectionary conditions in these cities, he's debunked by no one other than Donald Trump himself because there was an actual insurrection where he controlled the National Guard in D.C. on January 6, 2021. And after 140 police officers were wounded and injured, the Capitol was stormed, the House and Senate had to evacuate their chambers, he still didn't think there was an insurrection. So, there's nothing remotely coming close to something that he already determined was not an insurrection.
COATES: Well, is his determination what will be the only litmus test? Does he have some level of deference that a court might provide to suggest what he thinks is an insurrection? How will that factor in?
RASKIN: Yeah, well, I -- I don't think so because that's why we have Marbury versus Madison in judicial review. It's emphatically the province and duty of the court to say what the law is. And there's no reason that the court can't interpret whether there's an insurrection or not.
Um, and in any event, if they're going to defer to Donald Trump's metrics, he already defined his parameters for an insurrection on January 6th, 2021 when he found an actual storming of the Capitol, a violent insurrection against the police, was not an insurrection. What is he trying to liken anything in Portland or Chicago or L.A. to that? I mean -- I mean, he can't even make something up that closely approximates something he already determined was not an insurrection.
COATES: Right now, the judge is saying 14 days. Do you have any idea after that conclusion of those 14 days how the court might see it? Because that same federal judge seemed to draw a line between using the guard to protect federal property versus general crime fighting. Are we looking to, two weeks from now, the court saying, all right, federal property, that's okay, nothing else?
RASKIN: Well, um, this tracks the federal statute, which tracks the Constitution.
[23:15:00]
So, we don't have a foreign invasion. We don't have a domestic violent insurrection, according to anybody's interpretation. And so, the question is, uh, has law and order broken down to such a point that the federal government can't execute the law? And again, that just seems completely refuted by the facts of the case and by what's going on there.
And I -- I certainly hope that Donald Trump doesn't successfully provoke the kind of lawlessness and unrest that would justify his, uh, his sending the troops in. And that's what he's hoping for, of course, to stage a confrontation that provokes the chaos that would justify the sending of the National Guard, theoretically.
But I hope and I trust the people of Chicago will not take the bait any more than the people of Portland or L.A. or anywhere else. I mean, the -- the people opposing this reign of lawlessness and terror have got to stand in the great American tradition of nonviolence.
COATES: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you.
RASKIN: You bet.
COATES: You know, my next guest once faced off against Congressman Raskin during Trump's second impeachment. The president's former attorney, David Schoen, with his rebuttal on the indictment against Letitia James next. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): If we see a lapse in pay come the 15th, my children do not get to get the medication that's needed for them to live their life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A military mom shutdown message to the speaker of the House and his response.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, does the DOJ think it's a righteous case or a snarky taste of her own medicine? Tonight, another one of President Trump's perceived enemies facing federal charges. This time, it's New York Attorney General Tish James, who successfully sued the Trump Organization.
You just heard a lawmaker who prosecuted Trump in an impeachment explained why he thinks the case against James is driven by politics. Well, now, I'm joined by someone who was once in Trump's legal circle. In fact, he was one of Trump's lawyers during his second impeachment trial. Criminal defense attorney David Schoen is with me now.
David, welcome. As you have heard and undoubtedly seen and anticipated, James and her defenders say that the charges are motivated by politics and Trump's pledge of retribution. Is that all it is? Do you buy it?
DAVID SCHOEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT: I don't buy it. I mean, first of all, that ought to sort of fall on deaf ears given that she campaigned on a promise of getting Trump. That sort of thing. So, I don't think that's going to go very far and --
COATES: Wait. Will that -- will that fall on legal deaf ears or just the court of public opinion? Will a judge see it that way?
SCHOEN: Both, I think, because -- I think so. I think that, first of all, it is irrelevant. Secondly, I think that the vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution claims they were brought in the cases that she brought didn't go anyplace either despite the, you know, campaign promises and, you know, threats to get Donald Trump.
But, listen, nobody likes a weaponized justice system. But this indictment speaks for itself, I think. I know you mentioned, you know, that government's credibility will be at issue, but I think the government will just rely on the documents in this case. And I think, very interesting point, you raised about the line in the indictment about what she represented to the IRS. That is --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SCHOEN: -- she told the IRS it was an investment property, no personal days in the property, and so on. I think that's relevant to proving that she allegedly knowingly lied in the documents to the mortgage company in which she said she was going to live in the house and wouldn't rent it out. So, they can have it coming and going. And if she's right on the other, she may well face tax fraud charges because she got an advantage from treating it like an investment property for tax purposes.
I'd add one more thing. I wouldn't be surprised -- first of all, most important thing is presumption of innocence.
COATES: Of course.
SCHOEN: She is presumed to be innocent, as any defendant, as she has a fine lawyer who will make that case for her. I also have to say, I think the prosecutor in this case was very impressive to put this together because it's a case that clearly is based on documents.
And I also would say the media got it wrong beforehand. The media and her lawyer were all talking about a property on which she allegedly lied on the power of attorney, said it was a primary residence, but that that was undercut by other documents she filed. This looks like a completely different property. That's not what this case is about, according to this.
And what I would ask is, if she, as alleged, lied on the mortgage documents, what about other things? Did she put in an insurance policy on the property? What did she represent in the insurance company? Did she put in any claim? She could well face insurance fraud charges. But we don't know. We have to see the evidence.
COATES: You do -- you do describe this at the where we are procedurally, the infancy of an indictment. And we know you can't have superseding indictment, a fancy way of saying, I'm going to add stuff to it. You could also, though, have the potential for dismissals based on a number of factors. We don't know where things stand right now.
SCHOEN: That's right.
COATES: But I am intrigued by you saying you are impressed by the prosecution of this, particularly given the fact that we know that Ms. Halligan, who is an attorney, and we're all presumed generalists, you know that, but she wasn't a prosecutor, but she's heading the EDVA, and the person that she took over the job from was ousted because he thought there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring any indictment against, I guess, Comey or Letitia James. Why do you think this should be viewed without skepticism given, two weeks ago, they thought they had insufficient evidence?
SCHOEN: First of all, I don't know that we really know what happened on the scene.
[23:24:58]
Remember, Mr. Comey had a relative working in that office. Did that influence a decision in the office?
COATES: A different division. National Security Division, I understand. I think there was a son-in-law who's not there. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the person who was --
SCHOEN: Right.
COATES: -- the head of the office, who was the U.S. attorney there.
SCHOEN: No, no, no. I understand. But that may well have influenced the decision. I don't know Mr. Siebert, and I really don't know why he was ousted, if he was ousted. From media reports, it appears he was ousted.
What I would say about Ms. Halligan is, though, this isn't just her indictment. She came on the scene and quickly, I'm sure, got together with agents. This wasn't put together by herself. She had to have worked with agents to put this case together. And a grand jury issued the indictment. Now, we all know it may not be so difficult to get a grand jury to indict. You know it's a one-sided process. But she put it together. And the grand jurors heard the evidence, not just what she had to say, one would think. I wasn't there. Nobody else was there, obviously. But we'll see how it plays out. But again, it doesn't rely on her credibility. It will rely on the documents in this case. And it's a serious case. These are 30-year charges and a forfeiture.
COATES: It is very serious. I don't -- I'm not dismissive of it at all. I mean, no one wants their name on the other side of a federal indictment, least with somebody who is a prosecutor like a New York attorney general.
But I do wonder and have questions knowing that this is -- it's -- we don't have all the information about how they will ultimately present their case at trial when there's a different burden of proof. But I am skeptical about how a potential juror might see all of this in the political context because try as we might, that will come in. What do you think?
SCHOEN: I'm not sure that evidence will come in. It didn't come in a number of other cases that -- the idea of political prosecution.
COATES: No, no, not the evidence. I mean, I don't -- I don't want to cut you off, but I don't mean the evidence when I say that. I'm talking about the optics will be contemplated by jurors.
SCHOEN: Could be. But on the other hand, maybe the optics will be if chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York knowingly, as you pointed out, lied on documents that she filed to get advantage. And the difference here is, by the way, the bank did suffer a loss. According to the indictment, they suffered a loss in the interest payments that they would have gotten, $18,000, as you pointed out, over the course of a loan. That's also why there's a forfeiture process.
But if the chief invest -- law enforcement officer of the state of New York knowingly lied on documents, then I think that should outrage people, and especially on the backdrop of someone who campaigned on I'm going to get Donald Trump and this theme of no one is above the law. I don't think you've seen the end of this thing. I wouldn't be surprised to see more evidence, maybe a superseding indictment, but we just don't know.
COATES: We have seen far from the end of this. But it's the end of our conversation for now. We'll talk again. David Schoen, thank you.
SCHOEN: Thank you very much.
COATES: Up next, tonight, each side of the government in the shutdown thinks they're winning. As federal workers, well, they know they're the ones who are actually losing. Can anyone talk some sense into getting a deal done? You know what? One of the fiercest negotiators around, Mr. Kevin O'Leary, in studio with me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The finger-pointing is getting fiercer by the hour. That's because there is still no end in sight to the government shutdown. Do you have plans to fly this weekend? You might see this video message from the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government. And because of this, many of our operations are impacted and most of our TSA employees are working without pay. We will continue to do all that we can to avoid delays that will impact your travel, and our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Obviously a blatantly political statement blaming Democrats. But it's going to be seen at TSA security lines all across the country. But not the only ones, though, getting blamed with active- duty service members days away from missing their paychecks and military spouse confronting the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, on C-SPAN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in my party. And I'm very disappointed in you because you do have the power to call the House back. My kids could die. We don't have the credit because of the medical bills that I have to pay regularly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Speaker Johnson expressed his sympathy to her. He did say stories like hers keep him up at night. Back to Democrats, Chuck Schumer is under fire for his comments to Punchbowl, where he said -- quote -- "every day gets better for us," when asked about the Democrats' shutdown strategy. Those words, well, they're not sitting well with Vice President Vance, who fired back, writing, "Better for Schumer, worse for Americans." What a vile sentiment from an alleged leader in our country.
And now, whiplash goes back again to Republicans. Republican congresswoman and Trump ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is now flat-out blaming her own party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I see the shutdown completely different from maybe my party leadership. And I'm not putting the blame on the president. I'm actually putting the blame on the speaker and Leader Thune in the Senate. This -- this should not be happening. UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, you're putting the blame on the leadership of your party?
TAYLOR GREENE: Absolutely. We control the House. We control the Senate. Uh, we have the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, who is to blame? Is it everyone? Joining me now, chairman of O'Leary Ventures and Shark Tank judge, Mr. Wonderful himself, Kevin O. Leary.
[23:35:01]
All right, you're a businessman and dealmaker. Take me outside of the world of politics for a second. You got a deal that needs to be made and both sides are dug in. How do you get this done?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Well, in this case, remarkably, there's no winner, um, because the average taxpayer doesn't care about the shutdown until it affects their actual individual lives. So, TSA could be a big problem if you're traveling. Any kind of government service for passports, that kind of thing. It hasn't happened yet, but it will in the next 10 days. And so, there's no winner on this thing.
The only way this is going to be resolved -- because this is the first time the Democrats -- and I'm not playing politics. I'm just saying they found a topic that they can get behind and people understand why they're behind it, healthcare costs.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
O'LEARY: You win elections on healthcare. You have for decades. Healthcare is a perennial great topic. And they've made it about healthcare which, in the last nine months, they had no direction. Now, they do. That's good. That's what Schumer is talking about. From Trump's point of view --
COATES: Wait. Does that mean, though, that Democrats have an advantage?
O'LEARY: Well, for the first time, he has been able to coalesce. He has herded sheep together. Remember, they were all over the map. We've had a lot of discord. You know, the AOC stuff and --
COATES: Party identity.
O'LEARY: Yeah. The party didn't have a message. Now, it does. We're protecting your healthcare costs. And it's a good message. People understand it. It's viral in every state, every individual. From the Republican side, got to clean this up before the midterms. Don't want to face a healthcare crisis on cost in the midterms. So, they don't have to deal with it in the next 10 days, but they do in the next 10 months. And so, when you --
COATES: Well, that's a big disparity in terms of your urgency to get a deal done.
O'LEARY: Yeah, yeah.
COATES: You have 10 months versus 10 days.
O'LEARY: You have a great point. But the only way to resolve this is clearly to sit down and feel pain on both sides.
COATES: But they don't trust each other.
O'LEARY: Well --
COATES: They don't want to be in room.
O'LEARY: We're in a very divided world, and that's just a given. But the thing is, to get the deal done before people care, you know -- I -- I know you may not like this index, but we are hitting new highs on the market every day because nobody cares yet. Government shutdowns are a dime a dozen. They always get resolved. This one is a little unique because both sides are dug in. It won't matter until the next 10 days. If it goes longer and when there's no paychecks, then we got a problem.
COATES: Is 10 days an arbitrary figure or something --
O'LEARY: No, no, no.
COATES: -- specifically tied to something?
O'LEARY: No. When you stop paying the infrastructure that runs the people's business, you piss off a lot of taxpayers. And so, you don't win on a government shutdown. No side wins. This -- this -- the government is there, elected, to do the people's business.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
O'LEARY: When they stop doing the people's business for more than about 40 days, the people get pissed.
COATES: Does the market react?
O'LEARY: Yeah.
COATES: When?
O'LEARY: Six weeks, seven weeks. Because when they see that it's so bad -- it has never been that bad, okay? So, two months, pooh-pooh hits the fan.
COATES: What's the critical mass and who are the people to apply the right pressure points for them to care enough to come to the table?
O'LEARY: This is remarkable about shutdowns. There's no one individual pain point. It's the rising tide of both parties' taxpayers getting pissed. And so, Schumer knows that, Trump knows that, the speaker knows that. It's like putting a frog into a pot and putting it on the oven. It's swimming around for a while. No problem. Then it starts getting hot. Woo, it's getting hot in here. Woo, I'm not so comfortable. Don't boil the frog. That's the message. It can get hot, can get sweaty, little steamy around the frog. If the frog dies, you're screwed.
COATES: Well, we'll see who --
O'LEARY: It's not a great analogy.
COATES: It's a -- it's a -- it's a great analogy, frankly. Too bad for the frog.
(LAUGHTER)
All this and that. But I wonder who's going to win in the end and who's waiting for that game of -- I guess not chicken but frog. Thank you, Kevin.
O'LEARY: You got it.
COATES: We'll see what happens. New tonight, it's becoming a litmus test for Democrats. Will they or won't they support the Virginia attorney general candidate who once texted that he wanted to shoot a Republican?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And will you continue to endorse Jay Jones as the next attorney general of Virginia? Will you continue to endorse Jay Jones to be the next attorney general of Virginia? Do you still continue to endorse Jay Jones?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And Abigail Spanberger was asked a fourth time at her debate for Virginia governor tonight. The answer in the fallout, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WINSOME EARLE-SEARS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: So, she's going to have to ask her side of the aisle how to do that. So, we had the money, we can do it. But, really, what I want to ask this first question is, Abigail, when are you going to take Jay Jones and say to him, you must leave the race?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was Republican candidate Winsome Earle-Sears's response to the very first question of tonight's debate in the Virginia governor's race. Now, for context, the question was about eliminating the state's car tax. But Earl-Sears quickly turned the attention to the very obvious elephant in that room, the resurfaced 2022 text messages where attorney general candidate, Jay Jones, suggested he shoot the Republican House speaker.
Now, Democrat Abigail Spanberger, she didn't take the bait and was quick to try to denounce Jones's comments. But she was pressed over and over and over again by her opponent and the moderators, I might add, over whether she'd pull her endorsement of Jones.
[23:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER (D-VA): The comments that Jay Jones made are absolutely abhorrent. I denounced them when I learned of them, and I will denounce them every opportunity I get.
UNKNOWN: We just want to clarify. You know, what you're saying is that, as of now, you still endorse Jay Jones as attorney general.
SPANBERGER: I'm saying, as of now, it's up to every voter to make their own individual decision.
EARLE-SEARS: You have little girls. Would it take him pulling the trigger? Is that what would do it? And then you would say he needs to get out of the race, Abigail?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, former Obama White House senior director, Nayyera Haq, along with CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. All right, I heard you smirking over there, Shermichael. Not a good answer to you?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, look, I live in Virginia. I'm clearly voting for Winsome Sears. My wife is voting for Winsome Sears. We do not want Abigail Spanberger to lead the state of Virginia. That was not a satisfactory answer at all.
COATES: It's the reason you don't want her to run or be that person, because of what happened with --
SINGLETON: Well, obviously, I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative --
COATES: I mean --
SINGLETON: I mean, Abigail Spanberger doesn't represent anything that I care about in terms of my values, economics, etcetera. But that wasn't a good enough answer to me. I mean, she was pressing to say it was abhorrent. I'm going to denounce it every single time I'm asked. Well, obviously, most people would do that. But you're still endorsing his candidacy. So, in many ways, that means that it's okay because you want him to win. And I hope that many Virginians find that to be unsatisfactory and decide to vote for the current lieutenant governor who, by the way, would make history as the first Black woman ever elected to govern in the state of Virginia. That should matter to Democrats who care so much about these sorts of history-breaking moments.
COATES: Well, they also matter. They also care, I assume, about the criteria and the qualifications as you do about who you want --
SINGLETON: She's the lieutenant governor.
NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: So, yes, qualified people who have diversities. It starts with a qualification, and then everything else is secondary.
(LAUGHTER)
But with that being said, it is up to voters now because early voting has already started. His name is on the ballot.
COATES: But what about the point that she is denouncing, but still endorsing? Is that a difference with the distinction for voters and it should be?
HAQ: No. When you're already eight or nine points well and behind in the polling, which is the situation with the lieutenant governor, then you do need to find opportunities to try to take down your opponent.
The challenge that she's going to have, that Winsome Sears is going to have, is that you have the Adventist hospitals that said they're already closing three rural hospitals, nine more on the chopping block at a time when Democrats nationally have been hammering on the value of healthcare to the point where even Marjorie Taylor Greene says that Republicans should be talking more about healthcare and taking that debate back from the Democrats.
So, across the board, no matter what party you are, healthcare cost is the number one crisis that you are facing as a family. At the end of this month, regardless of the shutdown, majority of Americans who have Obamacare will be getting a letter that tells them exactly how much their premium is going up. So, this is top of mind. It is impacting Virginia. Secondarily, Virginia, of course, has hundreds of thousands of federal workers. So --
COATES: Right.
HAQ: -- all Abigail has to do is continue speaking to those people as she has been.
COATES: But they wanted to know at this debate, and you can imagine given the way that this story about the attorney general candidate has hit like fire, they wanted to hear a clear answer on this. But, you know, they also addressed, and Democrats have talked about this --
SINGLETON: Uh-hmm. COATES: -- a double standard about what they're supposed to apologize for and what they perceived Republicans getting away with. And, in fact, Spanberger addressed this tonight. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPANBERGER: My opponent, unfortunately, only denounces violence when her side is the target.
EARLE-SEARS: I like that, Abigail.
SPANBERGER: I hope, into the future, she will endeavor to denounce violent rhetoric and violence no matter who the victim. And tonight, Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears --
EARLE-SEARS: -- denouncing --
SPANBERGER: I will say, you routinely refer to me as your enemy. I'm not your enemy. You are not my enemy. We are political opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What do you make of her distinction?
SINGLETON: I think it was a mess. I can't say what I really think because this is a family friendly show. I thought it was ridiculous, if I'm going to be honest with you. If someone on the Republican side who was running in Virginia made those types of statements via text message, I would not be sitting here in front of you, Laura, saying that person should stay in race, because I wouldn't want that person representing the values that matter to me as a conservative and as a Republican.
And I would imagine that the lieutenant governor would probably say, not only am I denouncing this, but I'm going to withdraw my endorsement and probably encourage that person to drop out of the race. Why isn't the congresswoman doing the same thing? It's why she was pressed over and over and over again. Now, what was --
COATES: Well, I will say -- excuse me, one second. The idea of why people focus on this race. Obviously, I think of this as a litmus test for the great nation.
SINGLETON: Sure.
COATES: So, while we are obviously focusing on what was said about this particular, you know, discussion on violence, it's a broader concept that she was speaking to as well. Will that statement speak to the larger issues in the nation where Democrats and Republicans are addressing what they perceive as hypocrisy on both sides?
[23:50:00]
SINGLETON: Will it matter electorally? I'm -- I'm not necessarily certain it will.
COATES: Do you think it will?
HAQ: I think the bigger challenge that we're seeing is which -- who -- who is actually confronting political violence and who's fomenting it. And when people are shot with guns, including little children, who says thoughts and prayers and who starts talking about how do you actually address the fundamental challenges we have?
Now, I would not recommend any Democrat in Virginia to start talking about gun control in this moment. So, she's clearly aware of what the demographic is that she's looking to represent. But at the same time, that is absolutely a conversation that parents want to have, how to keep our children safe in schools.
That's why you denounce tweets like this. I mean, listen, silence is always an option instead of tweeting one day. But with her candidacy already in the lead, it does not help Abigail Spanberger to bog herself down where the Republicans want to take her. Keep talking about healthcare, keep talking about job loss. And if you're going to talk about a wedge issue, her discussing abortion restrictions as healthcare is also going to help her with her base.
SINGLETON: This isn't going away. And she can keep denouncing it over and over and over again. Reporters in Virginia want to know, will you withdraw the endorsement? Yes or no?
HAQ: Reporters and opponents want to know.
SINGLETON: And voters. It matters to -- also, I live in Virginia. It matters to voters. I live in Northern Virginia. It mostly a super blue place. I've talked to my neighbors about this. Some of my neighbors would like for her to withdraw the endorsement because they are worried about the increase in political violence nationally. So, they want an answer from the congresswoman on this issue.
COATES: Well, she'll have an answer herself on election day. Nayyera, Shermichael, thank you both. Up next, Katie Porter's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad interview. Pundits taking shots left and right. But will it actually hurt her chance in California? We asked Harry Enten to look into it for us, and he's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: But now I'm sure you've seen the footage of Democratic California governor candidate, Katie Porter, threatening to walk out of a local news interview because of the reporter's follow-up questions and the tone she didn't like.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE PORTER, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: And what I'm saying to you is that --
JULIE WATTS, CBS INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Well, to those voters. Okay. So -- so you --
PORTER: I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you.
WATTS: You're not going to do the interview with us?
PORTER: Nope. Not like this. I'm not. Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Then the next video dropped, political unearthing this footage from four years ago, 2021, where Porter braids a staffer who got in her shot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PORTER: And the state could lose (bleep) you're out of my (bleep) shot.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): I wanted to tell you that that's actually incorrect. It's not that it's electric vehicles. It's that if we don't meet the commitments, we need to prepare this kind of report.
PORTER: Okay. It does. Okay. You also were in my shop before that. Stay out of my shot. Okay, I'm going to start again with electric vehicles saving us money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Porter saying in a statement, "It's no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work."
The question we're all asking, will any of this affect her candidacy to be the governor of California? You know what? Who better than to do the analysis for us than our chief data analyst, Harry Enten. Harry, run those numbers, please.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Hey, Laura. You know, I'm looking around, and I don't seem to see anyone in my shot over there. So, I guess that makes me a little bit like -- unlike Katie Porter, right? But look, the Katie Porter snappings, they have been heard around the world, and I think that Katie Porter is making history because she has potentially annihilated her chances to be the next governor of California more so than any other candidate I've ever seen so quickly.
My goodness gracious. What are we talking about right here? Well, let's take a look. Chance to be the next California governor, according to the Kalshi Prediction Market, Katie Porter's chances have fallen through the floor. Just two days ago, she was the plurality leader in the prediction markets at 40%. Now, get this, her chance has fallen by more than half to just 16%. My goodness gracious. Meanwhile, Alex Padilla, who's not even running for governor of California at this point, he's a sitting senator from that state, his chances have gone up through the roof, from 10% all the way to 27%, nearly gone up threefold.
Now, one of the big reasons why the prediction markets have moved so much on Katie Porter's chances to be the next governor of California is because people are really interested in this story.
Take a look here. Google searches for Katie Porter at an all-time high despite Katie Porter having a long political career. Get this, up over 10,000% versus just a week ago. And not so surprisingly, the top topic searched alongside Katie Porter at this point, interview. It turns out maybe you shouldn't snap at a local political reporter.
But I'll tell you who else can't get enough of the Katie Porter story besides just the voters out in California and the people in the United States at large. It's Fox News. Fox News, if you have tuned in over last two days, you tune in in particular route, there's a pretty good chance you're going to see Katie Porter.
I mean, look at all of these segments that Fox News has been doing. Indeed, I looked it up. There have been segments featuring Katie Porter. Get this, over 20 times, 20 plus times over just the last two days alone. Fox News can't get enough of her.
But, you know, the Katie Porter story made me want to ask my own question. That is, do people actually like their bosses? Do they think their bosses are decent, great, poor? Well, it turns out, get this, workers who rate their bosses as less than good, it's about 20% of the American public, according to Pew Research Center polling from the past few years.
Of course, if you ask me whether or not I like my bosses, the answer is, of course, I do, because how else could I rate a boss who allows me to appear on the air with you, my dear friend?
[00:00:01]
COATES: Oh.
ENTEN: Anyway, as I look back around, there's still nobody in my shot. So, all is good, I'm ready to go. Back to you.
COATES: Harry, I just love you. And hey, thank all of you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
