Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton Indicted; Military Vets Speak Out Against Troops in Chicago; Mamdani and Cuomo Clash in High-Stakes New York City Mayoral Debate. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 16, 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: Jim and John, I wish you both better. More vicey vices (ph) in the future.

(LAUGHTER)

Thanks for watching --

UNKNOWN: They're going to have both those after this.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: Thank you 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, the John Bolton indictment claims of a diary-style family chat playing fast and loose with America's secrets. Did the Trump critic break the law or is he just the latest stop on the revenge tour? We're going to go inside the indictment together tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Three indictments of President Trump's enemies in 21 days. First, you had James Comey. Then Letitia James. And now, John Bolton. No doubt you're going to hear that these three names are lumped together. But let's be clear. One of these is not like the others. How we got to John Bolton's indictment, frankly, it's fundamentally different.

Let's look at what we know, okay? Prosecutors are charging him with 18 counts of mishandling sensitive national defense information. He's facing up to like 10 years in prison on each charge. They allege that he shared more than a thousand pages about his activities as national security advisor in the Trump administration. They say that they contain information up to the top-secret level.

They accuse him of a number of things. And they are accusations, of course, in an indictment. They got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But they accused him of sending it over his personal email and the messaging app to two people who did not even have a security clearance.

Now, sources tell CNN that those people without that clearance were his wife and his daughter. The prosecutors are saying that Bolton created a group chat with them the day before he began working as national security advisor. His family asked, why you make the group chat? He told them -- quote -- "for diary in the future." Prosecutors say that Bolton sent them not one, but multiple documents throughout that chat or through his personal email. And apparently, it was extremely high-level stuff, including intel about a future attack by an adversarial group in another country. The indictment says, the day after he stopped working as national security advisor, his literary agent emailed the publisher about Bolton wanting to publish a book. Now, you add another layer to this. Prosecutors say that Bolton's email was at some point hacked by someone associated with Iran. And even though the FBI knew about the hack, they allege he did not tell the FBI that he sent classified information to his family, possibly through that email.

So, that's the Bolton indictment as it stands right now, 26 pages. We're going to unpack further with experts. But here's why it's different from James Comey and Letitia James. Their indictments, thin. I mean, literally, Comey's indictment is -- what? Two pages? James's, I think, is five pages. Bolton's is 26. And I know that it's quality over quantity, I remember.

But it also is different in this way: Not only are the claims different, but the Bolton one went through the normal procedure, so to speak. It was signed off by a career prosecutor. There wasn't an interim U.S. attorney that was handpicked by Trump. There was no DOJ official who was fired for refusing to play along. No attorneys were brought from the outside of the jurisdiction of that office, from places like North Carolina or anywhere else. No one was forced out, at least as far as we know right now.

Plus, there was a judge who had been involved in the Bolton case pretty early on. What do I mean? Well, the FBI searched Bolton's home. They seized multiple documents back in August. And that means a judge had to sign off on it. A warrant, in other words. No similar warrant in the cases we know of for Comey or James in that same fashion.

But, you know, despite the differences, there's a piece of connective tissue. There's a key you really would have to put your head in the sand to ignore. And that is Trump has made it abundantly clear he doesn't like Bolton. He also doesn't like Comey or James. Case in point, his reaction to the indictment today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think he's, you know, a bad person. I think he's a bad guy. Yeah, he's a bad guy. He's too bad. But --

UNKNOWN: Have you reviewed the case against him?

TRUMP: That's the way it goes, right? That's the way it goes. Will I what?

UNKNOWN: Have you reviewed the case against him?

TRUMP: No, I haven't. I haven't. But I just think he's a bad person. (END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:00]

COATES: Also remember that email, that post -- post that he had sent to Pam Bondi? It didn't include Bolton on that one in spite of how he feels about him. But the bad blood that goes back through the years, I mean, the list of insults, he has called him dumb as a rock, a dumb warmonger, one of the dumbest people in Washington. And back in 2020, he was saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He released massive amounts of classified and confidential but classified information. That's illegal. And you go to jail for that.

He's a criminal. And I believe, frankly, he should go to jail for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was 2020. So yes, Trump has an axe to grind. But it also means two things can be true. This case may be far more serious than the ones against Comey and James. And it may have been pursued because Trump is in office. Presumption of innocence is probably the third category to think about here.

But as for what John Bolton has to say about all this, well, for him, this is only political. He says, "My book was reviewed and approved by the appropriate, experienced career clearance officials. When my email was hacked in 2021, the FBI was made fully aware. In four years of the prior administration, after these reviews, no charges were ever filed. Then came Trump 2 who embodies what Joseph Stalin's head of secret police once said, 'You show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.'"

We got some competing experts who see this case very differently. I'm talking about James Trusty, the president's former lawyer in the classified documents case. He's going to join me in a moment. Also, Mark Zaid is here.

Let's go to him first because he's one of the premier national security attorneys in the country. He has testified before Congress on matters regarding classified information, representing dozens of high- profile clients and cases involving the Espionage Act as well. And, as you know, we've covered this here, the administration has revoked Mark's security clearance earlier this year.

Mark, I'm glad you're here. I'm not even going to ask you if you're surprised that this may have been the outcome in terms of a pursuit of an investigation of Bolton. But he is innocent until proven guilty. You have been a former long-time -- a former lawyer. Of course, you are a lawyer. You have known these former people in the administration for a long time, people who have been accused of a whole host of things, you're presenting a number of them. He is a former long-time government official. Should he have known better given especially how frequently we have in the court of public opinion and law confronted people who have retained or disseminated top secret or classified information?

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: He does no better. That's why they cite his own quotes in the indictment. But I'll tell you this. I mean, I've represented from low-level officials in the government to individuals at his rank and Cabinet officers. When I've handled these pre-publication review cases, everyone always comes to me and says, I made sure there's nothing classified in the book. And I always say the same thing back to them. It's not your call any longer because you're not in the government.

COATES: Hmm.

ZAID: It's the government's understanding of it. And the executive order on classification is incredibly broad. And we may not see what the specific facts are, the documents, the information because of the classification level but -- and I'll reserve judgment until we know more.

COATES: Of course.

ZAID: It is very easy for the government to say, that's classified, I'm going to prosecute you for it. Not surprised at all. This is just one of many that will come this way.

COATES: They also talk about, though, that the book substance, that's not really the crux of what they're dealing with predominantly in this indictment, which I think will make a difference in how he explores -- they explore this particular case.

But the indictment does allege. And again, there are allegations. We know that. But the government in indictments normally is required, as you can imagine, to only put forth the things that they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And one of the things they think they can do is that they say that he created a group chat with his wife and daughter before beginning his role as a national security advisor for Trump. And what for? His words, for diary in the future. How does that play with intent?

ZAID: So, I will say this happens all the time. I'm not going to judge at this time whether or not he put classified information in it. I don't know.

COATES: But what happens all the time? What do you mean to what happens all the time? The idea of keeping notes about your career?

[23:10:00]

ZAID: What happens all the time is everyone who writes a book brings the information home, emails it to themselves, takes notes, includes others. This is commonplace. I'm not saying it's right.

COATES: Uh-hmm. ZAID: In fact, I argue all the time that this is not how the process should be because the information has to be protected, not just classified. National defense information in the Espionage Act can be unclassified. It usually is classified if they're going to prosecute you for it.

But this policy of how these books get written by senior officials, both Democrat and Republican, and including in Trump's own administration, and I dare say it will happen from this administration when these officials leave Trump 2, this is how they write their books. And it is overlooked by the government, every administration, all the time until they get caught like General Petraeus --

COATES: Hmm.

ZAID: -- if folks remember that, where he gave his mistress, who was his co-writer or his author, classified information. She at least had a security clearance. He had two years suspension and $100,000 fine. Very similar case, at least on paper, for what we're seeing now.

But everyone who wants to write a book in the federal government should be very concerned by this indictment because the practice is being put on trial. I don't know what will happen to Bolton at the end. Most of these cases never go to trial because they usually plead out because the government has such an, frankly, easy burden at times to meet.

COATES: Would he have any incentive to do that given, of course, he believes this is political in nature? Number one. And number two, he undoubtedly is making a case for a selective prosecution which, frankly, goes to what you're talking about.

If everybody is doing it, and I know I'm being tongue in cheek in my paraphrasing of you, but if everyone is doing it, but you chose me, and the reason you chose me, he will say, is for vindictive reasons, it's selective, it's not just a regular old discretion a prosecutor can use, how do you think the prevalence of this would play into his ability to make that claim?

ZAID: You know -- as you know, those are very difficult claims to make.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ZAID: They almost always fail. But if any administration or prosecutions would be susceptible to it, it is the ones we are seeing now of those perceived enemies of Donald Trump. And even though Bolton wasn't, as you mentioned in the text message or the Signal chat message, wherever it was, to Pam Bondi, he's still been on the president's mind for years. And there is definitely an argument to be made, as was in Bolton's statement. This has been known for years.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ZAID: Why hasn't anyone gone after him in all that time? Why did the Trump administration drop pursuing him back in 2020 when they could have? Why now? So, those are all motions that will be brought, for sure.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ZAID: And I have no doubt that there's a lot of evidence to show that there is selectivity to this. Will that make a difference at the end? I don't know. We'll see, obviously. But it is a troubling prosecution.

I -- like I said, I think it's one of many under the Espionage Act, including journalists, I believe, who will be targeted because these claims are easy to make or allege by the federal government because of the breadth and broadness of the statute. Again, national defense information does not need to be classified. And the indictment insinuates that some of it wasn't.

And you mentioned before, I think it needs to be really highlighted, the book that he published in 2021 or 2020, whenever the end of the year was, when it came out, uh, is not part of the indictment. It is this diary transfer of information with his wife and daughter, which -- and is not also the documents that were said to have been found in his house that were marked as classified. You don't see that in the indictment either, and I think that says something.

COATES: There's a lot to compare. And, of course, the viewing audience and the people who have been following cases even recently, they're going to immediately start to compare the Trump indictment. They're going to think about the investigation into Pence and to Biden as well. And I don't believe that the idea of why me, why now is going to be sufficient to overcome the hurdle that he will have in a case like this. But we don't know what will happen. These are allegations.

If you were his attorney, given all that you have seen in the course of your career when cases like this are being evaluated, do you think that a viable plea opportunity is in his future or is this going to trial?

ZAID: Well, I guess it depends on what that plea offer might be. Like I said, I think it's very comparable to portray his case.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ZAID: And he only got two-year probation.

[23:14:58]

If -- if the motions on selectivity and vindictiveness fail or some other challenge perhaps to the classification status, which is very difficult to do and almost always fails under the Espionage Act, I'm not talking about Bolton's case, just historically, but they can make that argument. The district court in Maryland where this is doesn't handle a lot of Espionage Act cases. The Fourth Circuit, which is above it, has handled more, including ones I've been part of --

COATES: Yup.

ZAID: -- so they have greater experience. But, you know, if he got something, you know, I have no idea what they would do. But if he got something that didn't include jail time, maybe. But, you know, I'm sure he's going to fight it long and hard. Look, I should say, his lawyer is my lawyer, too, Abbe Lowell.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ZAID: And I work with Abbe all the time. I have nothing to do with Bolton's case. But there's a lot of arguments that will be made by both sides and wait till they get into discovery --

COATES: Yes.

ZAID: -- to see how this case progressed along over the years and why did it take so many years.

COATES: Mark Zaid, thank you.

ZAID: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: I want to turn now to Jim Trusty, who, I will remind you, did represent the president for a time in his classified documents case as comparisons will undoubtedly be drawn in this. Jim, I want to know your opinion and assessment here. You read this indictment cover to cover. How strong is the indictment?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY, FORMER CHIEF AT DOJ ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Yeah. I -- well, look, it's early. We don't have discovery. I'm not totally at odds with what Mark had to say about the motions practice and the probabilities being pretty low, uh, in terms of the defense winning those things. But you never know until you get into discovery. I would tell you, though, that, you know, this is familiar territory and that I know Kelly Hayes, the U.S. attorney for Maryland.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: I worked in Greenbelt for 10 years, where the indictment came down. This is not a lightly undertaken venture. This is a speaking indictment that is devastating on its face. Again, not trial yet, but devastating on its face when you talk about specific intent and his knowledge. This is a guy above all people. This is one of the reasons selective prosecution would be so hard.

Who is similar to the national security advisor with a history like John Bolton and a history of publicly berating others for not knowing the rules when it comes to classified material? You can't write daily diary entries about national defense information and pretend that somehow that's sanitized, that's not a problem to possess that.

And here's the rub: The reason that he was so willful in his behavior is when they went through that process with the book of trying to clear what stuff he's allowed to put in his kiss and tell book that he got a million dollars for the signing rights on, you know, again, he doesn't love President Trump either, and he cashed in on that nicely, and that's the problem.

But the bottom line is, that book was something where Judge Lamberth got involved. And the government filed for a restraining order against Bolton, granted the restraining order, and literally said to John Bolton, you're endangering the country's security and you're risking indictment. So, that's the notice this guy gets a few years ago.

And the damage is this: He's taking very sensitive material, if you read this indictment. Thins about, you know, coups against foreign leaders and military action and threats to different countries. And he's putting it on Gmail and AOL, probably to his mother and his daughter, if we read the tea leaves correctly.

COATES: His wife, I believe.

TRUSTY: Saying we're going to type this up, we're going to have a diary. And -- and it got hacked by Iran. Like this is the nightmare for national security, that the guy at his level is creating a pipeline that Iran, of all places, could access. So, he's got a lot to answer for. I don't expect them to get a soft playoff around these facts.

COATES: I hear you and the severity of the claims in this indictment. I do want to note, people are making comparisons to the high-level position to the former president at that time, the now president again. The president is heard in an audio clip saying that he kept a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. And that was after leaving the White House.

When you look at these two different cases, and they are different, do you think what President Trump did will factor in at all to the allegations against Bolton given that there's no one --

TRUSTY: No --

COATES: -- who would be in a similar position? To your point, as someone like a national security advisor, for the purpose of asserting a selective prosecution, which you know requires essentially somebody in the same position or similar, wasn't chosen to be prosecuted.

TRUSTY: Right. Well, President Trump was prosecuted.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: I think it was the onset of weaponization. He also had the benefit of the Presidential Records Act. And the documents when they arrived in Mar-a-Lago, he was still president. So, there are all sorts of differences factually.

Frankly, and Mark kind of made this point, the trouble is these guys want to kiss and tell books and cash in. Petraeus, you know, he ends up falling afoul because he's got an author who he's sharing stuff with. Joe Biden wants to write a self-serving book when he stores stuff over by his Corvette in Delaware.

[23:20:02]

And now, you have this case. And that's kind of the common thread. Frankly, Comey has got the same issue floating out there about creating diary entries at Trump's expense, and then sharing them through leaks to "The New York Times."

So, look, there's a lot of sloppy, bad, narcissistic behavior. You don't get indicted for that, but it flavors the indictment and makes this look like a pretty righteous case on its face when -- when Bolton is exactly the guy that knows the rules and exactly the guy that broke it.

By the way, 2019, DOJ comes to him. You know, talk about delays. They come to him in 2019. They say, we have to remove the skiff from your Chevy Chase home, and you cannot have any other classified documents, whether they're part of the book or not, now is the time to turn in your homework. And he doesn't do it. He's got hard copies. He's got electronic copies. When he gets hacked by Iran, he doesn't say, by the way, I had a whole bunch of diary entries --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: -- about classified information. None of that happened.

COATES: So, we'll see. The timeline is going to be important in this as are the allegations. I will note, as you know, the case of classified documents did not go forward against now President Trump. But this case will be compared nonetheless. Jim Trusty, thank you.

TRUSTY: Good to see you, Laura.

COATES: So, how far back does this beast between Trump and Bolton go? And how is Bolton going to handle this moment? You know what? Let's talk to someone who has known him, who has worked with him for years. Olivia Troye is standing by, next. And later, Trump's crackdown in Chi-Town gets a slap down by the courts with five words that can very well define the legal fight altogether.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: What do those closest to John Bolton think about his indictment tonight? Well, "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board is calling it retribution. They say -- quote -- "Mr. Bolton will get his day in court, and we look forward to his defense. In our experience, he is a patriot who would do nothing to compromise national security. He never leaked classified information to us. If Mr. Bolton had praised Mr. Trump in his book, it's safe to say he wouldn't have been indicted" -- unquote.

Well, my next guest was Bolton's employee in the White House. She has known him for decades and is a national security expert herself. Former homeland security adviser for the Trump administration, Olivia Troye, joins me now. Olivia, do you view his indictment, which I note, the third in 21 days from a U.S. attorney, of somebody who is an opponent and critic of Trump, do you view this indictment as retribution or something different? OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I absolutely view it as retribution. And like John Bolton has been a longstanding critic of Donald Trump, like myself --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TROYE: -- and he has spoken what Benny would say, truth to power. And he has done it factually. And this is someone that I worked with closely inside the White House.

And I watched him push back on Donald Trump directly firsthand when we were in the Situation Room on numerous situations. And this was something that I think Donald Trump really bristled at and was always made uncomfortable by because he didn't like the fact that John Bolton was a stalwart Republican, I would say, that I've known for 20 years in national security, in the community, who really was known for very conservative foreign policies, right? I mean, this is his background.

And so, I saw many situations where Bolton was vocal, and I don't think that Trump appreciated that. Fast forward, he remains a vocal critic today, and he remains a vocal critic on Trump when it comes to people like Putin, which is, you know, he's constantly been pushing on, and numerous issues that I think that really rattled the Trump team and Trump 2.0.

But this is a longstanding thing. And if there's anyone that I trust with classified information, I will say it now having known this man who has been nothing but a patriot working. You may disagree with his policies, you may disagree with his stance on how he approaches foreign policy, but he is certainly not what this indictment claims him to be, where he would be so frivolous and just so plainly disregarding protecting classified information. I just don't believe it, Laura.

COATES: Well, let's try to reconcile part of what you know as John Bolton and what is being indicted here because there's a -- here's an excerpt in the indictment. "A cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran hacked Bolton's personal email account and gained unauthorized access to the classified and national defense information. A representative for Bolton notified the U.S. government of the hack, but did not tell the U.S. government that the account contained national defense information, including classified information."

Given what has been said, does that jive at all with the person you know and his handling of very top secret, let alone classified information?

TROYE: No, it doesn't add up from everything that I witnessed. And I will say this: I will be very interested to see what details are actually disclosed given that they are claiming that this is classified information behind closed doors.

Having worked issues like Guantanamo Bay with detainees and classified information, I truly know how the national security process goes with some of these cases. And while today we do have this indictment and I think these are very serious allegations, I really hope that, at some point, there'll be a full review with people who are impartial, who are going to review this information, and I trust that Bolton guarded it.

And yes, while he may have made notes and made a diary notes -- I mean, who hasn't done that? I certainly probably wrote down a note and said today I flew over the border with Mike Pence over Arizona, and we looked at the border wall that was being built at the time.

[23:30:00]

COATES: Yeah. But Olivia, you didn't do a group chat. You didn't do a group chat with the -- with your family members who didn't have clearance. That's -- that's the next part, right?

TROYE: No.

COATES: I hear the point you're making.

TROYE: Right.

COATES: But the point the indictment is making and the accusations are that not that people aren't taking notes about what has happened, but about the dissemination of the information.

TROYE: No, and I take that as a valid point. I think what will be important is to really understand the information that was shared and what it was and what it is and what it isn't. Right? And I think that is where the details will really matter on this.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TROYE: And look, I mean, if it was indeed considered to be classified, then we'll see how this plays out. I know there are serious allegations. But I will be very surprised that someone like John Bolton, who has been in national security for decades, would do something like that knowing better.

When we talk about his email being hacked by Iran, like, let's keep in mind that this is someone who has been targeted. He has a bounty on his head. Iran has targeted him, has planned assassinations of him. And Donald Trump removed Secret Service and protection from this individual.

So, this beast goes between -- beyond layers, is what I'm saying. And so, I really think that this is a very serious case.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TROYE: I will be honest. I have been watching this closely. I've been very concerned about what they would bring forward on John Bolton. I have been waiting for this shoe to drop. And here we are. And I think that he will be defended in court. And I -- you know, and I will be here standing with him and by him because I know his character.

COATES: The shoe has dropped. Now, will the prosecution run with it? We'll see. Olivia Troye, thank you so much.

Still ahead, former military officials traveling to Chicago to take a stand against Trump's use of American troops in American cities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: It's dangerous. And it is a clear and present danger to the security of our nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Retired Major General Randy Manner met with Governor JB Pritzker today. He's going to join me next about that conversation. And later, the last debate before the New York City vote for a mayor election will happen. Highlights, lowlights, and the big question now looming over the Democratic Party.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANNER: It's dangerous. And it is a clear and present danger to the security of our nation. It is un-American. History warns us of this danger. Let's protect those principles by keeping the military where it belongs, defending the nation, not policing its people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's retired Army Major General Randy Manner, who I'll speak with in just a moment. He, along with multiple other retired military brass, traveling to Chicago to take a stand against deploying American troops on the streets of American cities. And they're not alone with their concerns. With tense clashes erupting on the streets of Chicago, the courts, they've got notes.

One judge today ruling ICE officers have got to wear body cameras, telling the administration, "I'm not happy. I'm really not happy," admonishing them for not following her orders. Quote -- "I live in Chicago, if folks haven't noticed, and I'm not blind, right?"

Then there's the other courtroom and another loss for the Trump administration. An appeals court ruling the federal government can't even deploy the National Guard troops to Illinois.

Now, National Guard troops are typically under the control of state governors, but the president is legally able to call them to service if there is foreign invasion or rebellion. The problem is the court does not think either of those is happening. Quote -- "Political opposition is not rebellion."

With me now, retired Army Major General Randy Manner. General, thank you being here. You spoke with the governor of Illinois today -- MANNER: Thank you.

COATES: -- to discuss how he should be handling the president's efforts to deploy troops in his state. What did you tell him?

MANNER: I told him a few things. The first was he's got to ensure that the people are educated about how to interact with the National Guard, and that those people that are on the streets of Chicago now, they are not National Guardsmen, they are actually, quite frankly, very poorly trained ICE agents and other people. Also, to keep those people separated, to protect the protesters so that they do not interact with those ICE agents who are not trained well. They are, quite frankly, very unruly mob themselves.

COATES: Here's how I see a lot of the conversations as well. There are two debates going on, right? There's one debate about whether the president can deploy troops. Then there's the debate about what they can actually do when they're in their cities, in these cities. You wonder, given what you've just described, the training or lack thereof, like a law enforcement official, the military is different. So, by deploying them, are they setting them up for failure to abide by the laws that they're going to be held to account for?

MANNER: Those young men and women, our fellow National Guardsmen, our fellow Americans, they are not steeped in the law, and especially relative to community policing. They are not trained in how to de- escalate situations. Again, the military should have no mission whatsoever to be on any American streets. What we need are trained law enforcement officers who know how to de-escalate.

[23:39:58]

By the way, not like those ICE agents, those, you know, Trump's Gestapo, quite frankly, in comparison, the Chicago Police Department should be applauded for trying to keep peace and order while all of that mayhem is being -- going on by those masked federal agents.

COATES: You know, a former Marine, a Colonel, wrote an op-ed for "The Washington Post," where he said that he resigned after 24 years of service because of President Trump. Listen to what he told my colleague, Jake Tapper, earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOUG KRUGMAN, RETIRED COLONEL, U.S. MARINE CORPS: Policy disagreements are normal. Everyone who serves in the government military accepts that and chooses to serve anyway. But I also had a lot of moral hesitation about President Trump's actions. The military officer oath includes the phrase without mental reservation. And under President Trump, based on my questions about the morality of his actions and very large questions about the legality of some of his actions, I had a lot of reservations about continuing to serve. So, the most honorable thing for me to do was request to retire.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: This can't be viewed in a vacuum. It was just a few weeks ago that we heard Secretary Hegseth telling top military brass that they could resign if they oppose his directives. Given what this person has just said, could the dam be breaking?

MANNER: I hope not. What I mean by that is that -- this particular officer, I applaud him for decision that he made for himself, of where he stood. I also think it's important, I've talked to many active-duty admirals and generals, and they are trying to do their very best to stay on active-duty to protect the lives of the young men and women with whose lives they are entrusted.

So, I hope that we don't have a mass exodus from our military because that's exactly what our enemies want, is to have a degraded military with leadership that has, quite frankly, decided they are going to all leave rather than take care of soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines and defend our nation to the maximum extent that they can.

COATES: That's devastating notion. Major General Randy Manner, thank you so much.

MANNER: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, a political brawl in New York City's mayoral debate. The candidate taken on Trump, taken on crime, and what it means to be a Democratic socialist. Max Rose and Bill de Blasio are with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It has become one of the most contentious and closely- followed mayoral races in recent memory. One with, of course, national implications. Well, tonight, the gloves came off as the candidates for New York City mayor squared off in their first debate. And the attacks began between frontrunners Zohran Mamdani and former governor Andrew Cuomo, and they got personal from the outset.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CUOMO, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: He literally has never had a job. On his resume, it says he interned for his mother. This is not a job for a first timer. Any day, you could have a hurricane, forbid a 9-11, a health pandemic. If you don't know what you're doing, people could die.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Thank you, Mr. Cuomo. Mr. Mamdani, do want to respond?

ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: And if we have a health pandemic, then why would New Yorkers turn back to the governor who sent seniors to their death in nursing homes? That's the kind of experience that's on offer here today. What I don't have an experience, I make up for an integrity. And what you don't have an integrity, you could never make up for an experience.

CUOMO: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Some of the most fiercest exchanges of the night came when Mamdani was pressed on his positions on the Israel-Hamas war. And at one point, he was asked to clarify comments that he made just yesterday. We talked about it on this show. Well, he declined to say whether Hamas should lay down their arms in Gaza.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAMDANI: Of course, I believe that they should lay down their arms. I'm proud to be one of the first elected officials in the state who called for a ceasefire. And calling for a ceasefire means seizing fire. That means all parties have to ceasefire and put down their weapons.

CUOMO: The assemblyman will not denounce Hamas. The assemblyman will not denounce Hasan Piker who said America deserved 9-11. The assemblyman just said in his response, well, it depends on occupation. That is code, meaning that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish state, which he has never acknowledged. That is from the river to the sea. That's why he won't denounce globalize the Intifada, which means kill all Jews.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A new Fox poll tonight shows Mamdani with a significant lead over his two opponents. Fifty-two percent of likely New York City voters saying that they will support him.

So, let me bring in our two experts on all things New York politics. Former New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio. He knows this very well, who also endorsed Mamdani. He's also a CNN political commentator. Also, here, former Democratic congressman from New York, Max Rose. Both of you know your way around an election.

Let's dig into this one, Mayor de Blasio. You heard Mamdani's response tonight when he was asked to clarify his remarks on Hamas disarming. He said they should, but then Cuomo called them out for not explicitly condemning Hamas for their actions. Was that the right response from Mamdani?

BILL DE BLASIO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I think what's strange here, Laura, is Andrew Cuomo seems only comfortable talking about the Middle East. He doesn't talk about affordability in New York City. He isn't relating to what every day New Yorkers are going through. I really feel like he has jumped the shark. Like, I really feel like he's actually out of touch with this place in this moment.

And this was a debate, Laura, where he had a chance to potentially get back in this race in some meaningful way, and he squandered it. I mean, he took a huge amount of time talking about the Middle East. That's not what people are voting on.

COATES: Congressman, do you agree? The out of touch factor for either candidate?

[23:49:57]

MAX ROSE, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: Well, first of all, watching that debate and the back and forth certainly makes me happy I'm not in politics right now because that was something else.

But here's the thing about this debate: This is the first public dialogue that these candidates are having in the aftermath of the ceasefire. And what we saw, I think, largely in the progressive movement, was a coalition, a broad-based coalition that involved liberal Zionists and those who do not actually believe there should be a Jewish state in the Middle East who were united in opposition to the unjustified, aggressive, hostile actions by the Israeli government that weren't actually conducive with long-term Israeli security.

But now that there is a ceasefire, there's a real question as to whether that coalition can be maintained when Zohran Mamdani is openly saying that he is not a liberal Zionist. He does not believe there should be a Jewish Democratic state in the Middle East.

So, that's a conversation worth having. It's not the only conversation that should be having -- that people should be having right now. But I do think it's a justified discussion in New York City, particularly.

COATES: Well, one conversation that was happening was involving the president the United States. And Trump loomed large over the debates. Both candidates clashed over who the president would prefer to be the mayor of New York City. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAMDANI: What I tell the president is if he ever wants to come for New Yorkers in the way that he has been, he's going to have to get through me as the next mayor of the city. No matter what you think about Donald Trump, you know that not even being able to name him is an act of cowardice. And that's what we would see from Donald Trump's puppet.

CUOMO: I have been -- I fought Donald Trump. He investigated me repeatedly with the Department of Justice. I am not going to stop. And I'll tell you something else. If the assemblyman is elected mayor, Donald Trump will take over New York City and it will be Mayor Trump who runs New York City.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to point this out. We should point out that the president has recently announced that he would be terminating funding for certain infrastructure projects in New York. Mayor de Blasio, would a Mayor Mamdani --

DE BLASIO: Yeah. COATES: -- give him an excuse to pick a fight with the largest blue city?

DE BLASIO: He's already going to pick that fight. I mean, Trump is coming for New York City one way or another. He did when I was mayor. We beat him in court. He was not able to take our funding. It's illegal to take away funding that's already been authorized by the Congress just because you disagree with someone.

COATES: But going to court, as you know -- I don't want to cut you off, but going into court, as you know, can be a time-consuming endeavor that does take away resources and attention from the work that you'd want to be doing as the mayor. Would that pose a hurdle, do you think, for the people of New York?

DE BLASIO: No. I'll tell you why. Laura, let's -- let's bring it to the context of decision New Yorkers about to make. Watching this debate, Andrew Cuomo saying don't vote for this other guy because Donald Trump hates him so much, for most New Yorkers, that's like the biggest endorsement you could possibly think of.

And again, I have no clue what Andrew Cuomo was doing there tonight because he seemed like a Trump apologist at times. He seemed -- we know he has talked to donors about how he could get along with Trump better than Mamdani could. We know that Trump has hinted pretty openly that he'd rather have Andrew Cuomo than Mamdani as mayor. Well, New Yorkers are not dumb hearing that.

And so, you know, tonight, what Andrew Cuomo needed to do is make a believable separation from Trump. And that kind of line telling people, oh, no, my God, if you vote for Mamdani, here comes Trump, actually just confirmed who is the real anti-Trump in this race, it's Zohran Mamdani.

COATES: Congressman, I wonder if people will hear that as being able to work with or puppeteering. That's going to be the big question for New York voters. But I do want to point out that we are seeing two competing factions of a Democratic Party on full display. Listen to something that Cuomo said to Mamdani here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAMDANI: If you think that there's no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, then that's the candidate for you. If you think it is time to have a Democratic Party that actually stands up to Donald Trump and his billionaire --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: You're not a Democrat. You're not a Democrat. You're Democratic socialist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, that distinction he's making, congressman, is that the bellwether for the state, let alone the rest of the Democratic Party? ROSE: No, I don't think so. I mean, look, if anything, the elephant in the room of this debate is the guy who normally wears the beret because so long as (INAUDIBLE) in this debate, in this race, I don't see what the lane is, really. The political calculus isn't necessarily there for Andrew Cuomo. And they've been open about that.

[23:54:57]

But we exist at this moment right now of actually unprecedented unity in the House Democratic Caucus, which is a very broad brush-based ideological coalition. That's both a testament to Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership. But it's also a clear demonstration of just how horrific and disgusting this fascist leadership is coming out of the White House.

So, there's going to be squabbles in New York City politics. It is the real deal. You can tell it from the people that are on this panel right now. But the National Party is intensely unified right now in opposition to Donald Trump.

COATES: We shall see what happens. Election day around the corner. Bill de Blasio, Max Rose, thank you both.

And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)