Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump and Xi Hold High-Stakes Meeting Amid Trade War; Senate Votes to Block Trump's Tariffs; DOJ Punishes Prosecutors, Scrubs January 6 Reference from Filing; Suozzi Endorses Cuomo; Laura Coates Interviews Terry Rozier's Lawyer. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 29, 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]
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): This isn't a political game. These are real people's lives we're talking about. And you all just figured out, 29 days in, that, oh, there might be some consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Now, despite the anger that you saw there on the Senate floor, Thune did signal that he may be willing to engage with moderate Democrats soon. We'll see what it does to end this shutdown.
And before we go, just a reminder for you, you can stream "NewsNight' wherever you want right on your CNN app. Just scan the Q.R. code below or go to cnn.com/watch for more on this new experience. And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, here we go, the room where it is happening. President Trump, President Xi currently face-to-face neutral territory in South Korea. At stake is the fate of the trade war that has put the U.S. economy and, frankly, the entire world on a roller coaster ride that just doesn't seem to end. This was the handshake just a few moments ago. Both men projected optimism that they can formalize some sort of truce.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And we're going to have a very successful meeting. I have no doubt. But he's a very tough negotiator. That's not good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not good, indeed, because Xi, he has time on his side. Trump? Not so much. Look at your calendars. Exactly one week from today, it's their turn. United States Supreme Court to consider whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. You can guarantee that Xi's team knows the date, knows the court, and is going to be paying attention. Any signal whatsoever that suggests the court may rule against Trump could very well factor into Xi's long-term strategy. And Trump himself, well, he knows this, because he has been publicly publicizing his anxiety for weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will tell you, that's one of the most important cases in the history of our country, because if we don't win that case, we will be a, uh, weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Look at the date of that. You think President Xi doesn't know that he said that? He took it even further on Truth Social. If these tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the country. And it would be 1929 all over again, a great depression.
So, as we speak, Xi knows that Trump is incredibly worried. The court could be days away from starting to pull the rug out from underneath him or even question him.
If that wasn't enough, there's another dynamic that suddenly popped up. That, frankly, couldn't come at a worse time for President Trump, because as he sits in that room right now, Xi will have undoubtedly been briefed that Trump's own party is showing some rare signs of rebelling against him. You know, in the last, what? Forty-eight hours, we have seen not one, but two votes in the United States Senate to block Trump's tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: On this vote, the yeas are 52 and the nays are 48, and the joint resolution is passed.
UNKNOWN: On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 46, the joint resolution is passed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tonight, it was four Senate Republicans who joined Democrats to vote against the tariffs on Canada. Yesterday, five Senate Republicans joined to vote against the tariffs on Brazil, including, by the way, the Republican who led the charge. I'm talking about Senator Rand Paul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): No country, no business, no family can plan a budget when the tax rates, the import tax rates, and the cost of every commodity are determined by the whims of one man. There are now tariffs on steel, there are tariffs on aluminum, there are tariffs on lumber, and they change from day to day. But not one of these tariffs was voted on by the people's elected representative in Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: No country, business, family. The whims of one man? Ouch. Now, those votes will be symbolic, of course, because they'll go nowhere in the House. But ask yourself this: If you were President Xi and you knew that Trump's tariffs may be compromised or even questioned legally, politically, are you compromising?
[23:04:54]
My first guest tonight may have the answer, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage on China, and he once served as the paper's bureau chief in both Beijing and Hong Kong. And tonight, he is out with his new blunt column, headlined, "Trump Lost the Trade War to China."
Nick, welcome. This is a night we've all been waiting to see what's going to happen. I'm sure we'll get some readout shortly. But you have argued that Trump lost the trade war before we even saw that handshake tonight. Why?
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, look, I mean, for starters, Trump did have legitimate reasons to press China on trade, aside from the fact that China often does trade in ways that are illegitimate, unfair. I mean, the fentanyl issue, which Trump has emphasized, is very real. A quarter million Americans have died from overdoses over the last four years from fentanyl -- from -- from -- from fentanyl.
But the way he went about it ended up undermining his own power, his ability to bring about change. And, you know, in effect, Laura, he -- he had his tariffs, which were somewhat weak for the legal reasons that you've mentioned and maybe overturned.
But he then induced Xi Jinping to weaponize the rare earth mineral exports that previously China has talked about weaponizing, has on rare occasions weaponized, but he really induced them to use that as a -- as a major part of their leverage, and it worked.
China controls about 90% of these rare earth minerals. It, uh, is the only world producer of six of them, the heavy, certain heavy rare earths. And the U.S. economy needs them. Other economies need them. We need them to make televisions, wind turbines, fighter aircraft, you know, cars. A submarine uses four tons of them.
And we -- you know, President Trump hadn't prepared for that. I think he just thought that, well, you know, we buy more from China than it buys from us, that we have the leverage. And he didn't realize that, look, China can get at soybeans from Brazil and Argentina --
COATES: Hmm.
KRISTOF: -- but we don't have another way to get the rare earths. And then once we realized that and China had picked up that weapon --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KRISTOF: -- then it became obvious to everybody, including Xi Jinping, that actually, they had the cards. And then you began to see Trump frantically, you know, trying to make concessions to China in ways that, you know, frankly, really troubled me, and in some ways could endanger our national security.
COATES: Let's talk about some of those troubling factors, as well as the fact that, as I laid out, I mean, Xi is well aware the Supreme Court is going to take this up. He's well aware about what Republicans are doing in the Senate. He has heard from people, you know, at least through the televisions, through senators who have expressed their concern. He has heard President Trump make comments about the depression.
Tell me how all of that might be factoring in to the way in which President Xi Jinping actually considers this negotiation moment. Would he view it as premature? Would he view it as unnecessary or a smirk- inducing moment?
KRISTOF: Well, look, Xi has great America watchers.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KRISTOF: And, you know, he sent his daughter to study in the U.S. He knows America very well. And he understands Trump's strengths and vulnerabilities. And he recognizes the fact that the courts may overturn Trump's ability to impose those tariffs. He understands the political pressures on President Trump to get, you know, purchases of soybeans for American farmers. And he recognizes also that there is political pressure on Trump for rapid results in a way that there is not pressure on Xi Jinping. You know, Xi Jinping has strategic patience. He can --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KRISTOF: His people can be a little upset for a while. And if you're a dictator, it doesn't really matter. And so, the upshot, I think, is that Xi -- you know, I think he probably wants a deal, but he wants to maintain leverage in that deal.
And one of the things that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant has talked about is a -- some kind of a deal in which there is a one-year suspension of certain controls on rare earth exports. And so, I think President Trump would count that as a win. Look, we've got rare earths flowing again. But, to me, you know, boy, that just underscores that this sword of Damocles will be hanging over us and it gives, you know, President Xi leverage over everything that we're going to be doing. Every time we talk about an arms sale to Taiwan --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KRISTOF: -- or sending ships through the South China Sea, you know, some of those rare earths may slow down and a few automobile factories in the U.S. might find that they can't get those -- those parts. So, I think -- you know, I fear that there is going to be real pressure. Reserved leverage has now gone to Xi Jinping.
[23:10:03]
And I think he will use it for the things that he cares about. And those aren't only trade issues. Laura, as you know, there's also about Taiwan, about --
COATES: Yeah.
KRISTOF: -- their ability to influence the U.S. political system through TikTok, all kinds of other issues that I think are high on the Chinese agenda. And he's in the -- I think, frankly, he's in the driver's seat.
COATES: I make no predictions about how the Supreme Court will rule, but that's certainly part of that sword of Damocles. But just before today's meeting, Trump posted this on Truth Social, saying -- quote -- "Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately."
Now, according to the Library of Congress, the U.S. had a voluntary ban on nuclear explosive testing -- what? Since 1992. So, what's up with this message? What's the intent behind it?
KRISTOF: Well, if Trump means what he said, then, look, we're all in trouble. I mean, that would indicate a revival of nuclear testing which, as you say, hasn't happened in the case of the U.S. since 1992. In the case of Russia, I think since 1990. In the case of China, I believe it was 1996 that they last tested a weapon.
But I think that Trump was confusing a nuclear test with kind of flaunting nuclear platforms. So, Russia had talked about a new nuclear missile, a nuclear-powered missile and a nuclear capable missile. And I think, probably, President Trump was responding to that.
COATES: Hmm.
KRISTOF: Maybe he's thinking about, you know, displaying a nuclear submarine or a bomber that can carry nuclear weapons because I -- otherwise, it -- it, frankly, doesn't really make a lot of sense. So, I'm --
COATES: Yeah.
KRISTOF: I think a lot of folks are just hoping that he misspoke and was confused between nuclear weapons tests and displays of nuclear platforms.
COATES: Too bad he didn't answer questions about it when he was sitting right across from Xi to clarify some of the confusions. Finally, let me ask you, because you have actually argued that Trump is right about some of the threats that China poses, especially on trade. What should he be doing?
KRISTOF: So, I think that President Trump should be working with allies. There are so many other countries in Europe, in Japan, and elsewhere that are really concerned about China dumping products on the international marketplace in ways that will be devastating to economies around the world. And together, we have bargaining power vis-a-vis China. We can also work to -- it's going to be crucial for us to develop the capacity to mine and refine those rare earths. So, we don't have this vulnerability. So, they can't have that sort of Damocles over us. But that means working, you know, with Canada, with Mexico --
COATES: Hmm.
KRISTOF: -- with European partners, with Japan. And instead, we've managed to antagonize all of our partners in ways that mean that the opposition to China is atomized and we don't have bargaining power.
So, we, I fear, have simultaneously handed China an enormous tool with leverage to negotiate against the rest of the world, that monopoly on rare earths, and at the same time have undermined the capacity of the rest of the world to stand up to China.
COATES: Well, Nick, we'll see what happens. We are waiting to see what happened in that meeting. Hopefully, we'll have some indication today or tomorrow. Nick Kristof, thank you so much.
KRISTOF: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: And we'll, of course, be keeping a very close eye on the Trump-Xi meeting and bring you any updates that we get from our team who is right there in South Korea.
Up next, rewriting history. And I mean, literally. An indictment rewritten to exclude points about January 6th and President Trump. And the prosecutors who wrote it, they've been removed. I'll talk with the prosecutor who handled the most notorious January 6 cases before being fired by the administration. And ahead, are Democrats overplaying their hand with the government shutdown or is the fight exactly what voters want? A week to go to voting day, and that question is more important than ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THUNE: SNAP recipients shouldn't go without food. People should be getting paid in this country. And we've tried to do that 13 times. You voted no 13 times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, a new effort to rewrite the history of January 6th. Two federal prosecutors placed on leave hours after describing the Capitol attack as a -- quote -- "mob of rioters." You might be asking, okay, why? Considering we've all seen the vicious and violent images of what happened on that day at the Capitol. And mob of rioters seems to be apropos. So, let's break it down. This stems from a DOJ sentencing memo of former January 6th defendant, Taylor Taranto. Now, Taranto was pardoned along with the rest of the rioters by President Trump on the first day of his second term in office. But Taranto was found guilty of another crime, showing up near the residence of former President Obama with firearms and ammunition back in 2023. And that is what this memo is about.
[23:19:58]
And it does reference January 6 to show past behavior, something the judge might consider in sentencing. Now, things get even stranger here, so bear with me, okay? The original court filing is no longer available in the federal court record. It has been replaced by a new memo within 24 hours of the original filing. And any mentions of the January 6 riot, we look at that side by side, poof, gone.
How about the reference of a Trump social media post that appeared to highlight former President Obama's address? A post that Taranto reposted as he drove through Obama's neighborhood? That compelling evidence? Also, nowhere to be found.
Well, here to help us wrap our head around how unusual this really is, a former federal prosecutor who handled some of the most high-profile cases against January 6 rioters and is now suing the administration over his own firing this summer, arguing that the decision to do so was politically-motivated. Mike Gordon, he joins me now.
Mike, you know, you're talking to a former federal prosecutor as well. I got to tell you, this is very unusual, to see something like this. The idea of the DOJ replacing the memo in this fashion for this reason, what do you make of it?
MIKE GORDON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Laura, it's absolutely outrageous, what's going on here. Let's be clear. These two federal prosecutors were put on administrative leave after filing this truthful statement. Administrative leave in this context is essentially a prelude to them being fired. So, they're being disciplined for writing four sentences that told the truth, that told undisputed facts. We are heading headlong into a terrifyingly dangerous situation here in this country.
COATES: I really want to just hone in on this point because it is -- it is odd to have a pardon and then have another crime you've committed not included in some way. There's already that oddity of things.
Then there's the idea of normally, if there is something to explain to a judge about someone's request for sentencing, they could have easily put in there, here was the crime, he has been pardoned, the court can choose not to consider that aspect of it given the presidential prerogative here, here is this crime, here is what our recommendation would be.
But no, they don't do that. They take out the very language that alludes to it. It's not based on semantics. What does this mean for a judge interpreting this and for future prosecutors who, as you well know, credibility is transferable and -- and distributable across the actual federal government?
GORDON: Let's talk Taranto specifically. This is a guy who -- what he did is he drove through President Obama's neighborhood in D.C. live streaming bomb threats. He was essentially broadcasting that he intended to commit a domestic terrorist act.
COATES: Hmm.
GORDON: And he did it just hours after President Trump broadcast on Truth Social that that's the neighborhood that President Obama lived in. And so, that's the crime that Taranto was convicted of, and that's the crime that he's facing sentencing on. Very serious threat to public officials.
Now, when the federal agents found Taranto's van, he didn't have a bomb inside of it, he had guns that he wasn't allowed to have legally, and that's what he has been convicted for.
So, looking at that context, it's completely normal for prosecutors to write in their sentencing memo not only what he did in that case, but anything that relates to the history and characteristics of the defendant. And his participation in January 6th, which led to Taranto being charged with one felony and four misdemeanors in January 6th, is not only relevant, it's the kind of thing that prosecutors do every single day.
And one more point on this. None of this is new to the judge that is overseeing Taranto's sentencing. He has heard these same descriptions in hundreds of January 6th cases himself, and he has seen them in briefing in this very case already. So, what were the prosecutors supposed to do here? Pretend January 6th didn't happen?
COATES: At the risk of losing their credibility. And, of course, I don't know if people realize, but whiteout is not going to convince a judge to not consider the things we're going to actually consider. And whiteout is a reference to everyone who's of my generation. Thank you so much. Mike Gordon, thank you.
GORDON: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Tonight, ah, there is a verdict. And it's in a case that we have been very closely following. It is the trial of the ex-deputy who was charged with killing Sonya Massey. Sonya was a Black woman who called 911 to report a possible intruder at her home last year in Southern Illinois.
[23:25:00]
Today, a jury convicted the ex-deputy, Sean Grayson, of second-degree murder. He was charged with first-degree murder. But the jury was given the option of considering the lesser charge after this trial ended yesterday.
Now, body cameras, they captured the horrific shooting. And I have to warn you, it is disturbing. Grayson told Massey to move a pan of hot water on her stove. The two initially seemed to be joking about it. But then Massey said something, like, I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. Grayson, he drew his gun. He fired three shots. He struck Massey in the head, and he killed her. Grayson said that he viewed Massey's comment from that distance as a threat. But Grayson's partner also testified and testified that Massey didn't do anything that could be viewed as a threat.
Massey was also struggling, apparently, with mental health issues and had been visited by officers several times before she was murdered. Her parents were grateful that he was found guilty, but disappointed that it was on the lesser of those two charges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONNA MASSEY, MOTHER OF SONYA MASSEY: Anybody who saw the video and thinks that it was partly Sonya's fault is inhumane. And for them to not get to life and Sonya got life and death, I can't wait until he goes to hell. I'm sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: No, it's every mother who is sorry, ma'am. Grayson will be sentenced next year. He could face anywhere from 20 years in prison to probation and actually avoid prison entirely. We will let you know.
Up ahead, one week until America goes to the polls, and we're going to break down the races to watch, and if this eternal government shutdown is going to sway any of you voters out there. Plus, he was Trump's personal lawyer. Now, he's Terry Rozier's. James Trusty is here telling us how he'll defend the Miami Heat player arrested in that NBA gambling scandal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, a week from tonight, America will know the outcome of three marquee election races that have captured the nation's attention. You got the New York City mayoral race. You got the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races. Putting to test the ever- haunting question for Democrats, have they found a template for victory? Could Republicans turn out the voters who supported the president a year ago even though he is not on the ballot?
But before we get to next week, there's a last-minute plot twist in the big, old apple. New York Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi choosing to support independent candidate Andrew Cuomo over Democrat Zohran Mamdani. The congressman representing Queens and some of the suburbs of New York posting on social media, "I'm a Democratic capitalist, not a Democratic socialist," insisting he can't stand by a -- quote -- "declared socialist with a thin resume."
Here to discuss, a trio of political veterans. They're here at the table with me right now. Republican strategist Brad Todd, senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Karen Finney, and pollster Frank Luntz. Oh, a good panel tonight. I want to pick all of your brains right now. Karen, I'll begin with you.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR SPOKESPERSON FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Okay.
COATES: What does Congressman Suozzi's 11th-hour Cuomo endorsement, what does that tell you about the party right now? Not united or just a one-off?
FINNEY: I don't know. I think it's a one-off. It's not surprising. Suozzi comes from a pre-middle of the road district. He ran for this, has a lot. He was congressman. I believe he lost, and he ran again. And he ran as sort of a moderate. So, it's not surprising.
The only thing that's surprising is he previously sort of loathed Andrew Cuomo. But maybe they think, you know, this is Cuomo sort of hunting for votes. They were hoping that Curtis Sliwa would get out, and that he would be able to benefit from that in some way. So, clearly, they're trying to pick up some votes wherever they can, although Mamdani seems to be pretty far ahead at this point.
COATES: I mean, she's right about him being pretty far ahead, has quite the advantage. But you got Suozzi. You also have a new Quinnipiac University poll showing that the upper hand, true, but there's a data point that stands out, and this is interesting to me. Cuomo has gained support from New York City Republican voters in recent weeks. And now, he is slightly leading another candidate, the GOP nominee. Is that support going to hit the scale in New York?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I -- I don't think it will. But I think this endorsement by Congressman Suozzi speaks volumes about where suburban Democrats' worries are. You know, the battle for control of the U.S. House, it runs through New York. Republicans have a three-seat majority, and there are three seats in the suburbs of New York City that are up for grabs.
Tom Suozzi is saying what every other one of those Democrat congressmen in the suburban New York area think, and that's that Mamdani is going to sink the democratic brand. Socialism will crush Democrats in the battle for the House. They want as far away from this as they can get.
COATES: Well, socialism, I want come back to you on that point.
FINNEY: Yeah.
COATES: Socialism, moderate, I mean, we hear about all the different attributes that people think voters want out of a candidate.
[23:35:00]
Where do things stand from your vantage point?
FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER, COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: I actually think that you didn't mention the most important race of the night, and that's California, and whether the Democrats turn out and change the redistricting laws in the state.
COATES: For Prop 50 or something like that?
LUNTZ: Exactly. And that is going to determine, could well determine who controls the House. I think it's awful, what's happening right now. I think it is a damage, it's an attack on democracy. You don't change your rules halfway through. I'm -- I'm probably the only one who's screaming at both Texas and California --
COATES: Hmm.
LUNTZ: -- at Missouri and North Carolina. And all these states that are coming one after another to say, let's redistrict, let's make as many Democrats as we can, as many Republicans as we can, and it's going to hurt democracy, and we're going to be sorry for it the next day. I think now that the Democrats will win there --
COATES: In California.
LUNTZ: -- in California, and I think that we're going to rue the day, that Trump will rue the day, that he started this all in Texas.
COATES: Well, let's talk about what many Americans right now are ruing, and that's the day the shutdown happened, and it continues on what? What date? Twenty-nine. Are we at this point in time? It's unbelievable.
Think about, Karen, on Capitol Hill, the majority leader, John Thune. He is putting a lot of pressure, as we speak, on Democrats. And he was laying blame right at their feet, which Democrats anticipate and have rejected, over SNAP benefits that are expiring at the -- for the very first time. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THUNE: SNAP recipients shouldn't go without food. People should be getting paid in this country. And we've tried to do that 13 times. You voted no 13 times. This isn't a political game. These are real people's lives that we're talking about. And you all just figured out, 29 days in, that, oh, there might be some consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. They just figured out.
FINNEY: It's a beautiful performance, right?
LUNTZ: It's not a performance.
FINNEY: It is a performance.
LUNTZ: It's not a performance. I know him.
FINNEY: Frank, you're not talking. LUNTZ: I know him.
FINNEY: I am talking.
LUNTZ: I'm talking.
FINNEY: No. I was answering a question.
LUNTZ: Tell the truth.
FINNEY: You need to not --
LUNTZ: Tell the truth.
FINNEY: -- and let me finish the answer.
LUNTZ: Then tell the truth.
COATES: I want to hear from both -- I want to hear from both of you.
FINNEY: Accused me of lying.
LUNTZ: John Thune. I know John Thune. He was not in performance.
COATES: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I hear you both. I want to hear from all of you. Start your response, please.
FINNEY: Thank you.
COATES: If you want to inject at that point, please do. But I want to hear what you'd say. And if you're not being truthful, I'm sure it'll take you to task.
FINNEY: Yes. I felt like that was a performance. What I was going to say is right after that, the Republicans blocked a measure that would have -- that was put forward by Democrats that would have actually said, let's go ahead and put some money into SNAP.
But one of the other things that I think Democrats are so enraged about, how about the resistance (ph) package that took $200 billion -- million dollars away from SNAP benefits? I mean, Republicans are upset because now, their voters are about to have consequences.
TODD: Hang on a minute. Chuck Schumer said this shutdown gets better for us every day, knowing full well that on one of those days, it would mean SNAP benefits would be denied. Democrats have had 13 chances to reopen the government.
FINNEY: And --
TODD: And every other C.R., every other time we've had a continuing resolution to keep the government open, when Democrats were in charge, they said, oh, you can't bring other issues in. You just have to clean C.R., clean vote. You've changed the way --
FINNEY: But this is -- COATES: Hold on. Is that the part you're talking about? Is that performance? What aspect do you see as the issue here? None of it?
LUNTZ: Both sides are at fault. And this is where I feel alone because I'm critical of both sides. But I know John Thune. I've known him now for 20 years. He doesn't do that. He has never done that. I'm sitting in green room, I'm watching the video of that, and I was shocked. And we got to stop demonizing.
COATES: But he doesn't do -- he doesn't do what? I want to be clear. I don't know --
LUNTZ: He doesn't get emotional. He doesn't say that on the floor of the Senate. That's not John Thune. We sit here and demonize these people, and it's wrong. We are creating so much hate, so much division. This is toxic. And I know this from my focus groups, from my polling, how angry, how divided we are as a country, and at some point, it gets too far. I want to apologize to you publicly for interrupting you. I should not have done that. But please, don't say --
FINNEY: It's not the first time you've done it. Probably won't be the last.
LUNTZ: So, I'm trying to apologize to her. This is what the problem is.
FINNEY: No.
LUNTZ: We reject each other, we're mean to each other, we mistreat each other. I did not come on the show to have this conversation, but it needs to be had. We both have to lower the decibel level and stop shouting at each other and respect each other.
COATES: So, I think part of the challenge that everyone is having is, one, it's shocking to me that a senator has never been passionate on the floor before, but I'm a passionate person, one.
But also, two, I -- I wonder if people are really concerned about decorum. They're concerned about the debit transactions that are coming out of their accounts without money coming in because while we're talking about the forum of the -- of the argument, there are people who cannot do anything besides stand in a food line.
[23:40:03]
And I know that all of you have very wonderful and storied careers, what you're doing. But for voters, I'm curious, come election day, give me your predictions, will this shutdown be the main reason that drives the voters and changes their mind on who to vote for?
TODD: I have a lot of polling in Virginia. I'm working on the attorney general's race there. And we've asked consistently, you know, what are your thoughts, from among voters there.
COATES: And? TODD: Virginia has 145,000 federal workers, second only to California. You know who they blame? It's about even.
COATES: Yeah.
TODD: About 43% blame Republicans, about 43% blame Democrats. Most of the rest of them blame both.
COATES: Do you agree?
TODD: No.
FINNEY: I mean, that's what we're seeing in the polls. I mean, although it sounds like people do think across the board, they would like to see the president bring people together and try to find a solution.
TODD: He will as soon as the Democrats reopen the government.
FINNEY: Well, he's busy. He's not even here in the country trying to take this seriously and bring -- I mean, again, you can't --
TODD: Thirteen times. They've voted 13 times to keep it closed.
FINNEY: But it's not a clean C.R., and you know that, Brad.
TODD: It is a clean C.R. The New York Times says it is. Politico says it is. The CNN says it is. Everyone says it's a clean C.R.
FINNEY: But it includes the rescissions, so that's part of the problem.
TODD: That's the last budget vote you lost. That's what the clean C.R. means. The framework comes from Joe Biden's C.R.
FINNEY: But do you -- people in your party are trying to say it's the one from 2024. It is not.
TODD: Karen --
COATES: Wait. Hold on. Clean C.R.? Tell me about the clean ballot. How are they going to fill in the bubbles? Republicans or Democrats?
LUNTZ: The Democrats have the advantage because the party that's in the out in the off-year tends to win.
COATES: Okay.
LUNTZ: And that's why the redistricting is so important. We're changing the rules in the middle of the game to help both sides. And we shouldn't be doing it because in the end, we have to trust our democracy, and I'm afraid we're losing that trust.
COATES: Audience, don't worry. During the break, we're all going to braid each other's hair. Thank you so much. There's big news for CNN this week here in the U.S. You can now stream "Laura Coates Live" whenever you want right in the CNN app. For more on this new experience, go to cnn.com/watch.
Hey, you know I'm coming back with a story. Illegal gambling, rig poker games, mafia ties. Miami Heat player Terry Rozier's lawyer is with me to give his side of the NBA gambling crisis. And ahead, Michael Jordan. He invokes his infamous "flu game" to put the current state of the league on notice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL JORDAN, BASKETBALL PLAYER: You have a duty that if they're wanting to see you and as an entertainer, I want to show, right? So, if the guys are coming to watch me play, I'll -- I don't want to miss that opportunity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The case against Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier is getting more and more curious because tonight, there's new reporting that Rozier owed $8.2 million in unpaid income taxes, according to an IRS tax lien filed in November of 2023.
Now, that date is really important because prosecutors alleged that just several months earlier, Rozier then on the Charlotte Hornets told his co-defendant he -- quote -- "was going to prematurely remove himself from the game in the first quarter due to a supposed injury and not return to play further."
Now, prosecutors then say Rozier's co-defendant passed along that information to others who placed bets on his performance during that very game. It's important to note, Rozier denies these allegations. In just a moment, we'll speak to his attorney.
But the other big development tonight, sources telling the AP that both Terry Rozier and Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups will not receive their salaries while they're on leave. What we're talking about? Well, Rozier was supposed to receive the first batch of his $26.6 million salary later on this week. Now, the NBA Players Association plans to file a grievance on Rozier's behalf, calling the move counter to the presumption of innocence.
Joining me now, Terry Rozier's attorney, James Trusty, who briefly represented President Trump in his federal election subversion and classified documents cases before withdrawing due to irreconcilable differences.
Jim, I'm glad you're here to talk about this presumption of innocence. You're talking to the right person. And you have also questioned prosecutors and their motivation, saying on the day that he was arrested -- quote -- "They wanted the misplaced glory of embarrassing a professional athlete with a perp walk. That tells you a lot about the motivations in this case." Tell me how you feel about the decision to do this sort of perp walk in this case. You don't think it's a worthwhile one.
JAMES TRUSTY, ATTORNEY FOR TERRY ROZIER: Well, let me -- let me make a couple of contextual distinctions right off the bat. You know, first of all, like in the lead up to this, you talked about corrupt poker games and Chauncey Billups and mafia. That's an entirely different indictment. And that's really the problem of having a press conference where you kind of combine things.
COATES: Hmm.
TRUSTY: And I understand that's how it works with DOJ. If there's a theme to the press conference, we're going to combine stuff. I used to be a DOJ prosecutor. I'm sure I had gang press conferences or organized crime press conferences that had the same effect.
But it's really unfortunate when you've got a client who didn't do anything criminally wrong here. At best, he relied on a bad friend and made a comment about being banged up at the end of an 82-game season. And suddenly, he's in the same breath being mentioned with this other indictment. So, start with the point that we're not part of the mafia case, not part of Chauncey Billups, not part of corrupt poker games or violence associated with that. We're in a different case.
And I have to say, look, I mean, you can only spend the resources worrying about the way they conducted themselves for so long.
[23:50:01]
But I will just say that, you know, they knew where to find me. They knew that Terry is no risk of flight. He's not going to like flee to Antarctica and try to hide. And so, the idea that they had to ambush him in a hotel at 6 in the morning in Orlando so they could put handcuffs on him briefly and make us scramble down to Florida and deal with an initial appearance, it was really wasteful.
It was driven by the press conference. They wanted to be able to say, we put handcuffs on this NBA opening day on three different NBA players. So, they kind of wrote the press release, and then had their conduct accord with it.
And that's just not the way to do justice. You know, all they had to do -- they called me at 6 a.m. and said, we're trying to arrest him, which was really absurd. All they had to do is say, hey, come up to New York. But that's not as sexy for the press release, for the press conference.
So, again, we could have gotten on a train and gotten to New York quicker than I got to Orlando, but they didn't want to do it that way. So, that is a bad sign. That does tend to make you think, hey, there's a little bit too much trophy hunting here --
COATES: Lets -- wait.
TRUSTY: -- and going on. And even the allegations. Go ahead. Sorry, Laura.
COATES: Let's go -- I want -- I want to go there. That's where I want to go because I -- certainly, there is already how the indictment has occurred. It is separate and distinct from the umbrella that has been described in that press conference.
But I am curious about the defense. And you are his attorney. And we've mentioned the new reporting that the IRS filed a tax lien to the tune of 8.2 million against him in November of 2023. That was months after he allegedly, and I recognize allegedly, took that out of the game, that co-conspirators placed prop bets on of some sort.
What is your response to this reporting and people's thought of, well, look at the salary, why would he be gambling? Did he need money? Is that part of your defense that says, no, that's the absurd part about this?
TRUSTY: No, he really didn't need money. He had $100 million contract. He had a very high value shoe contract at the same time. I'm going to get to that IRS lien, which is a big nothing burger.
COATES: Okay.
TRUSTY: But, look, this is a guy who doesn't -- doesn't gamble and didn't have the need to gamble. And, in fact, you know, they've even suggested in the indictment that he wasn't really hurt. It's absurd. I mean, almost any veteran player who's starting and playing day in and day out is pretty banged up by the end of the season. But for this particular season of the Hornets in '23, he was absolutely banged up. We're going to have all sorts of proof that he, in fact, had a foot injury that was legit.
And, by the way, he didn't play the next five or six games after this because the Hornets were out of the playoffs. He's banged up. And, by the way, not playing those six games cost him money on the shoot contract, which had an incentive for how many games you played. So, none of that is consistent with being some desperate gambler.
And let me add on the -- on the -- quote -- "$8 million lien." So, you know, this was a little bit of a surprise. We had to chase it down. I wish we could have chased it down before it started getting reported halfway. The reality is he had $8 million in tax obligations that year. All but $3,000 were paid in a timely fashion.
COATES: Hmm.
TRUSTY: The problem was some sort of CPA filing mishap where IRS said, well, we're just going to put the whole tax amount as a lien, which they did. And yeah, that's garbage, but they're allowed to do that kind of stuff.
So, there's a lien on the books for $8 million. The actual debt was $3,000. And now with, of course, penalty and interest, it's about three times that. But you're talking about $9,000 that's now been paid to try to get this lien off the books. And if we didn't have a government shutdown, maybe I can tell you the lien was off the books. But either way, that lien will come off the books.
And the idea that, again, this was some evidence of financial distress is just not there. It's just, you know, 3,000 bucks to a guy in the NBA is like, you know, $1.80 for me and maybe $6 for you. So --
COATES: Thanks for that salary boost. James Trusty, I'll follow this case. Thank you so much.
Michael Jordan, he's got a major bone to pick with today's NBA players. And it's got nothing to do with the gambling scandal. It has everything to do about actually playing. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Trade talks between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping has just wrapped up. We got senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes who is with me now from South Korea. Kristen, we are watching the driving away. We saw the start. Both leaders praising one another. What happened once the camera is turned off?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, that's a big question. We are still waiting for a readout from the White House. But I will tell you this, they walked out together. There was no animosity or tension, it seemed, as they talked, and then they went their separate ways.
Now, one thing that's interesting about this, I want to remind you of the last summit that President Trump had with a leader that was this one-on-one big setup consequential meeting, and that would have been with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. That sit-down meeting lasted roughly three to four hours. This was much shorter.
Now, there could be a number of reasons for this. We know that painstaking measures were taken on both sides to ensure that there was something to come to the table with when it came to a trade deal. So, the big question is, what exactly, if anything, was agreed on?
But a lot of these sticking points, those were things that had been worked out previously with U.S. and Chinese negotiators. That is why you saw so many of these different negotiators out there doing T.V. interviews feeling rather bullish about the potential for a deal here. So, of course, the big question is, was anything signed?
The other thing we want to know, in addition to a trade deal, was the TikTok deal finalized? That was something that we had heard was almost 100% done deal, but both of these leaders were going to have to actually sign the paper. Did they end up doing it? Did anything sticky come up in the process? And one thing to know, they are running almost exactly on time. That is almost unheard of for President Trump, but not necessarily unheard of for President Xi. Again, this was not necessarily just a long chatty meeting. They went in there with very specific goals. And so, the question is, what exactly did they come out with? What did they agree to? What concessions were made on both sides?
And Laura, one thing we're going to watch closely, how does this actually advance the ball? Does this take us back to just the baseline of where the United States and China once was or does this actually move forward? Because we have gone so far backward in that relationship, there are many people who are worried that this kind of deal will just move us just to the starting point.
COATES: Do you have a sense of when we might know the deliverables?
[00:00:00]
HOLMES: It is likely that we are going to hear while they are on the plane on the way home. President Trump has to get back to the White House. He has promised the first lady he will be there for Halloween, meaning they have to take off rather quickly. So likely, in the air, very long flight, is when we're going to learn details of what came out of that meeting.
COATES: So much important information. Kristen Holmes, got to keep us posted as you always do. Thank you so much for being there.
And thank you all so much for watching. Up next, "The Story with Elex Michaelson." It's coming up now.
