Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Reverses On Epstein Files; Judge Says Comey Indictment May be Tainted by 'Profound Investigative Missteps'; Trump Defends Tucker Carlson's Nick Fuentes Interview; Trump Feuds With Marjorie Taylor Greene; Simpson Estate To Pay Fraction Of $58 Million Claim To Goldman Family. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 17, 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: As some people have suggested.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Who gets the wage if there is no customer service person?

PHILLIP: I know. I'm just saying.

JENNINGS: Who gets the wages?

PHILLIP: I mean, yeah, you're right, like you go to the airport, you check out of the --

JENNINGS: Yeah --

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: -- 80 bucks for a water.

PHILLIP: -- add a 20% tip. It's like no.

JENNINGS: Terrible.

PHILLIP: No, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

No, Mr. Robot. All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." And don't miss my discussion, a powerful one, featuring influential women exploring the theme of the CNN new film, "Prime Minister." "Prime Minister the Conversation" is now streaming exclusively on the CNN app. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the big Epstein reversal. A MAGA revolt sparks Trump to shift gears on releasing those files. But will it be the courts that have the next say on whether they actually come out? Plus, is the case against James Comey already about to fall apart? Well, the federal judge -- I mean, scolds would be nice -- Trump's hand-picked prosecutor, saying Lindsey Halligan may have botched it from the very beginning. And three decades late and millions of dollars short, O.J. Simpson's estate finally agrees to pay Ron Goldman's father. There will be a far cry for ways actually owed. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, that scandal we've all been talking about for what feels like forever, the one where nearly everyone at some point has been screaming, release the Epstein files, well, guess what? Right now, more than ever before, it looks like that may actually happen because President Trump, the one who has been trying to block their release for months as head of the executive branch, is now suddenly saying, yeah, sure, put them out there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm all for it. You know, we've already given 50,000 pages. You do know that. They can do whatever they want. We'll give them everything.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You would sign it if it comes to your desk?

TRUMP: Sure, I would. Let the --- let the Senate look at it. Let anybody look at it. But don't talk about it too much because, honestly, I don't want to take it away from us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, yes, put it out there, but don't talk about it too much. Maybe don't look. Well, that's some wishful thinking. But why did Trump change course? GOP Congressman Thomas Massie says Trump finally told himself, you can't beat them, join them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Well, he got tired of us winning, and he decided to join us. Uh, look, they could have done this four months ago. And instead, they fought us every bit of the way. Now, they want to be on our side. We'll accept their support. But we're, you know, a little bit suspicious of this sudden turn of events.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I would be. The House vote on releasing the files could happen as soon as tomorrow, though. And some are predicting it could pass unanimously. Now, this is a wild turn in a saga that has engulfed nearly all of government. You've got the executive through Trump's DOJ that frankly could have released the files on their own. All of them. They didn't. Trump, the president, says he's on board. He could order them released. He hasn't. So, the legislative branch stepped in and basically told Trump's DOJ, fine, if the DOJ won't do it, we'll make you, which brings us to today.

The MAGA dam in Congress seems to have broken. And now, the president is saying he's all for it. But what happens if this does make it all the way to Trump's desk? Well, I say you're going to have to enter the judicial branch. And I can tell you, from a lawyer's perspective, we are about to open illegal floodgates.

Look at this key line from the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Quote -- "No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary."

So, play that with me for a second. Let's say everything is released unredacted, except for identifiable information for survivors, okay? But, I mean, for everyone else, their names and any piece of information about them that may have been collected, even if it never led to charges or didn't warrant a further investigation, it's all going to be out there in a matter of seconds.

And here's where this gets particularly complicated. There's actually a reason that law enforcement and the DOJ give that standard spiel about not commenting on ongoing investigations.

[23:04:59]

It's not just a schoolyard taunt of that's for me to know and you to find out. It's because they're aware, as are you, that they would open themselves up to lawsuits if they indict someone in the court of public opinion without having a basis to indict them in a court of law, possibly.

Like it or not, many of you perhaps not, there are real privacy protections for people who are investigated but never charged or whose name is in a file without any connection to a crime, because once your name is in a file like this, it goes public, there may be no un- ringing that bell. And when everything is hanging in the balance and you can start to hear those bells, you can bet there'll be a fight to possibly stop them from being released. Litigation may happen. In fact, it's likely to happen. Lawsuits, injunction relief requests.

Here's the thing. If you try to sue to get your name out of those files, well, congratulations, because you have just exposed yourself. I have just described the very definition of a catch-22. It's also not a foreign position for the courts to be in. They routinely -- they balance the public interests against private interests all the time. Think of those scales.

If the public's interest outweighed the privacy concerns, it could fatally undermine any claim someone may have for feeling like they are being targeted by guilt by association. And if it becomes law to release those files, well, the court's hands, they're not handcuffed permanently, but they are tied, because short of finding the law unconstitutional, let's say there's not much a plaintiff could do.

But then weigh that helplessness against the helplessness of the survivors. How will our society, let alone the courts, balance those two? Well, if you answer that question, then you will understand justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): These women have never seen justice, just like most women in this country who never get to have their day in court, who never get to face their abuser and to see them put in prison. These are real women. They have real stories, they have real lives, they have real devastation that is never ending. This is the kind of thing that lasts -- lasts a lifetime. And I -- and I don't know that they'll ever heal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to begin with an attorney representing several Epstein survivors, including Maria Farmer, the first survivor to report Epstein's crimes all the way back in 1996. Jennifer Freeman joins me now. Just hearing that number, 1996, is mind-boggling for a lot of reasons. But I wonder from your perspective, given what potentially could come, should any of the survivors be concerned or thinking about the way in which the answers are going to come?

JENNIFER FREEMAN, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN SURVIVORS: The answers in the documents you're talking about?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FREEMAN: Well, the survivors are prepared. We've been prepared for a long time, for decades really, and been asking for the release of the files, been asking for transparency way back since 1996. We've been trying through FOIA requests and otherwise to get, for example, Maria Farmer's documents from 1996 and 2006. And we were told we -- last FOIA request was January 2025, and we were told we would get an answer, not necessarily the documents, an answer in November 2027, which is obviously unacceptable.

COATES: Ninety-six to 2027.

FREEMAN: Yes.

COATES: Talk to me about why the files' release was so important. Some people might wonder, if she has survived it, if she has endured it, she could recall it and would not want to relive it through the disclosure of documents. Explain why this is important.

FREEMAN: There has been so much reliving in this case for so many years. I mean, the burden really has been on the survivors to bring this forward, to bring attention to this, to get to this point, because this has been one of the largest government and law enforcement failures in U.S. history. And the failure to release the files in any kind of prompt fashion is another aspect to that. Thankfully, it sounds like we're getting very close to remedying that piece, which is really terrific.

COATES: Many survivors had been enraged, frankly, at being called members of a hoax, at being disparaged in many ways, being dismissed. Then the president of United States has had a bit of a U-turn, wanting now and saying that he wants the files to be released, although he is probably the executive branch that could simply release them. How the survivors felt about his U-turn?

FREEMAN: Well, certainly, that's very welcome at this point. [23:10:00]

It's a long time coming.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FREEMAN: But we really -- remember, this is not a political issue. This has been going on through at least five different presidential administrations of different Democrats and Republicans. So, there's really nothing political about this. This is about a crime, sex trafficking, child pornography. These are crimes. It shouldn't be about politics at all.

COATES: In that commercial of sorts, seeing that five presidential administrations part was just unnerving for so many people to realize how long this has been going on for these survivors.

FREEMAN: Uh-hmm.

COATES: We have a clip actually I want to play for everyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: This is me when I met Jeffrey Epstein.

UNKNOWN: This is me when I met Jeffrey Epstein.

UNKNOWN: There are about a thousand of us.

UNKNOWN: It's time to bring the secrets out of the shadows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That struck me for two reasons. One, the pain that they were obviously still experiencing, but also having to remind people that the grown women that we see today talking about being survivors is a far cry from the young girls and young women that they were having to endure this.

FREEMAN: That's exactly right. The ages are somewhere around 14, 15, 16, 17 and up. Too -- you know, too young -- too young women. This was what he was, Epstein, and perhaps Maxwell also were interested in abusing. It's -- it's -- it's really distressing. The whole thing has been distressing, disheartening because they've been discredited, they've been disbelieved. And that has been horrific way back since 1996 --

COATES: Yeah.

FREEMAN: -- when Maria Farmer first blew the whistle. She was the first person to report, and she hasn't been -- and many people not have come forward and tried to discredit her. And part of the beauty about releasing the files will hopefully support her so that she's validated finally and the other survivors are validated, which is very important. COATES: It is. To hear their experiences, it's top of mind for me,

certainly. I want to know what tomorrow will bring. It'll be a very big day on Capitol Hill. A long time coming, even for a vote and a discharge petition. There's also going be a message from the survivors on the Hill. What will it be?

FREEMAN: The message is that this needs to happen. This is important for survivors to be heard, to be believed, to be credited. And that -- it's not just about the Epstein survivors, it's about all the survivors of sex trafficking and child pornography. They need to be heard and believed. And the government needs to do their job, which they failed to do. They need to do their job and protect children and young women.

COATES: Finally, will the survivors' names be redacted? Is that what you want?

FREEMAN: The survivors' names should be redacted, and identifying information about them. That is what's in the bill. That should be happening. What I'm more concerned about is what else is going to be redacted because perhaps, there'll be redactions that don't make any sense to me.

COATES: Such as?

FREEMAN: Such as redactions of people that were involved with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. That's what we're more concerned about. Have the documents. Are they really going to come forward in full force?

COATES: Remains to be seen. Thank you, Jennifer.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Laura. Really good to be with you.

COATES: Thank you. Let me bring in the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. Congressman, thank you for being here. I am still wrapping my mind around this U-turn from the president the United States. Why do you think he is changing his mind, if he truly is, on the Epstein vote?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The president could clearly read the writing on the wall. He was going to lose in a landslide on the floor. So, rather than get run over by the parade of people demanding transparency in the truth, he decided to scoot on over and get in front of the parade as best as he could.

But everybody needs to understand that if Donald Trump wants to see the complete Epstein file released, he doesn't need to wait for the House vote, he doesn't have to need to wait for it to go through the Senate.

And to Bessent, he could release it tonight, he could release it tomorrow, as Kash Patel emphasized, as the attorney general emphasized. It's within their possession.

COATES: So, what will be the impact on the Senate, your Republican colleagues, if the president is already willing, although as you point out, he's already able to do so?

RASKIN: Well, that's why we want to make sure that, um, the president doesn't somehow work with the Senate to throw up roadblocks. I mean, the minute they begin to post graffiti on the legislation and to try to add amendments and so on --

COATES: Do you expect that to happen?

RASKIN: -- slows the whole thing down. Well, no.

[23:15:00]

I mean, you know, we want to trust, but we want to verify. We want the president to say, if he's for real, that he will sign it, as he said today, and he will encourage the Senate not to touch it, not to mess around with any amendments, to vote on it promptly so he can sign it, and it will become the law. And then at that point, um, you know, he can go forward and do what he should have done ever since the subpoena was issued.

Remember, not only does he have the power and opportunity to release everything in these investigative files and materials, he has a subpoena. His administration has a subpoena compelling them to turn it over. And they haven't done it. They've been releasing dribs and drabs and this piece or that piece that they think will not be too damaging.

And we're just way beyond that point. The vast majority of the people in the House of Representatives and the vast majority of Americans are demanding a complete accounting and cut out all the political gains.

COATES: What if Republicans do vote in force to release the files tomorrow as might be expected? What impact would that have?

RASKIN: Well, let's hope at that point, the members of the Senate will see the unstoppable momentum. They will resist any opportunity or any entreaty to play games with it, to slow it down, to muck it up, to post graffiti on it, um, and they'll just vote on it. Then at that point, this will not just be a subpoena with the force of law, which it already is, but it will be federal law compelling the administration to release the file. This has been going on for decades, as Ms. Freeman said.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RASKIN: And we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of victims who demand an accounting now. And there are lots of co-conspirators still out there, and we need to make sure there's a full accounting of who participated in these crimes against children.

COATES: You know, I wonder from last week when the president was ordering the DOJ, which -- trust me, that phrase in and of itself, the president ordering the DOJ. But to investigate the Epstein links, possibly to Democrats, including former president, Bill Clinton, um, others were named as well, did you have a concern that that could stall or even stop the release of files based on a so-called new investigation? And if it does create, not the graffiti of, say, the Senate or members of the House mucking it up, does it present a hurdle about how you can actually get the files out?

RASKIN: Well, first of all, it debunks what the Department of Justice did right when Trump got back in office. Remember, they summoned all of the investigative materials and all the files --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RASKIN: -- and then they declared the investigation over. They said there was nothing to see there and there were no further prosecutions to be had. Now, suddenly, Donald Trump has changed his mind, and he's ordering the Department of Justice to go ahead and investigate the people he wants to see investigated.

What we need is for all of the files to come out and then for an authentic investigation of all of the crimes without regard to political party. It's amazing to me that this president really believes that justice in America has got to be a weapon of partisan vengeance rather than just a reckoning with the facts of particular cases and then the force of the law.

COATES: You've been criticized from your comments over the weekend about the Democratic Party being a big tent party, not that party, but big enough to incorporate and envelop Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, as an example, speaking of her change of mind as it relates to the president of the United States. What is your reaction to those who question whether she could truly ever be invited into that type of circle?

RASKIN: Well, all I meant to say was that anybody who's willing to leave behind, uh, all of the cruelty and injustice and authoritarianism of the Republican Party is welcome in the party of democracy and freedom. And I have no idea exactly what's going on with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but obviously, she's had it up to hear with a lot of the lying with respect to the Epstein files and the lying about health care and the inability of the Republican Party to produce any progress on health care.

So, you know, that's all I was saying. I don't have any expectation that Marjorie Taylor Greene is coming over. But I was in Florida where David Jolly, a former Republican congressman, is a Democratic candidate for governor. And I hear from Republicans every single day who say they can't take it anymore and they're coming over. And so, I just want to make the point that the Democratic Party is open to everybody who wants to stand up for our Constitution and our bill of rights.

COATES: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you.

[23:20:00]

RASKIN: You bet.

COATES: Well, next, a federal judge says there's been a -- quote -- "disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps." Is the James Comey case tainted? Does it mean it isn't clear? I'll explain the embarrassing day in court for the DOJ. And today, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's sorry. President Trump calls her a traitor. Is she the first MAGA domino to fall?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: When Trump nominated a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience at all to lead one of the most prestigious U.S. attorney's offices in the country and ultimately, of course, indict James Comey, people wondered whether her inexperience would be a liability. Well, today, it looks like yes. Yes, it was.

[23:25:00]

It may lead to the case being dismissed. First, forget what they tell you about a prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich. It makes it seem like there are no guardrails in place, that anything goes, and that prosecutors can get away with whatever they want, including injustice. Well, trust me, I've been a prosecutor, and they do have a tremendous amount of power.

First of all, only the prosecutor, a witness, a court reporter, maybe a language interpreter, and the grand jurors are in that room. No defendant, no defense counsel, no judge, which means, of course, no real exclusion of any evidence or statement. No hearsay objections or rulings that restrict what the witness can say or what the grand jurors can see. In fact, the grand jurors could even ask questions of the witness or even the prosecutor who's supposed to be their aide. They even have subpoena power.

But even with all of that power, there are actually some constraints. The biggest one, you can't manipulate the process. And in a scathing 24-page opinion, the court questioned the process in at least three ways. First, they claim they didn't use a valid warrant to get evidence for this new charge. They say they used a five-year-old warrant that was for another investigation because they wouldn't have had the time to get a new warrant and an investigation underway before the clock ran out on the ability to charge Comey. Remember, they had just 18 days left.

Second, that trove of documents and whatever they may have been able to rely on apparently included attorney-client privilege information that, of course, they were not allowed to use. Not only did Comey never agree to release the privilege, it's the client who owns it, he didn't seem to have a choice because he wasn't involved in even the filtering of the information.

And finally, the prosecutor may have misstated the law in critical ways, including that Comey would somehow have to testify, he doesn't have to testify, you know that, or that they could assume the government had other evidence, even better evidence at trial, not just what I'm showing you here. No. And so, here we are, wondering what the fate of this indictment will ultimately be.

I'm joined now by a former insider at the DOJ, Mike Gordon, a former January 6 prosecutor who was actually fired by the attorney general, Pam Bondi. Michael, good to see you. I mean, I have to say my head was spinning, having done so many grand jury proceedings, what the judge has said here. Have you ever heard something like this happening before at DOJ? It's quite an embarrassment for the department who is renowned and known for being able to secure valid indictments.

MICHAEL GORDON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Now, short answer, Laura, no. My head was spinning when I saw this order, and I read it, too. Seeing what happened here and calling these rookie mistakes is unfair to rookies.

COATES: Hmm.

GORDON: The things that appear to have been done in the grand jury in this instance are things that not only lawyers learn not to do in law school, but also baby prosecutors get beaten into their heads when they join the Department of Justice. I'm appalled.

COATES: Well, she was not a prosecutor before. I know that all lawyers are presumed generalists. But prosecutors, given the power that they have, are on a different scale of what they can be presumed to know, as you well know. This was a case that, apparently, no other prosecutor wanted to take and wasn't even in the room with her, maybe even to assist with the mistakes that seem to have been made, which is why she ended up doing it. How will this impact this particular indictment?

GORDON: Well, we're going to have to see this week, Laura, what happens next? So, today, the government immediately moved and asked the district judge to stay the magistrate's judge order, essentially to put it on pause --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GORDON: -- while they appealed. The district judge said, okay, government, you have just two days until Wednesday, the end of the day, to file any objections. And then defense, Comey's attorneys, you have until Friday to answer those. And then after that, the district judge is going to decide whether or not Comey's defense team gets to receive the grand jury materials, meaning the transcript of the grand jury presentation as well as whatever exhibits were presented to the grand jurors.

COATES: And that's important because grand jury exhibits and evidence and testimony and all of it doesn't normally come out. You have to get permission because it's done in secret. They're only a probable cause jury. They're not a guilt or innocence. But the idea of them being able to get it, the court seemed to find, look, there was an overwhelming reason to believe that he ought to be able to review it for the reasons I've laid out.

[23:30:00]

If he's able to show --

GORDON: Right. And Laura --

COATES: -- these things, then what? Go ahead.

GORDON: Right. That's exactly right. That's what happens next. So, once -- if the Comey team receives that information, they'll get a chance to review it. And then what inevitably is going to come next is a motion to dismiss the case from Comey's team based on prosecutorial misconduct. Then we'll see what the judge rules. But if the judge finds prosecutorial misconduct, this case is over.

COATES: That's huge to think about that even being a prospect. And, of course, remember, the limitations period has run. It was only 18 days. That might be the fatal blow. But we don't know yet. Don't want to get ahead of it. But this court opinion, very significant, right?

GORDON: Yes, indeed.

COATES: Mike Gordon, thank you so much.

GORDON: You got it. Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, it is the existential crisis at the heart of American conservatism. Tucker Carlson's Nick Fuentes interview and the president is defending it. Plus, O.J. Simpson's estate agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: After weeks of silence, President Trump is now defending Tucker Carlson's decision to interview white nationalist and Holocaust denier, Nick Fuentes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've had some great interviews with Tucker Carlson. But you can't tell him who to interview. I mean, if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes, I don't know much about him, but if he wants to do it, get the word out. Let him -- you know, people have to decide. Ultimately, people have to decide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: There, Trump claims not to know much about Nick Fuentes. But I will remind you, Trump had dinner with Fuentes and rapper Kanye West at Mar-a-Lago back in 2022. Carlson's interview with Fuentes has exposed a widening rift within the government within Trump's MAGA movement over antisemitism, a reckoning my next guest says was long overdue.

James Kirchick joins me now. He's also the global reporter for Axel Springer. Glad you're here, James. I mean, look, Carlson had this to say to "The New York Times" on his current relationship with the president. He said, "I've never gotten along better with him. He's never been nicer." Is the president miscalculating the staying power of this controversy?

JAMES KIRCHICK, GLOBAL REPORTER, AXEL SPRINGER: I think he is. And I think your clip didn't show it. But the first thing he said when asked about Tucker's interview was, Tucker said a lot of nice things about me. And that's really what it boils down to. I mean, if you remember back years ago, when he was being asked about Putin, what do you think about Putin's rule of Russia and his invasion of Ukraine? He said, well, he has called me brilliant, he has called me brilliant, he called me very nice things, you wanted me to say something bad about him?

So, I don't read too deep into this. It's not like Donald Trump is a Nazi or approves of Nazism. I really think in terms of his response to this controversy, it was simply the fact that if someone likes him, it doesn't really matter how repulsive they are. He's going to, you know, bask in that adoration.

COATES: We'll cut to somebody who's not giving adoration these days, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Georgia, where she certainly has been critical of the president of the United States and has in turn lost his endorsement and beyond. But you have an op-ed in "The Washington Post" titled, "How Tucker Carlson Instigated an Inevitable War Within MAGA." Why was the rift inevitable?

KIRCHICK: Because when Donald Trump ran for president, I actually wrote a piece 10 years ago, and I said, Donald Trump is the candidate of the mob, and the mob always comes for the Jews. And so, I think it's -- you can hold two ideas in your head. I can say that Donald Trump has been a great president for Israel, been very pro-Israel. I think he has been a great president for the Middle East. I personally don't think he's an anti-Semite. His daughter is an Orthodox Jew. She converted to Judaism. He has Jewish grandchildren. I don't think he's an anti-Semite.

But because he's such a xenophobe and a nativist and a conspiracy theorist, and he has this inability to criticize anyone who says something nice about him, he let all these people into his movement, like Tucker and like Nick Fuentes and lots of other unseemly characters. And it was only a matter of time now with Trump -- you know, he's leaving the stage soon. He's not going to run again. He's not going be president forever.

And we're seeing now this fight between the more mainstream Republicans, if you will, the pro-Israel majority of Republicans, and this small but very loud wing who see Pat Buchanan as their sort of intellectual load star, and they're now fighting over the future of the post-Trump Republican Party.

COATES: Well, who might win? That's a lot of, uh, dust to be left in the wake if Trump is obviously not running again. And yet, he has quite a hold on the party. What happens next if this divide grows?

KIRCHICK: Well, a lot is going to have to do with J.D. Vance because J.D. Vance is the vice president. J.D. Vance, in some ways, owes his being on the ticket and being vice president to Tucker Carlson, who, uh, lobbied very hard for him and, according to reports, was very convincing and played a major role in convincing Trump to choose J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance also employs Tucker's son as his deputy press secretary. J.D. Vance has not weighed in on this other than attacking a random person on Twitter who was asking whether or not Tucker's son shared the views of his father.

And I think it's very, um, unfortunate that J.D. Vance n has not said anything about this. I think it's very telling that he hasn't said anything about this, uh, because it's not sending a good signal as to which side he's on. Is he on the side of Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson in the extreme right-wing, antisemitic, racist, nativist wing of the Republican Party, or is he on the side of the -- what I think is the majority of Republican voters who do not think Nazism is something that we should be discussing as if it's a rational idea?

[23:40:11]

COATES: It's difficult to reconcile a politician with the future not being able to clearly say and show which extreme he is on, frankly, on that point.

KIRCHICK: Well, look, as a journalist, you're a journalist, I've interviewed a lot of nasty people in my career. I've interviewed Nazis, I've interviewed Islamists, I've interviewed communists. That's not the problem. What Tucker did was thawing over a Nazi for 90 minutes. The only criticism -- I watched that interview.

The only criticism Tucker had of Fuentes, if you can even call it criticism, he said, you know, you shouldn't criticize the Jews because then it's easy for people to call you an anti-Semite. You should be a little more, you know, discriminating in which Jews you attack is being disloyal. So, that aspect of the interview was so appalling, and I think there's -- the reason why, three weeks later, we're still talking about it.

COATES: Silence speaks volumes. Thank you so much, James.

KIRCHICK: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Tonight, there are more cracks deepening within Trump's MAGA movement. President Trump has broken with longtime ally, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, calling her now a traitor for reasons Greene says all come down to the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): He called me a traitor. And that is -- that is so extremely wrong. And those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger. I would like to say humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's -- it's very bad for our country.

And it has been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, is that we -- I'm only responsible for myself and my own words and actions. And I am going -- I'm committed. I've been working on this a lot lately to put down the knives in politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another. And we need to figure out a new path forward that is focused on the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Joining me at the table, campaign veterans Karen Finney and Lance Trover. Karen, there's a new nickname out there. It's coming from the president of United States and it's in response to Marjorie Taylor Greene. Listen to this.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Okay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't think her life is in danger. Frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, he called her a traitor. She complained that that would put her life in risk, which he's responding to. He once said that he wouldn't want her as an enemy. But he's got one now, it seems.

FINNEY: Well, I don't know if they're necessarily enemies. I'm sort of skeptical about what's really going on here.

COATES: What do you think is happening?

FINNEY: Who knows? But, you know, look, any kind of call for political violence or any time you would think that the president would by now be a lot more aware of the fact that -- I mean, whether she's getting death threats or not, words have consequences, particularly when it comes from the president of the United States.

You know, this whole sort of 180 has been interesting to watch. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm starting to become one just around this because I'm curious. So, you know, I'm watching this and thinking, what's the angle? What's the -- you know, what's her angle there?

The only the other thing I will say though, I respect the fact that she has stood by the Epstein survivors. I think that has been very important. And I hope it means they get justice.

COATES: Do you share her skepticism?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Skepticism of --

COATES: Marjorie Taylor Greene's about face?

TROVER: I -- look, here's what I know politically. The president of the United States still polls around in the low to mid-90s with an approval rating with the Republican Party. So, if she wants to go and cast aspersions and attack him and do all that stuff, she can do that, go on "The View" and run around with lefties in "The View" if she wants to do that, then she's going have to deal with the consequences of that. She's going to have to deal with the president's anger when she says things like, oh, his, you know, agenda is not America first. And she's going to have to deal --

COATES: Well, there has been more than just her who has complained about the absence of straight America first policies.

TROVER: All I'm saying is, politically, she's going to have to deal with that. So, she can get out and be mad about some of the stuff he's saying. But also, she may have to answer to her voters as well, which is a very Republican district. And again, the president's approval rating with Republican voters is in the low to mid-90s.

COATES: So, when you think about that approval rating and him being known as at times a bit of a kingmaker --

FINNEY: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- the fact that she is apologizing for toxicity --

FINNEY: Hmm.

COATES: -- does that speak to a greater climate that we have Democrats and Republicans needing to adapt to?

FINNEY: I certainly would hope so. It would -- I would love to believe that that is an era that we're entering. I suspect that part of what's going on with her is something that we're seeing throughout the Republican Party, which is this recognition that there will be a day after Donald Trump.

[23:45:02]

There will be a day when you have to face your own voters and whether that is concerns on health care, keeping a promise on releasing the Epstein reports, Epstein files. You know, she may also have some -- she's at Republican district, but people are also having to pay too much for their health care, people are also seeing that the cost of groceries has not come down, inflation is still too high. So, she, like others in the Republican Party, also are sort of wedged between loyalty to Trump or the people who elected her.

TROVER: It's not dissimilar, though, on what is going on in the Democratic Party as well. They're still trying to find their way, right? I mean, there's the Axios lead tonight. There are groups trying to kick Chuck Schumer out of his leadership job. Hakeem Jeffries has a primary opponent now because these New Yorkers are not considered liberal enough for the Democratic Party. So, in the same vein, they're dealing with their own issues on their side as well.

COATES: Certainly, what -- it sounds like both sides have to think about the future, what it will look like. Karen and Lance, thank you so much. Up next, O.J. Simpson's estate agreeing to pay Ron Goldman's father a staggering 58 million bucks. Do they have those funds? What if they don't? Joey Jackson answers that and my other burning questions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: We got a new twist in one of the most high-profile criminal trials in American history. I'm talking about the O.J. Simpson case. Tonight, Simpson's estate is accepting a $58 million claim from the father of Ron Goldman, one of the people that O.J. Simpson was charged and later found not guilty of the brutal 1994 killings.

Don't forget that just a few years after being acquitted, a civil court found O.J. liable for the wrongful deaths of both Goldman and Simpson's former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. He was ordered to pay over $33 million to their families following that verdict. But the vast majority of those damages went unpaid before he died of cancer just over a year ago.

Here to break it down, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. Joey, you know, as you know, the fact that the estate accepted this massive claim does necessarily mean they're going to actually be able to pay it or Ron Goldman's family will actually see the money. So, what should everyone expect here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yeah, that's absolutely right, Laura. So, there's the acceptance of the claim, which basically means that it's valid. But with regard to it actually being paid out really is determined by two things. Number one is the total amount of the estate that O.J. Simpson has or his estate has in order to pay the claim. And then number two, in what order of priority is that claim? In an English, what that means is if there are tax and other debts, they take first priority. And if there's anything left over, then anything could be used to satisfy this.

So, I don't think at the end of the day that they are going to see anywhere near the claimed $58 million. They'll see some portion of that, but it will be insignificant compared to the total that they're seeking.

COATES: Or, of course, as you know, the loss of life that they were fighting for at the civil side at the very least. But the estate says they're hoping to round up to $1 million in total assets. The math ain't mathing when it comes to what they're asking for. But how else could the family get what they're owed if the estate can't pay? Is it just at that point awash?

JACKSON: So, it really is, Laura. So, what happens is there is a distinction between winning a civil award, right? When I say civil, we know, as you noted, it was the criminal trial. He was acquitted, that he is found not guilty with respect to the deaths of Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. But then, of course, he would suit civilly, and that's all the system has, is to remedy in terms of money.

But there is a distinction between given an award by the jury. And to be clear, the jury awarded about $33.5 million in damages to both Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JACKSON: And so, that was awarded. But with regard to actually collecting it, that's a different story. The person has the money. If you don't have the money, you're called judgment proof. You cannot ever, right, get blood from a stone. And so, at the end of the day, the amount of money awarded is going to be contingent upon the amount of money at hand. There are some celebrities who died, who have estates aplenty, and those estates continue to accrue money all the time because of their celebrity.

In O.J. Simpson's case, Laura, that is not the case. And as a result, this could be an instance where although you have this award, you do not have the money to back it up, in which case you walk away incomplete. That is without getting the total judgment of the satisfied.

COATES: And, of course, we're not forgetting about the family of Nicole Brown Simpson who's supposed to share this. This case in particular was about Ron Goldman's family. That's why we're not mentioning her here. Joey Jackson, thank you so much.

Up next, always a bridesmaid, never a bride. That cliche was all too real for Tom Cruise. Always nominated, never an Oscar winner. That is until now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here in the nation's capital, which means it is time to check in with our friend and CNN anchor Elex Michaelson out on the West Coast. Elex, listen, a career spanning over four decades, many box office hits, and at last, the king of the movies, Tom Cruise, has gotten his long overdue Oscar. It's an honorary one. Listen to part of the speech he gave.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM CRUISE, FILM ACTOR AND PRODUCER: In that theater, we laugh together, we feel together, we hope together, we dream together. And that is the power of this art form. That is why it matters. That is why it matters to me. So, making films is not what I do, it is who I am. And I want you to know that I will always do everything I can to help this art form, to support and champion new voices, to protect what makes cinema powerful, and, you know, hopefully, without too many more broken bones.

[00:00:01]

That would be nice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I love his movies. I love them all. What's your favorite?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: So, my favorite is "A Few Good Men" because -- I mean, I love the -- the Aaron Sorkin writing is so perfect in that scene with Jack Nicholson. It is one of the great scenes of all time. Although "Top Gun Maverick" is pretty close to a perfect movie for that genre.

COATES: I watched it like 10 times.

MICHAELSON: It was so amazing.

COATES: I love it all. I love "A Few Good Men." I love "Rain Man." I love them all. I love Tom Cruise. Have a great show. I'm going to watch him right now.

(LAUGHTER)