Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

New Video Shows Pretti and Agents Clashing 11 Days Before His Death; Rep. Jasmine Crockett Speaks Out After Seeing Five-Year-Old in ICE Custody; FBI Seizes 2020 Ballots; Bruce Springsteen Releases Protest Song; Brendan Banfield Takes the Stand. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 28, 2026 - 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: -- to support the anti-ICE protests in Minnesota. Listen

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Springsteen says the song is dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, innocent immigrants, and the memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, new video of Alex Pretti showing a clash with agents nearly two weeks before he was killed. But does it impact the investigation into whether they should have used deadly force two weeks later? Plus, what it's like inside the detention facility holding little five-year-old Liam. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett got to see him today and describes the condition she found him in. She will join me tonight to discuss. And later, Democrats pouncing on what they say is a dangerous, politically-motivated investigation as the FBI reportedly seizes 20-20 ballots from Fulton County, Georgia. What's happening? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

You know, I cannot tell you how many people reached out to me tonight to ask me this very question: Does that new video of Alex Pretti's kicking that tail light interacting with federal agents almost two weeks before he was killed? Does it make a difference in the investigation into whether officers were right to shoot, let alone kill him? Well, if the investigation were about whether Pretti had ever protested before, then yeah, it'd be totally relevant what he was doing then.

But that's not what is or would be being investigated, at least not with the DOJ of yesteryear, when someone is killed by law enforcement, because any past conduct or interactions that are unknown to the officers at the time of the shooting, that would be totally irrelevant to an investigation into whether they were right to use deadly force based on what was happening that day. Let me explain why. Because this new encounter happened 11 days before Pretti was shot and killed. In this video that I'm going to show you, it has no audio because the footage has a reporter talking over it. That has been stripped away. And I want you just to hear and see with your own eyes what's happening. Watch closely.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to play that again, but I'm going to walk you through what lawyers like myself will see when they watch this, let alone civil rights attorneys like I am as well.

Well, the video starts with Pretti shouting at federal agents inside their car. Now, we don't know what happened before this moment. You see him. He kicks the car's taillight as it's driving away. It comes to a stop. Several agents get out, and they moved toward Pretti, and you see him tackled to the ground. And there's a struggle that lasts for several seconds until Pretti gets up and moves away from the agents. And at one point, we see what looks like a gun tucked inside of his waistband. Now, it's unclear whether any of the officers actually saw it. They don't disarm him. Instead, they walked away.

Now, there's a second angle from this encounter after the agents get out of their car.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(WHISTLE)

(BLEEP)

COATES: Now, Pretti was eventually asked if he was OK by the person who was recording the video.

UNKNOWN: Are you OK? Are you OK?

ALEX PRETTI, SHOOTING VICTIM: I'm OK.

UNKNOWN: Are you OK?

PRETTI: I'm OK. I'm OK. Are we all OK? Are we all safe? Are we OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right, now, these videos, they're a snapshot. If I had it on my desk, I would have it and think, all right, this is that moment in time. And they're already adding fuel to the battle over what's happening in Minneapolis, as you can imagine.

[23:05:01]

But that snapshot on my timeline of whether to investigate further, it would be the timeline of 11 days before Pretti was killed, not from the moment I would be investigating when he was shot on January 24th. And that freeze frame, it's what the law investigating whether there has been a violation of civil rights or excessive force. That's what that would care about.

What did the agents know and see at the time of the shooting? What would a reasonable officer believe in that instant? Because that is the legal standard. The Supreme Court will tell you it's about objective reasonableness at the moment that force was used. It's not based on what you and I would think is reasonable based on what you would do unless you're an officer. Let me correct that. If you're another officer in a similar situation. And here, they're not hypothetical. There were other officers in that exact situation, and I would factor that in as well.

Now, you and I can Monday morning quarterback this all we want. But it comes down to one question if I'm looking at it through the lens of an investigative prosecutor. Did the officers who fired the shots reasonably believe that Pretti posed an imminent threat at that moment? Because that's the closed universe of facts that a legal case would actually turn on.

I mean, I've investigated civil rights claims. And trust me, you will expand your timeline to exhaustively research all the facts related to all the key players in your investigation. You'll know a lot about the person who was killed, and the officers who shot, and anyone else who was around witnessing, because prosecutors don't want to be blindsided by a fact that might be relevant to the moment they're looking at.

But your legal conclusions come down not to that expansive timeline of everything that was known, but to the moment of what was known at the time of the shooting and the alleged crime.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told CNN in tonight's town hall that this new video, he thinks, has no bearing on what happened to Pretti when he was actually killed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: Are we actually making the argument that Alex Pretti should be killed for something that happened like 11 days prior to the shooting itself? No. I think we should be talking about the circumstances that actually led to the killing and what took place. And those circumstances, I mean, you can believe your own two eyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, you can believe that many sets of eyes would normally be under investigation like this. Alex Pretti's family attorney put out a statement about the new video. And it says, a week before Alex was gunned down in the street, despite posing no threat to anyone, he was violently assaulted by a group of ICE agents. Nothing that happened a full week before could possibly have justified Alex's killing at the hands of ICE on January 24.

There's a lot to unpack here, and I have with me the former Republican congressman turned Democrat Joe Walsh. Also here, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Now, I don't expect either of you to look at this through the eyes of a prosecutor and look at it exclusively in really a compartmentalized fashion that the law would require. I do. But the court of public opinion has very strong views here, and they will guide a lot of what happens from here. So, Shermichael, I just explained to you how the law actually will look at this. But politically, which is major --

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.

COATES: -- we're already seeing some Trump supporters use this as a way to say, well, look, this justifies the killing 11 days later. Do you think that the administration, having taken a different tone in this rather than Renee Good, will they adopt that narrative? Should they?

SINGLETON: First, I have to say your opening was just outstanding, Laura. I'm just sitting here listening to you. It was really outstanding for the viewer. To answer your question, as a strategist, I would prefer for the administration to focus on Mr. Pretti's previous behavior 11 days versus talking about the Second Amendment, which is a space I work in a lot. They have angered a lot of firearms groups, a lot of gun owners who are already skeptical about voting for the president after his bump stock ban from the first administration.

That argument, and I know people may not like the argument, I'm purely talking about the lens of politics here, it is a much more palatable argument to me that resonates way more with the president's base than talking about the Second Amendment, whether or not a person can bring a firearm to a rally, how many magazines they have on their person.

You really do isolate a significant number of Republicans that Republicans are going to need in November. That's the way I would look at this politically.

COATES: Joe, what do you think?

JOE WALSH, PODCAST HOST, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Donald Trump answered you, Laura. He already retweeted tonight somebody who put out a post talking about what Pretti did 11 days before he was killed, calling Pretti a domestic terrorist again.

[23:10:01]

Donald Trump liked and reposted that. So, yes, they're going to use that. And Shermichael is right in that it will appeal to the Republican Party base, no doubt. But the vast majority of the American people who saw what happened on January 24th with their own eyes, they're well past that.

COATES: I mean, I have to tell you, I can't imagine being able to bring it up in an actual trial if this person or somehow the criminal taking about -- well, I'm not asking you to look at this one day. I want you to look at everything else that happened before that doesn't have anything in case I'm trying to try.

SINGLETON: Laura, can I just quickly --

COATES: Yes.

SINGLETON: -- to what the congressman just stated about the American public. Obviously, as a strategist, I wouldn't necessarily be concerned about Democrats and their mood or temperament on this. I would be worried about independence. And looking at some of the polling, it's early. We need to see what happens over the next couple of weeks.

There are some members who are worried, particularly members who are in purple districts. And by purple, I mean folks who barely won their previous elections. You don't want to see significant enthusiasm from Democrats or some of those independents who lean Republican, who may decide to just completely check out. That's not going to be good for a party that's barely holding on to the House. That's what I'm looking at.

COATES: And another issue in terms of the political lens, I think that's an important distinction to make here, the political lens is that there's a lot of talk about coordination between the state and local authorities and the federal government or really the lack thereof. I don't just mean in terms of investigation. I mean in terms of what Mayor Michael -- I mean, Jacob Frey had to say when he would -- was asked about whether he would allow police to work with federal government officials to arrest criminals. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREY: The question that's important is, did they rape somebody? Did they murder somebody? And if they did, we investigate, and we partner to do so. We arrest, and we partner in doing so. We prosecute and charge, and we partner in doing so. And they go to jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He did explain, though, Shermichael, that they would not cooperate with the feds on immigration enforcement because they're a sanctuary city. Essentially the equivalent of, we've got our lane, you've got yours, you want to do this, that's your business, we've got other things to do, bigger fish to fry. What do you make of the mayor's response?

SINGLETON: I actually don't agree with that. Now, granted the city, I think before he was ever mayor, decided to pass legislation where there would be a sanctuary city, so he can't unilaterally on his own say, I'm just going to change that because I want to. There's a process there.

But I think if the administration is to improve their approach here, you have to work with local law enforcement. I mean, you were a prosecutor. You are very familiar with joint task force, FBI, state officials, FBI, state and local. That doesn't exist here. So, even if I were to go in working for the president and say, hey, Mr. President, let me handle this in this particular state, I need to rely on my local partners to accomplish the aims, but that is not existent in this particular case.

WALSH: The law, the 10th Amendment is clear. State and local jurisdictions can't be compelled to enforce immigration law. This has nothing to do with sanctuary cities. We get so lost in the weeds, not in this show. Love this show, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

Minneapolis is being occupied. Show me anywhere else in the country where almost 4,000 federal agents were put on the ground to basically declare war on a city. We've never seen that. That isn't going on anywhere else in this country. And Minnesota, Minneapolis is just reacting to that.

COATES: Well, it seems, in many respects, the confusion and concern has been. Well, it's one thing for you to ask us to enforce immigration policy. They don't need to do that in sanctuary cities. It's nothing for you to make us protect the agents who are there, who are purportedly there, to enforce policy that is not in their lane. Shermichael, Joe, thank you both so much.

SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, an absolute -- I mean, it's a heartbreaking photo of that five-year-old Minnesota boy who has now spent a week in a detention facility in Texas. I'm talking about little Liam, the little boy with the rabbit hat. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett went inside the center where he is being held with his father, and she got a chance to see him, and she's going to join me to share what she saw, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, one of the most defining moments of President Trump's immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, I think it's this image, five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos standing in the frigid cold, wearing a Spiderman backpack and a bunny hat. This as federal immigration agents detained his father, and then him.

And now, for the first time, we're seeing how Liam is doing after hearing about him knocking on his own door with his mother inside. Because now, he is inside the family detention facility in South Texas, 1,000 miles away from his home in Minneapolis. Two representatives met him and his father today, Democrats from Texas, Joaquin Castro and Jasmine Crockett, who is also running for Senate.

And Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett joins me now. Congresswoman, we all saw that photo of you meeting young Liam. Can you tell us about how he's doing and what that experience was like today?

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): It's almost indescribable, which I don't think that anyone ever imagines that I'm at a loss for words. We attempted to kind of interact with him like -- I was like trying to touch him, trying to -- he was so lethargic. He was never alert the entire time that we were there. I was very, very concerned about his health. His father indicated that he was not eating, that they had determined that he was depressed.

[23:19:56]

They're being -- those that are there at the facility, they do have some psychiatrists on hand. And that he just kept asking about his mom and when they were going to see his mom and when he was going to go to school. But the entire time that we were there, and we visited specifically with Liam for probably about 30 minutes, talking to his dad, and he never moved. He was motionless.

COATES: He was awake but motionless?

CROCKETT: I don't know that he was awake. Like if you look at those photos, like we could see just a slim portion of the white of his eyes. He never opened his eyes. Like that's exactly how he was the entire time. And he wasn't asleep. Like I don't -- I don't think anyone could sleep through that. I mean, like his dad adjusted him a couple of times, but something was not right. That part I can tell you. And so, one of my staffers that was with me is a fluent Spanish speaker.

COATES: Yes.

CROCKETT: And so, I was like you need to ask about like the doctor. Like, has he seen him? Like, when was the last time? Because I was looking at that baby, and I don't have kids, but like I would have imagined that he needed to see -- like have professional help. But his dad was like, he's just not been eating.

COATES: How is his father reacting to that? Because that is unimaginable, for a father to be watching that, feeling some sense of helplessness.

CROCKETT: Yes. He has been trying to do everything that he can to take care of Liam, and not freak out about his wife, who is currently four months pregnant. She ended up being hospitalized soon after all of these took place due to the stress. But even the outfit that Liam is wearing, they only give them one outfit. So, his dad washes his clothes every single night when he goes to sleep, and then hangs them up in like a vent to dry.

COATES: I have heard people describe at one point that somehow, this facility is the best you can do. It is not as bad as people are describing it. Can you describe -- you've been a criminal defense attorney. You have obviously visited many -- a client and a defendant who is a criminal defendant inside of a detention facility. Can you describe what this was like even compared to what you have seen in the past?

CROCKETT: To me, this was worse.

COATES: Why? CROCKETT: And I've been to state, federal. I've been on all levels. I will tell you that the only thing that is better here is that they can walk out of their living quarters and walk around. Obviously, inmates, they aren't allowed to do that part.

I will say that this was worse because of the complaints that we got about the water. They consistently talked about the water and how awful it was, and they said that the water makes them sick. They told us before that like, literally, when people kept getting sick with certain water, they found that there were molds that had been like in this container, and then they basically just put like some Clorox or some bleach or something in it. And then we're like, OK, here you go.

And so, we actually -- actually, we put some water in a water bottle, you're the first person to learn this, so that we could actually test it ourselves because we asked about testing of the water, all that kind of stuff. So, we actually are going to test some water that came out of that facility. When we were meeting with another group of people, they brought bottles of water, and they were like they only brought the bottles of water because you all are here.

COATES: Well, congresswoman, I mean, what you described is certainly subpar for even the standard detention facility across this country for criminal inmates waiting trial. But you have Liam, who is symbolic of so many other children who are also there. We know a judge just ruled on Monday that Liam and his father, they cannot be deported as they are fighting anti-removable effort by the government. So, where does the effort stand to release young Liam even from federal custody in that detention facility?

CROCKETT: Well, I've got to tell you that as soon as we walked in and sat down, you know, Representative Castro immediately was like, I'm not going to be S.U., you all need to let them go. And that was before we saw Liam in person. That was before we saw anyone else. And, you know, they basically kind of were like their hands were tied.

We did have an opportunity to speak with some of the attorneys that represent the government in these detention cases. And so, I dug in and do what I do as an attorney to ask questions.

[23:25:00]

I have some thoughts about things that we potentially can do right now as Senate Dems are going through their negotiations because I think anything that has to do with, oh, the DOJ is going to have the final say so or eyes or, you know, this is about oversight, I think that that's all out of the window. We know that these people will ignore the law.

I think that we need to empower those immigration attorneys and judges because that's the only branch that's not completely broken at this point. So, I'm hopeful that we can do -- You know, Laura, you did this before. You know that we haven't enshrined about speedy trials. So, I'm really trying to think through some fixes so that like you can't detain these people inevitably. I mean, they gave us these beautiful pamphlets, more beautiful than anything that we have in our office, and they gave us the layout, and they said the average person is there for 28 days.

COATES: Wow.

CROCKETT: We did not meet anyone who had actually been detained for less than two months.

COATES: Now, that is stunning. I'm waiting to see those water quality results as well. And, of course, that picture of young Liam speaks volumes. And he is symbolic of so many other people who were there. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you for going and bearing witness and informing the public of what you saw.

CROCKETT: Thank you.

COATES: There's so much to cover out of Texas and, of course, Minnesota, but I don't want to lose sight of another major story today, and it comes out of Georgia because the FBI seized hundreds of boxes of ballots in Fulton County. This is part of an investigation into President Trump's claims of voter fraud from six years ago, 2020. Lots of questions about this. Then we'll get to him, with the man who literally wrote the book on this case, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, you know, for years, Fulton County, Georgia has been top of mind for President Trump. And today, the FBI executed a search warrant. It was approved by a judge at an election office near Atlanta. Why? Well, sources tell CNN it's related to a probe into the president's longtime fixation that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Has there been any evidence to show that? And we're told agents went on to search for all of the ballots from the 2020 election. Seven hundred boxes worth were retrieved, according to local officials. Where are they now? No clue. Leaving Fulton County officials concerned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB PITTS, FULTON COUNTY CHAIRMAN: The fact that now they have been removed from this facility, out of our control, we don't know where they're being taken, we don't know what's going to happen to them. So we can no longer, and I can no longer as chair of this board, satisfy not only the citizens of Atlanta, but the citizens of the world, that those ballots are still secure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So much for transparent chain of custody. With me now, Georgia's former Republican lieutenant governor during the 2020 election, Geoff Duncan. He's now running for governor of Georgia as a Democrat. Also joining us, investigative reporter and co-author of "Find Me the Votes," Michael Isikoff. This book, continually fascinating as you revisit what's happening. And I want to begin with you for your obvious reasons. Tell me what you've learned about this search. What do you have in front of you?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, CO-AUTHOR OF "FIND ME THE VOTES": I have the search warrant that was issued, signed by a federal magistrate, and was the basis for the search today. There are several interesting things about it. First of all, it was signed at 2:31 p.m. The first CNN story about this search moved at 1:15. So, before the magistrate actually signed the warrant, the FBI was already in there. Apparently, the first warrant -- there was an earlier warrant to the wrong office, right, and they had to correct that. But the fact is they were doing the search when they didn't have the signature of a federal magistrate. That's number one.

Number two is they cite two provisions of the federal code section, Title 52, Section 20701 and 20511. People can look it up and Google. The first one is a misdemeanor. It's retention of records. The penalty for that is a fine of $1,000, not real serious. The second one, though, 20511, that's a general election fraud statute.

COATES: Very broad.

ISIKOFF: Very broad. It says, among other things, that anybody who defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residence of a fair and impartially conducted election process. That's very loose language. That can -- a lot of conduct could be put into that.

COATES: And, by the way, there have been 17 elections since 2020. I mean, that's such a broad net.

ISIKOFF: Yes.

COATES: But Lieutenant Governor, I'm going to bring you in here because Fulton County officials today, they sounded, I mean, exasperated in questions why the administration was so adamant about this particular election. What do you think is motivating this given what Michael has just described as a pretty wide net being cast on what could be evidence of a crime?

GEOFF DUNCAN, GEORGIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, FORMER GEORGIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Well, I think if you're being honest with yourself, none of these surprises anybody. I mean, you could certainly see Donald Trump continuing to talk about this because he wakes up every day blinded by his own pride and weaponizing the FBI to go do this search and to create this, you know, witch hunt into something that's just vapor.

[23:35:01]

It is not surprising because -- I think it's also an important narrative to make sure we understand this. This is not only about the 2020 election. This is about sowing seeds of doubt for the 2026 election and the 2028 election. Right? So, he wants to continue to sow seeds of doubt. And the country is watching, right? The country is watching Georgia, and we're the political center of the universe.

I think one of those indications for me, you mentioned I'm running for governor as a Democrat now, we've gotten over 9,000 contributions from all 50 states to our website @duncanforgeorgia, from all 50 states, because folks are realizing democracy is on the ballot and Donald Trump wants to attack Georgia and attack our officials and our process just for his own purposes.

COATES: So, Michael, is there any way the DOJ could even avoid the appearance of what Geoff Duncan has described?

ISIKOFF: I don't think they care about avoiding the appearance that Geoff Duncan has described. Look, we all remember the notorious phone call that Trump made to Brad Raffensperger.

COATES: The title of your book.

ISIKOFF: Yes. All you have to do is find 11,700 votes. Raffensperger wouldn't do it because he knew it was all nonsense and there were no such votes to find. But now, Trump has got the FBI at his beck and call, and they're going to find those votes that Trump somehow mystically thinks are there.

But one point that's worth mentioning here is this is about events in 2020. We're now in 2026. The statute of limitations on these crimes, as most federal crimes, is five years. So, we're outside the statute of limitations.

COATES: Unless --

ISIKOFF: Unless they can make this a conspiracy case that involves other actions, presumably that deprive Donald Trump of his civil rights. And we do know that there is an ongoing investigation in South Florida, a conspiracy case that is targeting John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, and others about events in 2016. They're trying to make that a conspiracy case that goes to 2024. And Jack Smith's investigation. That's the only way they get around the statute of limitations there.

So, they're casting a very wide net here, trying to find some stuff that will stick, that they can make a case and, yes, to influence both the 2026 elections and the 2028 elections.

COATES: I mean, lieutenant governor, you're on the ground in Georgia. You're running as a Democrat for governor. Is there a benefit to reinvestigating the 2020 or relitigating the 2020 election? Are Georgians telling you there's something they want to see?

DUNCAN: No. Look, the crowds that I'm speaking to, certainly, they're skeptic. I used to be a Republican. Now, I'm a Democrat, a proud Democrat with a better toolkit to serve the needs of Georgians and to have better programs. The folks that I meet with are Democrats and independents, and even this batch of disgusted Republicans that are starting to show up every night in all these town halls and these meetings and these fundraisers. They're worried about three things. The affordability crisis, the health care crisis, and the Donald Trump crisis. Even Republicans are worried about those three things.

Donald Trump is not solving a single one of those problems. It's a Ponzi scheme. He's making Bernie Madoff look ethical these days, right? It's a Ponzi scheme of misinformation. And his cast of characters called his administration, carry out the Ponzi scheme every minute of every day. It's a shinier object. It's a little more bombastic. So, you forget about the promises. Anybody remember Greenland? Anybody remember Venezuela? Anybody remember Ukraine? And the list goes on and on and on of important issues that we ought to be focused on.

COATES: Quite the analogy. I'll see if it's fixed. Geoff, Michael, thank you both so much.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

DUNCAN: Thank you.

COATES: Up next --

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Bruce Springsteen out with the protest anthem from Minneapolis as the backlash against ICE appears to be breaking through. Musicians and now sports figures beginning to speak out. My next guest calls it "The Return of Athlete Outrage." It's Jemele Hill, which is here on all of it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: Yes, you're hearing the voice of Bruce Springsteen. "The boss" out with a new protest anthem called "Streets of Minneapolis." "The boss" says he wrote the song -- quote -- "in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis." And he pulls no punches. Look at some of the lyrics. "King Trump's private army," "Trump's federal thugs," "Miller and Noam's dirty lies."

Well, Springsteen is part of a growing chorus of actors and musicians and artists and athletes who are starting to speak out very publicly against the ICE crackdown. Actresses Natalie Portman and Olivia Wilde recently donned pins that said "ICE out" at the Sundance Film Festival. Over the weekend, WNBA star Brianna Stewart carried an "abolish ICE" sign before one of her games. And San Antonio Spurs star Victor Wembanyama, he recently said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR WEMBANYAMA, NBA PLAYER, SAN ANTONIS SPURS: P.R. has tried, but I'm not going to sit here and be politically correct. I mean, every day I wake up and see the news and I'm horrified. I think it is crazy that some people might make it seem like or make it sound like it's acceptable, like the murder of civilians is acceptable, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, my next guest tackled this straight on in a very compelling new piece titled, "The Return of Athlete Outrage," and that author, Jemele Hill, and she joins me now. She's a contributing writer for "The Atlantic" and host of the podcast "Jemele Hill is Unbothered."

[23:45:07]

I'm so glad to have you on tonight because I am curious what you think this tells you and all of us about this moment that you got athletes, you got celebrities who seem more willing, if not compelled, as you just heard from Wembanyama, to speak up.

JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: So, Laura, I go back to 2020 when we saw a lot of Americans, a lot of people worldwide, not just Americans, what the response was to when George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis, same city. And that seemed to be, to borrow what Governor Tim Walz from Minnesota said, an inflection point. And this is another one. This is another one of those forks in the road where people are looking at what's happening in Minneapolis and saying to ourselves, what kind of country are we?

And even though athletes are in a privileged position, they get to play a sport they love, obviously, a lot of them make a lot of money, they themselves are wondering about the same issues everybody else is.

Brianna Stewart, who you pointed out, her wife was born in Spain. She is here as someone on a green card. So, this issue hits close to home, especially given the fact that the Supreme Court, the court system has basically made it legal to profile people. So, imagine -- I would imagine she's thinking, my wife is out somewhere, she's speaking Spanish or she doesn't look the part, then that's going to make her a target.

Victor Wembanyama is from France. And while he's, you know, 7 foot, 30, if you will, and people know that he's a basketball player, it's still as someone who's a foreigner or an immigrant in this country, it's something that they deeply feel. And we saw a number of other athletes. Tyrese Haliburton with the Indiana Pacers. Isaiah Thomas, the 12-year veteran who played in Boston. We saw so many different athletes finding their voices.

And, to be honest, it was really refreshing because after 2020, after the energy of that year, they kind of went a little silent. And now, it feels like this is a flash point for them where they said, hey, hold up, I think it is time for us to say something.

COATES: Why do you think they went silent? Is it a matter of the power of a kind of purse, endorsements and beyond? Is it because of the political reaction? Is it -- what do you think was the reason then and why do you think now is the moment?

HILL: So, pay attention to what Victor Wembanyama said at first. He said, P.R. tried to talk to me, right? So, meaning that somebody in the organization was basically trying to discourage him because they are thinking about brands and endorsement. And they're also thinking about fan bases in that you have a lot of fans. He's in Texas. He plays for San Antonio. I'm sure a lot of fans are MAGA supporters. And so, people worry about whether or not they want to rock the boat.

And this Trump administration has created an environment of anti- blackness, being anti-D.I., anti all these things, and we see people just capitulating. And so that capitulation serves as also a warning that if you don't fall in line, this is the cost you have to pay.

And a lot of athletes probably looked at it as this may not be worth it for me to weigh in. Do I want this smoke? And a lot of them have decided or did decide no. But I think now, they see the country galvanizing. They probably don't feel as alone in their opinions. And so, it makes it a little more of a comfortable atmosphere to say something.

COATES: It's fascinating when you see people like Bruce Springsteen, who is speaking out, I mean, making lyrics. I remember when Prince did a song in tribute to Minneapolis as well, at one point talking about the frustrations politically before his passing.

The White House, though, dismissed Springsteen in particular, slamming this as a random, their words, songs with -- quote -- "irrelevant opinions and inaccurate information." But this is not -- I mean, this is not some no name artists right there. This is Bruce Springsteen who felt compelled to do so. How do you see this resonating with the public when you've got someone talking about, well, being born in the USA and all the nuance of that particular song?

HILL: Well, we know that Bruce Springsteen has been on this type of time for a long time. You mentioned "Born in the USA." If anybody actually paid attention to the lyrics, that also is one of the great sort of protest anthems that we've heard in our history.

And so, I think when you see celebrities like him who are icons in his field reacting in this way, and as you mentioned in your setup about Natalie Portman and Olivia Wilde and Mark Ruffalo and many other celebrities who have been engaged in this, I think it tells you something about what the pulse of the public really is, is that a lot of people are disgusted by the behavior of ICE, they're disgusted by the behavior of this administration overall. And so, this is a boiling point.

And I am curious as to what happens as a result. Where does this momentum take us?

[23:49:56]

Because 2020, we saw a whole lot of people posting black squares, whole lot of companies promising to do better and to listen to Black people and to do all this, only for that to go away. As soon as the atmosphere, as soon as the winds change, they change, too. So, I hope this feeling is something that is more sustainable.

COATES: I'm always fascinated by your work. This one really detailing how fascinating it is when the people we turn to for so-called escapism hold a mirror up instead. Jemele Hill, thank you for the conversation.

HILL: Always great to see you, Laura. Thank you.

COATES: Up next, a stunning moment in the court trial that I had been tracking very closely as the man accused of plotting with his au pair to kill his wife took the stand today in his own defense. The jury was hearing from Brendan Banfield for the first time and gets asked the critical question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you ever create any sort of a plan with Juliana?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: I want to get you caught up on this au pair affair murder trial that I've been covering because today, the man accused of orchestrating the plot to kill his wife and another man took the stand.

Brendan Banfield testified for hours today. He defended the affair he had with the au pair. He says his wife may not have known about it. But Banfield claimed he didn't plot to kill his wife so he could be with the au pair.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you ever create any sort of a plan with Juliana?

BRENDAN BANFIELD, ACCUSED OF MURDER: No, there was no plan. At this point, our relationship is maybe six to eight weeks old. I think that it's an absurd line of questioning for something that is not serious, that a plan was made to get rid of my wife. That is absolutely crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Remember the au pair seen here? She already testified and took a plea deal, and testified against Banfield. He'll be back on the stand tomorrow.

And I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson into the mix here because Joey, look, the fact that he decided to testify at all, it was entirely his right to do so or not to do so. Was it the right call, to take the stand?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Laura, good to be with you. Always a risky proposition. Now, I think that he really wanted to take the stand so that he could give his narrative and say what he said, was this is absolutely crazy.

The issue I have with it is that I think the defense made significant inroads in their case, right? Defense, we know, has no burden. But they put on in their case, basically showing, that he wasn't even at the home nor was the au pair when this account was created to lure this escort to the home. That creates reasonable doubt.

The defense also attacked significantly, and I think successfully the au pair, in having this Netflix interaction and having all this bias in terms of being state's evidence and cutting a deal if they testify. If she testifies against him, she walks free.

So, what am I saying? I think they raise the specter of reasonable doubt. When you have a defendant testify, it turns from that, Laura, as you know, as the outstanding prosecutor you were, to the issue of, is he lying? Is he telling the truth? Could we connect with the story? Do we believe him? And so, that's the risk in it. But so far, so well. But in the words of Mike Tyson, everybody has got a plan until they get punched in the face. And so, we'll see what happens in cross- examination.

COATES: Which is undoubtedly forthcoming. And it will be intense because this is a he said, she said case in many respects, because you've got issues of DNA and issues of the au pair already saying that she was the one to fire, what we've learned from other testimony, to be the fatal shot of the man that was lured allegedly to the home as well.

I mean, Banfield, though, says his wife knew of his affairs, maybe not the one with her au pair, but that he wasn't going to leave her. Almost sent you talking to the au pair after the first time they got together under her nose that, you know, it is what it is, nothing is going to change with me and my wife.

But he also then corroborated essentially that there was an affair, there were these interactions, and almost suggesting you can believe her on all those things, but not the part that I'm on trial for. Did that work to undermine her credibility, to pick and choose what you corroborate?

JACKSON: So, look, that is always a jury question and that's the thousand-dollar question. But he had to embrace the affair. Investigators found, when they began to investigate, she moved in, that is the au pair, to the master bedroom. There was a picture of them on the nightstand together. You're not getting out from under the affair.

So, I think the analysis is, yes, I was unfaithful to my wife. Yes, this was not the first time, there were two other instances. And, by the way, she was unfaithful to me, too, but we were working it through. And the notion that I would be intimate with her and literally six to eight weeks after relationship start to plan to murder my wife, are you serious? So, that's what they're saying.

But I think it turns on other things like the fact that he was not home. Prosecutors' whole theory is that he invented this whole website or this whole catfish issue to lure Joseph Ryan. That's the escort in. And it has been established that he wasn't home. Digital forensic analysis suggests he wasn't even there. And guess what, Laura? As you know, when the prosecution's own detective basically said the same thing, they sent the detective packing, they moved them out of the unit. And so, it's something that I think is established.

[23:59:59]

If your whole theory is that you created this whole, you know, website to lure this person in, and it has been established that you were not even there, and the prosecution has to acknowledge it, that folds pretty deep. And if your all-star witness is an au pair, who has been really noted to cut these deals with Netflix and have other issues of her own, that she's self-interested, that really gets you to where you need to be.

So, risky proposition. Can't wait for the cross-examination. But, so far, he's doing a pretty good job at defending himself.

COATES: We'll see what the jury of 12 believes. Joey Jackson, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.