Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Defiant Trump Enacts New Tariffs While Fuming At Supreme Court; Toymaker Beats Trump; New Mexico Reopens Criminal Inquiry Into Epstein's Zorro Ranch; Search For Nancy Guthrie Continues. Aired 11p- 12a ET

Aired February 20, 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]

ROY WOOD, JR., CNN HOST: A bunch of companies have already joined a lawsuit to get their money back, including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee tuna, and Kawasaki.

UNKNOWN: Oh.

WOOD: (INAUDIBLE) Bumblebee Tuna (INAUDIBLE).

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: I love Kawasaki sneaking in there. We're made in America.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: Kawasaki, yes.

WOOD: The irony of it is that Costco is the one place where you can get tuna and a Kawasaki.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: That's true.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch the full show tomorrow at 9 p.m. on CNN and on the CNN app. Thanks for watching "Newsnight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's illegal tariffs, dealing his agenda a major blow as business owners and governors demand a refund. Plus, a potential new clue in the search for Nancy Guthrie. A couple says they found a black glove less than a mile from her home, and this one, they say, appears to have blood on it. And later, the new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein estate you may not know about, his sprawling ranch in New Mexico. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

On my opening statement tonight, for the first time in his second term, the majority of the Supreme Court justices made one thing clear. The system of checks and balances is alive and well. At least for now.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court struck down Trump's tariffs as illegal. Not only the decision suggests it wasn't a rubber stamp for President Trump, it told him to stay in his executive lane. They didn't buy the argument that Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs were not taxes. And if they're taxes, sounds like Congress is laying. Has Congress given a president some authority to impose tariffs? Yes. Did Congress give him total authority and hand their powers over? No.

I don't usually do this, but I want story time, because part of Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion makes it crystal clear about what this is really about. Not just whether a president can slap on tariffs by first declaring an emergency or even how much deference the president deserves, but how much power a president should have, according to the Constitution, and why decisions this important are supposed to go through Congress, not one person.

This is the last paragraph of his 46-page concurrence. For those who think it important for the nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today's decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people, including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs, are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.

Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.

And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the nation's future. For some today, the way of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem to be so obvious.

But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.

See, Justice Gorsuch predicted the reasoning behind today's ruling wouldn't be obvious or popular with everyone. And he was right, because President Trump, well, his response was a far cry from what Gorsuch wrote. I can tell you that much.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. [23:05:02]

They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. I think it's an embarrassment to their families. You want to know the truth, the two of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The two of them he's talking about? Two of the justices he nominated, who ruled against him today, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who might just have front row seats at Tuesday's upcoming State of the Union address.

Now, my first guest has been one of the people leading the legal fight against the tariffs, Democratic attorney general of Oregon, Dan Rayfield, who joins me now. Attorney general, welcome back. I mean, the president, as you know, signed a 10 percent global tariff order this evening. He is using a trade law that restricts the tariffs to 150 days unless Congress extends them. The president seems to think that today's ruling might give him even more power to levy tariffs. Do you see it that way?

DAN RAYFIELD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OREGON: This is what President Trump does, right? When he loses something, he makes up these ridiculous comments. Absolutely not. The laws on the books that the president can pass, tariffs under, really put important sidebar, safeguards, for our economy and for consumers.

And you know what? If he thought he could have gotten Congress's votes to pass all these tariffs he has been doing, he would have done it. He would have done it in a way that wouldn't have been challenging the Supreme Court. The fact is I just don't think he had those votes.

So, it's going to be fun to see how he tries to sell this failed policy to the American people.

COATES: Well, they didn't have the votes there. They didn't have the votes in the Supreme Court. Does that mean you plan on fighting these new global tariffs order?

RAYFIELD: Yes. Here's what we got to do. We need to make sure that the president continues to follow the law, right? Obviously, he hasn't done that to date. And so, we're going to be watching very closely exactly how he implements those tariffs because you got to remember as well, just this week, the New York Federal Bank economist came out with a report that said 86 percent of these tariffs are paid by us as Americans. It's never been paid by foreign countries. So, you better believe we're going to be sitting there watching this really closely, making sure that he's following the law. When he steps out, you know, we'll find him in court.

COATES: Well, speaking of banking, I mean, there's also a fight for refunds. I mean, the court did not address, but many small businesses, well, they depend on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH WELLS, FOUNDER AND CEO, SARAH WELLS BAGS: Without those refunds, we're really not any better off than yesterday in terms of the money that we've already outlaid. I would love to get those refunds and hire back people I had to lay off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president says this will go through the courts for years. So, how do -- how do you get this fixed if these rebates or refunds on the table are not even dealt with? What's next?

RAYFIELD: Well, I mean, this is what we teach our kids, when you make it wrong, you make it right. This is the president that knew from the get-go that it was highly likely what he was doing is unconstitutional, and he was unlawfully taking money out of the pockets of Americans. He has a responsibility and obligation to refund that money.

Now, what I find incredibly interesting, the federal government under Trump sent papers to the court with signed documents saying, hey, we want to stay the lower courts opinions. These rulings are going against us, we want to pause those. The reason we are OK pausing them is we're going to be willing to to pay refunds, and we will pay those with interest. That's illegal filing.

So, I find it incredibly bizarre that he's now backtracking and, frankly, wanting to screw over Americans for money that he has unlawfully taken out of their pockets. It's wild to me.

COATES: Today's ruling is, as you know, a rare setback for the president from the conservative-led court. But this decision, it was not unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion. And in it, it said, the tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. Now that, of course, is not the majority opinion.

Do you have concerns that Trump will follow the majority opinion nonetheless? And do the courts have any meaningful way to ensure it?

RAYFIELD: You know, I think the really nice thing that we have right here is you have a really solid 6-3 decision. And right now, what you're seeing is the president pivot, and he's talking about using these lawful statutes to implement the tariffs, the ones that really have these important safeguards for our economy.

So, I want to take him at his word right now, but the moment he steps over the line and starts doing unlawful things, we'll be right back in court, making sure that he is following the law. And so, I think we'll see in the next week exactly how he's going to move forward, but we'll keep our fingers crossed until we can really understand his approach.

[23:10:01]

COATES: Attorney General Dan Rayfield, thank you so much.

Vice President J.D. Vance not missing a beat in joining Trump's attack against the court, writing on social media, this is lawlessness from the court, plain and simple.

Well, it's neither plain nor simple. With me now, CNN senior political commentator Van Jones and Wall Street veteran and CEO of Market Rebellion, Marc LoPresti. Glad to have both of you, guys, here for a plain and simple discussion on what the Supreme Court grappled with. There's a 46-page concurrence. But, you know, plain and simple.

Van, let me ask you this question, because the three conservative justices, two of which President Trump, as you know, nominated, they were on the receiving end of Trump's wrath. Lawlessness was also a word that was used. What is your reaction to the president's lashing out?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you know, he's trying to govern as a king and not a president, and the Supreme Court said you can't do that. A king will just assign to himself whatever authority he wants and arbitrarily wield that authority. That's why they fought a revolution to get rid of that stuff on this continent and to have a democratic republic with a powerful executive but constrained.

And there was a big concern that liberals had, that the Supreme Court was just going to rubber stamp and bow down, and we're going to lose our democracy. I think it's actually a very good sign that not only do you have 6-3, it's not 5-4, it's 6-3, and that you have two Trump appointees. And, you know, the justice is exactly correct. When you have President AOC or whatever nightmare the Republicans have, you're going to want the Supreme Court to step in and constrain that president. That's the system that we have.

COATES: Be careful what you wish for, right? The old adage. Perhaps they may also think that for the credibility of the court, it's a good thing that Trump is lashing out at them because it might suggest to people they're not in his pocket, as some have criticized the court for being. But there was a little bit further that President Trump went. He claimed without evidence that the conservative justices who ruled against his tariffs are somehow influenced by foreign entities. Why go there?

MARC LOPRESTI, CEO, MARKET REBELLION: Laura, that one was a bit of a head-scratcher for me --

COATES: Yes.

LOPRESTI: -- as well to be candid. But I think we have to level set a little bit here. The use of executive power by presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have been reviewed by the Supreme Court, have been determined by the Supreme Court to have exceeded the scope of the authority granted to the president. You had Biden with the student loan cancellation. With the COVID vaccines, you had several executive orders even under President Obama, who I know you worked for quite a while. So, I think it's important for both parties that we have these checks and balances.

But I think it's also important that we recognize that President Trump and the people advising him are not stupid. I think they understood that there were some limitations to the exercise of executive discretion with AIPPA and that they now have at least four other statutes, including Section 122 that the president invoked today, that is not subject to the Supreme Court review because that discretion is explicitly granted by the statute. So, this -- the refunds aren't coming and the tariffs aren't going anywhere. Like let's just get that straight right now. There's no refund.

COATES: I think it's really important to add to that point, though, the audience. It was never that they believe that there was no power to impose a tariff. But you rightly point out, it was about what was essentially allowed to a statute, was the vehicle the Supreme Court wants to articulate. But the tariffs are overwhelmingly -- I mean, they're not popular for people.

Sixty-four percent -- 64 percent of Americans disapproving of them in a new poll just from a few days ago. So, I do wonder if Republicans are breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief, saying, OK, we didn't have to be the one to say it, but these six did.

LOPRESTI: If you're talking from a midterm perspective, I think it would be hard to deny that there are --

COATES: We're always talking from a midterm perspective.

(LAUGHTER)

LOPRESTI: I had them on my bingo card today. I think there are certainly several in the Republican Party that are probably saying shh (ph). And, of course, we've seen the president and his team pushing forward in affordability. Charm campaign, a charm initiative ahead of the midterms, I think that's important. Look, nobody likes tariffs.

COATES: Yes.

LOPRESTI: I don't even think President Trump likes tariffs. But when you are fighting against --

COATES: He says he loves tariffs.

LOPRESTI: -- decades, he says lot of things --

COATES: (INAUDIBLE).

LOPRESTI: He says a lot of things. But when you are fighting against decades of failed policy that have created trade imbalances and unfair trade practices with major trade partners like China, sometimes, it's got to hurt a little bit to make things right.

JONES: Here's the thing. You're making a good case and a rational case.

LOPRESTI: Can we wrap there? (LAUGHTER)

COATES: He wants that sound bite to loop and loop and loop.

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: You're making a good case, a rational case, and it's the case that the president should go before Congress next week and make -- and after the legislation so we can have an actual debate to vote about it.

[23:14:59]

The problem is when you overshoot the skis and assume that, because you are the president and you have a concern about all this stuff, that you can run roughshod over our process, that's the problem, and he didn't have to do it.

My concern -- I've been baffled this whole time. He has a majority in Congress. He has an argument to make. He didn't make it. And now, he has his hand smacked. And in the meantime, for a year, you've had, I think, a loss of U.S. credibility, which also ultimately can hurt the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy.

COATES: Well, let me ask quickly. Is the refund issue, which some are --

LOPRESTI: Give me my money.

COATES: -- asking for, I mean, the give me my money part --

LOPRESTI: Give me my money.

COATES: -- is that a winning issue for Democrats?

JONES: I think it is.

COATES: Is it practical?

JONES: Don't matter if it's practical. You said (INAUDIBLE). Give me my money. That's what I think the Democrats should say. We will get you your money back. Trump stole your money. We'll get it back. That's what --

COATES: And if they fail in that endeavor, they lose credibility in the long run?

JONES: Hey, listen. By then, we'll go out and talk about something else.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Politics.

JONES: Friday night.

COATES: That was politics. Van Jones, Marc LoPresti, thank you both so much.

LOPRESTI: Thank you.

COATES: We'll talk about a David and Goliath story. Remember, this all came to be because an Illinois toymaker sued the president and took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. So, what's he going to do now that he won? And can he get his money back, to Van's point? I'll ask him next. And later, you've heard of Epstein island. You heard the Epstein mansion. There's an Epstein ranch. What the files are revealing, they just triggered a brand-new criminal investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the governor of Illinois is sending this message to President Trump: Cut the check. JB Pritzker sending Trump an invoice for over $8.6 billion, demanding tariff refunds for every household in his state. And he warns, if you do not comply, we will pursue further action.

But the thing is, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson isn't optimistic that's going to happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: I got the feeling the American people won't see it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But tonight, one family-owned toy company is saying loud and clear they do want their money back. That company is Learning Resources, the petitioners in the case Learning Resources versus Trump that tanked Trump's tariffs today.

Their CEO, Rick Woldenberg, joins me now. Rick, it's good to see you again. I remember when this case was first presented, and we were wondering what the outcome would be. And here we are, your small family-owned business challenging the president of the United States in a signature economic policy in court and one in the Supreme Court. How does it feel?

RICK WOLDENBERG, CEO, LEARNING RESOURCES: It's an amazing feeling. You know, we've gone through a process that -- where we knew all the way along this was historical. And we had put everything into it. We were going for the win. From the very beginning, we believe that the lawless -- that the tariff was unlawful, and we wanted to see the rule of law upheld. We think that's very important.

COATES: Well, the six Supreme Court justices sought your way. The president does not. He called officials in this case and the plaintiffs, which include you, the word he used, sleazebags. I want you to listen to this, unfortunately. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I know the people that brought the lawsuit. And, you know, sleazebags, major sleazebags. We got sued by sleazebags, I know them well, that are very outside country. China-centric but outside country-centric. And they're going to end up not doing as well as they did before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, I know this is not about politics for you, Rick, but what is your response to the president the United States' words?

WOLDENBERG: Well, obviously, no one appreciates being called a sleazebag. We're a mission-driven business, and we make educational products for schools and homes. I don't think people really think we're sleazebags.

In this case, the beef we had was not with Mr. Trump. The beef we had is the way the law is being applied. And I've declined all opportunities to take positions for or against the policy or to offer Mr. Trump advice. What we wanted was the law upheld. That's what happened today. We're very grateful for the action of the court.

COATES: But you've been speaking out today. And I heard you say at one point, it's our money, they took it unlawfully, they have to return it. The Supreme Court sided with the issue that these tariffs were illegal. They didn't address how companies and customers might be refunded as a result of the imposition of illegal tariffs. Do you believe that you will actually see that tariff money returned?

WOLDENBERG: Well, I think the Court of International Trade has actually made rulings in other cases that are related to this, cases where companies filed for injunctive action to force the government to allow them to re-liquidate entries. And they've said that if the tariffs are held to be unlawful, all the people who paid them will be able to re-liquidate their entries and get their money back. So, I expect that to happen.

It's very common that the U.S. government will over collect taxes and then rebate them with interest. Most Americans have at one time or another gotten such a check. It's not a marvel when you open the envelope. And they can do it in our case, too.

[23:25:01]

COATES: So, what about customers who paid higher prices to incorporate the tariffs? Is it your understanding that companies will have to distribute those refunds to customers or has that not been factored in?

WOLDENBERG: Well, I can tell you that it's an equitable question that we've given a lot of thought to, and it's actually quite difficult for us to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after they pushed them off the top of the wall. That notwithstanding we're trying to average our prices down to where we think they would have been but for the tariffs where we didn't announce a price increase for 2026, and we're going to hold the line as long as we can to allow our price to average down in this inflationary environment, put people in a good position to buy our products at a fair price.

COATES: You say your company paid over $10 million on tariffs in 2025. The president has already imposed new tariffs. It's 10 percent global tariffs. How will this new tariff affect your business and many other small American businesses?

WOLDENBERG: Well, the rate of tariffs that we pay, because we pay it, not foreign countries, has just fallen by about half. So, that's a step in the right direction. I don't think anyone who was realistic in thinking about how this would play out would think that a win in the Supreme Court would be end of game. But it's going to be very difficult for them to recreate what has taken place over the last year. And this is the first step in easing back from it.

I'm hopeful that the period of time that these tariffs will be in place will give the administration time to consider what their priorities are and to either go to Congress to seek additional tax revenues and have that debate in the public square like it should be or to prioritize what the tariff goals really are. I don't think destroying an education company to have more cars made in this country makes any sense whatsoever, and it doesn't to our employees either.

COATES: Rick Woldenberg, thank you for joining.

WOLDENBERG: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, another burning question tonight, what did Jeffrey Epstein do with his mysterious New Mexico ranch? And did anyone know? A brand-new investigation being launched tonight. And I have one of the people leading the effort here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Everyone has heard about Jeffrey Epstein's high-end properties, right? Like the infamous hideaway Little St. James, better known as Epstein Island, or his seven-storey mansion in New York City's elite upper east side, or the now demolished waterfront home in Palm Beach, Florida.

But you might not have heard about Zorro Ranch, his sprawling desert ranch in New Mexico, a secluded property purchased in the early 1990s. That estate, appearing many times in the Epstein files recently released by the Department of Justice, prompting New Mexico State officials not only reopen a criminal investigation, but also launch a bipartisan "truth commission" into Epstein's alleged activities at the ranch. Even though Epstein did not face charges in New Mexico, the state's Department of Justice revealed in 2019 that it was investigating the residents and had interviewed possible victims.

New Mexico State representative and chairwoman of the "truth commission," Andrea Romero, joins me now. Representative, thank you for joining. I'm wondering about the main objective of what is now known as the "truth commission."

ANDREA ROMERO, NEW MEXICO STATE REPRESENTATIVE: So, our "truth commission" has formed as an ability for us to investigate Epstein's alleged crimes in New Mexico. He was there for over 26 years and operated without any scrutiny whatsoever. For us as New Mexicans and I think for the nation and the world to understand what went on there, the "truth commission" is committed to getting on the record what those allegations are and proving the truth of them through the process of our investigation.

So, again, we're bipartisan. We are not playing political games with this. For us, it's about making sure that victims understand that there will be an opportunity to get on the record from a government that is listening to them, that sees them, that is willing to do this process as a special subcommittee in order to investigate these crimes.

COATES: How will you prioritize and what are the specific allegations you're looking into?

ROMERO: They really run the gamut as we've newly learned about some of the allegations that have come to light just weeks ago. So, for us, it's really filtering through top priority, you know. And we know that victims are still out there and are willing to speak to us on the record about their -- what happened to them. They are top priority.

[23:34:55]

And then as we go through the gamut of who worked there, who saw what, who was participant to these allegations, we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we find every single person who may have been involved.

But it is a long list of information. Again, 26 years of allegations that we're looking into. So, it is -- it is -- we do have our work cut out for us. No question.

COATES: Walk me through that work. Is it involving property search? Will there be independent interviews? What are you reviewing?

ROMERO: Yes. I mean, we're talking about allegations, things that have been on the record. You know, tips that were given to potentially law enforcement. Of course, we're seeing the FBI files that have been released and are still redacted for us in the course of this. We're going to be looking to our local law enforcement. What did they know at the time? Were cases filed for victims at the time and never followed through upon? You know, we're going to every level of perhaps this being mishandled by our own locally.

And so, we're basically looking at the allegations of sex abuse. We've heard of children being trafficked and abused at the ranch. Of course, women and persons of interest in this process. So, it is really greatly, you know, concerning to us as to how we get started. Of course, as we get through the course of this, to look at the priority of victims who are still available to talk. But it is going to be difficult.

COATES: Yes.

ROMERO: And certainly, what we're looking at is very, very disturbing.

COATES: Do you have enough resources to exhaustively investigate?

ROMERO: We have the Department of -- our local Department of Justice, the New Mexico Department of Justice, working with us actively. And again, they've just launched a new investigation, and we will be working in tandem with them. We just heard from our governor yesterday that they will be offering any opportunity to provide both resources and support to us as well. So, we feel very supported. Our commission itself has $2 million in our state budget, just passed yesterday in our legislative session, to go through this investigation, hire the staff that we need to get this done.

COATES: Representative Romero, thank you so much.

ROMERO: Thank you. Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, a Tucson couple revealing they've found a glove with blood on it less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's home. You won't believe what happened when they called the tip line. An update on this and the rest of the case next. Plus, remember the first house they searched? New insight into the investigation from the first man who was detained and released. He is now trying to clear his name and says he is living in fear. His attorney joins me with a message for the sheriff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, there could be a new clue in the search for Nancy Guthrie. An anonymous couple from Tucson says they found two black gloves less than a mile from her home last Wednesday night. And the couple says one of the gloves appeared to have dried blood on it. They say when they first called the tip line, they didn't get much of a response. Then they called 911, which finally led investigators to come and talk to them to look things over.

The sheriff's department says it can't confirm any details about the glove, but it adds that they're still analyzing several gloves found in the search for Nancy Guthrie, a process it admits can be -- quote -- "lengthy."

My next guest used genealogy testing to help solve the Idaho college murders. David Mittelman joins me now. He is the founder and CEO of Othram, the world's first private DNA lab. David, this is now almost three weeks in to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. But I want to first talk about these two gloves that an anonymous couple found. I mean, could that drop of dried blood, if it's that, could that be enough to get a DNA sample?

DAVID MITTELMAN, FOUNDER AND CEO OF OTHRAM, BRYAN KOHBERGER CASE GENETIC EXPERT: It takes very little DNA to get information. So, yes, of course, could be enough DNA. Even touch DNA could be enough to look who left that DNA.

COATES: When it comes to the DNA for genealogy testing, how much is needed there? Does it have to be of a certain quality to get the credible result?

MITTELMAN: Nowadays, the technologies developed quite far from the early days. And even the worst kind of DNA damaged, chemically altered, and even just mixed with other DNA is still suitable for this kind of testing. The key thing is to recover DNA. As long as you can get any quantity of DNA, you have a good shot at being able to find out who left that DNA at the crime scene.

COATES: You just talked about blood DNA or touch DNA. Is there a perfect type, so to speak, to collect for genealogy testing?

[23:45:00]

MITTELMAN: Well, I mean, the more recent the DNA was collected and the more quantity available, the better. So, DNA that comes from saliva, from blood, that's going to be the perfect DNA. But sometimes, you don't get, you know, the perfect DNA, especially at a forensic scene. And so, really anything, whether it's, you know, dried blood, fabric that has been handled, could be a cigarette butt, could be really anything. You could have handled an item and that would be enough to leave DNA that would allow investigators to identify who might have been at the scene (ph).

COATES: Will the outdoor elements impact the ability to get a good sample or to get a good match?

MITTELMAN: Sometimes, the outdoor elements can have an impact. You know, extraordinary sunlight, U.V, it can damage DNA a little bit. There are, of course, other things in the environment and elements that could have an impact.

But, you know, we've worked thousands of these cases at Othram, and we've found things that are of varying quantities and qualities. Generally, if there's DNA available, we should be able to build a profile. Some profiles are more challenging to build than others. But I feel optimistic that if they're able to recover an item and they can determine investigatively that that item is tied to the disappearance, there's a good shot they'll be able to build a profile and find out who is involved.

COATES: You helped crack the Kohberger case with genetic testing. But you said this process takes a while. Why does the process take so long? MITTELMAN: Well, you know, there's a couple parts to this process. Building a DNA profile doesn't take a while. The quadruple homicide in Idaho, this was back in November of 2022, things moved along very quickly. The local lab in Idaho was able to build an STR or sometimes called CODIS profile in 24 hours. Our company built a profile for genetic genealogy in 48 hours. So, in less than a week, the DNA profiles were established and a search was executed in CODIS.

And then in the genetic genealogy databases, where there can be a little bit of variability in how long it takes to identify someone, you know, where that happens is in the process of taking the genetic relatives that you find in the genetic genealogy database, and then using those relatives to reconstruct a family tree and find either the person you're looking for or a very close relative. And that really just depends on the kind of relatives you find, the complexity and intricacies and sizes of the family trees, that sort of thing.

But building a profile, just the DNA profile to get started, takes just a few days. And right away, when you build that profile, you'll immediately get information, you'll learn a little bit about the biogeographical ancestry of that person, where they're from, where their family is from, and you'll begin to be able to narrow down the investigative effort.

You know, when there's no other leads available, anyone could be a suspect in principle. And it's very hard to focus the investigation. There are so many possibilities. Once you have DNA testing in hand, you have a good chance to begin to narrow down the search for the person that's responsible.

COATES: David Mittelman, you would know best. Thank you so much.

MITTELMAN: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Meantime, investigators continue to test evidence gathered from two other searches last week. That includes the search in Rio Rico, Arizona, about an hour south of Nancy's home in Tucson. I was on the air when deputies and FBI agents stopped a driver and searched his home. Police say he had no connection to the case and released him. But the man says he wants the sheriff to come out and apologize so that he can clear his name.

His attorney, Jesse Showalter, joins me now. Jesse, the Pima County sheriff says that your client was questioned, was released, but they're still processing evidence. What evidence are they processing?

JESSE SHOWALTER, ATTORNEY FOR "CARLOS": Well, the only thing that we're aware that the sheriff's office took was his cellphone. We have requested that that cellphone be returned. We anticipate that it will be soon. Obviously, Carlos has no connection whatsoever to this Nancy Guthrie business.

COATES: What led up to him being detained in the first place? Any idea?

SHOWALTER: Well, that's what we're trying to understand. There was a search warrant that was issued. It was signed by a judge in Pima County. And it permitted the search to occur, it permitted the search of his residence, his vehicle, and his person, the taking of DNA, and the taking of his phone. But when we requested the affidavit that the investigators had to provide to the judge in order to obtain the search warrant, that affidavit is under seal.

[23:50:00]

So, it's very hard for us to figure out what -- you know, it's obvious to us that he's innocent, that he had nothing to do with this, and that either, you know, there are -- there may be false statements in this declaration, there may be mistakes, there may be some kind of confusion, but that's what we're trying to figure out.

COATES: I mean, he says that since his arrest, people have been following him, taking pictures of him at times. How is he doing with all these?

SHOWALTER: This has been overwhelming for his family. This has been just terrifying and heartrending. And they're in this position where they've been taken from anonymity and thrown into this. And they don't -- they don't want to come out and be seen on camera because it's only going to make it worse.

And so, it's not just Carlos, it's his in-laws, it's his wife, it's his children. They're living in terror. They have cars driving by their house. They're being pointed at if they go out in public and go to the store. And they're having difficulty maintaining employment as a result of this.

COATES: The sheriff says the department does not identify people who were detained and released without charges. But he's not apologizing for arresting your client either. Is that enough? Should the sheriff apologize?

SHOWALTER: The sheriff should apologize. I think it's really obvious. Carlos is an American citizen. They placed a cloud of suspicion over him. They identified him as a -- quote, unquote -- "person of interest," which is, you know, tantamount to calling him a suspect, then they released him and didn't clear the cloud that they created.

So, we don't think that simply saying, oh, let's all move on is sufficient. What we've seen again and again in high-profile cases where police are having difficulty and pressure to solve them, things like the Amerithrax investigation after 9/11, the Atlanta Olympics bombing, they end up pointing the finger at people. And it can take years for them to clear their names. And they live with a cloud over them. And ultimately, we know that the sheriff's office is going to have to make this right and fess up that they made a mistake.

COATES: Does it impact your argument at all? For those who would argue, well, it wasn't the sheriff's office who named him, but an interview that was given by his mother-in-law, does that impact it at all?

SHOWALTER: No. That community in southern Arizona is a very small community. And, you know, it's not just putting that cloud of suspicion on him, it's we think that they falsely arrested him, we think they subjected him to an illegal detention, and that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights with these searches. So, you know, there's much more to it than that, but the start would be just admit that they did wrong.

COATES: Will that prevent any future legal action, if they were to admit that?

SHOWALTER: You know, it would certainly make it harder, right? If they were to come out today and say, Carlos did nothing wrong, he's cleared, he wouldn't have damages going forward. Basically, every day, they wait to do that. They're making it worse for him. And they are increasing their own liability and creating a bill that, unfortunately, taxpayers are going to have to pay to compensate them for what they've done.

COATES: Jesse Showalter, thank you for joining.

Up next, on this Friday night, a very interesting A.I. prediction from actor Matthew McConaughey and his advice to the next generation of Hollywood stars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it is time to check in with Elex Michaelson in L.A. Nice to see you, Elex. I mean, look, CNN got this town hall with Matthew McConaughey and Timothee Chalamet. It airs tomorrow night at 7. We got a sneak peek at what McConaughey told young actors about A.I. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, ACTOR: It's coming. It's already here. Don't deny it. It's not going to be enough to sit on the sidelines and make the moral plea, the moral plea that no, this is wrong. It's not going to last. There's too much money to be made and it's too productive. It's here. All right? So, I say, get your own -- your -- own yourself. Voice, likeness, et cetera. Trade market, whatever you got to --

UNKNOWN: So, you did it?

MCCONAUGHEY: Yes. Get own -- own yourself. So, when it comes, not if it comes, no one can steal you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: At one point, he even suggested A.I. actors could crash the Academy Awards. You think the public will ever be OK with A.I. actors?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's already happening. [00:00:00]

I mean, there's an A.I. actress named Tilly Norwood, who's got 90,000 followers on Instagram and had a whole CBS Sunday Morning profile. I mean, this is a thing. And probably, unfortunately, not only A.I. actors, but A.I. news anchors.

COATES: Well, how do I know you're real, Elex? Because the way you just opened that up, you might be too good to be true. You know what? Let's prove it. Have a good show.

MICHAELSON: Have a great weekend, Laura. Great show tonight.