Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Epstein Probe Shows it is Off Track with Hillary Clinton Deposition; Refugee Found Dead; Mamdani Touts Meeting with Trump; Texas Senate Race Up for Grabs; Prosecution's Star Witness Takes Stand Against Kouri Richins. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 26, 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]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: You are to be able to step on that plane, push one button, and have wi-fi for the whole time.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I could not agree more. I mean--

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Agree.

PHILLIP: Yes. And also, if you do make people pay and it doesn't work--

JENNINGS: -- you get your money back immediately.

PHILLIP: You better refund them. I mean, it is absurd. We have some airline hot takes, maybe we'll get to that one today.

HINOJOSA: Yes.

PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much.

Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media: X, Instagram and Tiktok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, are the Republicans investigating Jeffrey Epstein wasting everyone's time? Hillary Clinton tells them she never even met him. One Democrat says the whole deposition was a -- quote "clown show." She joins me tonight. Plus, Texas Senate race is up for grabs that Democrats think they can win. But will James Talarico or Jasmine Crockett be the nominee? Congresswoman Crockett is my guest. And the love fest goes on. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani gets Trump to crack a smile by showing up to the White House with props and a pitch. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, here's my opening statement tonight. If you're trying to build a serious case as, say, a prosecutor, you don't do it by auditioning witnesses to fit your theory. You can't reverse engineer it, right? You question the people closest to the crime, all of them, people who can actually move facts, place names and dates and flights and money, and put it all together.

You don't subpoena witness to find out if, by chance, they matter. You subpoena them because you already know they matter. Otherwise, you might be seen as just grasping at straws.

A real investigation does take some investigating. But it isn't about putting on a performance of accountability. It's about actually building the case towards accountability.

And today, Republicans on the committee looking at Jeffrey Epstein, well, they made it clear just how selective their investigation really might be because they spent hours, hours questioning Hillary Clinton in a closed-door deposition. More than six hours, in fact. And it was many of the, well, same questions. And they were asked over and over. You know what? She gave the same answers over and over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So, it's on the record numerous times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: At one point, the Epstein questions, which we were told was the subject of this conversation, well, those ran out. And that might be the real tell because when Republicans didn't learn anything new about Epstein, again, why she was subpoenaed, they began to ask Clinton about topics that had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet. That was serving as the basis of a member's questions to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: She sounded pretty, well, diplomatic about the whole thing. But other Democrats on the oversight committee, well, they had other words for what went down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): We are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition.

REP. WESLEY BELL (D-MO): What we're seeing is political theater.

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): The reality is this is a political sideshow. This did not help our investigation at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: And wasn't that the point? To move that needle? Or is tomorrow -- yes, I think tomorrow is the real test because the committee is set to question former President Bill Clinton. And he is repeatedly named in the Epstein files. He travelled on Epstein's private plane at least 16 times. And the files do include this picture showing him with a redacted woman in a jacuzzi. Now, he has long denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein. And Hillary Clinton, well, she's previewing what he expects to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in '08 were like most people. They did not know what he was doing.

[23:05:00]

And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look, if you want to get down to the details, it is totally fair to follow investigative leads. If you have serious questions, you have to ask them. And it's totally fair to want to question Bill Clinton, who is named in these files.

But if you're serious about getting to the truth and you believe that an exhaustive investigation and review is the only way to get to the truth, well, then you cannot stop at him. That's like a nap in the overall exhaustive investigation. You talk with anyone who had close ties or really any of the similarly described ties to Epstein, right? You actually show up and you ask questions about Epstein like during Les Wexner's depositions, which Republicans actually skipped. You try to get answers from other people who showed up in these files. And you want an exhaustive list? Well, Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Look, I want to be clear. Trump, Lutnick, Wexner, not accused of any wrongdoing here. Being mentioned in a file does not equal a crime. Full stop. But that's exactly why a real investigation is supposed to follow the threads wherever they go. And if you set the bar at exploring anyone mentioned or anyone you think may have been referenced even by association, why hasn't the list continued?

Well, my first guest was in the room during deposition today, Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari. Thank you so much for being here, congresswoman. I mean, first of all, we're not in the room. We're told we might get the video tape at some point 24 hours from now, whenever that actually will be. So, take me in the room. What was Secretary Clinton's demeanor even like today when she was faced with all the questioning?

REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): Thank you so much for having me. I think that Secretary Clinton, despite the ridiculous circumstances of this deposition, handled it exceptionally. She answered every single question thoughtfully with detail, with, you know, what appeared to be honesty and transparency.

And I think that the Republican members of the Oversight Committee, under the failed and incompetent leadership of Chairman Comer, demonstrated that they are not taking this investigation seriously. They have never taken this investigation seriously, to be clear.

And today's questions, repeated questions over and over and over again about whether or not she knew Jeffrey Epstein, which she did not, to the outrageous off-topic questions about UFOs and Pizzagate, to their behavior before and after, if you look at social media, the Republican members of this committee took really smiley group photos before coming in. Of course, everyone now knows Congresswoman Boebert leaked a photo to a right-wing influencer, which was very much against their own rules that they set about this.

Then the secretary actually continued her demand and her calls to bring press into the room. There was so much press here today --

COATES: Yes.

ANSARI: -- in New York, all outside wanting to be part of the hearing, to hear it live, and get the answers transparently. And the chairman looked just completely -- you know, he's out of his depth with this. And they've never taken this investigation seriously. And it was, quite frankly, appalling.

As a woman, as a young woman, I was disgusted. And I've spent a good amount of time now with the victims. And I just think this is so extremely disrespectful, that we are wasting hours on end on a deposition like today's and not having actual serious conversations or subpoenas against the many administration officials who are very-well documented in these files --

COATES: Yes.

ANSARI: -- and, quite frankly, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, who's named more than almost anyone and who has very serious allegations against him, according to recent reporting this week.

COATES: Well, congresswoman, I am very curious about what her reaction was like when the conversation moved away from Epstein into things like the UFOs or Pizzagate, which she has noted very conspiratorially. Can you just talk to me about what was her reaction? We've seen her in a variety of circumstances from Benghazi on reacting to different committee questions. What was she like when she heard the conversation devolve away from those focuses?

ANSARI: I think she thought it was absurd and ridiculous.

[23:10:00]

But she handled it very well. I mean, she was professional, she was poised, she responded to the questions as she could.

COATES: How about when the photo was leaked? ANSARI: She was very upset about that, as was her counsel, as were we, because the hypocrisy of it all, I think, was beyond astounding, the fact that the Republicans had demanded that this be off, you know, private and nothing be released until they decide that they are ready to do so. So, it was their own rules that they had set, right? The Clintons and the oversight Democrats, we have been wanting this to be public the entirety of the time. So, she was, I think, understandably very upset about that. I'm glad that she continued with the deposition.

Again, it's not that any of us are against. I was very supportive of having her come before the group. But I just need more seriousness from the Republicans. The fact that so many of them showed up today but did not show up last week when we were in the deposition with Les Wexner who, of course, is literally the person responsible for Jeffrey Epstein's wealth --

COATES: Yes.

ANSARI: -- I think that is just unacceptable and it makes them complicit in the ongoing cover-up.

COATES: Well, tell me, congresswoman, is the pursuit of getting a deposition or some testimony from President Donald Trump either while in office or after he leaves, is that part of your basis for having agreed to this subpoena of the Clintons?

ANSARI: I think our basis for agreeing to today's is really based on the premise that we want to bring anyone who may have any information related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes or the cover-up to come forward.

COATES: Let's talk about that. Let's talk about President Clinton then because he is tomorrow's witness. He's -- it's the first time a former president has been compelled to testify before a congressional committee. Tell me the questions we can expect him to face.

ANSARI: I think he's going to be scrutinized heavily by both Republicans and Democrats. You know, I was very concerned to see many of the images that came out in the files. I'm not OK with that. I intend to ask questions about the nature of their relationship, the timeline of their relationship, what other knowledge he may have of other individuals who are named in the files and their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I also think it's fair to ask about what President Clinton may have discussed with Jeffrey Epstein in regard to Donald Trump.

So, there will be many questions. There are more members coming tomorrow. And I expect that the deposition will go on longer than today went. Certainly, you know, we imagine -- President Clinton had a relationship, right, with Jeffrey Epstein. So, there are important questions to be asked there, and I hope that he will be as transparent as I felt that Secretary Clinton was today.

COATES: Tell me the threshold for bringing someone before your committee for these hearings because, obviously, I understand your pursuit of the information, but then there is an inconsistency because you've got Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has never been accused of any wrongdoing, but his name is also kept in the files, and it has been revealed that he visited Epstein's island after the 2008 plea deal. Do you have plans to subpoena him?

ANSARI: The oversight Democrats absolutely have plans. I, quite frankly, think that Republicans in Congress remain terrified of Donald Trump and the retaliation they will face from the administration. If you look at how Donald Trump has treated Thomas Massie, how he treated his former ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene, they are very careful on the oversight committee to subpoena people who are currently part of the administration or who have not had a falling out with Donald Trump at this point.

Tonight, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna took to Twitter to say that Donald Trump has been exonerated. I have never heard a more outrageous claim in my life.

Just this week, there was reporting about the Department of Justice intentionally withholding investigations that did happen by the FBI and interviews that happened with a woman who says that she was abused and raped when she was a minor by Donald Trump. The FBI does not conduct multiple interviews with somebody unless they believe they are credible. Where are these documents? Where are the investigative records? This is an egregious cover-up.

So, for any Republican, I think that no American will be taking any of these Republicans seriously when they make outrageous claims like that. And that's why, to your earlier question, the precedent has been set. And Donald Trump needs to come before the oversight committee and answer these questions, as does Howard Lutnick, as do many other individuals currently in the administration or associated.

COATES: Congressman, thank you.

ANSARI: Thank you so much.

COATES: Still ahead, has Mayor Zohran Mamdani figured out President Trump?

[23:15:00]

Another meeting today. All smiles. And this time, Mamdani got something major from the president of the United States. Plus, a nearly blind refugee who doesn't speak English found dead, found dead after being released by Border Patrol at a coffee shop. But what exactly happened? We'll get into it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: How did a disabled man who is nearly blind die after being dropped off by immigration agents in the frigid cold of Buffalo, New York? Well, that's the question his family wants answered tonight. Nurul Amin Shah Alam is the latest casualty linked to President Trump's immigration crackdown. Alam was arrested a year ago on trespassing charges. He pleaded guilty earlier this year.

[23:19:58]

But officials in Erie County transferred him to federal custody because they placed him under an immigration detainer. After Border Patrol determined he was a refugee from Myanmar and couldn't be removed, they dropped him off at a coffee shop. They say that's where he wanted to go. But his family had no idea where he was. And days later, Shah Alam was found dead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR SEAN RYAN, BUFFALO, NEW YORK: The Border Patrol officers had no protocol of what to do with a disabled man who doesn't speak English, who is confused and lost. And you know what they did? They dropped him at a closed coffee shop. That's why we do not cooperate with ICE, Homeland Security, and Border Patrol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in CNN's Omar Jimenez, who has been following the story very closely. Omar, I mean, what happened? What are we learning about the death of this refugee?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, I just spoke to his son very briefly just a few minutes before we got on, who just told me it has been a really difficult day for their family, and that really when he left county custody, local custody, that that was the last time their family saw him or heard from him.

So, I think what's most helpful is to take people through sort of a timeline of what happened here. So, for starters, a little over a week ago, he was arrested in what his family told Reuters was a misunderstanding on private property. He pleaded guilty. He was released from the local county jail back on February 19th, which is a critical day here because that was the day that his family says that that was the last time they heard or saw from him.

He was in the U.S. legally as a refugee and wasn't eligible for removal. But likely because of the crime, he was picked up by federal immigration officials. When they realized he wasn't eligible for removal, that's when, according to them, he asked to be taken to this location where he was left, that he was offered to make a phone call but declined. That is their account.

Regardless, a missing report was filed on February 22nd. Two days later, a body was found. And then a day later, the medical examiner confirmed the identity of Shah Alam.

And quickly, I just want to bring up what Border Patrol said as part of a statement. They said they offered him a courtesy ride, which he chose to accept, to a coffee shop, determined to be a warm, safe location near his last known address, rather than be released directly from the Border Patrol station. He showed no signs of distress, mobility issues, or disabilities requiring special assistance.

Even if that was the case, his family didn't know where he was for days after he was picked up by Border Patrol, only to find out through the medical examiner. Laura?

COATES: That is just awful. I know we're learning more details about what was the cause of death and beyond. I mean, this is just the latest controversy from Trump's immigration crackdown. You spent time following the path that migrants normally take to the border. Omar, what did you find?

JIMENEZ: Yes. So, really, over the past few months, I've done a lot of reporting in L.A., Chicago, and Minneapolis, which have been really focal points of where the Trump administration has cracked down on immigration enforcement. But what we thought was interesting was to see how is that actually affecting migration patterns and is that making an impact on those who want to try and come to the United States. So, we went down to the Mexico-Guatemala border to find out.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ (voice-over): We're heading to the Suchiate River separating southern Mexico and Guatemala. It was a major transit point for migrants on their way north to the U.S.-Mexico border. This was 2023, some days. The river was full of migrants on makeshift rafts that day, hoping to continue their journey. In 2026, many of those same types of rafts sit empty or handle everyday commerce. Those who run them remember what it used to be like.

JIMENEZ: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

UNKNOWN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

JIMENEZ: Wow.

UNKNOWN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

JIMENEZ (voice-over): They say they started to notice a difference in the months after President Trump was inaugurated. Not just because people were afraid of being turned away at the U.S. border, they were also afraid of what could happen if they did cross over.

JIMENEZ: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

UNKNOWN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE). Which I had to see. (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: Now, for those who don't speak Spanish, a lot of what they were saying was essentially that -- that -- that man there had heard from people that they are people who have been scared about what might happen to them if they get to United States, that they've seen videos on TikTok. And, obviously, this is something that's airing this Sunday night.

[23:24:59]

And it is just one piece of this puzzle because next, we then go to the United States and see how some of these immigration enforcement tactics have played out in the U.S. And we know that in some cases, Laura, they've had deadly consequences.

COATES: Omar Jimenez, excellent reporting as always. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Of course.

COATES: And you can watch Omar's entire compelling hour on Trump's immigration crackdown on "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper" this Sunday at 8 p.m. Eastern and the next day on the CNN app with subtitles.

The bromance lives on. President Trump and New York City Mayor Mamdani together again today, meeting in the Oval Office to talk housing. And Mamdani, you know what? He seems to have gotten what he came for. Take a look at the picture he posted. The president grins, holding a mocked-up New York daily news front page casting him as a hero to the city. A prop brought by Mamdani, of course.

And wait, there's more. A Columbia University student released by ICE at the mayor's urging. The mayor even got a call from President Trump to let him know about the release shortly after they met.

With me now, former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. All right, the big question everyone is always asking about this is, you know, Mamdani called the meeting productive. Are you surprised by their productive relationship?

JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I think that he's a pretty, you know, polished politician. You know, for a guy who was just in state assembly for a few years, he's coming to his own, he's got lot of charisma.

COATES: People doubted that he would, in fact, be seasoned enough to handle this.

CROWLEY: I think there was some question about that. And still, the book is out. We don't know yet. He has only been in for a couple months now, you know. So, I do think that he's really -- he has found the special sauce when it comes to Trump. You have to stroke his ego.

How this was done was brilliant. They did it quietly so there'd be no press before except what they wanted the press to hear and no press after except what they wanted to hear. They brought the prop. The president loved it.

And I think, also, he was there to talk about affordable housing, affordability, something that Mamdami had ran on. He talked about building. We all know that Donald Trump loves to build and maybe even promised that they can name him after him. I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised. But --

COATES: There's a lot of buildings that had Trump's name on them in New York. He's used to that.

CROWLEY: Right. COATES: But there's one thing. You mentioned affordable housing and other issues. He also mentioned a Columbia University student. And that was an important one. I want to get this right because Columbia University is alleging that DHS agents entered the dorm without a warrant and claimed they were looking for a missing child. Then they detained a student. Now, DHS disputes that, Shermichael. But the president usually backs their immigration statements and what they have done over time and those who carry it out completely. Why do you think this was something that Trump was keen on correcting?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think because Mamdani probably asked for it. I mean --

COATES: But why would he indulge?

SINGLETON: Well, I'll tell you. I mean, I think -- think about this. Congressman mentioned this. Mamdani was not expected to win every single person in the -- quote, unquote -- "establishment," the media, the Democratic Party. There is no way this guy can become mayor of New York because of many of his ideological pronouncements. It can never happen. People are going to flee. Crime is going to go up. And even when it looked like he was going to win, a lot of wealthy New Yorkers did everything they could to try to find somebody to go against this socialist guy who could not be the mayor of the most important city in America, arguably the world.

Well, if you're Trump, there's a resemblance a little bit there. A lot of people said Trump could never become president the first time. There's no way he's going to return the second time. He's going to get arrested. He's going to go to prison. He defied the odds, so did Mamdani.

I think there is a little bromance there. And the president sort of likes it. Here's another guy who defeated all the folks, all the naysayers. Well, here am I being president doing the same thing.

COATES: Well, brought in a paper. I mean, talk about a prop. I mean, you know, we got Broadway in New York. He knows a good prop. But look at the thing you were talking about because you mentioned, Joe Crowley, about this. Trump to city: Let's build and backs new era of housing. This is all about finding that common ground, as you mentioned --

CROWLEY: Yes.

COATES: -- of housing in New York City. What is the broader lesson for Democrats here? Is it props?

CROWLEY: That original headline is over 50 years ago, which is interesting. But New Yorkers remember it. So, it is not necessarily about props. I think what he's playing to is the president's ego. That he knows the president likes to build things. He knows the president likes to, you know, flash and be seen and be happy.

But I also -- I mentioned this to Shermichael earlier. You know, Mamdani believes in democratic socialism where the state controls the means of production. The president has been investing U.S. tax dollars in American corporations. So, maybe they're not that far apart at all, to tell you the truth. It's kind of remarkable. So, I do think what you see here is a stroke of genius in terms of political acumen.

[23:30:00]

And I think Mamdani has been able to demonstrate it. How long this will last? I'm not sure. I put it -- put too much on that.

COATES: I mean, he got a shout out at State of the Union as well.

SINGLETON: Yes. I was going to mention that.

COATES: I mean, I have to wonder how many Democrats, many Republicans have tried this sort of playbook, appeal to the ego, try to get what they want for their constituents and beyond. It hasn't always been successful for them either. So, how do you think Republicans are taking this relationship? Are they learning from Mamdani?

SINGLETON: I mean, look, it's a bit of surprise for me being such a conservative guy to see this guy so close to the president. But the president has talked a lot about housing. I think he understands the polling data that we're behind in terms of affordability.

And here's Mamdani, I'm 35, I think he's like a year behind me or a year older, we're like very close in age, and he understands the messaging to a unique demographic of voters who you cannot message to the traditional way.

And I think for Trump, who is a non-traditional candidate, who got a lot of non-traditional voters in 2024, there is something the president may be able to glean from that relationship.

CROWLEY: I'm not so sure of the Republican base. Politics is happy with this. They already had a playbook out there. We're going to tag every Democrat in the country with Mamdani.

SINGLETON: I was making that argument.

CROWLEY: And it gets a lot harder to do that now when the president, their guy, is kind of saying nice things about him. You know, once, he was calling him a communist. Now, he's cozying up to him.

COATES: It becomes a tacit endorsement just to mention that, right? Joe, Shermichael, thank you both so much.

SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, is James Talarico Democrats' best chance at flipping Texas or is it Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett? The Senate primary now in its final sprint and getting really interesting. Congresswoman Crockett is with me live to talk about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARDI B, RAPPER: Please vote for my sister, Jasmine Crockett, because one thing about her, she's going to fight her best. She's going to fight whoever she has to so your voice and your problems could be heard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's, of course, Cardi B today making it clear she is team Jasmine Crockett in one of the hottest races this midterm cycle, the race for the Senate seat from Texas. The Democratic congresswoman faces Texas State Rep. James Talarico in the primary contest on Tuesday. And while a new poll shows Crockett with a double-digit lead, other polls indicate the race is much tighter. But one thing both sides have? Enthusiasm. Early voting well underway. And right now, Democrats have the upper hand before early voting ends tomorrow. It's one of the reasons why national Democrats believe the Lone Star State could flip from red to blue.

And joining me tonight, Democratic congressman from Texas, Jasmine Crockett. Welcome, congressman. You're in the sprint, full sprint to Tuesday. As you've heard, many have talked about the different polls. Some polls show a very tight race. But what's your sense on the ground as early voting wraps up, I think, tomorrow?

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Yes, people are fired up. I will tell you that the story that no one realized they were going to have to write is the influence of young women in this election. Young women have been very emotional about my candidacy and about this race. And so, they are telling everyone, they're calling their moms, their grandmas, their dads, and they're like, go vote. You know, I've been on FaceTime talking to some of them. So, that's really exciting and encouraging to see.

But, yes, you put up a poll that is all good. I need Texas to recognize that the last day of early voting is tomorrow and the only polls that matter are the polls that you show up to vote at.

COATES: There could be more Democratic early voters than Republican ones even though both races, they are competitive. But tell me, congresswoman, what message do you think that sends about Texas and really the midterm electorate overall?

CROCKETT: Yes. You know, a lot of people thought I was a crash dummy.

(LAUGHTER)

They were like, why are you leaving the house? Why are you running for the Senate? It's Texas. And I kept telling people that we have the numbers. We are voter-suppressed and there is a bit of voter apathy. But I was like, we can do this. And as you can see right now, we have maintained a lead over the Republicans throughout the entirety of early voting. We'll see if that flips tomorrow. But this tells me that we have enough Texans who just haven't been voting. We are one of the lowest voter turnout states in the entire country. And I kept saying, we just need to turn our people out. We're really not that red. And right now, they are coming out in droves.

And I'm telling everyone that I talk to, listen, this is great, but if we outvote the Republicans in this primary, I need you all to understand they are going to do everything that they can in November to preclude us from being able to access the ballot box. So, you're going to have to keep this energy and some.

COATES: You look ahead to November already. Obviously, general election. And there are critics, as you know, who are arguing that even if you can win the primary, you can't win in the general. They've got Time magazine asking one Republican lawmaker if he feared you or James Talarico. And he was blunt, saying, she can't win, he can. What's your response to this assumption that you have a shortcoming in that area?

(LAUGHTER)

CROCKETT: I mean, listen, I don't know who telegraphs, who it is that they want to go against. I really don't. All I can tell you is that right now, the governor of Texas is spending over $3 million specifically against me running ads. So, it doesn't sound like they want to go against me. But I do also know that the Republicans are very good at throwing bombs.

[23:39:57]

They did the exact same thing when they decided to tell all the Democrats that, oh, Joe Biden is old and oh, he is senile, so, therefore, you guys need to get rid of Joe Biden. And so, what did we do? We went ahead and got rid of Joe Biden. And at the end of the day, what did they do? They elected an old, senile con man instead. So, they love to kind of stir us up and have us decide to play off of their rhetoric.

Democrats need to focus on the prize. We don't need Republicans telling us what can and can't happen. Instead, we need to do what we know how to do best, which is to send a fighter back to D.C.

For everyone that is concerned about my voice being absent, we know the truth. We know that we can send me back to D.C. We know that Senator John Cornyn specifically said, if you choose wrong, we may lose this seat. We also know that I am the only Democrat that is consistently polled ahead of a Republican in multiple polls, both internal as well as independent polls.

So, listen, forget all the noise. The reality is that we can do whatever it is that we put our mind to. Many people did not think that we would flip that Senate seat in Texas, but we swung it 30 points. Many people didn't see a Black woman being elected the mayor of Leander. There was a plus four Trump seats, but she swung that seat 17 points. So, listen, forget all of that and mind your business. I'm telling everybody, don't mess with Texas, and we're going to do what needs to be done.

COATES: Will you change your approach on Tuesday if you win? Because you'd have to bring in, obviously, more than just Democrats who have not been voting. You'd have to pull independents as well to win that Senate seat. Do you have what it takes to do that?

CROCKETT: I do. The University of Houston polling that came out right before this most recent poll, it showed that I do really well with independents and Republicans, actually. So, I do think that depending on who the nominee is, different groups may be more inclined to come over here. But at the end of the day, we're going to continue to talk about the things that unite us and not divide us.

And, frankly, whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent, if you feel as if your paychecks are too short, then you've got a spot over here. If you feel as if your rent is too high, then you have a spot over here. If you feel as if you don't know how it is that you're going to ever be able to afford health care, then you have a spot over here.

So that -- I mean, we're focusing on very simple messages, and we are not going to allow the culture wars to become the conversation. Instead, we're going to focus on what is actually impacting our lives. And I think no matter who you are, right now, things are looking kind of bleak.

COATES: You know, you mentioned a couple of times Governor Greg Abbott. I know we're short on time. But running for reelection, not for Senate, by the way. But he is spending a lot of money on the attack ads against you. Do you think that people who are saying and suggesting that Republicans want to face you in November because they believe you're somehow easier to beat, what is your reaction to that?

(LAUGHTER)

CROCKETT: If they were really wanting that, I would think that the governor would hold on to his money and not spend it in the primary. That's what would make sense. But, I mean, you can either follow the money or you can listen to what they say. And the last time I checked, a lot of the Republicans have been lying. So, you can trust them now if you want to. But the reality is that I don't know who drops $3 million right before the primary to attack someone that they really want to run against.

COATES: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you.

CROCKETT: It's good to see you.

COATES: And a programming reminder, we're going to have special live election night coverage of the primary next Tuesday, starting at 7 p.m. Eastern. Obviously, it features her race as well.

So, today, I spent several hours covering this murder trial out of Utah that I got to tell you about. Kouri Richins is her name. It's a mom accused of poisoning her husband to death for money. And today, there was a big witness who took the stand and who could make or break this case, the prosecution's star witness. I'll unpack it for you, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did Kouri Richins ever ask you to purchase for her illicit drugs?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: She writes a children's book about grief after her husband dies, only to end up on trial for murdering him, allegedly, soon after. This is about to sums up the case of Kouri Richins, the Utah mom on trial for allegedly poisoning her husband with a lethal dose of fentanyl. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

But today, the prosecution called their star witness to the stand, a house cleaner who worked for the Richins, who says she sold Kouri illicit drugs allegedly used to kill her husband.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARMEN LAUBER, WITNESS: I already knew Eric passed away. But when they told -- when they had mentioned that it was from an overdose, that hit hard. Only for the fact that -- if that's what happened, I need you to step up and take accountability. I said, please, tell me these pills were not for him.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did she respond?

LAUBER: She did.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): How did she respond?

LAUBER: She said, no, they were not. Eric passed away from a brain aneurysm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Earlier, a forensic toxicologist testified that Eric Richins had five times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system when he died. But the question now for prosecutors will be, can they prove how those drugs got into his system?

Joining me now is civil attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin. Areva, good to see you. I mean, she's undoubtedly their star witness.

[23:50:00]

It's the person who's going to connect at least drugs with Kouri, but doesn't go to the next step to suggest how the manner of death was caused by this particular defendant. Was this testimony a win for the prosecution?

AREVA MARTIN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, Laura, we knew all along that this was a star witness for the prosecution. This is the witness that can say that Kouri had her buy some kind of pills, whether it was prescription medication or some kind of illegal drugs. But the prosecution cannot link the purchase of those drugs to Kouri actually putting them in a drink or food or somehow causing Eric to digest the drugs.

And there's another big problem with this witness, Laura, and that is her testimony. When you look at what she said to police officers, there's some suggestion that she didn't really mention fentanyl until the police mentioned fentanyl, and that her narrative was shaped by the police because she wanted some leniency on her own drug charges.

So, I don't think this witness landed in the way that the prosecution intended her to land. Clearly, she scored some points, but I think the prosecution is going to have a problem with her credibility.

COATES: I mean, the cross examination, they were all over her credibility like white on rice, right? They were asking her about her history of drug use. They pressed her about the fact that she was testifying with immunity to kind of deal with investigators where she would testify in the hopes of avoiding jail time for drug-related offenses. And at one point, they played a recording of that conversation with investigators. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: They're looking to pull your drug court deal and ask for seven years. The only exception to that and the only thing that they're willing to kind of help you out with, is if you could help us out with this.

UNKNOWN: He means like, give up the details that will ensure Kouri gets convicted of murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You tell them, I'll do whatever it takes.

LAUBER: Yes. That means incriminating me, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, we're clear, drug court can be an alternative path that sometimes judges will take if somebody is an active addict to have them getting the treatment they need as opposed to jail time. But if that goes away, jail time is the only option. Does this deal or the way they phrase it, does that undermine her testimony for you?

MARTIN: Oh, that's a real problem, Laura, for a police officer to say, we need you to give us what we want, and what we want is a conviction of Kouri for the murder of her husband, Eric. That's not a witness coming forward, testifying, providing credible testimony about what happened. This is a witness under duress, under pressure from law enforcement to tell them what they want to hear, to give them the evidence that they need to get a conviction.

I think jurors are going to have to wrestle with that. And I think that's going to be a really big problem for a lot of jurors who are not going to believe this testimony. And if you throw out the testimony of this housekeeper, then you have no credible evidence linking the drug purchase to Kouri to then, you know, having to make this leap to how Eric gets the fentanyl, whether it's poisoning or whether he takes it on his own. So, prosecution is going to have to do a whole lot to rehabilitate the testimony of this key witness.

COATES: We still don't know also whether Kouri herself would testify. It is odd if she perhaps is contemplating it in light of the things that you're talking about, but we'll see how the jury ultimately finds the credibility of this particular witness, who at times did appear sympathetic on the stand, describing her active addiction and past addiction as well. Areva, thank you so much.

MARTIN: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Complete coverage of this trial continues tomorrow on CNN All Access starting at 10 a.m. Eastern. You can see it at cnn.com/watch.

Up next, the storied horror franchise is facing a horror of its own. With reviews so bad, they'll make you scream.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here in Washington, which means it is time to bring in our friend, Elex Michaelson, out on the West Coast. Elex, good to see you. All right --

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.

COATES: -- they made a scream seven. It opens this weekend. The reviews, well, they're brutal. I want to play just a little bit of the trailer, though.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Well, are you sure know a lot about me for another asshole hiding behind a voice changer?

UNKNOWN: Oh, I'm not hiding, Sidney.

(TELEPHONE RINGING)

Not this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Woo! One critic for the L.A. Times writes, maybe in the boldest meta twist of all, the inventor of "Scream" wants to kill it off himself. Another says -- quote -- "Fed 'Scream' into an AI chatbot and the machine spat this wretched thing out."

All right. I mean, how many times has someone in that mask really tried to kill Neve Campbell?

MICHAELSON: Right. And don't you have caller I.D. at this point?

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Is there a landline? Oh, those are coming back, I hear. But really?

MICHAELSON: Do we not?

COATES: I don't answer unknown calls.

MICHAELSON: Yes. But you know what? Nobody goes to "Scream" because they got saw good reviews. They clearly love the sort of campiness and horror of it. And it's probably going to make a lot of money because people like what's familiar. I don't like horror movies.

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: I don't. This is not my thing. "Scream 1" was enough for me. I didn't need to do "Scream 2," much less "Scream 7." But clearly, there's an audience for this, which is why they keep making it.

COATES: Clearly. I mean, maybe we're just in the wrong business. Like should there be like, I don't know, eight versions of our shows? Is that what's going on?

MICHAELSON: There's an argument that we kind of do the same show every hour and they just repeat them, but that's a whole other thing. I don't know. Maybe our new bosses can weigh in on that.

[00:00:00]

COATES: No. I got dots on my show. What are you talking about? What do you mean? There are dots by me. Just laughing at the end. It's set to open big at the box office this weekend. Clearly, fans, as you say, are not on the same page as critics, but I'm on your page, so I'm going to scream for Elex Michaelson. His show starts now! Ahh!

MICHAELSON: No creepy mask here in the next hour. "The Story Is" starts right -- Laura, have a great night. "The Story Is" starts right now.

COATES: You, too.