Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Bill Clinton On Epstein Files: "I Did Nothing Wrong"; Kamala Harris Backs Jasmine Crockett; Trump Orders Federal Agencies To Stop Work With Anthropic; Candace Owens Sparks Backlash With New Erika Kirk Series; Men Accused Of Murders Declared Innocent. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 27, 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: New episode tomorrow at 9 p.m. on CNN and on CNN app. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Be sure to catch our Saturday show "Table for Five" tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Eastern and have a great weekend. "Laura Coates Live" picks up our coverage right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Bill Clinton testifies he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and blasts lawmakers for deposing Hillary Clinton. But is the precedent now set for deposing President Trump or even another first lady? Plus, Vice President Kamala Harris shakes up the Texas Senate primary by making her pick well-known between Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico. I've got Stephen A. Smith here to talk all about that and a whole lot more. And Trump goes scorched earth on a top A.I. company for refusing to give in to the Pentagon's demands. How? Labeling it a threat to national security. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, the Republican-led investigation into Jeffrey Epstein just opened Pandora's box because you can't depose a former president and expect to shut that lid, right? Or pretend this is somehow a one-off. The precedent has been set not only over the deposition of former President Bill Clinton, the first president, I might add, to testify before Congress against his will through a subpoena, but also his spouse, the former secretary of state and senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, who says she never even met the convicted sex offender.

Now, look, Bill Clinton did have some connection to Epstein. So, asking him questions, well, that makes sense as a part of getting to the truth of the matter, which is what this process is supposed to be about, I'm told. Former president was behind closed doors for about six hours. He released a video statement just moments ago explaining the two reasons why he testified and what he told lawmakers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I love my country, including our Constitution. And America was built on the idea that no person is above the law, even presidents, especially presidents. I know what I saw and, more importantly, what I didn't see. And I know what I did and, more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was a part of it. The rest is available, of course, on his Twitter feed.

During his testimony, he was asked about those photos that were revealed in the Epstein files, photos like this one, showing him in a jacuzzi with a woman who is redacted. When he was asked, he said he didn't know who she is and that he did not have sex with her. He said the same thing about several other pictures he was shown.

Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein, as you well know, and he says he stopped associating with him well before his 2008 guilty plea.

But here is the gigantic elephant in the room. If Bill Clinton can be deposed based on connections, why not others? Why not Donald Trump who I don't need to point out also had some well-documented connections with Epstein? And just like Clinton, Trump has also not been accused of wrongdoing. Democrats are saying if the Clintons are a fair game, then so are the Trumps.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): There's a precedent now. We now want President Trump to come in and to testify under oath in front of the Oversight Committee.

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): I do believe that, at some point in time, President Trump will have to answer questions under oath about Jeffrey Epstein.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Now, we have the Clinton rule, which is that presidents and their families have to testify when Congress issues a subpoena.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The Clinton rule. I told you about precedent. The gravity of what's happening, that's not lost on President Trump because he was actually asked about Clinton's deposition and the precedent it sets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you concerned at all about President Bill Clinton being deposed and that that sets precedent for you and your family?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't like seeing him deposed. But, you know, they certainly went after me a lot more than that. I like -- I like him, and I don't like seeing him deposed.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, that's quite the change of heart considering it was just four months ago that Trump said that he was asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Epstein's involvement with Bill Clinton.

[23:05:00]

Maybe it's because he knows about that Pandora's box. What is it called? The Clinton rule? He could eventually face a subpoena to testify as maybe former president. If not now, then the next time Democrats control the House.

Maybe it's because he knows the first lady, his wife, Melania Trump, might be called in for deposition. We know she was photographed with Epstein along with Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell. I mean, if lawmakers can depose Hillary Clinton who says she never met Epstein, why not Melania Trump who appears to have?

That's the thing about precedent. Your past justifications inform and validate future action. Congress has shown there is a lane. And today, Bill Clinton tried to draw a line, saying his wife should have never been pulled into it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Republicans made Hillary testify yesterday. And she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing. So, whether 10 people or 10,000 people were subpoenaed, including her, was simply not right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My first guest was in the room during deposition today, Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Suhas Subramanyam. Thank you so much for being here, congressman. Tell me -- first, I'm going to play for you, though. Here's our chairman, James Comer. Here's how he described President Clinton today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): He has got the southern people skills. He's a charming individual, obviously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Southern people skills. That's an interesting way to phrase it. Tell me how this, if at all, deposition was different from yesterday's.

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): President Clinton was very comfortable. He answered all of the questions. He was very descriptive in his answers.

What was interesting to me was two things. First of all, we had a full showing of Republicans. I mean, there were 10 or 11 Republicans who came to New York to depose the Clintons. There were zero Republicans who went to depose Les Wexner, who bankrolled Jeffrey Epstein for decades. So, just look at that and look at their priorities in this investigation.

But furthermore, they were harder on Secretary Clinton yesterday than they were on President Bill Clinton today.

COATES: Really?

SUBRAMANYAM: And so, just to see that contrast was interesting to me. Again, showed me that a lot of this is political.

COATES: Why do think it was that they were harder on president -- harder on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has said that she had no connection, did not even remember meeting him, and they were on somebody who admits to having some, his words, they, tonight on X, limited interactions?

SUBRAMANYAM: That's a good question. I don't know how to answer that. All I'll say is that Secretary Clinton, I mean, took them to school. She -- they kept asking the same questions over and over again. And she simply said that she had never met the guy or remember meeting the guy. And by the end of it, they were asking her about UFOs and Pizzagate, and asking her for advice on how to do the investigation. That's how, you know, that ended up being.

Here, we had more questions to ask Bill Clinton. And we got through a lot. You know, the Democrats, like myself, we were asking really tough questions of him, but he did handle himself well. He never took the Fifth Amendment. He answered everything.

COATES: And I'm assuming this conversation did not devolve into UFOs or Pizzagate like you did for Hillary Clinton yesterday?

SUBRAMANYAM: It did not, although there were a few other Republican conspiracies that came up from time to time.

COATES: OK.

SUBRAMANYAM: But for the most part, we had more to talk about today. And, you know, we went through every picture, we went through all the flight logs, and --

COATES: OK.

SUBRAMANYAM: -- even, you know, the decisions made in the 90s. So, we covered a lot today.

COATES: Let's talk about precedent. I'm always interested in that. There is talk that this has created some precedent, that a former president, Bill Clinton, testified. Do you really think, though, in spite of what one of your colleagues called the Clinton rule, that your Republican colleagues are actually going to even entertain asking President Trump or maybe even a former President Trump to testify in similar fashion?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, they should. President Trump should testify before a committee or be deposed the same way. Melania Trump should as well.

COATES: You think so?

SUBRAMANYAM: We're going to ask the Clintons for minor characters in this. President Trump is a major character. He shows up almost as much as anyone else besides Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein in the files. So, he absolutely should be talking to us. And certainly, he's the one that's preventing the release of two and a half million files, including files that we're learning now have to do with him and that he's covering up. So, of course, he should come and testify. The precedent is set.

COATES: Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. I'll be curious to see the video of both. I appreciate it.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

[23:09:58]

COATES: I want to turn now to a long-time Clinton insider, the face of former President Bill Clinton's war room during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal and, of course, impeachment proceedings. Joining me now, Lanny Davis. He is also the author of the upcoming book "Finding the Third Way" that will include a forward by former President Clinton. Lanny, thank you so much. This book is coming out in April. I'm eager to read that as well.

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSOCIATE COUNSEL FOR CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Talk to me about this because one of the things, I think, that is really interesting is that the Clintons, they presented a very united front, perhaps unsurprisingly. How well do you think they both held up during depositions?

DAVIS: Well, telling the truth is easy. Trying to lie, especially even if it's not a sworn deposition, it's a crime to lie to Congress under any circumstances, is difficult. So, I think President Clinton told the truth. Certainly, Secretary Clinton told the truth.

And I would urge President Trump, with all due respect, to voluntarily come to the Congress and tell the truth because his supporters deserve a lot of credit. And there is common ground between Democrats and Donald Trump supporters. There should be transparency. The Justice Department should disclose everything. We have a lot in common with Trump voters, we Democrats. This is a moment that maybe Donald Trump recognizes in overwhelming consensus, transparency and caring about the victims. That's what he should do voluntarily. Don't worry about subpoenaing a sitting president. He can offer to go testify and be transparent, consistent with his supporters.

COATES: You know, one thing that former President Clinton said in that video address this evening on X was he took great umbrage, frankly, to the idea of Hillary Clinton being asked questions. He said she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Whether you subpoenaed 10 people or 10,000, including her, simply was not right. Did you anticipate the strong defense of her? DAVIS: Yes. I think, as we watched it, you saw me half smile because for 50 years, I've known both of these friends from law school, when they were dating, and when they became a great first lady and president, when I had the honor to work in the White House. And I saw not only a man who still very much loves his wife, Hillary, but also recognizes when she's mistreated and was trying to contain his rage, which I think we all felt.

Republicans are subject to the question of calling Hillary Clinton and putting her through that testimony. The question Joseph Welch asked a long time ago of Joseph McCarthy famously, have you lost all sense of decency at long last? And every Republican on that committee has not taken this opportunity on television to say, you know what, we messed up, we apologize. That would be great.

COATES: What do you make of the way the DOJ is handling this? I mean, you've been really a crisis manager of sorts. And you've had this mantra, tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself. We've seen a lot of the things triggered through the global fallout at Epstein. But the DOJ, there seems to be stepping on rake after rake after rake. How do you evaluate their performance in getting the transparency out?

DAVIS: Well, it looks like they're trying to hide something and the President the United States looks like he's trying to hide something.

COATES: How do they course correct?

DAVIS: And the course correct is listen to your supporters. I have common ground, which is what I write about in my forthcoming book, with Donald Trump supporters who really put the pressure on this Epstein far more than Democrats and are now telling the president that they really like and some of them love. Why is he holding back? Why is Pam Bondi so much following what looks like a cover-up that she wouldn't even turn around and nod her head to the victims?

So, the two words I leave with you tonight where there's common ground between me and most Trump supporters is transparency about the Epstein files. Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself, as a book I wrote a long time ago would say. And secondly, the victims. Talk about the victims. Address the victims. President Trump, during your State of the Union speech, did anyone say to you, don't forget to talk to the victims? Transparency and the victims. That's what unites us, Democrats and Donald Trump supporters, but not Mr. Trump and not Pam Bondi.

COATES: Lanny Davis, thank you for joining.

DAVIS: Thank you.

COATES: Coming up, a big move in the Texas Senate race. Kamala Harris now picking between James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett. We'll talk about her endorsement and a whole lot more with special guest tonight on this Friday. Mr. Stephen A. Smith live in the studio with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Former Vice President Kamala Harris has just weighed in on who she thinks should win a critical Senate contest in Texas, a race that Democrats hope could tip the balance of power in the midterms. So, who did she pick? Congressman Jasmine Crockett or Texas State Rep. James Talarico? Well, let her tell you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice- over): Hi, this is Kamala Harris, and I'm calling to encourage you to please go vote for my friend Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary today, Friday, February 27th, or on election day Tuesday, March 3rd. Texas has the chance to send a fighter like Jasmine Crockett to the United States Senate. Jasmine has the experience and record to hold Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:20:02]

COATES: As for President Trump, well, he was in Texas today, in fact, with all three Republican candidates, but won't endorse any of them until after the primary, a sign that he may not want to weaken any candidate or strengthen them before likely bruising general election.

Let's talk some Friday night politics with the host of "First Take" and "Straight Shooter" on SiriusXM, Stephen A. Smith. Glad to have you here.

STEPHEN A. SMITH, ESPN AND SIRIUSXM HOST: Good to see you.

COATES: I'm eager to know your opinion of the fact that there's now an endorsement from Harris to Jasmine Crockett. Everyone is focusing on this particular race. And Democrats think that they're viable to win. Tell me even beyond Tuesday. Who do you think is the most viable Democratic candidate?

SMITH: I definitely think it's Jasmine Crockett. I really believe that. I really believe that. You know, the fighter that she is and the way she will go after the Republican side, I definitely think that puts her in a good position.

Obviously, Talarico is no joke. He's appealing to folks from a religious perspective and sort of those Republican individuals that can be swayed to lean a little bit left. He seems to be targeting them.

Jasmine Crockett is unapologetic that she's going -- she knows that she has the Black vote.

COATES: Does she need a Harris endorsement?

SMITH: I don't think she needed it at all. COATES: Will it help?

SMITH: I don't think -- I know it's not going to hurt. But I would say that I don't think that Kamala Harris is going to give her new voters that she was vying for. I don't think that. I think that, you know, Kamala Harris is going to help her secure the votes that she was going to get, anyway. So, it's not a bad thing that she has gotten the former vice president's endorsement, but it's not this great earth- shattering thing either. It's not going to make that much of a difference in the state of Texas either way you slice it.

She's going to have to go out there. She's going to have to get moderate. She's going to have to get independents. She's going to have to be people that, you know, are center-leaning right and try to pull some of them over. This is the state of Texas. This is a red state. We know that she's got the odds stacked against her.

I think that she could win the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in Texas, which is something I encouraged months ago, by the way. But in the same breath, to get that state, to win that state, that's going to be definitely an uphill climb, but it's because it's Texas, OK? And they're not prone to vote for somebody like her, in my opinion.

COATES: Well, she talked about trying to get more voters, but also tap into those who've never shown up before as a way to push the envelope. But I want to talk to you about the tactics because we've seen some different approaches in the way that people have tried to either win their campaigns or, certainly, once they are elected, get what they need from President Trump, right?

SMITH: Right.

COATES: We've seen on the one hand, you've got Democrats with the State of the Union address, many of them skipped the actual address.

SMITH: Right.

COATES: Then you've got people like Mayor Mamdani, right? Who went in and brought some props and seemed to get a lot from Donald Trump. Tell me which you think is the better approach given, of course, Mamdani got something. But are the Democrats wrong to not try to match what Mamdani is doing?

SMITH: I'm not saying -- I'm not saying they're wrong to try and to not try and match what Mamdani is doing. But you are wrong to be acerbic and abrasive and have the mentality he's the enemy and we're not going to try anything because once you're in elected office, your responsibility is to your constituency. And he is, last time I checked, he ain't going anywhere until 2028.

So, what are you going to do for your constituency between now and then? You have to figure out something. They didn't send you to Capitol Hill just to bloviate and talk about what a bad person they are. The 74 million plus people who voted against him already let you know they feel that way. But 77 million people voted for him. And, as a result, he is the president of the United States. And you've got to deal with him. You can't circumvent him.

So, when you look at Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York, and what he has been doing right now, yes, it's the antithesis of the kind of impression he gave you campaigning for the mayoral position in New York City. He seemed to be somebody that talked about fighting Trump or whatever. But he was slick about it because he did say, hey, I'm willing to talk to him, I'm willing to try to engage him to see what I can get out of him, I'm willing to work with him, we're going to agree about some things, we're going to disagree about some things.

COATES: But why is Trump perceptive to that?

SMITH: Well, apparently -- well, listen, Mamdani is a charmer, OK? He's very articulate, he's sharp, he's fast, he's quick on his feet, he can talk and Trump likes that, and he's willing to entertain Trump. And what did he do? He goes to the White House with some -- with some back page or front-page cover, some fake -- some fake publication tabloid or whatever with Trump, and you're appeasing him.

Well, look at what the Republicans who are on Trump's side do. I don't care who it is. They can't stop falling over this man. It doesn't matter if they want to get him a cup of coffee. Before they give it to him, just want to afford your leadership, the greatness of the presidency, you're such a marvelous human being.

This is what they do all the time. They do everything but literally kisses you know what. It's absolutely positively embarrassing how the Republicans fall all over him before they even say anything about what their job description is and what they're doing. They all do this. But evidently, it is because they believe it works.

[23:25:00]

And evidently, they've seen evidence that it does work for him sometimes, the proverbial kissing of the ring per se.

Now, nobody is saying that the Democrats should go that far. But he has the White House. The Republicans have the GOP. They have the House. They have the Senate. You got to do something. It can't just be about, I despise him, I hate him, I can't stand him, he's a despicable human being. That's not going to get you anywhere, especially with him.

In fact, he's the kind of dude that will turn around and bait you and antagonize you and mess with you just to get you to do something that would harm you and your constituents just because he doesn't like you. He has shown he's willing to do that. You have to play chess, not checkers with this man, and not enough Democrats to figure that out.

COATES: Let's talk about that chess game because Democrats, at least when it comes to the Epstein files and the depositions of the former president and, of course, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there was a chess game going on where I think they said, you know what, let me create some precedent here, we are going to support your decision to subpoena Hillary and Bill Clinton because we want that precedent set for you to then call Donald Trump, maybe Melania. SMITH: Right.

COATES: They both were deposed in the last two days. What's your opinion of the way in which the Democrats went about this, the fact that you heard from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton? What's your opinion?

SMITH: It's obviously a very, very serious issue. You're talking about, you know, sexual molestation, sexual assault of minors for crying out loud. Anybody is guilty of doing such a despicable thing to be under jails for crying outside. I mean, we all know that you want to find out who those individuals are. The question is, what's the chances of you being able to pull that off? That is the question mark.

So, deposing somebody like a Hillary Clinton, you say to yourself, what does she have to do with this? And then you heard what --

COATES: She said that.

SMITH: She had nothing to do with it. Then you heard some of the questions that they were asking about Pizza and all of that stuff. Like what? That's what was going on. So, that seemed to be a waste of time.

Bill Clinton was going to be very interesting leading into it because we all know that, you know, his past proclivities is not something that any of us are oblivious to.

COATES: Right.

SMITH: And you kind of wondered how that was going to lend itself towards adding any substance to this Epstein files testimony. It appears that much did not come of that.

And if they're doing it to sort of justify getting the president of the United States that is Donald Trump, whose name was mentioned in those files, well, get him in front of any committee to answer questions. I can tell you right now that will be must-see TV. I think a hundred million people will watch that because I think Trump will go up on Capitol Hill, and I think that he will go after elected officials, and it would be an absolute nightmare, but in the same breath, incredibly entertaining television.

COATES: Well, if he wanted to, he need not have a subpoena. He has the biggest platform, really, arguably, in the world at every press conference described.

SMITH: Right.

COATES: He has already been asked about.

SMITH: Absolutely.

COATES: Let me talk about a sports question.

SMITH: Sure. COATES: I know you follow the Olympics. You know, I'm from Minnesota.

SMITH: OK.

COATES: I don't play hockey. But I was watching. I was watching the game. And, of course, you saw that the men's hockey team, they came to the State of the Union. There was a presidential freedom award that was going to be handed out to one of the stars as well, the laughing comments about the women's team as well. Put this into perspective. Why that moment is resonating with so many people and offended some?

SMITH: Because it's indicative of that good, old boys' mentality where you have men who won gold and did an exceptional job representing our country, and they should all be applauded. But those women won gold, too. They handled their business. And they deserve the same level of respect, the same level of deference, the same level of treatment. And they didn't even get that.

And what have women historically complained about? That locker room stuff, that good, old boys' network. A matter of fact, we had a president, who happens to be the president right now, incriminate himself years ago before he won the election in 2016 about using locker room verbiage. That's what he leaned towards when it came to Billy Bush and all of that stuff. Let's not go there.

The point that I'm making to you is that those women hockey players, who won gold and represented our country admirably, there are people amongst them and those females out there in this world who obviously applaud their efforts and relate to their struggles that might have taken that offensively. And it's our responsibility as men to heighten our level of sensitivity, be far more sensitive and appreciative of the greatness of what women do and what women bring to this country. And, unfortunately, that's not how that came across.

I don't know all the specifics. I was not there. But the fact is that you have enough people feeling the way that they feel. And in the end, what it comes down to is this: If they feel that way, then you probably did something wrong that you need to correct. And you need to watch your mouth moving forward in the future, be a little bit more sensitive and appreciative of the fact that they brought home the gold because, by the way, they brought home the gold before the men did.

COATES: Yes.

SMITH: And so, the men had to go out there and beat Canada. And we didn't know if they were going to beat Canada because Canada had been whipping up on us since 2010. So, the women had their business.

[23:30:00]

And we sat there praying that the men were going to measure up to the women. The women did their thing ahead of time. We should have appreciated them a hell of a lot more than we ended up doing.

COATES: Well said. Stephen A., thank you.

SMITH: Of course.

COATES: Up next, the president (INAUDIBLE) an American company from all government contracts. It just happens to be one of the biggest A.I. companies around and the one that wouldn't play ball with the Pentagon. My next guest says neither the administration nor Anthropic are getting this quite right. Former secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, here to explain why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: At a time when the president has been trying to assert his power over big business, one of the nation's leading A.I. companies is saying quite bluntly, we're not playing ball.

[23:35:05]

Tonight, the president is lashing out at the A.I. giant Anthropic after it refused to allow the Pentagon to use its system without any restrictions at all, posting -- quote -- "The leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a disastrous mistake trying to strong-arm the Department of War, and force them to obey their terms of service."

Now, what he's referring to were the two red lines Anthropic has for the Pentagon, allowing them to use A.I. to operate autonomous weapons and for mass domestic surveillance.

Secretary Pete Hegseth is now designating Anthropic a -- quote -- "supply chain risk," essentially a blacklist that's usually intended for companies tied to U.S. adversaries. And Anthropic is vowing to challenge that designation in court.

But tonight, we're learning that a brand-new player has reached an agreement with the Pentagon, OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT.

My next guest has written about this feud in an op-ed for "The New York Times." Frank Kendall joins me now, former secretary of the Air Force under President Biden. He also handled acquisition contracts for DOD for many years as well. So --

FRANK KENDALL, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER BIDEN: In the Obama administration --

COATES: Yes.

KENDALL: -- I was the undersecretary for acquisition technology and logistics.

COATES: So, a perfect person to have this conversation. I mean, you write in your piece that both the Pentagon and Anthropic, you say, they're making valid arguments, but that you believe Anthropic could have gone about this differently. Describe how you think they could have and also how the Department of War, as it's known now, could have.

KENDALL: I think both sides could have done some things differently. I don't think there's anything wrong with what Anthropic is asking for here. I just don't think it should be necessary.

COATES: Why?

KENDALL: The things they're asking for, that the government won't use the software to surveil broad surveillance of Americans and that they won't use it for lethal autonomy with no humans involved in the decision of kill, those things are all required either by statute or by existing policy.

COATES: Do you have reason to doubt that that would be enforced?

KENDALL: With this administration, I'm not sure what would be enforced, quite frankly. But the provisions of law and policy are already there. So, having a contract with a private business of that effect, I don't think really accomplishes anything.

COATES: But contract with a private business intrigues me because you ought to be able to contract with a private business and have a meeting of the minds, have favorable terms or not, and decide to do business or not. But they've been strong-armed in this. And now, blacklisted through this was called a supply chain risk.

KENDALL: That's the big thing here. This is another abuse of power by the Trump administration. The administration is using whatever powers the president or executive branch may have in ways which are not intended for the purpose for which they're being used. But he's trying to coerce institutions like businesses, like law firms, like universities. It's a pattern you see all the time.

And in this case, they're bringing a nuclear weapon to bear on a company for a minor, I think, contract dispute that should have been resolved. And if you can't resolve it, you walk away amicably. This is an extreme reaction by the Trump administration.

COATES: And yet, OpenAI has now stepped in. What's your reaction?

KENDALL: It's in the news tonight that OpenAI, as you mentioned, has made a deal of some kind with the --

COATES: Right.

KENDALL: I read the release that they put out.

COATES: I'm going to read for one second. It says, two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems. The DOW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement. Isn't that way Anthropic was --

KENDALL: You have to read these carefully. I'm a lawyer. And so, I read it like a lawyer. Saying you have principles and that they are written in the contract doesn't mean that they bind the government.

COATES: Yes. KENDALL: And I think -- we don't know without seeing the actual text, but I think what Anthropic want was a binding contract on the government. And that's what they objected to. So, what exactly OpenAI has agreed to, what's in the document itself, and what Anthropic was insisting to be in the document, we don't know the answer to that right now.

COATES: Well, that's an important question. I'm glad you were here to answer. Thank you, Frank Kendall.

KENDALL: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, if you thought Candace Owens couldn't outdo her Brigitte Macron conspiracy theory, well, you'd be wrong because now, the podcaster has got a new yarn to spin, and this one has MAGA saying, enough is enough.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CANDACE OWENS, PODCAST HOST: What alarms me about Erika isn't so much the fact that she lies, which we will prove to you over and over again, but it's also the fact that I don't know that she's aware that she's lying. It's almost as though she doesn't remember.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's conservative podcaster Candace Owens on the first episode of her new conspiracy-laden series that's igniting quite the firestorm within MAGA. The subject? Erika Kirk. The claim? That Erika Kirk had something to do with the assassination of her husband, Charlie, at a Turning Point USA event last September. And to be clear, there is no evidence that Erika Kirk had anything to do with her husband's murder. There's only one person charged in Kirk's killing. That's 18-year-old Tyler Robinson, who is waiting to stand trial in Utah. He is yet to enter a plea.

But all those facts may not matter to viewers of Candace Owens. Her series "Bride of Charlie," it has already racked up more than seven million views. And that's just on YouTube alone.

I want to bring in Will Sommer who covers MAGA world as a senior reporter for "The Bulwark." I can tell you, when I saw that debut and that series come out, I had immediate questions and also about the following behind what's going on. You watched the debut episode and you called it nonsense. Is she just throwing things at the wall?

[23:45:00]

What's your opinion? WILL SOMMER, SENIOR REPORTER, THE BULWARK: Yes. It's interesting. It's almost like it's formatted to be cut on TikTok in this kind of short bursts. If you watch it for an hour as I did, it's -- you watch these things and it's -- she says, for example, well, you know, there was this discrepancy in Erika's parents' divorce records where they say they were married one year and then they were off by a year All right, little odd, I guess, but how does that get you from that to an assassination?

You know, there are these weird sorts of leaps of logic. And really, it's almost not even really -- it's an insult to conspiracy theorists perhaps to call it a conspiracy theory because it's just really just shreds of logic.

COATES: Why is she so fixated on Erika Kirk?

SOMMER: It's a great question. You know, for a couple months after the assassination, Candace Owens, who was friends with Charlie Kirk, had worked for his organization in the past, was saying maybe Israel did it, maybe the French foreign legion did it. I mean, all these things. And she's kind of encircling Erika Kirk as sort of the standard bearer of the Charlie Kirk legacy.

And then they had this peace summit. Supposedly in early December, they were going to bury the hatchet. I guess that's off because now, with this series, she's really going at her directly.

COATES: This has splintered really in the MAGA world. There are people with very strong views condemning this particular series, getting a lot of backlash for her. You got Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, just to name a few who have been very critical. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN BONGINO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: This just can't be what this movement is. And if it is, I just don't want any part of it. I just don't.

BEN SHAPIRO, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR, PODCASTER: And yes, Erika Kirk absolutely should sue the living hell out of Candace Owens for this sort of stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do think about how this is playing in MAGA online circles?

SOMMER: Yes, I mean, I think these are people, Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, who are realizing that this is a real issue for the right. I mean, there's a respect, a dignity issue, a decency of attacking this widow who saw her husband assassinated in front of the whole world.

There's also a practical matter here that this isn't just influencer drama, this is alienating people. When you're saying, you know, Turning Point USA, which is a critical organization on the right for get out the vote efforts, when you're saying -- COATES: Which Erika Kirk leads now?

SOMMER: Exactly. Exactly. When you're saying, you know, they murdered their founder, that turns off people in the grassroots who believe that. So, I think this is becoming an issue for Republicans in the midterms as well.

COATES: Follow that thread. If it alienates certain voters or turns them away from the population that Turning Point is focused on, what does that maybe pretend for the Republicans in the midterms?

SOMMER: It's not a good sign, I think. I mean, I don't think it's -- I think Trump's unpopularity, obviously, would be a much bigger issue. But having these divided camps, this feuding, almost ahead of 2028, people fighting about what the direction of the party is with Trump as a lame duck, it's not a good sign.

COATES: We're covering this in part. I mean, this is somebody who has 19 million, I think, followers. The series alone has had millions of people who are watching this. You were to go into this. I mean, I've gone into these rabbit holes just out of interest to see how far this has gone and the scope of it. It is extensive. Why do think people are so drawn to it?

SOMMER: It's interesting. I think, on one hand, people have thought of Erika Kirk and they see the pyrotechnics, the fireworks going off. They think this is a little odd. Is this what I expect from a widow? I think there is some segment of the public that finds it a bit strange. And I think she's playing off of that and building it into this conspiracy theory.

It's also, I will say, frankly, it's very compelling to watch at times. People you can kind of get sucked in. It's like a true crime show. And there's always some new development. And sometimes, she has a genuine leak from inside Turning Point USA. And then around that, spun all this kind of lunacy.

And so, I think that's -- I mean, I have my own life. I'll be getting my haircut and the barber will say, you know, I think Candace Owens is really on to something. I mean, you know, it's people just out in the world who believe this.

COATES: I mean, it is catching on. We'll see. Ben Shapiro mentioned lawsuits. You never know what happens next. Will Sommer, thank you so much.

Up next, the latest installment of my "Exonerated" series. A man wrongfully convicted in the high-profile 1991 yogurt shop murders now finally cleared and finally declared what he is, innocent. We'll share a story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: A gruesome crime, nearly 35 years old, one that was never solved until just last year. Four girls ages 13 to 17 found gagged and shot at an Austin yogurt shop in 1991, where it became known as the "Yogurt Shop Murders." For years, four men had been accused of a crime they did not commit, maintaining their innocence ever since. One was sentenced to death row before a judge overturned his conviction. And my next guest, Michael Scott, was sentenced to life in prison before his conviction was overturned as well in the mid-2000s.

Last year, new DNA evidence found the murders were committed by an unknown perpetrator who died in 1999, leading a judge to now officially exonerate each of the four men decades later. The current D.A. issued his own apology to each of them, including Michael.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE GARZA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS: To Mr. Springsteen and to Mr. Scott. Where's Mr. Scott?

[23:54:59]

You were wrongfully accused and you are innocent. And I am so sorry for the role that our office played in that tragedy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Michael Scott joins me now along with his attorney, Tony Diaz. Thank you both for being here. This is such an unbelievable journey that you have had to endure. Mike, when you were sitting in that courtroom, let alone at that press conference, and you actually heard the judge finally say the words that you already knew to be true, you are innocent more than 20 years after your conviction, can you take me back to what was going through your mind?

MICHAEL SCOTT, EXONERATED IN AUSTIN YOGURT SHOP MURDERS: Just going through the process. It's a process. Going through the process and being patient, waiting for the wheels of justice to turn. So --

COATES: And the slow process at that. Michael, how hard was it to live all those years with even those accusations against you?

SCOTT: You either -- you could either let the stuff hang over you and consume you or try and move forward. All I think I was trying to do was endure and move forward.

COATES: How did you do that? Did you rely on people from the outside who were communicating with you? Was it hope that people would understand that you were innocent? Was it faith? How did you endure that?

SCOTT: Really all I did was go work, go home, just focus on work, moving through life.

COATES: You know, there were statements that they say you gave to police. Essentially confessing to the crime. You have later said that those statements were coerced. The conviction was overturned -- SCOTT: Correct.

COATES: -- by a judge in the mid-2000s. There has been no forensic, no physical, no eyewitness evidence at all tying you to the crime. Many people wonder about that coercion. What made you say the things that you did when you did not commit that crime?

SCOTT: I have been asked that question a lot by many people in many different ways. Until you're sitting in that room and you're going through that, it's hard to explain. Mostly that's OK, I'm here, let's tell them what they want to hear, we'll fix it at trial.

COATES: I understand that disbelief of thinking there's no way what I'm saying would lead to an innocent person going to prison. I'm sure you were thinking that. And Tony, can you walk us through how this case was finally solved and how did they get it so wrong?

TONY DIAZ, MICHAEL SCOTT'S LAWYER: Thank you, Laura. I will tell you from the very beginning. I met Mike Scott on October the 6th of 1999 when I was first retained to help him in this criminal case that was initially filed. Being accused of these things didn't stop us from pursuing justice. And we knew, at least I knew, and I felt in my heart, that there would be a time where the DNA, which is infallible, by the way, and the advent of ballistics and technology that is scientifically based, would solve this crime.

But In 2008, on March 17th, when the laboratories initially found that Mike Scott's DNA was nowhere at the scene and, in fact, none of the other young men involved had any DNA at the scene, and there was no tangible physical evidence, as you said in the lead-in, they should have let this thing go at that point. But, unfortunately, even after the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas reversed the opinion that was a conviction, where Mike Scott received a life sentence, they persisted by eventually, in 2009, dismissing the case.

COATES: Yes.

DIAZ: But they -- they were saying that it was still Mike and the boys.

COATES: Well, Michael Scott, Tony Diaz, I'm floored by what you've experienced. And I'm glad that you have finally been exonerated. I know what they took from you is unforgivable. But I'm so glad that you were here to let the world know that you still are.

[00:00:02]

Mike, Tony, thank you both.

DIAZ: Thank you, Laura. God bless you.

SCOTT: Thank you, ma'am.

COATES: God bless you. Thank you all so much for watching because "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" picks up next.