Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Top Trump Intel Official Resigns In Protest Over Iran War; NATO Rejects Trump's Call For Help; House Oversight Committee Subpoenas Pam Bondi In Epstein Probe. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 17, 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]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): But he had no trouble finding tens of millions of dollars to send mass troops with assault weapons out to the streets of Illinois to terrorize Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's all for us. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the first big crack inside the Trump administration over Iran as a controversial intelligence official breaks ranks with the White House's official story. Plus, no deal. NATO rejects Trump's call for help in the Strait of Hormuz. Does he have any other options to reopen it? And the Epstein investigation turns to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, with a major development that could force her to finally answer the questions. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, the war with Iran has been exposing some serious divisions in the MAGA coalition. And until now, it has been focused on right-wing media voices. But tonight, the cracks are showing within the administration itself. That's because this guy, Joe Kent, is quitting his Trump-appointed role as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

And he's not going quietly. He is saying Iran did not pose the threat that Trump claims it did. Here's just part of his resignation letter: "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."

Now, Joe Kent has some real baggage. He has had ties to white nationalists. He has pushed conspiracy theories about January 6th. And even his own resignation letter is drawing accusations of anti- Semitism.

But Trump is trashing him for a different reason. The president says he wasn't relevant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I always thought he was a nice guy. But I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. But when I read his statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But Trump was singing a different tune when Kent was on his side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A very incredible guy and with a tremendous future, in my opinion.

TRUMP (voice-over): He's a retired Green Beret, a tough cookie with a big, fat beautiful heart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, tonight, we're learning how the resignation actually went down. Two White House officials tell CNN that Kent met with Vice President J.D. Vance and director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, yesterday, which is notable considering Vance and Gabbard have previously been very vocal about the U.S. not getting entangled in foreign wars.

Vance apparently told Kent to speak with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles before resigning, and we're told that he did just that. Vance has not said anything about Kent today.

But Gabbard, she posted this. "President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took an action based on that conclusion." When we look at her whole statement, she doesn't defend Kent. She doesn't even name Kent. But she also is not attacking him. And she renders no judgment on whether she agrees with Trump's assessment.

I'll begin with retired major general, Randy Manner, and former deputy director of National Intelligence and CNN national security analyst Beth Sanner. Glad to have both of you here as the day has unfolded. Beth, Joe Kent, he was far from a conventional counter-terrorist official. He also faced criticism in the past for ties to white nationalists, as we know. How are you seeing his exit?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I think it's going to be a really interesting day tomorrow when Gabbard is testifying at her annual threat testimony with Sissy, the Senate, at 10 a.m. tomorrow because I'm pretty sure they're going to be asking her these questions about whether Joe Kent's views represent her views. After all, she brought him in. He was her chief-of- staff, and then became confirmed as NCTC director. They share these anti-war views. And if you remember, Gabbard campaigned on these issues. They are two peas in a pod, you know. So, the question is, does his views, you know, where Vance and where are Gabbard in their also longstanding views? So, we're going to find out a lot more tomorrow.

[23:05:00]

COATES: So, I'm talking about the timing of his resignation letter. It is not coincidental given her testimony that's coming up in those very questions. Who knows? General, the president attempted to distance himself from Kent's criticism. And in turn, he said this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran was a threat, we don't want those people because -- and there are some people, I guess, that would say that, but they're not smart people or they're not savvy people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, there can be philosophical differences even among the intel community. You do want debate in some instances, albeit maybe behind closed doors, to try to hash out and understand what should happen next. Do you see these differences as helping or hurting national security when there is that disagreement?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: It's very important that the administration within itself has a healthy debate because nothing is typically black and white. There's a lot of gray in national security matters and in intelligence. The dilemma is this administration is deciding that you're either with me or you're not. And it seems that the test of loyalty, quite frankly, using this word, Trump's everything else.

And so, the idea that someone might disagree with him, basically says he identifies them as not smart, and he demeans them and attacks them for having a dissenting opinion, that's very, very dangerous when it comes to national security because we need to be looking at all alternatives and all perspectives so we can do the right thing for the American people.

COATES: You don't want yes men or women when you're talking about national security. You want information men and women.

MANNER: Yes.

COATES: I understand that. Joe Kent is claiming in his letter that Trump started this war in response to pressure from Israel. You served as Trump's primary intelligence briefer during his first administration, Beth. What were his views on Iran back then?

SANNER: Well, I think his views on Iran have been really consistent. I mean, you can read things that he said in the 80s. I mean, frankly, in 1988. I found something the other day that he was talking about taking over Kharg Island. And during the hostage, problems that -- I mean, when they took the U.S. hostages in 1979, he said, you know, we should be going in there and bombing Iran. So, this is a very, very -- and this is one thing I think about President Trump: He is consistent, if nothing else. And so, this has been his longstanding point.

I think this idea about Israel is confusing. I don't know if we actually know the whole story yet, but we do have Marco Rubio who came out with kind of, you know, trying to create this idea of imminent threat by saying that Israel was going to attack, and then Iran was going to absolutely attack in response, and so then we had to preemptively --

COATES: Right.

SANNER: You know, all this kind of craziness, which would suggest that we were following Israel. But I kind of feel like when Netanyahu came and he talked about the missile threat on December 28th in Mar-a-Lago, I think the president was with him and wanted to support that. So, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than certainly the way Kent proposed it.

COATES: I do wonder, when you were briefing him, did you often introduce what other world leaders wanted? Was that somehow advantageous for him to hear? Did he respond to those?

SANNER: Well, I mean, I'm not going to, you know, discuss what is in the confessional but, certainly, you always would be talking about what other leaders would be doing. I mean, the whole point of intelligence for a president is we call it giving the president decision advantage. And that means that they're operating with more knowledge and intelligence than the person that they're dealing with, either an adversary or even an ally.

COATES: You know, and I do want you to pull back the confessional. I'm nosy, and I want your all. Thank very much. But I understand the limitations. General, you know, the U.S. Military has announced that it dropped a new 5,000-pound GPS-guided bomb on underground Iranian missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz. Tell me how crucial that action would be in trying to get that to reopen and operate.

MANNER: So, this 5,000-pound bomb, I have to tell you that I'm not even familiar with it. I was actually involved with the development of the MOP, the 10,000-pound bomb, and there's a lot of smaller ones as well. So, I'm not quite sure what that is. At the same time, I do question it.

Again, getting back to the basics, what are the objectives and what are we trying to actually do in this particular situation? There has been discussion by the president about, well, maybe we'll have boots on the ground. Obviously, in the island. Well -- and then, of course, we had the Texas senator -- excuse me, representative say, oh, no, no, that's not boots on the ground.

[23:09:58] Well, no matter what it is, it's muddying the waters about what are our objectives and what is it we're trying to achieve. And I think the American people -- I don't think -- the American people demand to know why are we spending billions of dollars and losing American lives.

Both lost lives and, of course, their families, my hearts go out to them. My heart goes out to all of them and then, of course, a couple hundred Americans that have been wounded. Plus, remember all of those sailors, marines, airmen that have been away from their families for so many hundreds of days in many cases, especially on those two aircraft carriers strike forces.

We need to be thinking, what are we doing and when are we going to -- when is this going to be wrapped up?

COATES: Without the help of the NATO allies, is the United States back to square one in reopening the Strait of Hormuz?

SANNER: Well, even if we started today, it would probably be weeks before we could get that kind of coalition together, move boats in. I mean, look, it's taking us two weeks to move this Marine Expeditionary Force into theater, and they're going fast. So, it takes a long time to coordinate these things. I think that even if we did that, you know, all the experts say, even if you escorted every ship, you would only be doing a fraction, and it would still take us weeks and weeks and weeks to unload those 250 ships that are stuck behind the strait.

And so, you know, I think no matter what happens, we're somehow going to have to figure out Iran because, as we were speaking earlier, you know, Iran has fast boats. They have drones. They have mines. And we haven't even seen the beginning of this. They don't have to attack everyone. They really only have to attack one, and it all gets shut down again. So, we've got to figure out how to do that, and that's not a simple matter.

COATES: General, I know that Israeli military says the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council was killed in airstrikes. This is somebody who was known as a pragmatic conservative, I understand, who could work with different camps particularly easily. The U.S. might have seen him as someone they could negotiate with or work with. So, what now?

MANNER: Again, this is getting back to the fundamental question. We cannot open the strait without the Iranian participation and consent.

COATES: Or end the war.

MANNER: Yes, that's absolutely true as well. It's extremely easy, as was just mentioned. The Iranians only need to put a few mines into that strait, and that small number of mines that are only a few tens of thousands of dollars apiece will actually cause the insurance companies to be able to reject insurance for the area and to keep the strait closed. So, it's a tremendous loss.

Any time we have people that we unfortunately cannot negotiate with because they don't exist anymore, it just makes it far more difficult to understand where are we going and how are we going to resolve this situation.

COATES: Indeed. General Randy Manner, Beth Sanner, thank you both so much.

Still ahead, is Trump trapped in a cycle of escalation or does he have a way out? My next guest has simulated this exact war for the last 20 years, and he's joining with his views. And later, the soundbite about the war's impact on rising prices, that's coming to a campaign ad near you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: It would hurt consumers. And we have to think about, you know, if that continued, what we would have to do about that. But that's like really the last of our concerns right now because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's the question that has loomed over the Iran war from the very start. What's the end game? And is there a strategy to get there? A new op-ed in Al Jazeera argues there is a strategy and it's paying off. Quote -- "Seventeen days in, Iran's supreme leader is dead and every principle instrument of Iranian power projection -- missiles, nuclear infrastructure, air defenses, the navy, proxy command networks -- has been degraded beyond near-term recovery." Well, those words caught the attention of President Trump, who just this morning shared the op-ed to his Truth Social account.

My next guest, though, sees things very differently. Joining me now is Professor Robert Pape. He's a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the Substack column, "The Escalation Trap." Professor, welcome. This op-ed has been receiving a ton of attention. But you've been arguing the opposite, that Iran is actually more powerful now than before the war. Why?

ROBERT PAPE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, AUTHOR: That's exactly right. And what the op-ed is, as Secretary Hegseth's words, just put in somebody else's paper. So, we have seen the victory narrative meet escalation reality now for many, many days.

And the problem is those tactical measures, number of missiles destroyed, and so forth and so on, are not leading to strategic outcomes, strategic success. Number one, the regime is more dangerous, more powerful, as I'll say in a moment, than before the war. Number two, we don't have the enriched uranium. And number three, Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz for 50 years.

This was our number one objective, to prevent one power like Iran, Iraq, any power, from controlling the Strait of Hormuz. And now, Iran is shipping oil out of the Strait of Hormuz. They've probably made a billion, billion and a half dollars in the last 18 days. They're getting the premium on the price of oil, going right to Chinese banks. They're stronger today than they were 18 days ago.

COATES: Well, you write that U.S. efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could risk actually further escalation of the war.

[23:20:00]

And this is part of a dilemma that you describe as -- quote --- "the escalation trap." Explain to us what that is and where you see this war heading in the near future.

PAPE: So, I have been studying air power for 30 years, teaching air strategy for the U.S. Air Force, modeling the bombing of Iran for 20 years. You are seeing the stages of what I call the escalation trap unfold. We bomb Fordow and Natanz. We destroy the installation, but we don't have the enriched material. A year later, as I always said, we go back for regime change because we don't have the enriched material. And what does President Trump keep talking about? Maybe they're going to get a bump. That's the enriched material.

Now, we've tried regime change. It has made them harder, more dangerous, and more powerful. Now, we're on the verge of stage three, Laura, of the escalation trap that I've been modeling, which is the ground power options. And this is getting us sucked in deeper and deeper. And the reason the president can't walk away is because, number one, that would mean leaving Iran in more control of Strait of Hormuz, and number two, all that enriched uranium, which could be moving anywhere inside of Iran and out of Iran.

So, we are getting sucked in by a process he started by bombing Fordow back in June. He has triggered the potential dispersal of that material, and he can't get out of the trap. And, unfortunately, we're going to pay, likely, a very heavy price for that decision in June.

COATES: I'm sure you've seen yesterday when the Iran deputy foreign minister warned -- quote -- "Just read what happened in Vietnam." He said that when he was asked about Marines potentially being deployed to Iran's Kharg Island. Listen to President Trump's response to that statement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): The Iranian regime has told Sky News, if you put boots on the ground in Iran, it will be another Vietnam. Are you afraid of that?

TRUMP: No, I'm not afraid of -- I'm really not afraid of anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, I heard you say today that Iran is playing a similar game that the Vietnamese played. How so? PAPE: What the Vietnamese learned was not to go toe-to-toe with us in a set-piece battle. We won all of the battles in Vietnam. What the Vietnamese learned is go for the long war because the soft underbelly of America is going at its economic pillars in the long war and also its political pillars. So, what happened in the Vietnam War is even though we won every battle, Lyndon Johnson became the worst lame duck in American history when it became clear that his victory rhetoric met escalation reality, and it just disappeared out from under him in the Tet Offensive.

This is what Iran is talking about. They're actually looking probably not forward exactly, not happy, but they understand if they can inflict casualties on us, on Kharg Island, on the coastal areas of Iran, this is not going to go down well in the midterms. That is how they will try to torpedo President Trump's presidency. President Trump put his whole presidency on the line, and it will be on the line for real if those ground forces go forward.

COATES: Do you believe or agree that Iran has experienced significant setbacks, at least in the near term, based on the offensive so far?

PAPE: Well, they've experienced tactical losses. Our smart bombs are hitting the target. The problem is --

COATES: The supreme leader has been killed, for example, obviously.

PAPE: Pardon me?

COATES: The supreme leader has been killed, for example.

PAPE: Yes, and that's a loss of a leader. But the replacement is a harder line. His son fought in the Iran-Iraq War on the front lines. His son lost his mother, his father, his wife, his daughter and his son. So, there is no reason to think this person who has taken over is somehow dovish.

And his statement was quite clear. He wants to break -- he wants to hold on to the Strait of Hormuz to break the coalition of the GCC states. He's got a very articulate logic. And the pressure he's putting on the GCC, 70 percent of their food goes through the Gulf. And there's only a small number of desalinization plants. If those drones go for the desalinization, oh, my goodness gracious, we're not going to be able to airlift in water to the entire region.

COATES: Professor Robert Pape, thank you for joining.

Up next, the growing cracks in MAGA over Trump's war with Iran as one former Trump official declares the MAGA movement dead. Plus, we're live in Illinois with the takeaways from tonight's primary results. What will it mean for the midterms?

[23:25:00]

And later, why Pam Bondi may finally be about to answer some tough questions about the Epstein files.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Trump's top counterintelligence official Joe Kent may be gone, but the backlash to the nation is only beginning inside the Beltway. Republicans and Democrats came out in droves to disavow Kent for leaning on antisemitic tropes in his letter, along with his past ties to white nationalists. Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon posted on X -- quote -- "Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans," adding "Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don't want it in our government."

[23:30:04]

And while some Democrats may see an anti-war ally in Kent, plenty of others want nothing to do with them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): This is a guy who went on Nazi sympathizer podcast. You know, this is someone who has exposed pro- Kremlin talking points, thinks that, you know, Putin had some justification to go into Ukraine. You know, he said Anthony Fauci should be charged with murder. He's not exactly the messenger here that I think we should be putting up, even if you agree with some of his points in the letter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's talk about it with Neera Tanden, president and CEO at the Center for American Progress and former domestic policy adviser to President Biden, and former Republican congressman from Louisiana, Garret Graves. Glad to have both of you guys here.

I'll begin with you, Neera, because Ken is getting some bipartisan pushback for his views. CNN reported back in, what, 2022 that he gave interviews to a Nazi sympathizer and has ties -- had ties to white nationalists. There are those who support his statement revealing what he believes was not an imminent threat to Iran. But is he the right messenger for the idea of an anti-war movement?

NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: I mean, he's definitely not the right messenger. And he wasn't the right messenger for any message when he was added to the administration, when President Trump nominated and made him this role. He tweeted himself about this role. He took the time to say how excited he was, what a great person Joe Kent is. So, I don't think there's any Democrat who thinks that Joe Kent is a good person or has right views on Israel or anything like that.

I think what's interesting is that it's a person in the president's administration, his counterterrorism expert, who said, despite all his views, made a statement that a lot of Democrats have said is a true statement, which is there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the United States. And I think that is the important fact here.

What he said about Israel and the kind of truancies, I think, are abjectly horrible. But the fact that you have the person who was ranting counterterrorism for this president, saying that Iran did not pose an imminent threat, I think, is an important fact for us to focus on.

COATES: He also, at one point, was chief-of-staff, I believe, to Tulsi Gabbard who will testify tomorrow. And surely, she'll be asked about whether their views aligned in some way. But you've also got, Garret, some MAGA influencers who are going even further, and they're saying that the war is going to actually kill the MAGA movement. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARRIE PREJEAN BOLLER, CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCER: Right now, I do not recognize our president. I think that we are an occupied nation. I think that a foreign country has occupied our government. And we are seeing now that this president of the United States of America is being influenced by a foreign government. And MAGA, let me tell you right now, MAGA is dead. It is deader than dead. And Americans are furious. We do not recognize President Donald J. Trump anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you find that to be hyperbolic in light of the fact that there are -- (INAUDIBLE) Republicans support the war, but there are obviously these fractions?

GARRET GRAVES, FORMER LOUISIANA REPRESENTATIVE: Laura, look, first of all, I think, finally, Republicans and Democrats have come together to agree on something in Washington, and that's that Joe Kent was not the appropriate person, not the right messenger. Secondly, I think that Trump, he is the MAGA movement. So, to have other people come in and say this isn't MAGA or it is MAGA, he is the MAGA movement, and he's the one who determines whether it is or whether it is not. And yes, does he have an obligation to explain to the public and to get the public support or to lead? Yes, he does.

But last thing, and I think we've really got to focus on this, Joe Kent is one person. He is one person in the administration. And just like you didn't make all the decisions for President Biden, you had a whole team of people, you had agencies, had input, you don't allow one person like that to make decision for the president of the United States that was the sole person that was elected to be the president.

COATES: It's interesting, that argument, because that -- you could go back to the founding of our country and suggest, well, they intended for Congress to be the ones to make decision about the idea of not having one person, a team in the legislative branch on this very notion.

But, you know, there are people who look at this, including Gabbard's statement earlier today, that suggested, look, he had the information, he made the decision, the buck essentially stops there. Do you see validity in that, even without having this imminence that Kent described?

TANDEN: I mean, it is -- obviously, it's almost axiomatic that the president makes the decisions here. I think you are right that Congress should have a vote here and have a say ahead of this. That's actually what's prescribed in the Constitution. But, of course, I think what's fascinating about the situation is not that -- it's not the president's right to make the decision.

[23:34:56]

It's just that this military excursion has been only going on for over, you know, a little over two weeks, and you're already seeing people quit over it, you know. I mean, that is a pretty unique fact. No one has quit over anything in this administration. In fact, the president has only fired one person in a cabinet that, you know, I would argue could fire a few more people. But no one has left. And this is a first person over a policy issue and a pretty grave policy issue.

Again, at the end of the day, this person who is overseeing counterterrorism told the country that there was no imminent threat from Iran. And I think that is an important fact that all should assess because, let's be honest, it's not like the administration and the White House is giving us all the facts on a regular basis about what's really happening.

COATES: You've been a member of Congress. Undoubtedly, with the power of purse that you held, it's going to be impactful what the American people are saying about their own purses, right? I mean, the grass prices are rising. Supplies are warning about shortages. You've got the farmers talking about the idea of fertilizer and not having the need for the spring crop, which will trickle down to all of us and other commodities as well.

But one of Trump's top economic advisors, Kevin Hassett, says that they're not worried about the economic impact of the war on Americans. Did you hear this? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASSETT: The fact is that the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound. And that if it were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers. And we have to think about, you know, if that continued, what we would have to do about that. But that's really the last of our concerns right now because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The last of our concerns. It's the kind of statement you must be cringing.

GRAVES: Look, first of all, I'm not going to go take a communications class from it. But second of all, I do think it's somewhat disingenuous for Democrats to be out there criticizing on affordability when during President Trump, you had -- excuse me, during President Biden, you had worse inflation in 40 years, you had higher energy prices than we're seeing today, you're seeing higher prices across the board. And so, to suddenly grab onto affordability and say, this is a concern of ours, I just -- I think it's disingenuous.

COATES: Do you think Democrats have suddenly grabbed onto affordability?

GRAVES: I do, because I think during the Biden administration, you had the worst inflation in 40 years. There was prolonged inflation. You had gasoline prices and energy prices that were the highest that we've seen in modern history.

TANDEN: And why were those gas prices high? Do you remember?

GRAVES: Yes.

TANDEN: There was a war. It wasn't a war we chose.

GRAVES: No.

TANDEN: There was a war.

GRAVES: And I love talking about this because what happened is President Biden tried to do an abrupt shift contrary to the intentions of markets where he tried to force America into renewable energy without having a strategy --

TANDEN: That is not what happened.

GRAVES: -- without having a strategy behind it. All this is --

TANDEN: I mean --

GRAVES: The other thing he did, he directly said --

COATES: I want to hear it.

GRAVES: -- he directly said that we're not going to use oil and gas, and he shut down oil and gas production in the United States. What message does that send to markets? Of course, it's a supply and demand issue, and that is why prices went up.

COATES: Do you think that the voters in the midterms will be more concerned with what Biden did versus what Trump is doing?

GRAVES: Oh, no. A very fair point, Laura. It's a very fair point. And this administration has to ensure that -- and look, I meant to make this point earlier. When President Trump administration briefed the Gang of Eight, including Republicans and Democrats, Schumer and others, they came out of that. On the Iraq-Iran intelligence, before they invaded, when they walked out of that meeting, Schumer said, President Trump has an obligation to sell this and to explain this to American people. He didn't say he was opposed. He said that it needs to be explained.

None of us have all the intelligence here and understand the background. I do think the president has an obligation to make clear the justification. TANDEN: Can I just say a few things here because you just -- I just need to correct the record. The biggest surge in prices was because of the Ukraine war. The truth is that oil and gas expanded during the Biden administration. There's more production at the end of the Biden administration than at the beginning. That is a simple fact. And I think the big difference here is we've experienced a price spike on gas prices because of what Putin did in Ukraine.

And we are experiencing a price spike in gas prices because of Donald Trump's sole decision to go to war. We have now learned from his counterterrorism expert, at least, he believes against no imminent threat. And I think the real challenge here is you have an administration official saying to the American people that it's no big deal that consumers are going to feel pain. And I think that belies the entire problem of this administration, which is they've increased tariffs, they have policies that are increasing prices, and the American people find that reprehensible.

GRAVES: That doesn't fully grasp the understanding of American energy markets. We have the full capability to address all of our energy needs right here in America. When President Biden --

TANDEN: -- market for price.

GRAVES: I let you talk.

[23:39:58]

When President Biden was out there shutting down domestic oil and gas, you completely undermine the markets. That is what drove prices up. And the only reason that we had higher production is because of what happened during the Obama and the Trump administration. It takes 10 years to bring something from a lease actually into production offshore. And it takes somewhere around four years onshore. Biden administration had nothing to do with that.

COATES: Well, guess what? You don't even have 10 months before the midterms. Not focused on that. Neera, Garret, thank you both so much.

Breaking news from Illinois where it's primary night, and there's a big result in one race we've been following, the race to replace longtime Senator Dick Durbin who is retiring. And moments ago, CNN projected Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton will win the nomination, beating representatives Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi.

CNN's Steve Contorno is at the Krishnamoorthi watch party in Chicago. Steve, Krishnamoorthi was leading in the polls for weeks, it seems. How did Stratton turn the race around?

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Laura, this is certainly not the scene that the Krishnamoorthi campaign wanted going into tonight, and they did feel confident heading into these final weeks of the race.

But there were several factors that Stratton had in her favor, and we definitely could feel the earth shifting in recent weeks. One is the support that she had from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, her boss, the man who picked her to be as lieutenant governor, a potential 2028 presidential contender who put millions of dollars into a Super PAC supporting her.

We also saw a lot of the narrative and frustration in this race settle on some of the outside spending by a pro-crypto group that was trying to help Krishnamoorthy. And then Stratton also produced one of the more memorable ads of this cycle, which featured many Illinoisans saying, expletive Trump, which got a lot of attention. It wasn't on the air much, but it was seen a lot in media here. Both these candidates addressed their supporters just moments ago. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIANA STRATTON, ILLINOIS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Together, we confronted one of the most frightening moments of our lifetimes. But despite the fear, we never lost sight of what's most important, and that is courage. Courage inspired me to run, courage powered this campaign, and courage will bring this fight straight to Donald Trump's head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): A short while ago, I called Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton to congratulate her on winning the primary, and I offered her my full support on the road ahead. Obviously, this is not the result we sought. But unlike Donald Trump, I'm not going to question the outcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CONTORNO: Now, because this is such a blue state, Stratton goes into November as the heavy favorite to win and succeed Dick Durbin in Washington. A Republican hasn't won statewide in Illinois in more than a decade. Laura?

COATES: Steve Contorno, thank you.

Still ahead, Attorney General Pam Bondi's turn, maybe again, in the hot seat. Now, facing a subpoena for testimony about her handling of the Epstein files. So, will lawmakers and survivors get the answers they want? Plus, the suspected D.C. pipe bomber officially wants in on Trump's January 6th pardon and makes a move that could have him walk free. A former DOJ pardon attorney, Liz Oyer, joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The date is set. The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee has officially subpoenaed the attorney general, Pam Bondi, to appear before the committee on April 14th for a deposition over the DOJ's possible mismanagement of the federal probe into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Department of Justice says the subpoena is completely unnecessary and there's no indication Bondi will comply. But she'll see lawmakers either way when she and her number two, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, privately briefed House Oversight members on their Epstein investigation tomorrow.

With me now, former DOJ pardon attorney, Liz Oyer. Liz, good to see you. I have to ask. Do you think the attorney general could really lawfully avoid this subpoena?

LIZ OYER, FORMER DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: Well, the issue, Laura, is that even if she does not comply with the subpoena, it's really pretty much unenforceable because it's Pam Bondi's Justice Department that would be tasked with enforcing it if it comes to that. Pam Bondi has been subpoenaed by members of Congress who could refer her for prosecution if she refuses to comply. But the referral would go to her own DOJ which, obviously, is not going to prosecute her if she chooses not to comply with the subpoena.

COATES: It almost reveals Congress has a bit of a toothless tiger in this unique scenario which, as you know, highly problematic when you want answers.

I want to turn to the accused D.C. pipe bomber who is arguing the president's broad January 6th pardon should actually apply to him. Here's that pardon that I'm going to remind everyone. It says it should grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Give me your pardon attorney expertise. Should that apply to this particular defendant?

OYER: This pardon is very broadly written. It's actually an issue that has come up in a number of other cases in which defendants have argued that the pardon applies to other offenses that were collateral to the Capitol insurrection that the pardon was clearly intended to cover.

[23:50:03]

And it seems like the argument is pretty strong, that's being made by these lawyers, that this offense falls within the scope of the pardon because it happened near the Capitol and it happened in connection with the January 6 events that were the subject of the pardon. So, this may be a successful argument and will be up to a court to decide how to interpret the scope of the pardon, but it is certainly not a frivolous motion.

COATES: The president could obviously manifest something different if he intended to be different. But obviously, the track record around these events has proven otherwise. I mean, you say the pardon industry is so out of control that it's spawning more crime. Tell me what you mean and what can be done.

OYER: Yes, there have been some really wild occurrences within the pardon world these days, and one of them is a recent situation in which an individual, who was lobbying for a pardon and successfully lobbied for a pardon on behalf of his client, was subsequently arrested by the FBI and charged in federal court with extorting that same client who got the pardon.

The client had apparently promised to pay him an additional sum of money if the pardon was successful. He did not get paid that sum of money, and he hired another convicted felon to go after his original client and shake him down for the money, resulting in criminal charges being brought against this lawyer and lobbyist.

By the way, the price tag on this pardon was very steep. The lawyer who was the subject of this extortion charge got hundred thousand dollars upfront from the client but had been promised another $500,000. So, that's 600,000-total for a successful pardon. And that same client had paid another set of lobbyists nearly a million dollars to lend their force to his case for a pardon. So, people are paying well over a million dollars to try to put themselves in the pardon marketplace. And in many cases, it seems to actually be working.

COATES: The pardon marketplace. That ought to be an oxymoron never to be repeated. And yet, you know, Bloomberg Law, they're reporting that the Department of Justice is going to start hiring prosecutors directly out of law school, dropping the at least one year of legal practice requirement, which we know there are certain attorneys who were able to do so coming out of a clerkship. But are you concerned about the bar being lowered in this way?

OYER: Yes, Laura. I mean, the Justice Department is in shambles. They have lost literally thousands of experienced prosecutors and lawyers since Donald Trump came back into office. The ranks are decimated. They are lacking in those knowledgeable, experienced lawyers who can handle the types of complex cases, sophisticated cases that come across the desks at DOJ.

Hiring people out of law school directly is really an act of desperation. It's not something that the Justice Department traditionally has done. It's not considered an entry-level job to work at DOJ, and it just shows that they're resorting to extreme measures to try to get the basic work done.

We've also seen them advertising on Twitter for lawyers. They're really putting out desperate-sounding calls for attorneys. They have significantly lowered the qualification bars in many ways, and they're essentially taking oncomers, which is really very different from how the Justice Department was even 18 months ago when it was regarded as a very prestigious place to work.

COATES: It certainly was when I was there, and the colleagues I share certainly still hope that's the case. Liz Oyer, thank you.

OYER: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, with baseball on his mind, Trump makes a new joke about a 51st state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(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 over on the West Coast. Elex, I know you've seen this huge game tonight. Venezuela beating the United States in the World Baseball Classic. The score, 3 to 2. This was a nail biter? A nail biter.

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it was. I mean, it went down to the 9th inning. Venezuela end up going up 3 to 2 there. The U.S. has now lost two straight World Baseball Classics by the total of 3 to 2. They lost the last one in Japan with Shohei Ohtani on the mound. This time, losing to Venezuela, which is interesting time, of course, considering everything that's going on with the U.S. and Venezuela. President Trump suggesting that Venezuela maybe should be the 51st state after this.

COATES: You saw him on the game saying -- quote -- "Statehood!!! President DJT." I mean, no good job USA. I don't know. Like that might be the next statement.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAELSON: They did. They played pretty well. But, I mean, it shows you again that anything can happen in one game and that pitching wins titles. I mean, you have one of the most stacked lineups ever for the United States not able to get more than two runs. They played in the last game, the Dominican Republic, another one of the most stacked lineups ever. They only got one run in the last game. So, at the highest, highest level with the greatest, greatest batters.

[00:00:00]

Ultimately, it's about who has the best pictures.

COATES: Well, you know, do you hear it? I love this one. Aaron Judge said the World Baseball Classic is -- quote -- "bigger and better than the World Series." Well, Derek Jeter's response tonight -- I mean, listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Passion has been unbelievable. And we've heard a lot of players say bigger than a World Series. Bigger than a World Series, Derek Jeter?

DEREK JETER, BASEBALL PLAYER: I think the people who have said it's bigger than the World Series never played in the World Series.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: You know what? What can one say? Have a great show, Elex.

MICHAELSON: One of the great World Series champions of all time, Derek Jeter. Laura, thank you.