Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Iran Expected to Respond to U.S. Proposal; Trump-Backed Candidates Dominate Indiana Primaries; FBI Searches Office, Business of Key VA State Democrat. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 06, 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: Still, Ted Turner called CNN the greatest achievement of his life. And today, at CNN World headquarter in Atlanta, messages of thanks and tribute left by the staff now cover those famous three letters, simple but powerful thank you for the vision that changed how the world sees the news.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Iranian officials get ready to respond to a U.S. proposal to end the war, but will the answer they give be the term Donald Trump wants to accept? Plus, the president gets revenge in Indiana after candidates he backed dominate Republicans who went against him. A reminder that in today's GOP, at least at the state level, Trump still has the power to make you or break you. And the FBI raids the office of a Virginia Democratic state senator who led the redistricting fight, and the timing is raising all sorts of questions. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, here's the thing about negotiations, you can't always get what you want. And if we are actually on the brink of finally seeing a deal with Iran, President Trump may not be getting everything he wants. He may have to agree it's having to fall short of the total victory he promised the American people. He may have to accept terms he would not have taken at the start of this war.

And those terms, they could come soon, like it would the next several hours kind of soon, because we're learning that the Iranians are expected to hand over their reply to a U.S. proposal by tomorrow, a proposal outlining an end to this conflict.

And what is it? Apparently a one-page memo. A source tells us it's meant -- says that it's meant to lure Iran's moderates back to the negotiating table. It would declare the war over. It would trigger a 30-day negotiation period for the thornier issues like Strait of Hormuz and, of course, Iran's nuclear program.

Now, Trump was asked how we got here when Iran looked defiant just a few days ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A few days ago is a long time ago in the world of war. A few days ago -- no, they want to make a deal badly, and we'll see if we get there. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won't. And they've agreed to that, among other things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the truth is we don't publicly know what Iran has or has not agreed to. Iran's top negotiator is still mocking Trump online, saying, Operation Trust Me Bro failed. That's a reference to Trump's plan to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a plan the president now says is on hold.

We also can't forget that, yes, we have been here before. Just three weeks ago, the president was announcing an agreement that would have reopened the strait and sent Iran's nuclear material to the United States. He sold it like it was a done deal, right? And then it unraveled.

And this time around, even Trump himself seems to be wary. He plastered a big old caveat into this social media post. Quote -- "Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to, which is, perhaps, a big assumption." And he ended the message with a threat we've also heard repeatedly. If Iran doesn't agree, the bombing will start. Not exactly the language of something that's totally set in stone, right?

And when the president was asked if Iran is actually on a clock, he did something very Trump. He said a deal will happen while giving himself all the room in the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you have a deadline for when you expect to hear back?

TRUMP: Never a deadline. It will happen. It will happen, but never a deadline.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to begin with the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute, Jamil Jaffer. He was the lead architect of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Also here, White House correspondent for Bloomberg, Jeff Mason.

Let's talk about where we are. I'll begin with you, Jeff, because it feels like I have seen this movie before. Perhaps we all have. We've got the president indicating many times that a deal is near, but then no tangible outcome achieved, at least yet. And then he says no deadline. So, I'm wondering, what are the expectations the administration has for tomorrow?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, I mean, I'm wondering that, too.

(LAUGHTER) It's -- I think the first thing I would say is the president from the very beginning of this war has sent mixed messages. And he did that today. And you outlined that in your introduction.

[23:05:00]

He not only said that the bombing could start again, and he said it would start at an even higher level if they don't agree to a deal. But he also said that they had had good talks over the last 24 hours and that he believes that Iran has agreed to give up its nuclear program. There's no evidence that they've agreed to that. And it's also, I think, worth noting that the last time a major agreement with Iran was concluded about the Iranian -- excuse me, about their nuclear program, it took 18 months to put together.

So, right now, the president, think, is pretty clearly looking for an off ramp and yet doesn't want a bad deal. He said that to me in an interview a little over a week ago. Don't rush me. He doesn't want to be -- appear to be in a rush, but he also doesn't want these hostilities to keep going.

COATES: Eighteen months to come up with, one speech to unravel that particular act, as you're talking about. I mean, a potential deal, Jamil, it might include a pause to Iran's nuclear enrichment program. It might include the U.S. lifting sanctions and unfreezing funds as well. Does it sound like 2015 Obama nuclear deal to you? And who would be in a strength position if so?

JAMIL JAFFER, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, LEAD ARCHITECT OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REVIEW ACT, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, this is exactly your point. We've seen this show before. This is -- if the reporting is right, that the deal has something to do with 15 years of no enrichment at 3.67 percent, billions of dollars in sanctions lifted, cash going back to Iran, that is literally the Obama nuclear deal, very nuclear deal that President Trump said was a terrible deal, never to be done again, got rid of it, horrible for America, disaster for national security, allows Iran to get nuclear bomb.

By the way, all true, all things he said, all these things he said he would never do. In fact, he said just a few weeks ago, they will be never be allowed to enrich domestically. If this deal permits that, President Trump is about to enter the exact deal that President Obama did, the deal he left, the deal he rightly excoriated, and that would be a massive mistake and come at a massive cost to Americans. A war for nothing.

COATES: Well, a worse position then, given the idea that Strait of Hormuz is being occupied, the gas price, the economic toll and, of course, loss of life to a degree as well. I mean, Jeff, the president appears to have taken a pretty sharp turn just in the last like 48 hours about ending the war with Iran. What's driving his mindset? Any idea?

MASON: Well, again, he takes a lot of sharp turns. I mean, if you look back at the history of this war from start to finish, he has moved from language such as saying that the entire Persian civilization would be destroyed to saying that they really want a deal and that we want a deal and to now in the last couple days saying the war is over.

There may be a few reasons behind him saying that the war is over. One appears to be congressional because they've extended it, they've gone past the timeline that they were, the 60-day timeline that they needed. So, that may be part of it. And the other part is, I guess there are multi-aspects to it. He's going to China next week. The Iran war is complicating that visit because it's a complicating factor in the China relationship. China has helped Iran. China depends more on some oil getting through the Strait of Hormuz. China is certainly not happy about this war happening.

And the president isn't happy about the relationship that China has with Iran. So, instead of, or at least in addition to, talking about trade, talking about tariffs, talking about potentially Taiwan, they're going to be talking about Iran. And so, that's another reason why he doesn't want there to be fighting or bombing next week when he's flying to Beijing.

COATES: I mean, Rubio is saying that military operations are over, maybe to the point that you're actually raising now, and that the objectives have all been achieved. The White House does not seem eager to restart combat operations. Curiously, I wonder what the impact will be if this deal has not been reached before the China trip. Does it weaken the United States' suspicions with respect to China, if that's the case? Was that part of the goal of the president?

JAFFER: Well, I certainly think it might. But I think the president is really in a position here where if he wants to act, he can. He has to make the call. He made the call on Monday. I'm going to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. I'm going to escort ships through. And Iran hawks like me cheered. This is exactly what the president will do. Let's get through it. Let's reduce oil prices on our own. And then a day later, well, we're going to pause it, we'll come back to it.

COATES: Because it wasn't working or because it wasn't going to be effective or because he really didn't have all the leverage needed?

JAFFER: Who knows? Right? There are rumors now that the Saudis asked him to back off. But that seems hard to believe, right? What's more likely is we started -- we blew up six Iranian gunboats. They started shooting at us. It started to look like it was going to get hot again. People don't want to get hot if we're going to get to a deal, so maybe we tone it down. And if that's a negotiating tactic, great.

But then you got to get a really good deal. And if what's on offer is what we're hearing is true, that's not a good deal. The president knows a good deal. He knows how to negotiate a good deal. He got to actually go get one.

[23:10:00]

If he takes the steel that is on the table right now, it's a massive mistake. He's going to look like Barack Obama. He doesn't want that. And everyone will be rightly drawn to those comparisons. So, I hope he goes back to his earlier plan. And if what it takes is more bombing, what it takes is opening the Strait of Hormuz, do it. We need to get to a better deal, not the one President Obama did.

COATES: Let's talk about what's happening at home because one of the big pressures is congressional, might be, and, of course, the deadline that the War Powers Resolution codifies. Is the effect on the economy? And the president's chief economic advisor says that American consumers are firing on all cylinders, and this is how.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I had the head of one of the big five banks in my office yesterday going through the credit card data. And just as Secretary Bessent said, credit card spending is through the roof. They're spending more on gasoline, but they're spending more on everything else, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Credit card debt is a bragging point now? Why? Why is he playing this strategy?

MASON: Well, I don't know the answer to that in terms of why he's emphasizing credit card debt. But America, the United States consumer, the U.S. consumer, American consumer spend a lot of money, and that's a sign of -- it certainly is a sign of economic health when people are doing that.

That doesn't mean there aren't signs of economic fears well and job loss and concern about inflation and concern about prices. Affordability, as we've talked about multiple times, is expected to be a really big theme in the midterm elections.

And President Trump loved, before the war, talking about or taking credit for bringing down the cost of fuel and bringing down the cost of goods and saying that he had tamed the tiger of inflation that came during the Biden administration. He just can't say that anymore.

And he also can't blame the previous administration because there's a direct line between the increase in gasoline prices right now and the war that he started with Israel. Maybe the gas prices will come down between now and November. He's banking on that. He's certainly promising it.

And I will say that I think some Democrats are probably pulling quotes from both him and from Secretary Bessent about gasoline prices coming down below four or three or whatever they've promised before November. And I imagine they'll be in some odds this fall if those gasoline prices don't get there.

COATES: Look, the average American looks at credit card debt, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. They don't have the money. It's what's on the credit card. I don't see it as a winning issue. Jamil Jaffer, Jeff Mason, thank you both so much. Still ahead, team Trump takes a victory lap after defeating several Indiana State Republicans who refuse to redistrict, claiming it shows he's still a kingmaker. One of the state senators he defeated will respond to that, next. Plus, Trump's DOJ making new moves that are raising plenty of eyebrows, as Barack Obama now weighs in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The attorney general is the people's lawyer. It's not the president's consigliere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump wanted political payback in Indiana. And in yesterday's primaries, he got just that. At least five Republican incumbents were defeated by Trump-endorsed candidates. He went after them because they dared to defy him, specifically on his call to have the state redraw their midterm map.

Trump world unleashed a flood of advertising in the primary. I mean, look at how much was spent on state Senate primary ads in 2024, right? Two hundred and eighty thousand dollars. Now, look at this year. A whopping $13.4 million. That's over 47 times higher than was spent just two years ago.

My next guest was on the receiving end of much of that ad spending and lost his reelection bid. Indiana State Senator Jim Buck joins me now. State senator, thank you for joining. That number is pretty astounding to see. I mean, over a million bucks were spent against you, and that led to a nearly 30-point loss. Have you seen anything like this before?

STATE SEN. JAMES BUCK (R-IN), LOST REELECTION TO TRUMP-BACKED CANDIDATE: I don't think anybody has.

COATES: Why do you think this was the mechanism? Why do you think you were targeted this way?

BUCK: Well, I think it's pretty clear. We were told from the very beginning if we didn't vote no or vote yes, there would be retribution. And I think the president and his followers kept their word.

COATES: Some voters told the IndyStar that they voted for your opponent simply because Trump said so. What does that tell you about the president's influence on your party and his supporters?

BUCK: Well, there's no question that the president has influence. I mean, I worked hard for him in '16, '20, and '24. I was a big fan and still am. But we all know Trump always liked to say he enjoys winning. And so, they always say who has the power has the gold, who has the gold has the power, and he has both. And so, he was able to unleash all that power and money through the governor and Jim Banks, our U.S. Senator, and David McIntosh of Club for Growth. And so, you can't deny that it was very effective.

You can tell lies all the time, but if you tell them enough, sooner or later, people will believe them, and perception becomes reality. That's just the way the political world works.

COATES: Do you think that it was appropriate for him to unleash the gold and power you speak of in this way?

BUCK: Well, it's not what our founders envisioned.

[23:20:00]

As you know, the founders were very fearful of the centralized government even though they knew they needed to create it for defense and infrastructure.

But when we lost the 17th Amendment, that pretty much neutered the ability for the states to control the U.S. Senate. And in this particular case, this was the very thing that our founders feared the most, that the federal government would become so strong that it would interfere with states right to exist under federalism. And so, that's what we've seen unfold here. And it's a precedent that nobody ever can recall, but the reality of it is it will probably continue into the future.

COATES: Is that part of your rationale for why you were one of 21 state Senate Republicans to vote against redistricting in your state?

BUCK: Well, I've always believed in representative government, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And the people in my district overwhelmingly told me to vote no. They felt it was a form of cheating. And so, dutifully, I voted no on December 11th because that's where my loyalty lies, not with the president and what he wishes to be done here.

If legislators started hearing to that, then the people in my district have lost their vote. And I think that would be the nightmare of everybody, to know what's the purpose of even voting if you're not going to have a voice in the outcome.

COATES: What advice do you have for Republican lawmakers who could be put in a position like the one you were in where their vote aligns with their constituents but not with the president's priorities?

BUCK: Well, I would just say this: There's a certain amount of honor and duty and courage it takes to be a legislator. And if you're willing to abandon those out of fear of threats and intimidation and payback, you have no business being in a government role.

COATES: State Senator James Buck, thank you.

BUCK: You're quite welcome. Thank you. COATES: Up next, the FBI searching the office of a prominent Virginia Democrat, who led the redistricting fight against the president. Now, it's raising all sorts of questions. So, what's behind the move? Plus, it was a gun control law passed after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. So, why is the DOJ suddenly suing to get rid of it? That conversation, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: FBI raids in today's political environment? Well, they're sure to raise eyebrows. So, when agents descended on the office of Virginia Democratic politician who championed the state's redistricting push, well, a lot of eyebrows were raised. Agents raided the office of State Senator Louise Lucas, one of the highest-ranking Democrats in the Virginia State Senate. That's not all. They also targeted multiple businesses that she owns, including a cannabis shop next door to her political office in Portsmouth, Virginia. An FBI spokesperson said a federal judge signed off on the warrant.

"The New York Times" reports the search is tied to an investigation opened under the Biden administration looking into possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses. This raid comes two weeks after Virginians voted to redistribute.

Lucas released a statement that did not address the investigation, but did say -- quote -- "What we saw fits a clear pattern from the administration: When challenged, they try to intimidate and silence the voices who stand up for them."

I want to bring in Scott MacFarlane, chief Washington correspondent for MeidasTouch Network. I'm eager to hear your opinion of what's going on here because the timing is what's raising so many eyebrows. But tell me, what more are we learning tonight about this and why this raid happened now?

SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: Let's start with the timing because the timing is about as subtle as a ball-peen hammer to the face. I mean, this happens -- what? Fifteen days after Louise Lucas was a political force of nature and muscled through that redrawing of the lines if Virginia could flip four seats, four from Republicans to Democrats, and it's happening as the president's allies want other states to respond in kind, emboldened by the Supreme Court. They want Tennessee to move, Mississippi to move, South Carolina to move. So, the timing is a little bit sus.

That notwithstanding Louise Lucas is a power broker. She is not any state senator. And because the FBI appears very clearly to have invited Fox News along to amplify this, to broadcast this raid, to share the images nationwide, they are trying to send some form of a message, notwithstanding whatever case they have.

COATES: Even if this investigation is totally legitimate, there has been quite a hit to the credibility of the DOJ, given the political enemies list, so to speak, the targeting of people who have spoken out against Trump. So, I mean, how much has the DOJ's damage credibility in that realm impacted the way people are perceiving what has happened now?

MACFARLANE: Let's just take the next, let's say 72 hours of our lives, the next three business days. Tomorrow, Southern Poverty Law Center arraignment.

[23:30:00]

Tomorrow, Mark Kelly, Democratic senator from Arizona, goes to court against Pete Hegseth to argue about retribution. Monday, James Comey, preliminary hearing in Greenville, North Carolina. That's just the next three business days.

My reporting is that over the past 15 months, Laura, the Department of Justice has lost 3,400 attorneys who quit, who retired, who have been fired. That's an awful lot of people. You can't just go to the prosecutor's store and pick up some new ones. It takes time to backfill the purge that has happened. I think a lot of people have left. Some have told me because they find the perception of politicization as objectionable and something they have to get away from. Whether it's politicized or not, it's certainly being perceived that way.

COATES: What you describe is a loss for the pursuit of justice as well, more broadly. I mean, one person who has doubts about the current DOJ is a former president. I'm talking about President Barack Obama. And he actually called out the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, and Blanche responded. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The idea is that the attorney general is the people's lawyer. It's not the president's consigliere.

(APPLAUSE)

You can't have a situation in which whoever is in charge of the government starts using that to go after their political enemies or reward their friends, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: There's something extraordinarily rich about a Democrat suggesting that this administration is charging our political adversaries. I mean, first of all, we're not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, I mean, this has almost become kind of the norm since the first term. I mean, can it be reversed?

MACFARLANE: Will it need to be reversed? Will the next person to wear those shoes, the next person at those desks have to change things back or will they be politically imperiled if they try to do so? Great open-ended question, a really important one. To me, the fundamental issue here is that you have civil servants at the Department of Justice who want nothing to do with this.

COATES: Yes.

MACFARLANE: They don't like the perception. And when you lose people from the Department of Justice, Laura, you have indirectly given criminal defendants more leverage in the system. If they're short- staffed at the prosecutor's office, some cases don't get taken, some cases get pleaded out.

COATES: Because, of course, the overwhelming number of cases the DOJ prosecutors handle have nothing to do with this political retribution that is being perceived. And yet if you have a 3,000 plus exodus, that's 3,000 at least caseloads that are not being addressed. And that's being felt. I do wonder, when you look at these cases and the reporting you have, a raid like this, politically, how is it being perceived by people who are in the legislative branch?

MACFARLANE: Well, Louise Lucas put out a statement saying she's not going to back down in Virginia. And, as you'd imagine, that was triumphantly celebrated by so many Democrats.

COATES: Yes.

MACFARLANE: Stand up, stand up for yourself. Let's wait to see a charging document if there's going to be one, if there's going to be one, before we cast judgment on this matter. But it's telling. It's rare the FBI invites media to come along for a raid. They don't do that to protect the raidee (ph) and the raider, usually. It's just different. Let's see if it lands differently with the public.

COATES: Let's see. Scott MacFarlane, thank you as always. Well, the Virginia investigation isn't the only major headline out of the DOJ today. Now, it's targeting gun control laws.

The DOJ, you know, they sued Colorado for banning high-capacity magazines for guns. The state, it passed the ban after 12 people were shot and killed at a midnight showing of the movie "The Dark Knight Rises." That was an Aurora in 2012. The shooter fired 76 shots, 65 of which came from an AR-15-style rifle. But the DOJ argues -- quote -- "Colorado's ban on certain magazines is political virtue signaling at the expense of Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

My next guest fought for that law after his own son was killed in Aurora. It motivated him to become a state senator and also a gun control advocate.

Joining me now, Colorado State Democratic Senator Tom Sullivan. Senator, thank you so much for being here. I know that you have been working on gun control legislation for more than a decade. How do you feel when the DOJ calls your work virtue signaling?

STATE SEN. TOM SULLIVAN (D-CO): Yes, it's hard to understand, but it's not really surprising. We have been successful when that legislation was passed in 2013. They have fought it six different times in the courts here at the state legislature. The opposition tried to repeal it and that failed continually. So, we're just going to keep moving forward because in essence, the high-capacity magazine is what puts the mass into the mass shootings.

[23:35:04]

As you said about the theater shooting, thank goodness he didn't really know how to fill that magazine because it jammed on him. And when that jam happened, the killing stopped.

COATES: And the loss of life, extraordinary. I know even your own son, and it is heartbreaking. But also, so unimaginable how devoted that you have been able to be legislatively to make sure that there was some gun control. I mean, but the DOJ, to your point, they are arguing that the ban -- quote -- "violates the Second Amendment."

And you champion legislation to close loopholes around the high- capacity magazine ban. There's an issue with the idea that really being just that because it's part of the -- it's more of a common application and common use and commonly allowed number of bullets that are there in that capacity. So, why do you believe this law does not violate the Second Amendment?

SULLIVAN: Well, yes. I mean, again -- I mean, I was there, you know, during all of the testimony. There's very little testimony pertaining to gun violence here in Colorado in the last 15 years that I haven't at least been there and been a part of.

And it is not common. The gun industry is an ever-changing, ever- evolving industry. They can quickly change to a common usage of 15 rounds. That's what we used in Vietnam. They gave our soldiers that size of a magazine. It was only afterwards that they extended them the way that they are.

We're having a difficult time getting law enforcement here in Colorado to actually enforce the law. We still have FFLs who are selling them. They're selling them at gun shows. I'm looking to put a bigger bite into the enforcement of it and really make it stand for something.

COATES: I mean, these high-capacity magazine bans, they've got public support. I mean, one poll found 66 percent of Americans support the bans and more than a dozen other states also have similar bans. So, why do you think the DOJ is targeting Colorado's ban and why now?

SULLIVAN: Well, this all spurs back to, you know, the problems the administration has been having with our governor, the stances that we've taken, you know, standing up for women's reproductive rights, our stance we've had for immigration and the homeless, that type of stuff. They don't appreciate us standing up to them, and so they're looking for whichever way they can to try to, you know, cause harm to the state. But we've been through that before here in Colorado, and we know what's right and we'll continue to do what's right.

COATES: Well, State Senator Tom Sullivan, thank you so much for joining.

SULLIVAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

COATES: Next, Secretary Marco Rubio heading to meet Pope Leo as Trump digs in on his feud that may end up being even worse than people thought. Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. ADAM HAMILTON, PREACHER, KANSAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: But I'm a man of faith. And sometimes, that means believing in something others find unbelievable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Could a Methodist pastor in Kansas be the answer to Democrats' 94-year drought in the U.S. Senate? I'll ask him that question and more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: As far as the pope is concerned, it's very simple. Whether I make him happy or I don't make him happy. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And he seemed to be saying that they can. And I say, they cannot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president not letting up with his attacks on Pope Leo. And his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, in a pretty tough spot because he's heading to the Vatican. He is set to meet with the pope just -- what? Hours from now? Rubio is dismissing any suggestion that the meeting is meant to be a white flag or a reset to diplomatic relations.

But the president's attacks, along with that infamous post depicting himself as Jesus, well, almost certainly hang over the talks. It's definitely hanging over the views of most Americans. New polling shows they do not like what they're seeing. Eighty-seven percent say they had a negative reaction to Trump's post, and that includes nearly 8 in 10 Republicans.

My next guest is a preacher who says he wants to use his faith to unify rather than attack, and he has just announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in Kansas as a Democrat. Reverend Adam Hamilton joins me now. Reverend Hamilton, thank you for joining me this evening. I have to go back for a moment to those numbers we just saw on the screen because those numbers, they're almost as bad as they get. The president seems to have offended many of his own supporters. Any idea why you think he hasn't dropped the feud with the pope?

HAMILTON: Well, first, Laura, thank you so much for having me on the program. I really appreciate it, appreciate you. Yes, I'm not really sure why he -- I think -- I think he's a fighter. And I think when somebody pushes back instead of stopping to listen just a bit, I think he struggles with taking the hint and pushes. I think he's a fighter, and he goes back to fight.

[23:44:56]

Certainly, seeing that view of him as Jesus is problematic for most Christians. It doesn't really reflect what we think about Jesus or his values.

COATES: You lead the largest Methodist church in the country, Reverend Hamilton. And I want to ask you about something that we have heard from the administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, using religious language while talking about the war in Iran. You are a man of faith. How do you think that faith should or should not be used in politics?

HAMILTON: Well, I think in American politics, certainly, our faith has been to inform our values and our thoughts. It does mine, you know, I think, for most people. But the role of the United States government is not to use faith to enforce its policies or its positions. I think, right now, it feels like there's an attempt to baptize American public policy, foreign policy, public policy in scriptural terms. I don't think -- I don't think that serves as well.

When you look in the scriptures, you're going to find a lot of language around peace and about bringing peace and Christ calling us to be peacemakers. And so, when you're baptizing policies that don't go along with that and saying, this is really Christian, I think it's problematic.

COATES: You know, Kansas, they do currently have a Democratic governor. But no Democrat has won a Senate race, I've learned, since 1932. And just doing the simple math, that's 94 years ago, reverend. Why do you think this is the year it all changes, the year you are running?

HAMILTON: Well, first of all, I think there's a lot of people who feel frustrated with what's happening in Washington. In Kansas right now, people are frustrated with affordability issues. So, you're finding people who live paycheck to paycheck. And now, gas is $1.50 a gallon, more than it was a few weeks ago. And then you look at health care.

I think Americans rightly expect that government can help solve these major problems. And yet there are people in Kansas who cannot afford health insurance. Rural health care is going away. Folks who are farmers and in agriculture ranchers are saying, look, we're losing markets because of tariffs. The costs of inputs are going up. And these are mostly, almost entirely, self-inflicted wounds. I think they're saying, look, we need government to solve our problems or at least to help solve our problems, not to solve all of our problems. We need Republicans and Democrats working together to address these really critical issues and not harming us, not bringing it -- not making things worse, but making them better. And I think there's a lot of frustration. And I think a lot of people feel our current senator, Roger Marshall, is not listening. They're looking for somebody who's going to listen, somebody who cares and represents Kansas values.

COATES: So, what is it about your unique background that you think would be able to change and address those very issues?

HAMILTON: Sure. Well, I spent 38 years as a pastor. I pastor a church that's roughly equal parts Republican, Democrat, and independent. And we've held people together. And people love one another precisely because of the differences. They've come to embrace each other. And I think that's more of what we need in Washington. So, I think people are frustrated. They want better, and they want their politicians to work together across the Republican and Democratic divide.

I'm committed to doing that. I'm a centrist. I'm an independent- leaning Democrat who is committed to building bridges because we have to. Our government doesn't work unless we're working across the aisle. And I think there's a number of people who say in Congress, who would say, I want to be a part of that as well.

COATES: I'm curious. I've heard you speak about being an independent- minded. You say an independent-leaning and a centrist Democrat. There have been those who've looked at your registration record at least and seen that you have registered previously as a Republican at one point and even considered launching a campaign as frankly an independent. And some of your Democratic components have called you out on that, saying that you haven't truly embraced the party. What's your response?

HAMILTON: Yes. Well, my response is in Kansas, first of all, I have been a Democrat. At periods of time, a Republican. But for me, it's never primarily about parties. It's primarily about people and it's about -- So, when I go in the voting booth, I'm looking to see competency and character, what I'm looking for. But I am really proud to be a Democrat.

And I will tell you, in Kansas, there are a lot of people who are Republicans so that you can vote in a primary for moderate or centrist because, often, we find people who are further to the right than that, and then when they get in the voting booth, they say, OK, these are the people who most line up with my values.

The things about being a Democrat that line up so closely with my values are concerns for people, for the vulnerable, for people who are hurting, for safety nets to care for people. I mean, these are all things that matter to me. Looking for justice, caring for people who maybe are marginalized, who are marginalized, not maybe, but are marginalized, these are all things that matter to me.

COATES: Reverend Adam Hamilton, thank you.

HAMILTON: Thank you so much, Laura.

COATES: Next, a special tribute to an American original, Ted Turner, the visionary who created this very network and whose philanthropy set a new tone for the billionaire class.

[23:49:59]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED TURNER, BUSINESSMAN, TELEVISION PRODUCER: There's a lot of people that are washing money that they don't know what to do with. And I'm not asking anybody to give away the money that they know what to do with, just the money they don't know what to do with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[23:55:00]

TURNER: I dedicate the news channel for America, the Cable News Network.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I can go on and on about the things Ted Turner will be remembered for years from now. Launching CNN, pioneering 24-hour news, starting classic movies, TNT, Cartoon Network, Captain Planet, owner of the Atlanta Braves, The Hawks, his philanthropy, his work as a conservationist.

My colleague, Christiane Amanpour, said it best. He was the original. He made us all strive for his vision of a better world. I want you listen to what Ted told Christiane about his legacy in one of his final interviews.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: What do you most want to be remembered for?

TURNER: The good things I've done.

AMANPOUR: What's your proudest achievement?

TURNER: My family, first. And outside my family, CNN.

AMANPOUR: And what advice would you have for any young person who came to say, Ted, you've done it all, what can you tell me?

TURNER: Clean energy. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. Doug, it's so good to see you. I mean, look, his advice to young people there, it was very telling, clean energy. And we can't forget this is the same man who made the cartoon "Captain Planet" about an environmentalist superhero. I wonder how much of his legacy will be defined not only, of course, from CNN but by his philanthropy, his conservationism.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, that's a great question. I think always the CNN story, the media story, the boom out of Atlanta in 1980 with CNN. But history is going to judge him as this extraordinary conservationist and environmentalist.

I'm not exaggerating. I've written books about Theodore Roosevelt and conservation and FDR. In our era, what Jimmy Carter did as president, saving lands in Alaska. And what Ted Turner did, teaching us how to protect endangered species, you know, falcon and bison, owning two million acres. He started at the Bar None Ranch in Montana. He loves the outdoors. But he loved the idea of a wild America, the outdoor America wilderness, and that if we just built strip malls and port concrete, we'd lose what was so special and unique about our national character. So, I put him as one of the top conservationists of our lifetime, Laura. He was a kingpin at it and did so many things.

COATES: I mean, the tributes have been pouring in all day. And they've been pouring in from people on both sides. I mean, that is very rare in this age of growing anti-billionaire sentiment. What do you think set him apart from the kinds of billionaires that we see today?

BRINKLEY: Well, to your point, you know, I saw Rupert Murdoch of Fox News talking about what a game changer Ted Turner was just in general in his life. Ted Turner, as you just played the great clip, family. He has five kids. I hope they're watching right now. He has 14 grandkids. And they're all involved with his philanthropy on saving lands, on clean air, on clean water, making the earth a healthier place.

And in addition to conservation, and I was there, I was young in the 90s, in the ballroom like eating the bad chicken, when he made the pledge for the billion dollars to the United Nations foundation at that dinner. It blew everybody's mind because he said, let's do it, here's a billion, where's your billion, where's your billion?

He had chutzpah. He had humor. He was wild-eyed. He could be a bit of a troublemaker, but he marched, like Henry David Thoreau used to say, to the beat of his own drum. Nothing phony about Ted Turner. You're dealing with somebody unvarnished, raw, who had vision. And his visions are going to live on because this idea of teaching young people to not have nature deficit disorder, to not know about, you know, fish and birds, there is no world if we just start destroying it all.

And Ted Turner, beyond being the billionaire businessman, really did so much as a teacher and wanted to teach young people about planet Earth and to take care of it. And part of that was his fight against nuclear weapons, you know, non-nuclear proliferation.

COATES: Yes.

BRINKLEY: Not just Ted Turner, but secretary of state -- former secretary of state, George Shultz, a Republican, was doing the same thing. We can't keep building nukes and expect to be on planet Earth. He's not looking at Mars. He's looking at how to be a caretaker, steward, here in America. So, anybody who loves state parks and outdoor life needs to salute Ted Turner. It's sad we lost him, but his vision on ecology and environment will live onwards.

[23:59:58]

COATES: Obviously, his vision of the news, game changing. I wonder how it changed our relationship with politics.

BRINKLEY: It changed mightily. You know, look, in 1991, Turner became Time magazine's "Person of the Year," the year that the Soviet Union broke up. He was that giant. I remember, in 1987, the Challenger disaster, CNN would cover it. The Gulf War, covered it. You know, CNN changed the world, and Ted Turner is the one who started bringing news to us in a different way. He cast a large shadow in Atlanta and Montana and beyond.

COATES: I never got a chance to meet him, and yet I thank him for the opportunity to be here. Douglas Brinkley, thank you so much.

BRINKLEY: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: And thank you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" starts right now.