Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Meets Xi for High-Stakes Summit; Alex Murdaugh's Murder Convictions Overturned. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 13, 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: -- organization from the Trump presidency in this term.
JASON RANTZ, RADIO HOST, SEATTLE RED: Yes. I think it's the brand. I don't know if you can. And if they try to do that, I think people would, you know, good faith and bad faith, say it's obviously doing something that --
(CROSSTALK)
HERBIE ZISKEND, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: It's not the -- it's not the brand.
RANTZ: I will say this --
UNKNOWN: It's $28 million for documentary. It's $90 million in shakedowns from tech and media companies.
RANTS: Tech people actually wanted to see --
UNKNOWN: It's $900 million in crypto. This is not the brand. This is a business.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there, everyone. Thank you very much for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is "CNN Breaking News."
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates right here in Washington, D.C. where, right now, President Trump is sitting down with President Xi Jinping. The leaders of the world's two superpowers face-to-face at one of the most uncertain times for the global economy. Here they were just moments ago walking towards the Great Hall of the People where the meeting is taking place. The president, in brief remarks, praised Xi as a great leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, I really look very much forward to our discussion. It's a big discussion. There are those that say this is maybe the biggest summit ever. They can never remember anything like it. It's -- I can say, in the United States, it's -- people aren't talking about anything else. But it's an honor to be with you. It's an honor to be your friend. And the relationship between China and the USA is going to be better than ever before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Look, there is a ton on the agenda. Maybe the biggest elephant in the room is, of course, the war in Iran. Remember, the president originally delayed this very summit because he wanted to have Iran over with first. Well, that didn't happen because now we're in day 75 of a war that, frankly, shows no clear sign of ending.
The strait through which half of China's crude oil passes through, that's still closed. Negotiations, nowhere. The ceasefire on life support. That's not my word. That's how the president of the United States put it. And the cost is nearing $30 billion, which might not even contemplate the cost of damages to U.S. bases in the Middle East.
And the pressure here at home, you can feel it. You can see it each and every day at the pump where prices continue to painfully tick up. In the polls, they show a dramatic drop in support for the president, now cratering in poll after poll after poll.
You know, we even saw a crack emerge on Capitol Hill today where three Republican senators joined with the Democrats in a failed effort to vote to end the war. All things that President Xi Jinping and his team, they're undoubtedly aware of.
So, a huge question among many big questions, can the president in that room right now convince the president of China to do anything to get Iran to agree to Trump's demands? And what, if anything, might the president of the United States have to give in return?
We'll get to all of it with our team of analysts. But first, let's get to CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who is traveling with the president in Beijing. Kristen, good to see you. I mean, President Trump called President Xi a friend. They're now behind closed doors. What do we know about what both sides are hoping to get out of what's going on right now?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, Laura, look, they both are holding some cards. We know that both sides are going to want to come out of this with some business deals, some private sector deals as well as China making purchases. That's good for both of them. They're good for both of their economies.
Now, in terms of who's holding what cards, we know that China has a couple of things that it wants as well from President Trump. They want less restrictions on tech and A.I. They want more access to A.I. technology. We know that China wants essentially the U.S. to stop supplying or at least limits applying any kind of weapons or support to Taiwan. These are bargaining chips that President Trump has going into this. We also know that President Trump needs help from President Xi, help in the form of trying to get -- trying to get Iran to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz or end the war in Iran. And those -- that's a big ask. And the question is, what kind of leverage or what he's going to want President Xi in exchange for that and what President Trump is willing to give up?
But we should note, there are a lot of things that both of these sides are going to agree on, and that's also why you're going to see these CEOs. There are roughly a dozen CEOs, America's top CEOs, that are there to negotiate some of these private sector deals with China, and that's something that the Chinese want going into this as well.
COATES: Kristen, thank you. We're going to check back with you on any of the developments as you get them. So, we'll turn to you.
[23:05:00]
But I want to turn now to former deputy Pentagon press secretary under President Biden, Sabrina Singh, and lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin. He's also the author of "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the 21st Century." So, Josh, I mean, when I hear, as Kristen is reporting and we've known about, that help is needed, the person who is being asked normally has the leverage that makes it a very uneven negotiation. Who has the upper hand here?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Right. It seems that Xi Jinping has the cards. It's -- the title of my boo, "Chaos Under Heaven," is a quote from Mao Zedong who said there's great chaos under heaven, the situation is excellent. That means when the United States is in trouble, China benefits.
And even though Trump's failed and failing excursion into Iran is not really about China, China, of course, is the main beneficiary, and the Chinese government has been diligently trying to pocket gains and collect relationships that the U.S. is casually discarding as this conflict goes on. And so, of course, President Trump would like to have some help from China.
But here's the problem: China is Iran's ally. They're on the other side of this. China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, that's that team. We're on the other team. It is very unlikely that China is going to help Trump get himself out of the mess that he created.
Napoleon once said, once your enemy is making a mistake, never interrupt them, and that's Xi Jinping's strategy here, is to let America continue to commit superpower suicide because all China has to do is sit back and collect the benefits.
COATES: Well, let's talk about that. I mean, superpower suicide, a fascinating -- I don't know if it's a hyperbole, I have to say. I hope it is because we're in America at the moment thinking about this. But --
ROGIN: No. It's fun. Good. I'm not for it. COATES: I know. I don't suggest you are. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio hopes the U.S. can convince China to play a more active role on reopening the strait. But the concerns that Josh raises extremely valid and important to consider. And so, to what extent not only can China help end the war, but what incentive would they have to do so if they can simply collect, as he's describing, to their advantage?
SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, the incentive that China has to put pressure on Iran to open that strait is that the fact that they rely on energy resources coming out of that strait into China. And, of course, Asian countries and countries all around the world, as we're seeing, are so deeply impacted by that traffic in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. But I think what China is probably going to be looking at is, OK, we'll help you, but you help us, too.
And some of the things that Kristen was also alluding to in her reporting was some of the things that they want to address that we know have always been non-starters for the United States, including under Trump's first presidency, which is something like Taiwan. This is a president that we know is famously unscripted. And for meetings like this and in meetings that I've certainly been in, you know, in the previous administration, when you talk to your Chinese counterpart, these are very scripted. You kind of stick to your talking points. And Taiwan is not something that is really addressed.
Now, President Trump has said basically, like, he's willing to talk about this issue. How far is he willing to go? I think President Xi is like, well, he's willing to bring it to the table. Why not push it? If we can help you a little bit, then you're going to help us.
COATES: Do you think Taiwan is the leverage the United States could exercise?
ROGIN: Well, Taiwan is not our leverage.
COATES: Right.
ROGIN: It's not our country.
COATES: Right.
ROGIN: Taiwan's independence and freedom and autonomy are not President Trump to bargain away. They don't belong to President Trump. They belong to the Taiwanese people. And therein lies the rub, Laura, because --
COATES: But how about the strategic ambiguity as a factor?
ROGIN: Yes. So, we have a policy of strategic ambiguity, which means we don't tell them exactly what we would do if they were attacked.
COATES: Right.
ROGIN: Now, Trump can say and do some things that would be very counterproductive for the deterrence of trying against Taiwan. He could give Xi Jinping a bunch of concessions on Taiwan. It would be a terrible idea for America and for the Taiwanese and for all of the other allies we have assurances. But he just might do that because when I interviewed President Trump about Taiwan, he was very clear. He said -- to me, he said -- on the record, he said, China is two feet away, we are 8,000 miles away, if they attack, there is an effing thing we can do about it. He used a different word for effing.
And so, we know that President Trump doesn't care about Taiwan, but we also know that there are a lot of people in Congress and his administration that do. Those people are surely begging him not to do something crazy or stupid or crazy and stupid by giving Xi Jinping a concession on Taiwan that's going to hurt the Taiwanese people. But Sabrina is right. He might do it, you know, because --
SINGH: And there are policies -- there are policies in place that, you know, were passed by Congress or signed under different administrations with its communiques or, you know, the assurances and, of course, the Taiwan relations --
ROGIN: But Trump doesn't really care about them.
SINGH: He doesn't really care, but that does govern the strategic ambiguity of relationship.
ROGIN: It did. It did, anyway.
[23:09:55]
COATES: Well, "The Washington Post" reports that an intelligence analysis produced by the Joint Chiefs -- General Dan Caine, it breaks down how China is capitalizing on the Iran war. I think it behooves us to try to explain a little bit more as to what might be going on behind those closed doors. We don't know but just the cards that are being held. And, you know, China is assisting countries struggling to meet their energy needs. They sold weapons to Gulf allies. They've been able to observe how the United States fights wars and learned how to plan ahead. So, is this war with Iran improving China's influence around the globe?
ROGIN: My opinion is absolutely -- that seems to be the case. I mean, what the Chinese government has done in the past two months is they've come to the aid not only of Asian countries but also our allies in the Gulf. They're selling weapons to our allies. They're selling green energy technology so these countries in Asia cannot be so dependent on the oil that comes through the strait. So, this is going to be a huge boon for China's strategic relevance and for its economic expansion.
We have no one to blame but ourselves. You know, most of American power, Laura, is really just about our alliances and our ability to convince people that the United States is a benevolent world power. Not a perfect one. Mistakes have been made. But, in general, we do the right thing. But nobody believes that anymore.
And in that kind of environment, it is just a race for what can you give us. China has better technology in many of these energy areas now than United States, more money, and more ability to do favors for a lot of countries all over the world. That's really bad for us.
COATES: So, how much do you think President Xi is paying attention to the political backlash here at home? I mean, certainly, he has access to the reporting, is well aware of the polls. I wonder how much he is read in as a strategic advantage.
SINGH: Oh, I think -- I think he's definitely paying attention to what's happening here at home. And I think Iran is paying attention to what's here -- happening here at home. And these are two countries that are willing to withstand pain and are willing to endure that and push that pain to their populations unlike the U.S., which does have midterm elections coming up and could have incredibly strong political consequences for the Republican Party.
I think just one other thing that I would add to what Josh was saying is something that my old boss, Secretary Austin, used to say about China. China is the only power that can completely undo the international rules-based order as we know it today because of their economic might, because of their military might, and just also diplomatically. I mean, they are setting up relationships with countries that we have either abandoned or making inroads into countries within Africa that we do not have strong relationships anymore.
And so, China has that capability and power that is a real challenge to us, and yet we've taken our eye off the ball because this administration has also pulled military capabilities out of the Indo- Pacific and moved them to combat the war in Iran.
COATES: Now, we're saying that economic might of China, I mean, he has attempted to bring with him people who are very influential in the global economy, in the business world. I mean, you've got a large contingency of top CEOs who are with the president. I wonder, are they serving their interests, the United States is, and will they have any impact in trying to put a thumb on the scale?
ROGIN: Listen, to be fair, these kinds of delegations often include a lot of businessmen and CEOs. No matter what country you're coming from or going to, there's always a bunch of CEOs in tow. And encouraging American business abroad is, in general, a good thing. The problem here is that China is not a normal country.
SINGH: Right.
ROGIN: And the companies that are manufacturing China end up becoming corporate hostages of the Chinese government because once they depend on China and China is not a rule of law country, they can look at Apple, look at Nvidia, they'll do almost anything to please the Chinese government because they're beholden to them for their profits.
You know, again, doing business with China, good, but only on terms that are not compromising U.S. national security. It's supposed to be President Trump's job to protect U.S. national security. Sometimes, that means telling the American businessmen no. You can't sell our A.I. technology to our greatest enemy because that's crazy, because then they're going to build A.I. better than us, and that's going to be bad for us.
Will President Trump side with American national security or will he side with Nvidia who wants to sell our top chips or near top chips to China? We'll have to wait and see. We'll find out, hopefully, in a couple hours.
COATES: Certainly. We need to know what's going on behind closed doors. I'm looking forward to that readout. Josh, Sabrina, both, thank you so much.
SINGH: Thank you.
COATES: We're going to keep a close eye on the summit. Up next for us, the president's son, Eric, is also traveling with him to China as Democrats attack the president and his family, accusing them of using the office to enrich themselves. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace is here and much more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was President Trump speaking before he left for China, saying he just isn't thinking of Americans' finances when it comes to the Iran War. Today, as Trump flew across the world, left it to his vice president to explain what he meant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't think the president said that. I think that's a misrepresentation of what the president said. But, look, I agree with the president that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But the White House knows the economy is top of mind for Americans.
[23:20:00]
And a new CNN poll found that 73 percent of Americans say the current economic conditions are poor.
With me now, South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who is also running for governor of her state of South Carolina. Welcome back, congresswoman. I mean, you heard the vice president. He tried to clean it up and say that maybe it was a misinterpretation of what he meant. But it pretty much kind of crystal clear to people hearing about what the priorities of President Trump were and what they were not. And you see the polls. They are showing that people are hurting financially. What do you think the American public needs to hear from President Trump now?
REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC), SOUTH CAROLINA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I would agree, cost of living is the number one issue for Americans today. And what I heard from the president is that when he's talking about Iran, he's specifically talking about national security and nuclear arms. I mean, I think that's what he was trying to get across, and he did so.
But affordability is a problem. And gas is up, groceries are up. What we did see in the month of May is the president and his administration released 172 million barrels of oil through the strategic oil reserves, petroleum reserves. And so, you were seeing the Strait of Hormuz neutralize and calm down, and ships are -- and oil tankers are getting out of there as things normalize. That will be -- that will be better, I guess, for pricing worldwide as well.
COATES: That's a connection, though, isn't it? I mean, the idea of whatever is happening in Iran and the oil prices, national security and beyond, that's very much felt economically by the American people, and the cost of living increases, the gas prices and beyond. So, shouldn't those two --
MACE: The gas prices, I would argue, are better than what they were under the Biden administration even with this war going and not having a war and not having a conflict under the Biden administration. And so, what I saw in the first year of the printout, what's happening in Iran absolutely has a global effect on our economy and economies elsewhere. But what I did see previous to Iran was that wages were up.
You have, I think, one of the greatest treasury secretaries in American history, Scott Bessent, also from South Carolina. He talks about how wages were up, how we had two of the last four quarters in the first year of Trump's presidency, GDP growth was over three percent. So, we saw a lot of economic growth. Prices came down.
COATES: But there's a war now. I know you're talking about Biden and what happened in the first two quarters, but people's timeline begins when they feel the pressure. I mean, when you had what was going on back in what, 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, people blamed that on the increased oil prices. Biden, Democrat, shouldered the blame for that. Is that going to happen with Republicans right now?
MACE: I think you're seeing -- I mean, you're seeing it now. Folks didn't want the war to go beyond what it was. They didn't want troops on the ground. People are feeling the economic impact.
But we're also seeing an administration through the work of Scott Bessent, through President Trump, through J.D. Vance in trying to tackle some of those issues. J.D. Vance announced today trying to tackle billions of dollars of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. And, so we're seeing an administration work very hard to bring down the cost of goods, the cost of services, the cost of living despite the challenges that we have right now in Iran and the Middle East and elsewhere.
COATES: I view the fraud discussion as a separate, but very important notion of it. But I want to talk about the cost that's involved here because Americans are very aware not only of their own pocketbooks but the price tag associated with what is happening right now and the cost of war --
(CROSSTALK)
MACE: -- government spending.
COATES: No. I understand -- I understand what you mean by that.
MACE: Yes.
COATES: I think people view that as an efficiency or inefficiency and representation issue. Important. But I'm talking about the cost of the war right now. You've got $29 billion so far, congresswoman. That doesn't include the damage to the bases that have happened or the repair in the region. And that estimate, frankly, was not the same as it was even two weeks ago. And so, do you expect Americans to be on the same page that this is still necessary enough to shoulder the cost?
MACE: Well, I think that having the -- Secretary Hegseth come to the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee. I believe he was there today to answer those questions. And before the administration comes to Congress to ask for those bills to be paid, there are going to be a lot of questions on where is the money going, how is it going to be spent.
COATES: Are you satisfied by the answers you've received so far?
MACE: So far, Secretary Hegseth, when we had a hearing, I guess, two weeks ago, he was very upfront about the war and its effects. But, you know --
COATES: And now, it's a higher estimate.
MACE: And it may go up. I hope that it doesn't. But what we did see is that the conflict has ended. The Strait of Hormuz operations are normalizing and neutralizing there, hopefully, very soon as it has been the last couple of weeks. So, I think you'll see the price tags start to go down.
But we're going to have this, I guess, assessment of potentially a trillion or $1.5 trillion. They're going to come to Congress and ask for it. But we're going to have to have answers before we decide how that money is going to be spent. And that is the role of Congress. It's the role of the House --
COATES: Right. MACE: -- as we are the purse strings.
COATES: Well, I'm wondering why you're so optimistic about the end of the war. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed effectively.
[23:25:00]
Congress has not been able to secure their war powers. It was a seventh vote now that was declined. You had Republicans --
MACE: There is a ceasefire right now.
COATES: Well, that -- there is --
MACE: I think it's important to make sure that the president is operating from a position of strength.
COATES: He called it on life support, though. Do you think it's an effective ceasefire?
MACE: Well, right now, I mean, it is. I mean, we're not dropping thousands of bombs every day in Iran. No one else is. Israel is not either. So, I do consider it a ceasefire. I don't see us at war right now. And we want to make sure that the president has -- is negotiating from a position of strength. And yes, that's what's most important right now. Now, if the conflict gears back up again, that's a totally different conversation than what we're having right now.
COATES: So, how long can the American public deal with what he's calling short-term pain for long-term gain knowing that there seems to be an indefinite end to the war?
MACE: Well, I mean, I would ask the same folks, look at Ukraine, look how much money, billions of dollars, spent in Ukraine, and that was much more divisive, I think, than Iran. Iran was close to getting a nuclear weapon. And the president has always said our national security is number one in his mind, he wants to make the world safe and wants peace in the Middle East, and you can't have Iran with a nuclear weapon.
But I am very glad that we are where we are. Troops were not put on the ground and that there is a ceasefire in place because it is painful. I don't want to see all of the strategic petroleum reserve depleted. We need to rebuild that. You know, we want to make sure that we look at our oil needs here at home --
COATES: Right.
MACE: -- before it goes elsewhere. I think all these are important conversations that we're having on the Hill right now.
COATES: People will immediately bristle with a comparison to the length of war and an analogy to Ukraine because it's still ongoing.
MACE: Yes. We spent -- how much do we spend in Ukraine so far? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars. COATES: But is that the comparison that you think Americans are making?
MACE: I'm comparing -- I'm comparing the spend, I mean, on that right now because that was very divisive. The country was divided and we did it, anyway. So, I think that there was no nuclear threat against the United States or our allies with Ukraine. I mean, this is a different scenario. Iran was very capable of getting a nuclear arm sooner rather than later. Their missiles and bombs could go a lot farther than we had been told previously with the IC or Intel Community. So, it's a different scenario, but we spent a lot more on Ukraine.
COATES: So, what would motivate you to sort of rein in the president in this particular endeavor and war?
MACE: Well, I mean, he ended -- he has ended the conflict and it was shorter than 60 days.
COATES: You think the conflict is over? Do you really believe that?
MACE: Well, I think -- yes. I think there's a ceasefire right now. Yes. I mean, the Strait of Hormuz --
COATES: The ceasefire is not -- I don't want to cut you off, congresswoman.
MACE: Yes.
COATES: But a ceasefire, by definition, is oftentimes, when you're talking about it in the diplomatic realms, a temporary pause in order to have negotiation occur. But it always has sort of Damocles looming that there could be a reintroduction and of that -- of those weapons.
MACE: There has -- there has not been a reintroduction of those weapons. That's why it is still a ceasefire.
COATES: So, let me ask you in terms of the fact that it has been more than 60 days. You know this. We've talked in the past about the potential for the war powers resolution. You know the power of the purse and, of course, the power of your own branch of government. For a seventh time now, for a seventh time, the attempt to have it reigned in has failed. But this time, more Republicans joined in. You had Senator Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul voting for it. Do you think that this is going to be a trend that will continue if there is an attempt to reign in his power?
MACE: I mean, it's hard to say. I think in the Senate, it's one body. The House is a different body. We have not seen the same sort of vigor in the House of Representatives on this.
COATES: Why do you think that is?
MACE: Well, I think that the majority of the body, the vast majority of our party in the House, want to give the president the room to negotiate to get the Strait of Hormuz cleaned up, to get that neutralized, and get oil tankers moving throughout the region, you know, and reducing the price of oil for us and our allies around the world. So, I think that's -- we want to give him the negotiating room to get that done, and that's the difference between the House and the Senate.
COATES: One of the many, I will say.
MACE: One of the many.
COATES: I know you all will think about that. I'll leave that to you all. But, you know, the president, as you know, is in China. There's a lot of discussions about the impact of the Iran war on negotiations and discussions and what role China might be playing or not.
But there's also somebody who's accompanying him, his own son, Eric Trump, who is joining him. The president is -- the Trump family has reported owning dozens of trademarks in China. There's a company linked to Eric Trump that's reportedly trying to reach a deal in China with a chipmaker for a data center. Is it appropriate for Eric Trump to be on this trip?
MACE: Well, there are lots of billionaires on that trip with lots of business deals overseas. It's --
COATES: But one is the president's son.
MACE: It is a historic trip. I mean, where were you when Hunter Biden was taking trips with Joe Biden to China?
COATES: I was actually here asking the same question. And you also had a problem with that. So, the consistency factor. Do you want to investigate this?
MACE: I don't believe Hunter Biden actually had business in China that was legitimate.
[23:30:02]
I mean, I don't think anything Hunter Biden has ever touched has been legitimate. That's very different. I look at the president's son --
COATES: But that conclusion was based after an investigation and looking into it. Will the same be done --
MACE: Why would we be investigating Eric Trump? What crimes he potentially committed?
COATES: Oh, it's not about -- I mean, I know the Oversight Committee and things you're doing in Congress aren't always with an eye towards criminal prosecution. Sometimes, it's the matter of trying to understand whether there is a hint of impropriety or --
MACE: Or there has to be a legislative authority. So, if we're doing an investigation, there has to be a legislative component to it regardless of what we're investigating or who. But there are many billionaires that are on that trip with the president on this trip. So, you know, I welcome all the folks that are out there that have business. We need to have a good relationship with China.
And make no mistake, China has been involved with Iran in this conflict. And so, I see this as an opportunity to -- for the president and his administration to talk to them directly about that. I truly believe that China has been assisting and Russia assisting Iran in this against the United States, and it's a problem.
COATES: I hope the president addresses those.
MACE: Eighty-five percent of our pharmaceuticals are made in China. For example, the fentanyl crisis that we have. Our border being flooded with fentanyl. A lot of that comes from China. So, I think it's important to have all hands on deck when it comes to dealing with China.
COATES: Including Eric Trump. I mean, I know that the issues you've just raised seem to be out of his ken. Those aren't the areas that he normally touches at all. So, you have no problem with Eric Trump accompanying the --
MACE: There are of business types of people on this trip, which is normal with a president who is traveling overseas. These are billionaires with lots of things going on, lots of deals going on with China.
COATES: Well, we'll see what happens. Congresswoman, I have to get in a quick break, but please stand by because I want to talk to you about the redistricting war that's about to hit your own state. You want to see it happen. But some of your fellow Republicans, they do not. We'll talk about it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
COATES: The redistricting war is continuing with South Carolina now expecting to take it up again after Republicans defied President Trump just yesterday. It's the latest battleground in the nationwide war that's impacting voters and their voice. Republicans, they hold the advantage for now, but Democrats are vowing to redistrict more blue states as well.
South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace is back with me now. I mean, you support redistricting. But some Republicans, they say the current map is the strongest one, even for your party, and that you could lose seats if you redistrict along with the moral high ground. Listen to what some have said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SHANE MASSEY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Trying to go to 7-0, I think, is extremely risky from a political standpoint. I think, at best, you're going to get 6-1, and you may even go 5-2. I've told the press a number of times, I think if you get cute with this, you could end up in a 5-2 scenario. I don't want to go 5-2. I don't want Hakeem Jeffries as the speaker of the House. I think the best chance that South Carolina has to prevent that from happening is with our current maps.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is this how Republicans should use their power? Do you share his concern about the risks?
MACE: Well, first of all, the debate was a distraction. They weren't actually in the state Senate debating the maps. They were just debating the idea that they would review the maps, possibly vote on the maps in sine die when they were at a session this summer. It wasn't even about a specific kind of map.
COATES: Do you agree with the map as is now or do want to redistrict?
MACE: Well, I want to redistrict. I support redistricting, especially with the Supreme Court case that just came through. This is an opportunity for our state to make sure that no district is racially gerrymandered. The White House came down with a map that actually made my district a lot better from a Republican political standpoint, much higher than it is today.
COATES: What about his concerns that there is a risk that in an endeavor to go 7-0, assuming you want that obviously as a -- for the majority, that you might lose, that people might get too cutesy or be leaning in and saying this is not how we want power distributed?
MACE: Well, the State House actually has possession of the map that the White House provided the state of South Carolina, the general assembly. That is a map that is a 7-0 map. That is a map that I believe the State House will pass very swiftly --
COATES: Do you have a problem --
MACE: -- during a session on Friday.
COATES: I don't want to cut you off. You said it twice now. Do you have a problem with the White House giving South Carolina a map and telling you this is how your state should be run?
MACE: Well, they've been very public about what -- how states can be redistricted. Look, we have six blue states with not a single Republican member of the House, over 20 seats. In Massachusetts, there are nine members of the House of Representatives. No Republican. They're all Democrat. So, we have an opportunity in southern states, and that's what we're reviewing now.
Tennessee has done it. Brian Kemp announced he's going to hold a special session in Georgia to do something similar. South Carolina, the governor, I pressured Governor McMaster last night, he is going to call for a special session tomorrow night at 5:01 p.m. like I asked. The House will convene on Friday.
I believe it will go very quickly. It will be a simple majority in the state Senate. They'll convene on Monday. I think this will go pretty fast, and we'll see if it gets through.
[23:39:59]
I mean, it will go -- it will look -- we'll look at it in the next couple of days, next couple of weeks, but I think it will happen pretty quickly.
COATES: What has happened quickly since the Supreme Court issued its ruling has been, in many ways, the accelerated redistricting outside of a census year. Some have concerns, even though the Supreme Court has said political or partisan gerrymandering. Obviously, it is not the same as race-based gerrymandering. But Section 2 has now been gutted. The protection is no longer there.
But there are who say you should do away with partisan redistricting altogether. Now, this is obviously a tension right now. There's actually a congressman from California, now an independent, Kiley, who is proposing a discharge petition that would ban mid-cycle redistricting. Would you support that?
MACE: No, I would not.
COATES: Why?
MACE: Well, states have the right. They have the constitutional authority and the right to determine how their elections are run. And if they want to, because of a Supreme Court decision, review their congressional maps and redraw them, they should have every right to do so.
COATES: In the south, there has been a lot of research done that there is a correlation between the race of a person and the political party that they are most likely to vote in. It seems to be particularly so in the south. So, when people hear about partisan gerrymandering, some look at it as a pretext for race-based gerrymandering. Do you see it that way?
MACE: I don't see it that way. In fact, looking at the 6th Congressional District that Jim Clyburn gets replaced, there is a guy, a senator by the name of Mike Reichenbach, who would be great for the 6th District. He's a conservative. He's a Black Republican. I don't think that party line should be -- should be racial. Tim Scott is from South Carolina, born and raised. He's a U.S. Senator. He's in Congress. So, you know, I don't see it through that lens. And if the Constitution says that you cannot draw a congressional map based on the color of one skin, then we should not do that.
Now, we are allowed to do it for political reasons. That's why you see blue states, some blue states, without a single Republican. So, we didn't make this up. We didn't make up the rules. We're following the rules. And there is a precedent by Democrats and blue states in the north who have been doing this for a long time. We're just catching up, and we're doing it in a way that is constitutional.
COATES: You think that you are not proactively engaging in redistricting, you're being responsive to Democrats?
MACE: No, we're being responsive to the Supreme Court decision in Alabama to redraw their lines, our lines, to ensure they're not based on race.
COATES: You know, you've mentioned Senator Scott as one example, Congressman James Clyburn. I assume I've heard these multiple times of people identifying these two Black men to suggest that people of color are able to vote for a candidate of their choosing --
MACE: And they vote at the same rate as whites. Blacks vote at the same rate as whites.
COATES: Well, I'll tell you the point -- why I'm raising that point, and that is because you're not entitled to vote for the winner. The question is whether the power has been diluted by the separation of voting blocs with an intention to undermine their political power. Isn't that what's happening in redistricting?
MACE: No. I don't see it that way. When you're a member of Congress in my office, it doesn't matter what your political affiliation is. When you come to our office for assistance or for help or to talk about a bill or to talk about legislation, everyone is welcome regardless of what you look like, regardless of your political or party affiliation. That's the way every office, I hope, would operate. That's the way that we operate.
COATES: We shall see. Congresswoman Nancy Mace, thank you for joining.
MACE: Thank you as always.
COATES: And a reminder, the president and Xi Jinping are currently holding their summit in Beijing. You're looking at a live look at the Temple of Heaven where both leaders will go to next once they finish their meeting. At this point, they've been in talks for about an hour. And a lot of the agenda as we have discussed and as soon as the meeting ends and we get any word of how it went, we're going to bring that to you live right here on CNN.
Meantime, next for us, the true crime shocker in South Carolina, Alex Murdaugh, getting another chance as a court throws out a double murder conviction of his wife and son and orders a brand-new trial. The prosecutor who led the case against him is going to join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you kill Maggie?
ALEX MURDAUGH, DISBARRED SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY, ACCUSED OF MURDER: No. I did not kill Maggie. I did not kill Paul. I would never hurt Maggie, and I would never hurt Paul ever under any circumstances.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: The jury didn't buy it, And Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to two life sentences in 2023 for the murders of his son, Paul, and his wife, Maggie. But today, the South Carolina Supreme Court threw out the convictions and ordered a new trial, and the reason has to do with this woman, County Clerk Becky Hill.
The justices said she engaged in -- quote -- "shocking jury interference" and "egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility" based on things she was telling jurors. Now, jurors alleged she said things like watch him closely or watch his body language the day he took the stand. They say she said, this shouldn't take us long when deliberations began. According to one juror, "To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty" -- unquote.
[23:50:00]
That was enough for the court to unanimously overturn the convictions. But I should note, Murdaugh is serving decades in prison for financial crimes, so he's not getting out any time soon.
I am joined now by the lead prosecutor on the Murdaugh case, Creighton Waters. Creighton, thank you so much for being here. This sends some pretty significant shockwaves around the country because everyone had been following this trial when it happened and, of course, the conviction you secured. You had argued that the clerk's comments were of a non-egregious nature and did little to actually interfere with the jury or deliberations. So, can you understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did?
CREIGHTON WATERS, LEAD PROSECUTOR ON THE MURDAUGH CASE: Well, I mean, again, obviously, we had an evidentiary hearing after the trial. We had all of the jurors get up on the stand. Justice Toal listened to all of those jurors except for one that I think the judge pointed out some issues with. They were all very clear that there was no effect on their verdict.
So, our position was that, you know, after six weeks of this trial with Judge Newman, all the prosecution evidence, 75 witnesses, all these exhibits, and the, you know, obviously, the defense as well, that, you know, a few untoward comments from the clerk were not what swayed the day for this jury.
COATES: I got to tell you, I've been in trial attorney, been a prosecutor, I would be furious that a conviction that I secured in the pursuit of justice was not overturned for some error on the prosecutorial teams' part or something like that but instead a court official of some type. And now, you have to retry the case. I know that you intend to do so. I mean, the court appeared to put some guardrails on how you can present evidence around the theory that the crimes were motivated in part by financial worry and concern.
But I want to ask you. First, your impression about even the prospect of retrying this case. You have a bit of a harder uphill battle now that the defense has had an entire preview of the case. They've seen all the evidence. They've got trial transcripts to compare against. Are you concerned at all that you may not be able to meet the burden of proof or find an impartial jury?
WATERS: Not at all. I think that first, on the first part of that question, you know, as you're well aware, prosecutors have very strict obligations to provide discovery. So, frankly, nothing should be of surprised to the defense. That's not what we do. We give them everything that we have.
Additionally, this was a state grand jury investigation that also was the one that indicted all of those financial crimes that is keeping Alex Murdaugh in prison to which he has pled guilty, he has waived his appeals. And so, we're very much familiar with those. And the defense had access to all those transcripts already, anyway. So, that's not really a concern.
Obviously, it's a lot of effort, it's a lot of stress, and it's going to be a lot to redo it. But I'm not at all concerned about our ability to do so. We did it the first time, and we know this case very well.
COATES: When you tried this case, there had been a lot of fascination. But, I mean, you've got T.V. shows, you've got best- selling books, you've got "True Crime" podcast, whole series now that have been about this case. I'm assuming, obviously, not to the T in terms of the evidence that you knew was available and how you presented the case. But do you worry at all about the impact of that landscape of focus and attention on how jurors might view their expectations of the evidence presented?
WATERS: Well, you know, it's obviously a concern. But I think, again, that's part of that new era that we're in. If it were to be otherwise, any time you have a sensational case and there's always going to be one after the other, then you would say, well, the defendant can't get a fair trial because of the publicity.
We have lived in a society also where the jurors are more used to consuming media, and they understand the differences between what's in the media, what's in a podcast, and what's the truth of the evidence on the witness stand. And we're going to depend on our citizens to do that because there is no going back. The genie is out of the bottle, and we can't, on the other hand, have defendants just be able to get away with crimes because of the fact that what they allegedly did was sensational.
COATES: So, you're not offering a plea here, huh?
WATERS: Well, that's obviously something we can't talk about. But we're obviously also going to be considering all the options as far as perhaps seeking start with the Supreme Court. But I'm thinking right now what's going to happen is we're going to tee this thing up and do it again. And that's our job, to seek justice for the people of South Carolina and for the victims, of course.
COATES: Creighton Waters, thank you.
WATERS: It's a pleasure to be here, Laura. Thank you.
[23:55:00] COATES: And thank you all so much for watching. CNN's Elex Michaelson picks up the breaking news coverage of the Trump-Xi summit right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
