Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Poetica Coffee Shop Bans Dem Congressman; Trump Says Iran to Allow Nuclear Inspectors, Echoing Obama Deal; New Yorkers Prepare to Head to Polls for Election Day; Supreme Court Prepares to Rule on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 22, 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: All right, every one, thank you for being here. I've got an exciting new show available to stream right now. It is called "Confessions and Obsessions." I sit down with a group of familiar faces as they reveal some things that they can't get way to get off their chests and things that they cannot stop thinking about. Don't forget to check out new episodes every Wednesday. You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app.

Thank you very for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: My opening statement tonight, the Democrats are about to find out just how big of an issue Israel has become for their party because in just hours from now, voters in New York will weigh in on some very high-profile primary races that could see some major incumbents possibly fall.

And if what happened at a coffee shop is any indication, it could spell a lot of trouble for those incumbents. Yes, a coffee shop that has now become a symbol of the debate engulfing the Democratic Party. It involves Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman in New York's 10th District. He's going to join me in just a moment to talk about all of this.

Goldman, you'll remember, was an impeachment manager and one of the faces of the Trump resistance. He is now fighting for his political life. His opponent, Brad Lander, is a former Democratic socialist who has the backing of current New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani. And Lander has criticized Goldman for his support of Israel and accused the pro- Israel lobby at AIPAC.

Now, that's where the Poetica coffee shop comes in. It went on social media yesterday to tell Goldman he would no longer be welcome at their shop because of his stance on Israel. The shop posted an image of Dan Goldman inside their business along with this caption: "Hey, Rep. Dan Goldman, we see you stopped by our shop today for a coffee. Do you see how it doesn't taste like genocide juice? Or are you still having a hard time telling the difference? See, here at Poetica, we don't serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers, or anyone in between. Too bad we didn't recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away. We issued you a refund -- we don't need your money. It's probably coming from AIPAC anyways. Enjoy your loss on Tuesday. Don't ever come to Poetica."

Now, that post, it has since been taken down. But not before Congressman Dan Goldman responded, writing -- quote -- "I'm sorry to see this post. The barista could not have been nicer to my seven-year- old daughter and me -- allowing her to use the bathroom even though we had not purchased anything. I made sure to buy a coffee in return for her kindness. I hope you at least make sure she gets the tip that she deserved."

Now, Trump's DOJ, and isn't this interesting, given the adversarial relationship that Goldman has had with this iteration of the Department of Justice, Trump's DOJ isn't taking it as lightly. In fact, it now says it is investigating that New York coffee shop. The head of the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, wrote, federal law prohibits public accommodations such as coffee shops from discriminating against patrons based on their race, religion, or national origin. These actions are not only reprehensible, they are potentially illegal.

Now, we reached out to the coffee shop for comment about this investigation, but have not heard back.

Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman joins me now. He sits on both the House judiciary and homeland security committees. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for joining.

I have got to begin with what happened at that coffee shop because, in many ways, it seems almost emblematic of the dynamic we've seen that has played out in your race regarding your support of Israel. And I have been wondering all day what went through your mind when you saw the coffee shop call you a genocide enabler and tell you that you're not welcome.

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D), NEW YORK: Yes, it was quite surprising in part because I had such a nice interaction with the barista in the coffee shop. She was wearing a hijab. I didn't know her. But she couldn't have been nicer and allowed my daughter to use the bathroom. And I honestly was so grateful for her kindness that I felt like I should buy a coffee.

[23:05:01]

And so, I did. And I gave her a large tip. And it was diametrically opposite to that post that I came upon later. And it's a real sad -- it's a reflection, I think, of a sad state of affairs, that without knowing me, we could have had such a nice interaction, two people obviously from different backgrounds, different faiths.

But that's what America is. And that's what New York City is. That is what I believe in. I am a strong proponent of equal rights, of civil rights, of human rights. And what is going on in the Middle East is horrific.

And the idea of accusing someone who you don't know of, you know, supporting a genocide, I mean, it's crazy. It's crazy. Now, I may disagree as to whether or not there's a genocide. But, come on, we're better than this. And we need to be better than this.

And we have to stop dividing ourselves so much and try to find the common ground and unify, especially within the Democratic Party because the person who is inflicting so much damage on every New Yorker's lives on a day-to-day basis is not 6,000 miles away. He's in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that is who the enemy is that we all need to unify to stop.

COATES: What do you say to those who look at what's happening in Washington, D.C. and look at what's happening in the Middle East, who say that they have a vested interest in both and equate the policies of Netanyahu with you?

GOLDMAN: Well, that's exactly the fundamental problem because, first of all, I've been very openly opposed to this Israeli government. But just like Donald Trump is not synonymous with the United States, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government is not synonymous with the country and state of Israel.

And it is a democracy. They will have elections this fall. Hopefully, they will make the right choice. And the Israeli people, by all accounts right now, are gearing up to do that because they also, the majority of whom, oppose this Israeli government. And that's what a democracy is.

I have so many issues with Donald Trump. I have many issues with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But simply because I support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, as the only Jewish state, does not by any means mean that I support everything that government does. And, in fact, I do not, and I've been very open about that.

And I think it's really dangerous when people start conflating the actions of the Israeli government with American Jews, who have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in Israel and the rise in antisemitism because of what is happening in the Middle East, here in the United States, is really dangerous, and it is escalating significantly.

COATES: You know, the coffee shop took a shot at you over AIPAC. They said that they didn't even want your money because it was -- quote -- "probably coming from AIPAC." Brad Lander, he has campaigned on this -- campaigned on this. Mayor Mamdani, who supports Lander, has compared the lobby to monsters, his words. Your colleague, Congressman Josh Gottheimer, called it antisemitic. Mamdani was asked to respond to criticism that his rhetoric is indeed dangerous. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: I want to be very clear. We're talking about a status quo where children are being killed on a daily basis. When I am speaking about AIPAC, I'm speaking about an organization that has been supportive of the status quo, that has fought any attempt to actually deliver safety to people, not just in Palestine but, frankly, through much of the region. And it is a status quo for immorality. It is one that I will not accept. And I think that it is important that when we ask ourselves how such death and destruction is happening overseas, we also name those who allow it to take place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: One, congressman, have you taken money from AIPAC? And two, what is your response to the mayor?

GOLDMAN: Look, I don't take any corporate PAC money from AIPAC or anyone else. And I think it's very disappointing to me that my opponent in this race, Brad Lander, has used AIPAC as a dog whistle, has used Israel, has used terminology that is technical and legal as a divisive pathway towards what he hopes will be a victory.

[23:10:02]

I refuse to play that game. I refuse to cave into that type of rhetoric and that divisiveness. I have spent three and a half years in Congress trying very hard to build bridges, to build coalitions, to unify not only the Jewish community but the Democratic Party generally. I will continue to do that because I do believe in Palestinian self-determination, I do believe in Palestinian human rights, I do believe that a two-state solution is the only path to peace in the Middle East and that what has happened in Gaza is horrific.

But I may have a different view as to how to get there or what you label things or what the legal definitions. As a former prosecutor, I take very seriously the legal requirements for something as serious as genocide. But I think we can find common ground. I think I can find common ground with the owner of Poetica coffee shop. And I will continue to try to do that rather than try to tear each other apart and divide us rather than unify us.

COATES: You know, I mentioned the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which you know I'm an alum. They're now investigating that very coffee shop to see if what they did violates federal law. You have been very outspoken about the priorities of this Department of Justice, the shortcomings, to say the least. Do you believe the Department of Justice ought to investigate this coffee shop?

GOLDMAN: No. I would rather they spend their time and resources investigating antisemitism against people who do not have a platform that I do, who are not elected officials, who do not in some ways, you know, bring -- ask for this. I mean, I don't ask for the antisemitism. But I'm a public figure and I can accept the criticism.

I would rather that they be spending their time defending Jewish students on campus who are being blamed for Israel's actions or others who are being targeted completely unjustifiably because of what people believe that the Israeli government is doing. That's a much better use of their time than focusing on this incident.

COATES: You know, I have to wonder. As a mother, I'm always looking at the news and what's going on through the lens of how I would explain something to my children. Your daughter was in that coffee shop.

Ultimately, she will one day learn about the events that took place. How do you intend to explain this state of affairs to your daughter?

GOLDMAN: It's not -- it's not really possible. I don't think she can understand. I have not told her what happened. And it just -- when it happened, it just seemed like a normal interaction that you would have at any small business in any city in America. And that upsets me, I think, much more than the slurs or the, you know, accusations or allegations against me is.

She's just an innocent seven-year-old who was trying to go to the bathroom, didn't think twice about who was there. My other two kids came in and -- while that -- while we waited and for her to come out of the bathroom. And it was just -- it should just be a very normal thing. And it was -- it was -- that was really what struck me more as sad than anything else is. And it's true. And then, you know, I get confronted and accosted in the district with my kids there, where people will yell at me and my kids are right there. And it's -- we've lost, I think, some perspective on decorum and appropriateness and just decency and conversation.

And we need to have a lot more conversations because these issues are complicated. They're nuanced. They cannot be boiled down to one word or one slogan or one person's perspective even if it's the mayor of New York City. And I think that we all would be better off if we open our mind to listening to the other side.

COATES: Do you think that your views on Israel or your stance with respect to the definition of genocide will ultimately cost you this election?

GOLDMAN: I have no idea. You know, I think every voter votes on different things.

[23:14:58]

A part of what I find disappointing about this campaign is I've tried to run this campaign on the issues. We have a huge threat in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Donald Trump, who when we take the majority, we are going to be able to hold accountable. I have direct and specific experience doing that, leading the first impeachment investigation. And I would be happy to discuss how we can hold him and his administration accountable. I have ideas of how we can push forward with a really bold agenda that will unrig our system, which is not working for too many people.

But unfortunately, my opponent was really digging into a lot of misinformation, disinformation. He spliced a video, something Donald Trump would do. And he ran a very negative and misleading campaign where he mischaracterized to say the best or lied about very many things about me. And it's a sad -- it's a reflection, I think, of where our politics are. That's really disappointing. I think it is part of the reason Congress has a 10 percent approval rating and part of the reason why people throw their hands up and say, ah, politicians are politicians, they're all just going to say whatever they need to say to win. Oh, that's not who I am. And if I lose because of that, then so be it. I'll wake up on Wednesday morning, and I will proudly look myself in the mirror and know that I stood with my values and my morals and that I still have my integrity, and that's much more important to me.

COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Now, remember, you all are part of this show, and I want to hear from you. So, text me your comments, your thoughts, 818-972-7272. Just make sure you include a first name and your city or state. My panel is going to be here to answer them a little later in the show. So, stay tuned. Maybe you will have your question answered.

Up next, Vice President Vance reveals what may be in the new Iran nuclear deal. I got to tell you, it sounds a whole heck of a lot like the old Iran nuclear deal. Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, nuclear weapon supersedes depression.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Trump making clear which outcome related to Iran he thinks is worse. But what do you think?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, you know, remember that one guy in school or like your business meeting who can't wait to criticize your idea? They don't have a single original thought, but they do have a problem for every one of your solutions. Well, President Trump is discovering something about the Iran deal that he threw out eight years ago. It's a lot easier to attack a nuclear agreement than it is to replace one because the deal the Trump administration is negotiating right now, it is starting to sound a lot like the one that was negotiated by the Obama administration. Exhibit A, nuclear inspections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have the Iranians allowing weapons inspectors, nuclear inspectors into the country for the first time in a long time. Letting in the inspectors is a big deal. But again, we're going to see what they actually let the inspectors do once they're in the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Even Trump is talking up inspections, saying everybody is fully aware that Iran will agree to have major weapons inspections in order to ensure nuclear honesty long into the future.

So, the message from the administration is that inspections are a big deal, which is interesting because when Trump pulled out of the 2015 Iran deal, was he saying that inspections were one of the things that did not work?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I withdrew the United States from the terrible Iran nuclear deal, which has very little time remaining, did not allow inspection of important sites and did not cover ballistic missiles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Except it did allow inspections of Iran's major nuclear sites. So, Trump thinks the inspections laid out in the 2015 deal weren't good enough. Then he's got a high bar to clear. And that might be a very tall order because Iran is outright disputing any new commitments on inspections. Oh, the other part of the 2019 clip about the missiles, well, that's exhibit B. So far, no mention of Iran's missiles in Trump's framework agreement.

And now, we can go straight to exhibit C, oil money. The administration is temporarily lifting sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil. And the president was asked the very obvious question in the Oval Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Can you ensure that the Iranians won't use the profits from oil sales to rebuild their military?

TRUMP: Well, they're not supposed to be doing that. So, we'll see. But they're supposed to use money to buy food for their people because, right now, the people are very hungry, and they're buying it exclusively from us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We'll see. Not quite the hard line he was talking back when he was attacking the Obama nuclear deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House correspondent for "The New York Times" and CNN political analyst, Behnam Ben Taleblu, excuse me, who's here as well, a senior director of Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Glad to have both of you guys here.

[23:24:54] I mean, I'll begin with you, Zolan, on this lifting of sanctions here because Trump doesn't think that he needs congressional support to lift the sanctions at all, right? But there are a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill who are completely not sold on this idea at all. Could the political pressure be enough to sink or change this deal, whatever it might ultimately be?

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I'm glad you ended it on that note of whatever it ends --

COATES: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: -- up being, right? Because we still don't know so many of the details that have even come out about some of these announcements today. We have a situation where the U.S. is coming out and, yes, saying that they've made gains and many of those being disputed by the Iranians as well. So, that will probably continue. Look, this isn't the first time that we've seen the president face pushback criticism --

COATES: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: -- from some of the more hawkish members of the Republican Party in Congress. And he has shown that he has continued to be motivated not really by their political pressure, but more so the economic pressure he's facing, opening the Strait of Hormuz as well. So, we'll have to see if he's swayed as far as that political pressure at this time.

There's something else that's moving him, though, and I don't think it's as much the Republicans in Congress. I was just covering him at the G7 and there was rarely a day, let alone an hour, a moment that goes by without him mentioning the Obama deal, right? And being lashing out at anyone who would almost dare to compare what we're seeing now to the Obama deal.

When he called my colleague, David Sanger, as well, he almost -- he brought up, immediately start to criticize the deal.

COATES: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: That deal and whether or not the president, who has long framed himself as a better negotiator than Barack Obama, that deal almost seems like the barometer for President Trump of whether or not this is successful at this time.

COATES: The comparisons are obvious. How could one not compare the two given his outspoken and consistent criticism of the Obama deal? Because if this deal is not at least or better, then people will wonder whether this entirety was all for not. But the big question people have, particularly about how Iran is going to use the money that might be lifted or provided in some reconstruction, if they use it to rebuild their military. I mean, he was not absolute or convincing, frankly, as to his ability to control how they very well do that. I mean, is Iran getting more in this deal than before?

BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF IRAN PROGRAM, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, it remains to be seen because a bad deal like this MOU is likely to get worse over time if it moves to a final deal. To be clear, sanctions are not supposed to be lifted during this period. They're supposed to be waived.

I mean, just this morning, there was a historic waiver, and I mean historic, from the U.S. Treasury Department, the General License -- General License X, removing -- pardon me -- waiving penalties in not one or two but 11 sanctions programs, 11 that deal with WMD, that deal with conventional arms, that deal with Iranian support to Russia, that deal with Iranian support for terrorism.

Eleven sanctions programs have their penalties on oil sales transfer waived so that the regime can generate revenues and even repatriate those revenues, some of which can even be paid in dollars during this 60-period.

COATES: And the impact of that creates a leverage in favor of Iran?

TALEBLU: Certainly. Political leverage in favor of the Islamic Republic and market leverage in favor of the Islamic Republic. So, unless the Trump administration is going to get something big on the nuclear file, folks will rightly point to his departure of the JCPOA on May 8th, 2018 and say, hey, was the juice worth the squeeze? Was max pressure 1.0, 2.0 worth the squeeze?

I think, however, the predicate should be something else. The point of comparison is not the summer 2015 nuclear deal. It's the deal that came before it, the November 2013 deal, the JPOA, the Joint Plan of Action. That was a focused deal addressing one issue that had sanctions relief. That was historic for its time. And that attempted to carve out the political space for larger agreements.

And I think the Islamic Republic is actually trying to give the Trump administration this, but is not keen to help the administration carve out the political space for this larger agreement. I think they're actually keen to rope a dope the president, as well as the Israeli prime minister, and play for time.

COATES: Why would they not if it gives them leverage?

KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, this is -- this has been one -- the main criticism of what we've seen over the past couple of months, right? That Iran has emerged from this now knowing that they can close the Strait of Hormuz, gain leverage, and apply economic pressure on the president. We've seen throughout this war thus far that they have been willing to wait out President Trump and take a riskier approach. So, as you move forward, you do know that that could be an option for them.

COATES: Zolan, Behnam, thank you so much, both of you, for your insight. Next, he is not on the ballot, but Tuesday will be a test of Zohran Mamdani's political power. Is New York City's mayor a progressive kingmaker or will the Democratic old guard hold the line? Plus, the Supreme Court decision that could land at any moment and put the future of birthright citizenship to the test.

[23:30:01] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDMAN: I refuse to play that game. I refuse to cave into that type of rhetoric and that divisiveness. I have spent three and a half years in Congress trying very hard to build bridges, to build coalitions, to unify not only the Jewish community, but the Democratic Party generally. I will continue to do that because I do believe in Palestinian self-determination. I do believe in Palestinian human rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:34:55]

COATES: That was Congressman Dan Goldman just a few moments ago on this very program, one of several New York Democrats in a tough race against candidates that are backed by the mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, where the war in the Middle East is emerging as a major issue.

And the Mamdani factor could really make or break many of these races, including the one the incumbent congressman, Adriano Espaillat, finds himself in. He is the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, represented his district for nearly a decade. He's being challenged by a 32-year-old Democratic socialist and former campaign organizer for Mamdani, who the mayor has endorsed. Now, the outcome of these races will no doubt be a test of Mamdani's political clout, at least on his own home turf.

Joining me now, former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley, along with CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Glad to have both of you guys here. I mean, congressman, the big question for so many people I always have, about sort of the kingmakers and what's going on. I mean, if these Mamdani- backed candidates end up beating incumbents like Dan Goldman, like Espaillat, how worried should the so-called Democratic establishment candidates and incumbents then be?

JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: Well, I think it's always important to point out that New York is not the rest of the country. New York City is --

COATES: They'll tell you that every time, too, right?

CROWLEY: Exactly. You know. But I do think it's interesting that the mayor has chosen to get engaged in some of these -- some of these races in particular, especially the Espaillat race, because the rumor had it or there was an agreement that he wouldn't get involved, he wouldn't endorse his opponent, and yet he did.

But, you know, the mayor had a setback a little bit earlier this year when he endorsed someone in an open city council race, which was a traditionally gay district in New York City, Greenwich Village, supporting someone that was aligned with him against Cuomo and lost that race. So, you know, it's kind of got off to a rocky start a little bit here.

But, look, he is the mayor. He's very popular. But I think there's a way to go here to see just what the outcome will be. I'm not really convinced that he's going to win all three of these races, to say the least.

COATES: Broaden out, though. I know New York is its own unique place, although by the number of Knicks fans there have been, New York is every state in this country.

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: The bandwagon is big.

COATES: I mean, the bandwagon is huge. I'm on it. But I wonder, when you look at this nationally, is it instructive for Republican strategists? I mean, do you want this brand of Democrats to be the contenders so that Republicans have a different approach?

TODD: I think it's one of Mamdani's gifts to the Republican Party.

COATES: You think so?

TODD: I think -- I think Janeese Lewis George in Washington is going to be a gift to the Republican Party. Democrat socialists of America have a view that is well outside the mainstream of the American political center. And we've -- elections are one of the centers. That's how you control Congress, how you win the presidency.

And so, the more their brand is associated with the DSA, the more Republicans have room to occupy the middle of a politics, our country is binary. And when you have the poll of one side, it pulls the entirety of that party.

We've gone through this ourselves on the Republican side. We did with 2010, 2012 with the Tea Party, where we left half a dozen Senate seats on the board that we should have won. And so, Democrats may be in for that same kind of effect. It doesn't just happen in one election. It takes several elections to play out.

COATES: Well, does the impact -- I want to hear a response. But as the impact that he seems to be liked by President Trump, he seems to be working well, at least to date with him, does that throw a wrench in the plans if Zohran Mamdani is the face of that party?

TODD: I don't think so. I think his talent throws a wrench in it. He's so charismatic. I think that that throws a wrench. But I don't think anything about his relationship with Trump. And he believes crazy things. They don't get crazy outcomes. And that will help.

CROWLEY: And that's the showbiz of politics, right?

TODD: Yes.

CROWLEY: You know, the Trump first and Mamdani. One thing I think is important to point out, though, when Mikie Sherrill won her district, her state, in this last election last year, she won. She beat a pretty good candidate, you know, textbook Republican candidate, by 15 -- 12 to 15 points. Mamdani only won in the biggest Democratic city in America by 50.4 percent. You know, so, he's the first person since 1969 to garner a million votes. But if you add all the votes in opposition, they also got in more than a million votes. So --

TODD: Right.

COATES: Still call a mayor, though.

CROWLEY: That's true. That's true. COATES: Let's go to your questions. We had a lot of them tonight. Joseph asked this question. What specific policies or positions are motivating Zohran Mamdani to support challengers against incumbent Democrats, and how successful has this strategy been so far? Why don't you take it, Joe?

CROWLEY: I don't think it is about issues. I don't think it's about an agenda, about, you know, issues themselves. I think it's about politics. I think this is about --

COATES: What's the difference?

CROWLEY: I think this is about growing the influence of the Democratic socialists nationally to some degree. I don't think it's going to work in middle America. And America -- and New York itself is not a socialist city. It just isn't.

TODD: Inside a coalition in a party, you know, political capital is like a muscle.

[23:40:02]

You have to use it to make it bigger. And if you don't use it, it will atrophy. And I do think that he understands that. He's trying to grow this muscle within the Democratic coalition. He wants to move the Democratic Party left. That's what his goal is.

CROWLEY: And he has to pay back. He has to pay people back.

COATES: All right. Well, Monica from Georgia asked this question. Why are the Dems in New York making this primary campaign more about what's going on in the Middle East rather than about Trump and affordable health care, housing, democracy, education? Take it.

TODD: Well, again, I think that a lot of the far-left democratic politics is driven by an oppressor, oppressed -- oppressed narrative, and they want to take that situation and apply it to anything that comes up in the news. And currently, they think that applies in the Middle East. And so, that's more interesting than the meat and potatoes of a few more bucks for health care, a few more bucks for education because it paints some people as morally wrong. That's the narrative they want to paint.

CROWLEY: I think there has been a really tremendous shift in terms of Israeli politics, not only in New York City, but around the country as well and generationally that I think Democrats have to deal with for many years to come.

COATES: I mean, this question is in reference to the coffee shop that we were discussing with Congressman Dan Goldman. It's Tia from Maryland who asked, the ugliness of politics in America is sickening. Do you believe this vile political environment is here to stay? If not, what will it take to have decency and decorum in D.C. again?

Well, I'll tell you my initial response. I can't believe some days how ugly it gets. And we're bombarded with so many signs of bigotry and isms that it is sometimes suffocating. And yet I still remain hopeful because there are questions like that that exist. People are questioning it. But what's your reaction?

TODD: Well, we have to get to a place in this country where we agree to disagree and where we don't decide that someone else being on the other side of politics makes them automatically a bad person, that there may -- we have to be able to allow that people who are on the other side have good intentions but bad solutions. That's the only way democracy works because it works when you are willing to lose every once in a while and willing to -- willing to not always get your way.

CROWLEY: And 250 years ago, in New York, coffee shops are where the discussion of politics did take place. The free flow of information and conversations about the direction of our country, it shouldn't end in Brooklyn, New York. That should not be acceptable anywhere in the city or anywhere in this country.

COATES: Joe and Brad, thank you both. Thanks to all of your questions as well. Up next, the Supreme Court could rule any day on Trump's order to deny automatic citizenship to some children born in the United States. I'm going to lay out the problem with that argument and speak with someone who has been fighting it since the start, Connecticut's attorney general, William Tong.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We are waiting on one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of our lifetime. Any day now, we will learn if the term birthright citizenship means anything at all. The very first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The amendment was ratified in 1868. It overturned the Dred Scott decision, which dared to say that even free Black Americans could not possibly be citizens.

Thirty years later, in a case called United States versus Wong Kim Ark, where a man born in this country was denied reentry simply because of his parents' Chinese heritage, the Supreme Court ruled that children who are born here are citizens even if their parents are not.

So, this has been the law of the land for what? Nearly 150 years? Yet one of his first actions as a second term president was to sign an executive order that said, I don't care if you were born here. If your parents aren't citizens, then you aren't one either.

Their rationale, twofold. First, the administration argues that the part of the 14th Amendment was only meant to protect children of former slaves. That's all.

Second, they argue that this is all resting on a single term, jurisdiction. The administration argues that an undocumented migrant's child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are somehow a subject to some other foreign power that they owe and have allegiance to. Of course, just one obvious flaw in that logic is that it would require the United States to say that they actually don't have jurisdiction over any person illegally in this country who commits a crime, for example.

It also makes the child of an undocumented person basically stateless because most other nations only confer citizenship to those born in their country.

Now, keep in mind, this executive order, it never went into effect. Lower courts blocked it. But the Supreme Court still decided to take it up. And even though during the nearly two-hour oral argument, at least seven of the nine justices did not indicate any willingness to do away with birthright citizenship. You have to wonder why they even entertained this case that sought to dismantle it. It took nearly three months to even craft a response, whatever it might ultimately be.

I want to bring in the Connecticut attorney general, William Tong. He is one of 23 attorneys general from across the country who filed a brief defending birthright citizenship. Attorney General, thank you for joining us. This fight, it is not just abstract for you. Can you tell me how the 14th Amendment has shaped your life?

WILLIAM TONG, ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONNECTICUT: As you know, Laura, I'm an American citizen. I'm here because of my birth on American soil, in Hartford Hospital, not far from St. Francis Hospital where you were born.

[23:49:59]

And so, I'm an American by right of my birth and by operation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My parents were not citizens when I was born. So, it's -- it's not just core to who I am as an American, as a person, it's not a core to our family, but it's core to millions of Americans. So many people share our story. And I just want to say Ronald Reagan understood that. And I hope my Republican friends are hearing me right now. Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech where he said that, you know, if you're -- if you go to France, you're not automatically a Frenchman. If you go to Germany, if you go to Japan, Turkey, you're not Japanese or Turkish. But you can come from any corner of the globe and come to the United States and be an American.

COATES: So, what would it mean symbolically if the Supreme Court, albeit skeptical of the administration's arguments of ending it, what would it mean that they're even entertaining it, let alone the prospect of rejecting birthright citizenship?

TONG: Well, I think they took the case because they wanted to settle this question. And I'm confident --

COATES: For a third time.

TONG: -- in our arguments. Yes. And I was in the court in the first argument, which focused on a technical issue, nationwide injunctions. But it was -- you know, it was in the birthright case. And I want to tell you, I was very encouraged by the justices. They were in it. They were asking tough questions. They were asking good questions. So, I think they're going to focus on the language, and they just want to put this to bed. The 14th Amendment means what it says. If you're born on American soil, you're an American, period, full stop.

And just for the, you know, the viewers who maybe aren't lawyers, you know, the first thing we're taught in law school is when you interpret any law or a Constitution, any statutory language or constitutional language, you look to the words, right? That's like the number one thing the Supreme Court is going to do. That's called a canon of statutory construction. Look at the words. And what do the words say? The words are plain as day.

COATES: And yet this administration took a tactic of trying to appeal to originalism, you know, and suggesting that somehow, based on a review of that, that this court should come to a different conclusion. What do you make of that particular strategy? Because, obviously, they perceive, they must, a friendly Supreme Court that would entertain and possibly rule in their favor.

TONG: Yes. It's funny. I think that originalism, that textualism bit them in the rear end, you know. The solicitor general, John Sauer, went to this whole thing about birth tourism.

COATES: Yes.

TONG: And the chief justice said, first of all, is that really a problem, number one, or is that just sort of a made-up thing? And number two, when Sauer was talking about sort of modern-day problems and how the world has changed, Chief Justice Roberts said, yes, the world has changed, we have the same Constitution. And what he's saying is whatever policy arguments you're making, whatever you're observing about the modern world, I don't really care because the words are here plain as day, in black and white, in the 14th Amendment. And I can't go beyond the words.

Let me just also address this argument that the birthright clause, the citizenship clause is really about freed slaves and about reconstruction. Well, if you take that argument to its logical absurdity, then the whole 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, that's really just about reconstruction and the children are freed slaves. And that can't possibly true -- be true, right? The Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment due process applies to all of us. It applies to all of us equally.

COATES: I expect that to be a paragraph in whatever ruling comes out. Attorney General William Tong, thank you so much.

TONG: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: I've got an update to tell you about related to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Remember those alleged ransom notes sent to media outlets after she was abducted from her home? Law enforcement sources are telling CNN the second note claimed Guthrie had died. It came after a first note demanded millions of dollars. Investigators believe both were legit. In the second message, the person or people who wrote it say they did not mean to kill Guthrie, but that she died shortly after the kidnapping. The local sheriff's department says the investigation is active and ongoing.

Still ahead tonight, remembering legendary music producer Clive Davis, who helped discover artists from my favorite Whitney Houston to Bruce Springsteen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. I want to bring in my friend, Elex Michaelson. He is out in Los Angeles. Elex, it's so good to see you. But we had this sad news today from a legend. Clive Davis passing away at the age of 94. You know, I actually had the honor of interviewing him on my Sirius XM radio show back in 2017. You know, I had a chance to ask him about how he was able to be so loved by everyone in an industry that doesn't always get the best rep. Listen to what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COATES (voice-over): How did you achieve what seems to be the impossible feat for so many people to separate from that stigma?

CLIVE DAVIS, LEGENDARY MUSIC PRODUCER (voice-over): The common bond is love of music and refined for I sit on the other side of the desk, so I have to refine my expertise. They have to feel trust. They have to respect the track record, and I have to respect them as individuals, as creative artists.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: He is such a nice person. Of all his accomplishments, Elex, what do you think he remembered for the most?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I mean, so many great artists. I sort of think of Whitney Houston.

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: First and foremost, with him. Of course, connected in her life and in her death.

[00:00:00]

But there are so many names. What do you think?

COATES: I think of her all the time because I just love -- love Whitney Houston.

MICHAELSON: Yes.

COATES: The very first concert she was in it. And also, I think Alicia Keys, I think Bruce Springsteen, I think of so many greats. I also think about he was instrumental as well in hip-hop. People know that story about him as well. I encourage everyone to look him up even further. But I want everyone to watch your show instead first. Have a great one.

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura. Have a great night.