Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

SCOTUS Hands Trump Multiple Losses, But One Win Overshadows All; SCOTUS Rejects Trump's Mail-In Ballot Fight; Democrat Socialist Looks to Topple Incumbent in Colorado. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 29, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Also, I would love to get Ashley's digits.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: OK.

PHILLIP: And finally --

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: -- Charles is that one guy that brings full Thanksgiving dinner energy to a debate about the weather, which I have to agree with.

(LAUGHTER)

Ashley, if you are shooting, a shot for you tonight.

(LAUGHTER)

ALLISON: My DMs are open.

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLES BLOW, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY: You asked for it.

PHILLIP: All right, everybody, thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: All right, tonight, if you think Trump had a bad day at the Supreme Court, hold that thought, will you? Because one of today's rulings handed him an even bigger prize. Plus, SCOTUS rejects Trump's mail-in ballot fight. But he's not letting go. He's doubling down on a voting overhaul while dismissing a bipartisan housing bill as a big yawn. And 29-year-old Democrat socialist in Colorado challenges an incumbent who has been in office since before she was born, and she's my guest tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, forget what you heard about co- equal branches because today was a huge day for executive power. I know that might sound strange if you're looking at the scorecard everyone has been talking about. At least on paper, President Trump did not get everything he wanted from this Supreme Court. The court said no, you can't fire the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, at least for now. It said yes, Mr. President, they can count mail-in ballots after Election Day. They also refused to take up his appeal over the verdict reached in the E. Jean Carroll case. So, yes, you got to pay her about $5 million.

So, you might look at this and say, wait a second, Laura, how is this a big day for Trump? Well, let me break it down because the biggest decision today was not about one ballot deadline. It was not about one Federal Reserve governor or one case personally involving Trump. It was about the unitary executive, the power of the presidency itself.

For nearly a century, federal agencies here in Washington, D.C., well, they were designed to be independent. Their leaders didn't have to wake up every morning wondering whether they did enough yesterday to please the president or look over their shoulder at the end of the night questioning whether what they did yesterday or today would get them thrown out of their office tomorrow. Their job was supposed to outlast a political tantrum, a president's anger. When it came to antitrust or consumer protection or workers' rights or labor rights, the things that deeply impact the everyday American, the work was seen as far, far too important to please an audience of one.

But today, the Supreme Court threw all of that up in the air. It ruled the president can fire a Federal Trade commissioner, her name was Rebecca Slaughter, which, of course, he already did. They said, yes, it's OK. And it isn't just about the FTC. It could make it much easier for presidents to fire other independent agency leaders at will, which Trump himself acknowledged.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It gives a president the right to do what the president should have the right to do. But it bestows additional powers or maybe the same power on the president. The president has the right to do this, and that has to do with a lot of agencies all throughout the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Yes, it does have to do with a lot throughout the whole system, some two dozen that were supposed to have political insulation, agencies where a president used to -- other than yesterday -- used to have to show cause in order to get rid of their leaders. And cause, cause meant they were ineffective, there was malfeasance. And they would get due process. They had to get notice of the complaint. They had time to respond to the complaint. Oh, they had to prove the things in the complaint. Well, today's ruling changes that. Now, for cause can just look kind of like just because.

Justice Sotomayor put it in her dissent this way: Today, the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all-encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions.

[23:05:01]

The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow. Now, should a president have a say over how the executive branch is run? Of course, the president should. But did it require what Justice Sotomayor called an absolutist view of his power? Well, therein lies the debate and the backlash.

Now, yes, I need to point out an exception. It's an important one here. The court treated the Federal Reserve totally differently today. It put the Fed on a kind of -- a kind of pedestal. Justice Kavanaugh alluded to exactly why that was the case in his concurring opinion in the Lisa Cook case. Quote -- "Even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark political upheaval as well as turmoil in the United States and world economies." In other words, money makes that world go around and the Fed gets special treatment.

And the FTC commissioner who Trump fired, well, she had a name for that distinction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER, FORMER FTC COMMISSIONER FIRED BY TRUMP: For working people who depend on agencies like the FTC and the other independent agencies, the Supreme Court has said, no, we will not have that independent check, you will not be watchdogs anymore, you will be lapdogs. But for the Fed, which has some responsibility for Wall Street, the Supreme Court has said, OK, but you can stay as a watchdog.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that's why this moment is bigger than one fired commissioner, because once that court opens that door, it doesn't just open it for Trump, it opens for him and every president after him. And look, presidents only get the power that other branches cede to it. Let them have and say the figurative head honchos of one branch, the Supreme Court, handed the presidency a gigantic win.

What about the other one? Where's Congress? Well, it wrote these rules back in 1914, tried to codify them, the for-cause standard. The Supreme Court protected the for-cause standard in 1935 when FDR tried to fire William Humphrey as an FTC commissioner over their policy disagreements around the New Deal. The Supreme Court said he can only be fired for cause. But the court today just overturned itself and now calls that rule unconstitutional. So, if they're willing to overturn their own precedent, Congress, beware.

My first guest is one of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's attorneys. Norm Eisen joins me now. Norm, I'm so glad that you're here. I know that you have been very busy, meticulously trying to protect your client, but also the legacy that this represents as well. And I know the Fed governor is grateful the Supreme Court has saved her job for now. But they also expanded the president's executive power. Norm, how does that sit with her tonight?

NORM EISEN, ATTORNEY FOR LISA COOK: Well, the Supreme Court protected the independence of the Fed, Laura. So, let's start with the centrality of the Federal Reserve to the U.S. economy and to the economy of the world. That is a significant matter. We're very grateful that the rule of law has operated. And before turning to the Slaughter case, let's note this whole absurd mess was based on groundless allegations against Dr. Cook. It was stopped and enjoined by a lower court. We won at the D.C. Circuit on appeal. And today, we won at the Supreme Court. So, that is a significant victory.

COATES: But there are some limitations. I want to get to that, limitations. Of course, one of the things Justice Roberts pointed out is that the ultimate question of whether the president can remove her for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed those facts. So, explain why this is far from over.

EISEN: Yes. But if you look at that page of the decision, it is the most important page --

COATES: Yes.

EISEN: -- 13 and 14 of the decision. They say you have to look at the unique status and role of the Fed.

COATES: Yes.

EISEN: They say our review is deferential, but we are not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free. In other words, they know what has gone on here. They reject what happened to Dr. Cook as baseless, as a violation of her rights. And I think while they don't define what cause is, they're clear that it is an exacting standard because there's no factual basis for these absurd allegations being made against Dr. Cook.

[23:10:05]

COATES: But explain --

EISEN: I am confident that we will be able to continue to fight this issue. Now --

COATES: But I want you to explain, I know we're going at this, because I want -- aside from the underlying facts involving in her particular case because you know this is -- this case is bigger, of course, than Dr. Cook. Obviously, it's personal to her, but it's very personal to the those who believe in the Constitution and, of course, the independent agencies. Explain why the court would say the Federal Reserve has a different place in our society in terms of the independence of the agency compared to the Slaughter case where they said the for-cause does not apply there.

EISEN: The court looked to the historical status. The majority are originalists. They look to the historical status of the First Bank of the United States, the Second Bank, and the other financial institutions, and the independence that they had historically.

I do not agree with the distinction that they made. I think the independent agencies, which have been recognized for almost a century since Humphrey's executor as an essential part of American governance, they should have been accorded the same treatment of for-cause removal.

Congress has interpreted the role of the independent agencies, and they have said we are going to give this Article 1 power, congressional power, we are going to authorize that for these independent agencies that operate within Article 2.

I disagree with Slaughter. But protecting the independence of the Fed, the American economy, the world economy is very material. And if you look at Slaughter, they do say they are not reaching a wide variety of issues.

Not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with the triggering executive power, so there may be exceptions for other offices created by Congress. There are some functions traditionally handled outside the executive. This rule may not apply there and on and on.

So, don't give up hope. We have over 300 cases and matters that democracy defenders fund in action. We're going to keep on fighting. COATES: Well, Acting DNI Bill Pulte believes you might have to keep fighting when it comes to your client because he believes that she will be indicted for mortgage fraud. You are adamant about the bogus nature of the underlying claims that triggered this lawsuit and ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court. But do you see this indictment coming down the road or is Pulte just trying to litigate the case in the court of public opinion?

EISEN: There is no basis for an indictment. We've seen this administration wrongfully investigate and attempt to indict people. The courts have been very tough on that.

Look at Attorney General Tish James. The court threw the case out. And then, you were a prosecutor, Laura, grand juries refused to consider the case. That's so rare. Jim Comey, many others, the "Broadview Six" in Chicago, the sandwich thrower, so many of these cases have been rejected by the courts.

If they try this misbegotten approach to Dr. Cook, we're going to vigorously fight it. I don't think the courts will entertain it. How wrong when the government says this thing -- this kind of thing about people? When you lose a case at the Supreme Court, you immediately move to target someone. That's not America.

COATES: Norm Eisen, thank you.

EISEN: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Tonight, federal officials who work at agencies long considered to have been independent, they're facing a new reality, the possibility of being fired at the sole discretion of the White House. Former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter credits her fight to the many who remain on the job as we speak.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SLAUGHTER: I have been incredibly well supported in this fight. And I just would like to take a moment to recognize all the other thousands and thousands and thousands of people who are doing similar acts of standing up for principle, for their oaths to the Constitution, as federal employees across the government. They're doing it with much less recognition and much less credit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in someone who knows firsthand the fallout of being removed from public service at will. Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, served as the federal election commissioner for over two decades under multiple administrations, and I mean from both parties. All that before she was fired by President Trump in a brief letter last year.

[23:15:02]

So glad that you are here with me now as we're learning more and more and all this is falling out. I mean, what do you expect the impact to be of this decision, particularly on the federal workers who remain, who may disagree with policies, who want their voices to be heard, to be that voice perhaps of objectivity or a sounding board or just that voice of the minority position?

ELLEN WEINTRAUB, FORMER FEC COMMISSIONER FIRED BY TRUMP: Well, thank you for having me. It is a sad day for all of those government officials who are really just trying to do their best for the American people and to fulfill their duties under the Constitution.

This president has fired a lot of people. He fired me. He fired Becca Slaughter. He fired a lot of us. And he did it in a way that I think was intended to intimidate people. He wanted people to be afraid of him and to be afraid of challenging anything that he said. He issued an executive order that said everybody in the executive branch has to do exactly what I say and what I and the then attorney general, well, I guess we'll see who the next attorney general is, how they interpret the law.

And the way it was done, the way he fired people so suddenly and with no notice and with no concern for how it was going to impact people, I think was done on purpose to create an atmosphere of intimidation. When I was fired, the letter was copied to the senior leaders of the FEC. And I think that was done on purpose, intended to intimidate them. And I think it was received as a message that, you know, you could be next. If you step out of line, you could be the next one to go.

COATES: But what does that mean when you talk about out of line? I want to drill down on this point because if you're having a meeting, if you have an email chain, if you are in the hallway speaking about something you disagree with or have an alternate position that you can substantiate with research or, you know, firsthand observation or any things we look for from people who are working as federal employees, you know, they will be silenced, you think, now and say, I've got a cost-benefit analysis. Either I can speak out about what I was supposed to be hired to talk about or I can lose my job. WEINTRAUB: Well, I think that will be a real concern for people. And I think it will be a concern even in those kinds of internal deliberations. But it particularly will be a concern when they are thinking about whether to speak out loud, speak publicly about what their particular agency is doing and whether they're doing the right thing by the American people.

COATES: They all become whistleblowers then if they ever speak out, if they choose.

WEINTRAUB: Well, I think what we're going to end up with is a government by sycophancy instead of by expertise. And that is not the best way to get good policies for the American people. And we're not going to find out what the shortcomings are of the policies that do get adopted. You want to have a robust debate in government.

There are always two sides to an issue. But you want to hear both sides. You want both sides to be fleshed out so that the best decisions can be made and so that, at the end of the day, the American people can judge whether the best decisions are made. But if people feel silenced, if they feel that if they do speak out, they will be fired, then the American people are going to be the losers.

COATES: What is the impact particularly of independent agencies where this might be going on? I mean, people hear the word independent and may assume it's the dictionary definition of what it's supposed to be. But the Supreme Court has drafted this in a way in the majority opinion to suggest that, look, as the executive, the buck would stop with him only if he has control over everyone leading these independent agencies. Is there any insight you can give as to why the Supreme Court may feel that that was appropriate?

WEINTRAUB: Well, I think the Supreme Court really is on a mission to undermine the administrative state that protects people from unsafe products, unsafe air, unsafe conditions in their environment from, in my case, the extreme influence of billionaire donors and the influence that they have over policies. The through line between the two cases that came out today, which seemed to be inconsistent, is that money always wins. Moneyed interests wanted the Federal Reserve to be stable, but they also don't want to be regulated by these other independent agencies.

And it's important to note that most independent agencies, not the FEC, which is kind of a special case, but most independent agencies, the president always has a majority. So, it's not like he can't get his policies through if he does not have the right to fire everybody who disagrees with him willy-nilly.

COATES: That's such an important point because this is then about silencing dissent, not about making sure his policies would get through.

[23:20:01]

And, by the way, talking about Trump, this could be every president thereafter given what the Supreme Court has said as of now. I want to talk about the elections, though, because it's so important. Of course, this is your perfect wheelhouse as well. The Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day can be counted, that they can be counted. President Trump, he is calling that a tremendous loss. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising, gives people more time to vote illegally, let's say. I think it was very detrimental to honest elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do you think?

WEINTRAUB: Well, first of all, the president has been on a mission to convince the American people that our elections are fraudulent ever since he lost in 2020 because he just couldn't take the loss. He's kind of a sore loser. And there is no evidence of any kind of substantial fraud that would have influenced the outcome of that election or really most of our elections. We really do run --

COATES: But the seed he's planting is that the longer it takes to count an election result, the more room there is to defraud the public. Tell me why you think that's wrong.

WEINTRAUB: Well, it's -- the votes are already in. Election -- people have to get their votes in by Election Day. And then individual states, which have the right under the Constitution to set the time, place and manner of the elections, if individual states decide, they're going to give people an extra couple of days for the mail to deliver their ballot. Not for them to vote but just for the mail to get in so that all of the votes that are legitimately cast by Election Day are counted.

COATES: Military people overseas, their families?

WEINTRAUB: Yes. Absolutely. It's particularly important for the military who are serving so bravely our country. And they're doing it overseas. And to do anything that would deprive them of the right to get their votes counted, I think, would be unconscionable.

COATES: The next step is for states to try to fortify, potentially, what could be next. Ellen Weintraub, thank you so much.

WEINTRAUB: Thank you.

COATES: Hey, remember, you are all a part of this show, and I want to hear from you. So, text us your questions and your comments, 818-972- 7272. We'll answer them later in the hour. Just make sure you give me your first name and your city or state. I want to know who I'm talking to.

President Trump is downplaying a landmark bipartisan bill meant to make housing more affordable. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Will voters agree? Plus, the Democratic Party on the brink of yet another key test as progressive momentum spreads all across the nation. The Democratic socialist challenging a congresswoman who has been in office as long as she has been alive is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the president is calling the Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballots received after Election Day a tremendous loss. But he is not backing down from trying to overhaul how elections are actually run. You know, today, he continued to push his controversial bill known as the SAVE America Act, which would end mail-in voting, with certain exceptions. It would also enact strict voter I.D. laws. The president is also ramping up the pressure on Republican lawmakers to pass that bill.

Joining me now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton along with Kurt Bardella, author of the Substack column "The Watchdog Report." You must be very busy, I'll tell you that right now.

(LAUGHTER)

I'll begin with you, Shermichael, because the president is calling on senators now to end the filibuster. He called out several Republicans by name. Will the pressure campaign that Trump is trying to wage actually pay off?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No. No. We don't have the votes. Kurt and I was actually talking about this before we came on. The votes just frankly don't exist.

COATES: So, why do they?

SINGLETON: And --

COATES: Symbolically only?

SINGLETON: I mean, I suppose because that's what the president wants. But those Republican senators are concerned. Kurt, you and I know this very well from our years in politics. You remove that filibuster. What in the hell happens when Democrats are in control?

(LAUGHTER) And as we're sort of seeing Democrats have their Tea Party moment with some of these DSA candidates, at some point, it wouldn't surprise me, Kurt, if someone gets elected to the Senate, maybe several over the next couple of years. I can only imagine the policies that they would want to push forward with. This would be a quagmire. We don't want to open that Pandora's box.

And senators understand that. And I think that's why they're resisting the president's call. And keep in mind, you have a number of senators that the president endorsed their opponents. And so, they have zero reason at all to oblige the president.

COATES: Or they also, given the track record, have had zero track record of resisting the president in many respects, too.

KURT BARDELLA, SUBSTACK PUBLISHER, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER OR REPUBLICANS, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS: Well, it helps when some of these folks who have been deposed now in their primaries don't have to be on a ballot anymore. All of a sudden, courage is everywhere and the willingness to stand up to the guy who threw them over. I mean, hell hath no fury like a senator scorned, right?

So, I can't imagine why Thom Tillis or John Cornyn or Mr. Cassidy may not be inclined to, yes, let's just get rid of all the Senate traditions to pass something for Donald Trump after he just ended our political career. It's like shocking that they don't want to do that right now. But, again, it is the old adage. If you're OK with a Republican doing it, then you better be OK when a Democrat comes to town -- SINGLETON: You know we're not going to be -- you know we're not going to be --

BARDELLA: -- you're going to be crying bloody murder constitutionality. What about the check and balance, executive overreach, which was the favorite phrase Republicans during the Obama years? Executive overreach. Every congressional hearing was entitled the executive overreach of the Obama administration.

COATES: No, no. That's a Supreme Court docket.

(LAUGHTER)

The president, though -- the president refused to sign a bipartisan affordable housing bill, as you guys know. Just -- just last week, he refused to do so. I mean, he said that he'll only do it if the SAVE America Act passes.

[23:29:59]

And he was asked about it again, his plans, just earlier today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will you sign that housing bill?

TRUMP: I have not yet. It hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand. And then I'll make -- then I'll make it -- here's what I would like to say. Much more than a bill, that big deal. It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, this is a big yawn. That's housing. That's -- how is that a big yawn? And how the Democrats think about that?

BARDELLA: You know, for my Republican friends who hear up and down from every candidate, every poll, the number one issue in America, affordability.

SINGLETON: Affordability, yes.

BARDELLA: Big part of that is housing. And here's your guy going yawn --

(LAUGHTER)

-- bipartisan bill --

SINGLETON: -- talking about that.

BARDELLA: -- bipartisan bill, signing the law. Congress actually did something. My God. And your guys response. We may not -- it's in the mail. Yawn like --

SINGLETON: This is --

BARDELLA: -- have fun campaigning, buddy.

SINGLETON: -- this is absolutely to me, I think, a miscalculation.

COATES: By the president?

BARDELLA: Self-sabotage.

SINGLETON: Oh, absolutely, because you look at all of the polling survey. Granted, the president has high approvals among Republicans, but you know this, Kurt, as well as I do, you want to have about four to five percent of those independents to get you across the finish line. And what we're noticing across congressional districts, they're a lot more competitive than they have ever been in the history of our country.

And so, you really have to make appeals to people who are saying affordability, cost of living, housing is a big issue to me. I would have every single Republican, Laura, talking about those issues. Every ad, every social media post would all be about affordability. We say, hey, under Republican leadership, we are addressing your number one concern.

Now, the good news is, and I know what Kurt is going to say about this, in 10 days, we still might get this thing as law. That's the good news.

BARDELLA: But you know what really helped for you guys is --

COATES: Giving you advice.

(LAUGHTER)

Interesting. I like this ad, Kurt.

BARDELLA: I love the strategy. We're not going to go out and sign a bill that we can take credit for making housing more affordable for millions of Americans. What we are going to do? We're going to make it harder for our voters in rural areas, older voters that we rely on, we're going to make it harder for them to vote by mail. I'm old enough to remember, as a former Republican, when the mail vote was the only reason why we won elections.

SINGLETON: Yes.

BARDELLA: And now, you guys are going to go out there, hold hostage a bipartisan housing bill. And instead go, we're going to make it harder for our side to come out and vote.

SINGLETON: On the mail-in ballot point, Kurt made a good point. And I remember years ago, Kurt and I used to talk about this, when you were a Republican. Now, our party is more rural. It's older now. And we want to maximize the ability of those voters to vote and participate in every single election possible as opposed to our Democratic friends. People are in cities. Sometimes, it's a little easier for them to get to their polling places. So, again, I think a strategic miscalculation. I would advise the president to see this very, very differently.

COATES: Not a good look, Sherm.

(LAUGHTER)

SINGLETON: You know what? We're dealing with the cards we have.

COATES: I mean, you know, look --

SINGLETON: The cards we have.

COATES: -- you can make all the lemonade you want. I'm not puckering. Stick around, guys. Next, the debate roiling the Democratic Party enters a new phase as another Democratic socialist tries to unseat a longtime incumbent. Will Melat Kiros be the next sign that the party's left flank is building power? You know what? I'm going to ask her. She joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Well, the momentum from the Democratic socialist victory in New York, it may be felt in Colorado tomorrow. The socialist wing of the party is eyeing another political veteran, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, who first took office back in 1997. That is the same year her challenger, Melat Kiros, was born.

Now, this race encapsulates the dilemma facing the Democratic Party today. DeGette, not a moderate. She calls herself a progressive who supports Medicare for all and protecting abortion and fighting climate change. But Kiros hopes to unseat DeGette by running on a familiar campaign playbook: affordability, anti-corruption, and ending big money in politics.

DeGette's supporters say that her credentials will carry her into victory in tomorrow's primary. But even some House Democrats are unsure. One anonymous lawmaker on the Hill told Axios -- quote -- "I think it's quite likely DeGette will lose."

Melat Kiros joins me now. Melat, welcome. It's good to have you here. I want to ask you because some members of the Democratic Party seem to be very confident in your race, but your opponent is stressing Denver, Colorado is not New York City. So, let me ask you how you are feeling heading into tomorrow. Why do you think that Denver is ready for a Democratic socialist?

MELAT KIROS, COLORADO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I think what Denver is ready is for leadership that's actually going to address the things that we need. It's going to address the fact that housing is in crisis, that our child care is in crisis, that our education is in crisis.

And the only way that we're going to actually address those things is going to be by fighting for them, by not taking money from the same corporations that want these things to stay the same way. And I'm the only candidate in this race not taking a dime in corporate PAC money. Meanwhile, the congresswoman has taken the vast majority of her donations from these corporate PACs.

And folks are starting to realize that it's not enough to just say you're a progressive. You have to actually fight to meaningfully progress this agenda and deliver for working families.

COATES: You know, people have pointed out your age. I'm sure you're not surprised by that. What tactic could they take, right?

[23:40:00]

You're 29 years old. You've never held political office. You are a lawyer. Your opponent has 30 years of experience spent in Congress. She's even an impeachment manager in President Trump's second impeachment.

But tell me, why should voters trust you, not only in that office without having the traditional experience before now, but also what many Democrats are looking for, which is to hold President Trump accountable? KIROS: Look, experience only matters if you actually do something with

it. And we're finding now with a lot of incumbent Democrats that they're not actually able to deliver meaningfully on the things that working families need right now. And the only reason that is, is because they are continuing to take money from the same corporations that want to maintain the status quo.

And so, making sure that we are fighting back against Donald Trump, making sure that we are holding this administration accountable is absolutely our number one priority. But we have to be concerned with actually progressing our agenda, delivering for working families, because working families know the system is broken, the economy is rigged, and they need to see leadership that's actually going to fight for the policies that are going to meaningfully make their lives better.

COATES: What would that fight look like, particularly given the political climate in Washington, D.C. where, frankly, many people are disoriented on an hourly, let alone daily basis about how things ought to, but do work?

KIROS: Well, I think, first, it's about being honest about the fact that we already have a lot of support for the policies that we're fighting for: Medicare for all, housing first, universal childcare. Each of these policies has the support of a super majority of the voters of this party. What we don't see is the leadership of this party actually fighting to progress this agenda. And, at the end of the day, working families, all they care about is that we are seeing leadership delivering for them.

And so, I think the first step is going to require us to make sure that the leadership is not taking money from the same corporations that want to maintain the status quo in the first place.

COATES: Leadership right now is, of course, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. If you're elected to Congress, would you support selecting him as the next House speaker if the Democrats do reclaim the House?

KIROS: I won't be supporting anybody for leadership that takes corporate PAC money. I look forward to getting into Congress and making that case for other Congress members so that they can see that they can run grassroots campaigns that can raise over a million dollars, that can get 6,500 plus volunteers knocking on over 100,000 doors, which we just reached today, and making over 500,000 phone calls to Denverites all across this district.

That's what a real people-powered grassroots operation looks like, that's how you earn back the trust of voters in our party that we have lost over the last few elections, and that is how we are going to meaningfully deliver for working families because we won't be beholden to the interests of the corporations that have spent too much time donating to the campaigns of this party.

COATES: You've been criticized in a particular area. I mean, one of the biggest issues in the midterm election, Melat, is America's relationship with Israel. Last year, there was a deadly firebombing attack in Boulder targeting a demonstration for Israeli hostages.

When you were asked about the attack last week, you declined to call it antisemitism, saying that you -- quote -- "don't know what was in the heart of the perpetrator." There was more context to your statement, I'm assuming. But the police say the attacker yelled, free Palestine, as he threw Molotov cocktails at his victims, and that he was driven by a desire to -- quote -- "kill all Zionist people." Do you stand by your comments? And how do you respond to the criticism for not having called it antisemitism?

KIROS: You know, what happened in Boulder was a horrific attack on a group of Jewish people that were engaging in peaceful protest. It was an attack that has made many Jewish people in our city, in our state, and across our country feel incredibly unsafe. And the fact of the matter is, is that this conflation between the actions of the state of Israel and Judaism and the Jewish people is making Jewish people less safe. It is leading to a rise in antisemitism that's taking place all across our country.

My commitment is to protecting the sanctity and dignity of life for everyone. That means standing strong, side-by-side to our Jewish brothers and sisters and neighbors, to make sure that they are protected against this rising hate and this rising antisemitism.

COATES: Well, just from your description of what took place there, it would meet that criteria of antisemitism. Is there a reason you didn't just say that it was?

KIROS: I believe what we're talking about here is attacks that are taking place on the Jewish community as a result of the actions that are taking place in Palestine, the genocide that is taking place in Palestine, actively making Jewish people less safe in our city and across our country. And our commitment has to be to combating that hate, combating the conflation between the actions of the state and the Jewish people and standing against this antisemitism.

COATES: Melat, you know there has been a big debate happening within the Democratic Party as to whether there's room for Democratic socialists like yourself in the party.

[23:45:02]

And some moderates say no. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE: I'm a member of the Democratic Party. I'm not a member of the Socialist Party. And, frankly, I think that while folks can take ideas from other political traditions, if you're running in a Democratic primary, you ought to be a Democrat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I actually do think it is time for Democrats to talk the S-word, schism. I really do. Everybody always said, no, we're a coalition, we're a big tent. And there are some -- there are just some (bleep) that I can't be in the same tent with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right. Well, how do you plan on working with moderate Democrats if you win this election?

KIROS: I think moderate Democrats would really be better served if they actually spoke with voters themselves instead of being afraid of what they think is taking place in our party right now. Right now, voters are voting across this country for leadership that is unbought and unafraid to stand up to the billionaires and the corporations that have kept our prices high, that have been burning our planet and profiting from genocide. This is where the voters are at. This is where the voters have been.

And because of the Democratic Party's failure to meaningfully represent the values of the voters, we've been losing. And now that we're winning again, a lot of moderate Democrats are basically denigrating the voters that have been fighting for this kind of leadership. This is why it's time for the party to actually reckon with where the base is at, and this is the kind of leadership that we need.

COATES: I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you about this. I know our time is very short, Melat. But your family did emigrate to the United States after your father was selected by the visa lottery. And immigration remains top of mind for so many voters and Americans all across this country. You've called to abolish ICE, but voters still want border enforcement. How will you square the two?

KIROS: Well, we were enforcing our borders long before ICE existed, and we'll do it long after ICE existed. I'm about the same age that my father was when he first immigrated to this country. And the bravery that it took to go to a new world, to a new country, learn a whole new language, navigate a whole new system and still build a life for our family is the kind of courage, the kind of strength, and the kind of grit, which is why immigrants make this country so great.

And so, making sure that our values are being injected into our immigration policy and protecting the dignity of immigrants all across this country is my number one priority.

COATES: Melat Kiros, thank you for joining.

KIROS: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Next, it's your turn to drive the conversation. The panel is back to answer your questions and your comments. The number is on the screen. Just text us, 818-972-7272. Be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's time to answer your questions tonight. And a reminder, if you want to participate, just text us, 818-972-7272. Include your first name and city or state. I got Shermichael Singleton and Kurt Bardella back with me to answer your questions. This is going to be fun.

OK, one anonymous viewer asked this question, will America ever set term limits or see term limits in the Supreme Court? Is it attainable or just a dream? Shermichael?

SINGLETON: A dream. Absolutely not attainable. And the original idea was that you didn't want the Supreme Court justices to be at the whims of the political movement in the country, which as we have noticed, it shifted every presidential cycle. I understand why some people are unhappy about that.

But there is going to be a reality where there's a Democratic administration. There will be several retiring conservative justices. And I presume you have more liberal-leaning justices appointed and ultimately confirmed. Some folks on my side may not like that, but it's the reality of the system that we must respect.

COATES: Diane in Michigan asks, the Supreme Court justices are supposed to interpret laws, so why do they so often split along party lines? Kurt?

BARDELLA: Well, because they're nominated by presidents that are partisan and that we have a two-party system in America. Your judges are selected by a president who is of a particular party and ideologically will nominate someone who he or she thinks will follow suit.

I mean, I think the more interesting question is, do you think we will have an expanded court at all in our lifetime? Because that's the way around the term limit situation. If you're a Democrat, and Democrats talk about this, should we be expanding the court to get done what we want to get done or undo some of the things that we've seen these Republican justices do?

COATES: FDR (ph) tried. Let's see. Another viewer asked this question, does the recent SCOTUS opinion on executive power leave the justices' open determination by the president for cause? Well, that's interesting. Well, they're appointed for life according to Article 3 of the Constitution, but they are writing themselves into a bit of a pretzel and giving him more and more power. We'll have to see what happens there.

Victor in Cape Creek, Arizona asked this question, where should Congress and the Supreme Court draw the line between a strong executive branch and maintaining checks and balances? Shermichael -- Kurt?

BARDELLA: This is what's perplexing me about this current bench that we have. Republicans used to believe in limited executive power. The idea that Republican justices would be presiding over a president that has widely expanded the executive branch completely defies conservative orthodoxy that we've seen for decades. So, up is down and down is up right now.

SINGLETON: Kurt is right philosophically. But I would say a lot of people want things accomplished. It's why you see Democrats saying just expand the court. That's the only way we can correct some of the things that they would consider ills against the American people. I think it's less, Kurt, about a traditionalism to orthodoxy and more about who's going to utilize the mechanism to accomplish the things that will make my life better by any means necessary, and that's what we see.

BARDELLA: And justify the means.

SINGLETON: Yes.

BARDELLA: No more principles, Shermichael.

SINGLETON: I think we're seeing it across the board.

COATES: Sophia in California asks, whatever SCOTUS rules on right now when Republicans are in control, do they have the power to change their minds in a few years when it's a Democrat in control?

[23:54:59]

Well, yes, that's the -- you know, how you like them, apples, the answer for you. (LAUGHTER)

I'll go on right now. Hashiku from New York viewer asks -- Hi, Laura. Hi. I'm curious, what is your breakfast sandwich order? Seriously? You're from New York. Egg on a roll with cheese.

SINGLETON: Yes. You can't go wrong with that, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm with you on that.

BARDELLA: I'm more of a breakfast hash kind of guy.

COATES: Oh.

BARDELLA: So, I like the potatoes, the onions, some sausage and bacon in there, you know.

SINGLETON: You're fancy, Kurt.

BARDELLA: That's what I make my kids.

COATES: Thank God you added in sausage from Texas. Otherwise you'd be -- he's being a vegan like Talarico.

BARDELLA: With some brisket. COATES: I don't know. I like that question. And now, I'm hungry. Thanks a lot. OK, thank you, guys. Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson," it's up next.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)