Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Iran War Slipping Into A Quagmire With U.S. Troops At Risk; Army Vet Attacked New York City Federal Building; Trump DOJ Sought Phone Records Of Reporters And Their Relatives. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 20, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We are now at $4 a gallon. We will see how this all plays out.

Thank you all for coming and having this debate with me. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a 10th straight night of U.S. strikes, Iranian attacks across the region, and now more American casualties. Is the war with Iran spiraling beyond President Trump's control? Plus, an Army veteran is accused of an anti-ICE attack in New York City, and the White House is pointing the finger at rhetoric from Democrats. Also ahead, the DOJ subpoenas phone records of New York Times reporters and their relatives. Former Washington Post executive editor, Marty Baron, is my guest tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, the war with Iran is starting to look like the very quagmire President Trump promised he would never get into. There's no clear exit strategy. There's no easy way to withdraw. What we're being told and hearing day after day seems to clarify nothing, just a new attempt to reword, I don't know. It's like a scene out of Groundhog Day if the stakes weren't so high. Nearly five months of on and off again attacks. A ceasefire in April, an agreement in June. One promised breakthrough after another, only for each one to unravel.

But this time, the fighting isn't just flaring back up, it is dramatically escalating. The Pentagon is saying tonight nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured in just the last two weeks, and we haven't been told the full extent of those injuries.

We do know that, tragically, three American service members have been killed since Friday. Two died in Iranian attacks at a military base in Jordan. First, Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan was 25. He originally enlisted in Hawaii and was based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Private Isabella Gonzalez was just 19. She was from Texas, assigned to an air and missile defense battalion in Germany. The third American died in northern Iraq during the controlled detonation of an Iranian drone. That service member's name has not yet been released. The U.S. military death toll in this war? Now 17.

And President Trump says Iran will pay many times over for each American soldier they kill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We feel very badly. But, you know, those are great people. Those are great patriots who are out there fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Iran has been very, very badly damaged. They've lost everything, almost, militarily. They've got very little left.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Iran is showing it still has enough firepower to kill and injure American troops and enough leverage over the Strait of Hormuz to hit the American economy. Those are the warning signs, blaring, of a quagmire. The human toll mounts, the price tag, U.S. tax dollars, mind you, climbing, the public gets fed up, and the end stays out of reach. Just look at the money. One estimate puts the cost at $40 billion. And that was a month ago, before the new round of fighting. Then there's the public, which saw this war as unpopular from the start.

Well, now, the verdict is overwhelming. You know, Washington Post- Ipsos poll shows 68 percent of Americans say the war with Iran is not worth fighting. Now, let's just put that number in historical context, shall we? It is higher than the worst readings for the Afghanistan- Iraq wars, and it took Afghanistan nearly 12 years to reach that level of public opposition. Iraq, more than four years. Iran, four and a half months.

And then there's the most basic sign of a quagmire. No clear end. Tonight is the 10th straight night of American strikes on Iran. Iranian attacks are hitting America's Gulf allies. And the administration is sending more fighter jets to the region, which brings us back to the president and the exact kind of open-ended conflict he spent years promising he would avoid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: War and aggression will not be my first instinct.

We are ending the era of endless wars.

I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars.

[23:05:00] We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end and, perhaps, most importantly, the wars we never get into.

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.

I think you'll see it's going to be a short-term excursion.

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What makes you so sure this won't become a quagmire?

TRUMP: We're not going to be there.

WELKER: You're convinced this won't become a quagmire?

TRUMP: It's not a quagmire. I just wiped out the military of a very dangerous country. We're almost finished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He said we're almost finished six weeks ago. And since then, the ceasefire has collapsed and three more Americans have lost their lives. That's not almost finished. That's a conflict getting worse with no clear way out, textbook definition of a quagmire.

We begin tonight with a panel uniquely equipped to map out this crisis from every critical front, from the battlefield to the halls of power. Former Republican congressman and CNN senior political commentator Adam Kinzinger, retired U.S. Army major general, Randy Manner, and White House correspondent for Bloomberg, Jeff Mason. Glad to have all of you here.

I'll begin with you, congressman. I mean, the Pentagon says that nearly a hundred U.S. troops have been injured over just the last two weeks. Officials say the majority of the injuries were minor concussions, but most service members have returned to duty. But why do you think the administration has waited 14 days to tell the American public?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Because they're trying to -- Donald Trump does not want to stand in front of the American people and make the case for this war. He never thought he'd have to. I mean, look, it's one thing to say we're into this thing for five months now.

The most egregious part of that, besides the launching of the war without a plan, is the fact that there was no effort to prepare the American people. And so, Donald Trump, instead of actually doing the hard work of preparing the American people, talking about what the goal is here, has instead tried to convince everybody every week that the war is over.

And it is part of why -- why are you hiding the injuries? Because it's not something he wants to talk about. This is -- it is not unprecedented in American history in terms of this level of hiding these things, but it's disgusting.

By the way, Russia and China potentially are providing this targeting data, and we're not hearing anything about that. In fact, Kash Patel is going to Russia now in October.

COATES: I want to hear more about that. General, the Pentagon previously told CNN that reporting delays, they're necessary to protect troops across the Middle East. And even top lawmakers have said they're in the dark. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: They have not been telling us what has been happening in terms of lost equipment, in terms of the cost of the war, and certainly in terms of the service members who have been wounded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is that standard protocol?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: It is something where, obviously, there's a little bit of a delay to be able to properly notify families of any kind of injuries or deaths. So that part is actually normal.

However, we need to step back a second. As the previous congressman said, what are the objectives? What is it we're doing here? The president would like nothing more than to return to a pre-war condition and declare success and get out of here.

The problem is we don't have that clarity, and it's very disturbing whenever the president in his own tweets says words like, hey, we're going to kill more of you if you kill any of ours. That is reminiscent of September 16, 1941 where the Nazis said, we will kill 100 for every one German soldier killed.

This is -- we don't fight for vengeance. We fight for honor and for the national security objectives. We don't even know what they are anymore, and that's very, very sad, very dangerous, and we are in a quagmire, as you said earlier.

COATES: Jeff, I want to bring you in because sources are telling CNN that mediators are pushing hard for a 10-day ceasefire. And, frankly, we've heard the ceasefire discussions many times before and wondered whether they were going to last. Is it in effect? Is it totally gone? The U.S. is already downplaying, though, any real chance that it actually is going to have the president agree to this idea. What has changed from the last discussion point about ceasefires to now?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, what has changed is that both sides are attacking each other. And that has changed everything. That's, of course, why the ceasefire was thrown out and why the memorandum of understanding was thrown out.

And the president is not suggesting, at least in his public comments, that he's ready to move back to that. He has said a couple times that Iran wants a deal, but that's kind of -- that is almost a verbal tick for the president. He constantly says that even when there's no real evidence or at least no detail about that coming from the other side.

So, right now, it's conflict, but even Iran has acknowledged that there was some outreach from potential mediators. We assume that's Pakistan and Qatar.

[23:10:04]

It took me a second there, sorry.

COATES: It's OK.

MASON: But, you know, they have an interest in seeing this end, too. The region is really being affected by this right now. The whole world is being affected by this.

COATES: Yes.

MASON: And the president will be, too, and will face additional political consequences this fall if this war continues.

COATES: General, Iran was able to successfully hit a U.S. air base, not just once but twice, within a two-day span. Do you think that Iran's firepower is more intact than the Pentagon is willing to admit here?

MANNER: Absolutely. Yes. The president continues his propaganda that he has destroyed the Iranian military. That is far from the truth. They are able to hit. In all of the media, we see one crater, one target destroyed per missile. They are not bombarding the middle of nowhere. They have extremely good targeting data. They are able to hit their targets in the U.S. while, of course, we can defend many of the drones and missiles. It is virtually impossible to secure every area, and our soldiers and military members are paying the price that we are not learning these lessons like the Ukrainians have so well.

COATES: Congressman, tomorrow, Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, they're going to head to the Capitol. They're going to ask for at least $80 billion for this war. Several Republicans are not convinced yet. Do you expect pushback, though?

KINZINGER: Oh, yes, there's going to be huge pushback. Again, the administration needs to make the case. The American people are willing to go to war, we've seen this through our history, if a case is made for why and even if they can't go back in time and make the case for the initial strikes. Now, to discuss, look, hey, guys, honestly, we have two options, we either leave the Strait of Hormuz to Iran, that's untenable, or we have to escape, there's no good option here, but that is the case that has to be made.

And I have heard too many, though, Laura, too many Republicans and even occasionally a Democrat out there saying, boy, this has been so successful, we've destroyed their Navy, we've destroyed their Air Force. OK, they had F-14 Tomcats, made me sad to blow those up, by the way, but the Air Force was no threat to us. The Navy clearly doesn't need to be the threat because drones and ballistic missiles are. We've been told over and over that their ballistic missile threat was degraded by 89, 90 percent. Then we read in great publications like Jeff's that, in fact, that's not the case. They've only degraded about 20 percent.

Tell the American people the truth. They're willing to make sacrifices if you tell them the truth. But this continued lying is going to catch up, is catching up, and that's why nobody believes anything that these people say.

COATES: I'm not so sure, Jeff, about even telling them and preparing them will change this to a popular endeavor because you've got the war so unpopular, 68 percent. Sixty-eight percent do not believe it's worth fighting for. Just about the same reject on the president's handling of the war. And the price of gas, now $4 a gallon again. Is the White House even trying to do, as Congressman Kinzinger suggests, to try to prepare or convince the public or have they just seen that particular ship sail?

MASON: Well, I think there are people in the White House that are concerned about it, for sure, and that was sort of manifested in the fact that the president was supposed to do a whole bunch of travel this fall. Maybe he still will. He was supposed to do a whole lot of travel this spring to be selling the Trump economic agenda. That didn't happen because of the war. So, he has lost ground on that and the polling is very clear about the popularity.

I will say, though, at least with his base, they're still giving him grace on this even though it broke a promise to his base to go to war. And that was clear to me when I went to CPAC a few months ago now, I guess. I was really eager to talk. CPAC, of course, being the conference of conservative voters that has a lot of Trump supporters. And maybe of 20 people that I talked to on the ground there, one or two were concerned about it. So, he still got his base, but it's not his base that's going to help keep the Republicans in power in November. He needs independents, he needs moderates, and he needs some Democrats.

COATES: A lot changed in those past couple months in CPAC. We'll see what happens. Thank you, everyone, so much.

Remember, you all are part of this show. I want to hear from you. Just text me your questions, your comments, 818-972-7272. We'll answer them later in the hour. Just include a first name and your city or state.

And up next, a shocking attack outside a federal building in New York City by an Army veteran who police say was motivated by his hate for ICE. And later, an unprecedented escalation in Trump's legal fight with "The New York Times" over their reporting on the new Air Force One. The paper says the DOJ is trying to get information from the relatives of its reporters. Legendary Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron is ahead.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The White House is putting the blame on today's anti-ICE attack in New York, squarely at the feet of the agency's critics. Police say a 43-year-old Army veteran poured gasoline and ignited fireworks outside the federal building housing ICE. His name is Andrew Arrabaca. Police say he then allegedly fired an airsoft rifle before officers arrested him. Investigators say Arrabaca yelled derogatory terms about ICE and had anti-ICE slogans on a cart. Now, President Trump's border czar says the rhetoric is putting lives at risk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSEBORDER CZAR: They keep attacking and miscommunicating what ICE does every day, calling them Nazis. Comparing ICE to the Nazi regime, are you kidding me?

[23:20:00]

And I'm not saying the whole country is convinced, but there is going to be that population that's just going to be emboldened to do something stupid. And I'm afraid -- I'm afraid that we're going to bury an ICE agent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in former assistant director at the FBI's counterintelligence division, Frank Figliuzzi. He's also the host of "The Frank Figliuzzi Show" on Substack. Frank, thank you so much for being here. You heard Tom Homan. Do you think the rhetoric around ICE contributed to an attack that we saw today?

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, SUBSTACK HOST, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE: So, first, of course, we must condemn acts of violence, acts of serious property damage. Anything that harms another individual has to be condemned. And we've heard that condemnation around the block today. We've got that.

And we also know, Laura, that there has been a long track record of rhetoric inciting violence. But if we want to talk about rhetoric inciting violence, we can't ignore the fact that rhetoric and concepts and phrases like brown invaders, white replacement theory, rigged election, have all resulted in serious bodily harm and even death and an insurrection. So, there's lots of blame to go around.

But Tom Homan playing the victim today is a bit disingenuous. ICE has shot somewhere between 23 and 29 people in the last year and a half, 10 of them fatally. So, Tom playing the victim when there are victims that have been buried and families that are grieving is really tough to hear. I think if ICE wanted to change its public perception, it could change how it goes about its work.

COATES: Very important point to raise, Frank. And meanwhile, the ex- wife of one of the ICE officers who was involved in one of those deadly shootings, this one in Maine, she's actually speaking out. She is accusing her ex-husband of -- quote -- "severe domestic violence." Listen to what she told Erin Burnett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEY BROUILLETTE, EX-WIFE OF DAVID BROUILLETTE: He had threatened to kill me in a phone call. That's why I had hung up on him and told him that I was going to pursue a restraining order with him. And then he had called back, and I didn't answer. He left me a mean, nasty voicemail, talking about how I need to have my throat slit. All the females in my family (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, CNN has not confirmed which ICE officer shot Mr. Guerrero. But questions like this, questions about the background of people who are then hired, are worth asking. Do you have some about who, in fact, would have been hired and the fact that this allegation has been made? Wouldn't this have been a part of a record?

FIGLIUZZI: Yes, I think we've got to demand answers. I think Congress needs answers right away about how ICE is hiring people who reportedly, as it has been reported through multiple media outlets, have the kind of background that the ICE agent who is believed, believed, and I understand not yet confirmed to have done the shooting.

This ICE agent is a rookie, has only been on board maybe a year, year and a half, perhaps. And more importantly, Laura, he has a documented court record, temporary restraining order requests. There are two divorces in his past. All of that is documented.

His own family members, not only ex-wives, but his own immediate family says he should never have a badge, that Afghanistan -- quote -- "destroyed him," that he has PTSD, that he had -- allegedly from close family members, that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a young child, was hospitalized with psychiatric issues, was in and out of a couple of different law enforcement positions, including the federal VA as a police officer in Massachusetts -- excuse me -- Maine Department of Corrections.

All (INAUDIBLE) jobs. If he's the shooter, we need to ask, how is it that he passed muster and got a badge and a gun from ICE? Something is wrong here. They either did not conduct a background or he was rushed through -- as has been reported by CNN sources in the past, that ICE has a program of fast-tracking people with a military record prior law enforcement, which is him, by giving them virtually no background, excepting the background that has been done by prior agencies, doing online training, and giving you the badge.

COATES: If what has been described is true about his background, many people must be scratching their heads as to how a person like that would be able to overcome a background check, get hired, and then be in such a position of power.

[23:25:00]

Frank Figliuzzi, thank you so much.

FIGLIUZZI: Of course.

COATES: There is a major escalation tonight in the legal feud between the president of the United States and "The New York Times." The paper says the DOJ issued subpoenas for the phone records of its reporters. This is all because President Trump, according to the Times, is upset the paper broke news about security concerns with the new Air Force One, you know, the one gifted to the U.S. by the Qatari government. Now, the administration is looking to find who leaked that story, and they're leaving or trying to not leave any stone unturned. The Times says the DOJ sought the phone records of one reporter's mother and another reporter's spouse who works at a major law firm.

I want to bring in a newspaper legend, Marty Baron, the former executive editor of "The Washington Post," who has navigated plenty of legal threats during the president's first term. Marty, thank you for being here. The DOJ trying to access the phone records of relatives of reporters seems quite extraordinary. What does it tell you that the administration is willing to go that far?

MARTY BARON, FORMER EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, this whole thing is extraordinary, really. This is part of an ongoing, increasingly aggressive campaign on the part of the administration to intimidate journalists at "The New York Times" and journalists outside of "The New York Times," other journalists as well.

They -- in the past, they've issued subpoenas for grand jury testimony, of course, of "The New York Times" reporters, but they also sought previously to obtain the grand jury testimony of reporters at "The Washington Post" and "The Wall Street Journal" although they dropped those -- they abandoned those subpoenas when those news organizations objected.

But they're going very hard against "The New York Times" and this is just part of an ongoing, increasingly aggressive intimidation campaign.

COATES: A spokeswoman for the DOJ told the Times -- quote -- "Any subpoena issued by the Department of Justice is done so in full compliance with federal law and internal department policy." That's a quote.

Now, you have dealt with subpoenas before. I've dealt with subpoenas before as well as a prosecutor. I mean, have you experienced the phone records of reporters' relatives being sought? I mean, I suppose there's a world where there is some reason to believe that that person's phone was used in some capacity, but that would be a stretch, too.

BARON: Yes. I've never seen that before. In the past, they -- toward the end of the first Trump -- the first Trump administration, his first term, they sought phone records, texts, things like that from reporters at CNN, at "The Washington Post," and "The New York Times," but I've never seen them go after the records of relatives. That is really extraordinary.

COATES: The chilling effect, I think, is part and parcel of this entire conversation. I mean, President Trump is still, by the way, using the old Air Force One plane for now, and he pretty much confirmed the new plane is indeed getting upgrades. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It has a lot of capability. But, as I understand it, in about a month or so, they're going to send it to have it be maxed out. So, they're going to be sending it, and they'll have it be maxed out.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I don't know what maxed out ultimately means. I'm assuming he had security concerns. It's now going to be better after the maxing goes on. But do you have confidence that the courts will look at all of these, all the contacts, all that's happening, and rule in the Times' favor to quash all the subpoenas?

BARON: Well, I can't be sure what the courts are going to do, to tell you the truth. And that's the big concern. Nobody can be certain of that I think the effort here really is to go beyond finding of the sources of "The New York Times." I mean, first of all, keep in mind that some of these latest subpoenas for phone records, they were for records that preceded "The New York Times" reporting about the security concerns about this new Air Force One. They went all the way back to January of this year, well before The New York Times reported anything.

And beyond that, you know, Trump, back in 2022, he talked about his desire to put journalists in jail if they didn't reveal their sources on supposed national security matters. At two different rallies, at the very least, he said that journalists would go to jail, they would meet their bride, as he put it, which meant that they would be subjected to prison rape, and then they would be willing to reveal their sources. He was met, of course, with applause and cheers and laughter and that sort of thing, but it was absolutely grotesque for someone who aspired to return to the White House to say something like that.

[23:29:58] And I believe this administration has been saying that journalists are not the targets of these investigations, but I think they are the targets of this investigation because Trump and members of his administration know that when journalists are -- when they seek the grand jury testimony of journalists at "The New York Times" or at "The Washington Post" or "The Wall Street Journal" or any other news organization, reputable news organization, that those journalists are not going to reveal their sources. And then the administration will ask a judge to compel the reporters to reveal their sources, and they won't. And then they'll ask the judge to hold the reporters in contempt of court with the possible penalty of being -- of sending them to jail.

And I believe that's what this administration really would like to accomplish. And the reason I believe that is because Trump said that. He said that twice in 2022 at his rallies, that he wanted to see journalists go to jail, and that is the ultimate form of intimidation that they are seeking.

COATES: So much for the freedom of the press. Marty Baron, thank you so much.

BARON: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, the battle for the Senate and the future of the Democratic Party now facing new questions, new endorsements, and some new vulnerabilities as well. Rick Tyler and Ashley Allison are here with me on that and more. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the battle for the Senate is posing some crucial tests for Democrats in three marquee races. In Michigan, you got the showdown at the heart of the party's current civil war, progressive left-wing star Abdul El-Sayed against moderate Haley Stevens. Bernie Sanders and AOC boosted him at a rally this very weekend. And today, he got another endorsement of another high-profile progressive, Senator Warren. In Texas, James Talarico is vying to be the guy who finally flips the state blue, but a viral exchange with a voter is posing questions about his ability to win over Black voters. And in Maine, the Democrats appear to have finally found their replacement for Graham Platner, Troy Jackson. Several of his challengers quit the race and decided to back him instead.

Joining me now, former national spokesperson for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, Rick Tyler. Also here, CNN political commentator, former national coalition's director for Joe Biden's 2020 campaign, and publisher for "TheGrio," Ashley Allison. Thank you so much for being here, you guys.

Ashley, let me ask you. So far, the upsets that we have been seeing when it comes from progressives and socialist Democrats, they've been in very deep blue areas, very deep blue areas. Michigan, a key swing state. How big of a test will this primary then be for the direction the party is headed?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR FOR BIDEN-HARRIS 2020 CAMPAIGN, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, PUBLISHER FOR THEGRIO: Yes, there have been a lot of progressive candidates who have won in deep blue states, but there have also been Democrats that are winning in high Trump voter margin states and they're still winning or closing the gap.

I think this is going to be a test for just where voters are and what appetite they are for the issues. I don't actually think it's progressive versus moderate or progressive versus Republican. It's about, can I afford it and can I not? Are you fighting for me or are you not? Are you part of the billionaire class or are you not? And I think that there are people potentially on both sides that are trying to jock for that. But definitely, on the Democratic side, more progressives are leaning on affordability, anti-billionaire message.

And I'll just say, you talked about three very, very different places in our country and three very, very different candidates. I actually think it's good for the Democratic Party to have that diversity because we talk about being a big-tent coalition. But if everybody looks the same in our coalition, then it's just everyone falling in line like they kind of do on the MAGA side.

COATES: Well, when you think about the criticism people have had in the past about saying if you don't have a clear identity of a party or who is this party going to be, you wonder how the other side is going to play it. And for you, Rick, the fact that you've got these weighty endorsements, well, I wonder, are they still weighty given the big tent? You've got AOC, you've got Warren, you've got Sanders. Will that carry weight in Michigan?

RICK TYLER, DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED SCHOOL OF POLITICS AT THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE, FORMER NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON OF TED CRUZ'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Look, endorsements are part of a larger picture.

COATES: Yes.

TYLER: Like an endorsement comes -- if an endorsement comes with political help, with money, with a bus tour, with a speech, with a fundraising letter, then it's worth something. Otherwise, it's just rah-rah.

I think what is happening in the Democratic Party now is we're playing out. We're not just choosing candidates here. We're choosing the theory of electability. And that's going to play out in these three states because, you know, in Michigan, you have an establishment candidate, more or less, but from my perspective, it's still progressive. But then you have someone who's much further to the left. And can those people win?

Now, in New York City, where the Republicans just aren't competing, they're not happy with the establishment Democrats, and they're choosing the socialist Democrats. I don't think this is because they're socialists. I think it's because that's the only chance they have because they're mad at the establishment party. So, the Democratic Party is playing this out. We have similar problems on the right.

(LAUGHTER)

But, yes, the Democrats have enthusiasm. There's no question about it. The question is, is it going to translate to winning general elections? I think there's a risk.

COATES: I mean, electability, I think about incumbents. Incumbents in general, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, there's vulnerability. People are upset about the status quo and about the trajectory of our nation, and those parties have an issue.

TYLER: Yes. They should be.

COATES: Well, there's a viral clip yesterday that showed James Talarico being confronted by a Black voter at a town hall.

[23:39:59]

And apparently, by the end, the crowd was told that he would take only one more question and was then going to leave. And then a woman gets up and says -- quote -- "Our people don't trust you for this reason, and you cannot win without us. So you stay here, you answer our questions, or you suffer the consequences." He then said that he welcomed the conversation, essentially. Does he need to do more in a place like Texas to win over Black voters? And is this a fantasy, that Texas will go blue?

ALLISON: That's a lot to answer that question. I think that there are a lot that is happening in that story. I think every elected official needs to do more to win over Black voters, quite honestly. You cannot win as a Democrat if you have Black constituents in your district and you do not engage and not take them for granted but actually engage. James Talarico is going to have to do that.

I don't live in Texas, I never have lived in Texas, but when I talk to folks who do, particularly people who have been in Texas politics, a lot of Black voters wanted Jasmine Crockett to win. And when she did not, that primary was tough. It is James Talarico's responsibility to win over Jasmine Crockett voters as well as build a big tent coalition. I saw the clip. He said, I'm going to answer your question, I'm OK with this back and forth.

COATES: Yes.

ALLISON: Trust is a big part that candidates have to do. Now, I do think it's funny. I feel bad for the staffer that was like, cut it, cut it, cut it, because the staffer was saying probably control it. But it is the candidate's responsibility in that moment to tell that staffer, give me a second, let me talk to the people who actually are going to put me in office that I answer to.

But I don't think it's just Talarico. I think Democrats across the board, whether you're in a comfortable blue state or a state like Texas that typically goes red, don't take Black voters for granted. It's the thing that will make sure that you definitely do not win.

COATES: Let's talk about Texas greater, I mean, the rest of the race, too, because the latest New York Times poll for Texas has Talarico and Ken Paxton actually tied.

ALLISON: Paxton is a disaster.

COATES: Well --

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: -- then that would mean that Talarico is tied with that.

ALLISON: Yes.

COATES: So, there's something to say about that.

ALLISON: No, no, no.

COATES: I'm just saying.

ALLISON: That's not how I read that. Paxton in any other race, you have to agree with me on this --

(LAUGHTER)

-- he should be ahead by light years, based on Texans. COATES: I don't -- I'm not saying he --

ALLISON: I'm saying --

COATES: I'm not saying he's a disaster.

COATES: Talarico is close to Paxton because Paxton is such a disaster.

COATES: OK. Period. Now, I'll ask a question. So, Paxton's campaign has been placing, as you know, you can imagine, a lot of them away from themselves and instead to Talarico, who they would like people to believe is a disaster. Is Paxton doing enough, though, to make his case to support himself or is he just taking an anti-vegan stance that is actually not the case?

TYLER: Look, I've said on this show before, if they had stuck with Cornyn, we would have that seat. It was no problem. Look, Texas is closer than people think. I actually give Talarico a lot of credit. I give the woman a lot of credit. This is what's supposed to happen. People are supposed to be uncomfortable. They stand up and say, no, you're not done, we don't trust you. Boom. And, you know, she didn't speak for all of Black Texas, but so what? And he said, no, I'm going to stay. And, you know, I think in the end, it actually was good to see. I like to see that.

ALLISON: What do you think Paxton would have done in that situation? He wouldn't even have shown up.

COATES: Oh, good question, Ashley Allison. You don't want to answer it? That's how good the question was.

ALLISON: And that's why Paxton is a disaster.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Rick, Ashley, stand by. We're taking questions from the audience in just a moment. OK, guys, now, there's one legal question many of you are asking. Can Mayor Mamdani actually arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he has suggested? I'll answer it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, so, can Mayor Zohran Mamdani actually arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Well, it's back in the news because of what Mamdani told "The New York Times."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: You're actively looking to see if you can actually arrest him. MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: I think we are looking at all of our legal obligations, and one of them is with regards to the United Nations. But the other part of this is we're not talking about a personal assessment of Benjamin Netanyahu, we're talking about the International Criminal Court and the fact that they have a warrant out for this prime minister's arrest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, can he really do it? The short legal answer is no, and here's why. First, the ICC's arrest warrant for Netanyahu is effectively meaningless here in the U.S. because America is not part of the ICC. They don't have the authority to enforce their warrants. And given that Trump has even considered dismantling the ICC, no apparent appetite to enforce it either.

Second, Netanyahu is a foreign head of state, and the Constitution gives the federal government, not local or state governments, the main power to manage foreign relations. So, whatever the feds decide, what Trump wants to do, well, it would trump a local mayor in this context. And Trump made it clear where he stands today. Quote -- "Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America."

Third, there's a U.N. treaty, the U.N. headquarters agreement that says it can't actually happen because it grants leaders like Netanyahu -- quote -- "immunity from personal arrest or detention and in respect of words spoken or written in all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind." In other words, diplomatic immunity. And even though the U.N. is technically (INAUDIBLE) U.S. law, the headquarters in New York are extraterritorial, meaning it's controlled solely by the U.N. So, unless those legal options he's considering can get around all of that, you've got to put it in the probably-not-going-to-ever-happen category.

I'm going to go to your questions now. We've got our panel here. You can text me at 818-972-7272. Give me your first name and your city or state. Rick Tyler and Ashley Allison are back with me.

All right, Jason from Minnesota asked this question. Hey, Minnesota. Remember when Trump accused Zelenskyy of gambling with World War III?

[23:50:01]

Who's doing that now? Rick, it seemed rhetorical. What's your response?

TYLER: Well, I mean, Trump is in the middle of a very unpopular war in Iran. And now, we know that it's involving Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel. And it could easily expand far beyond that, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen. I mean, it's just -- so, I don't know about a world war, but certainly a large, costly regional war.

COATES: Let's go to Indiana. A viewer over there asked this about the war. What about Congress? Aren't they supposed to be involved at this point? Ashley, you're nodding your head already.

ALLISON: Yes, they are, but I think Congress has basically yielded most of its power because the Senate and the House are both led by Republicans and they are following the president's lead. That is why elections have consequences. That is why these midterms are so critical, because if we want to put a check on balances on this current executive branch, the Trump administration, we need a split government or maybe the Democrats to have both chambers, the House and the Senate, to potentially put a check on them.

COATES: Let's go to Kansas. A viewer asked, how do you think the American people feel about asking Congress for $80 billion while Trump's family continues to make billions on questionable conflicts of interest? Rick?

TYLER: Eighty billion in this town is not a lot.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: That's a horrible answer, Rick.

TYLER: It's a terrible answer. Look, the president, I think he disclosed he made $2 billion last year. That's very unprecedented for a president. He is the president. There seems to be no legal restrictions on his ability to do that. That's not true for members of Congress, Cabinet, and the Supreme Court. Maybe they'll fix that, but that's the way it is.

COATES: I'll take the next question. It's a viewer from California who asks, how come Trump keeps threatening these countries with tariffs after the Supreme Court said they were illegal? Well, Trump can still impose tariffs, but it's, you're right, has been curtailed significantly by the recent court decisions and existing trade laws. But, yes, he does still have the power to do quite a bit.

Josh from L.A. asked this question. Why don't mainstream Democrats realize that the energy behind DSA candidates is that they show a fight toward Trump? That was your point earlier, Ashley.

ALLISON: Yes. I think it was actually Rick's point also, is that people want fighters. People want folks to see that they are fighting for them, that they are not OK with a president getting $80 million while most Americans can't even make it one paycheck to the next.

And so, the energy -- I actually don't think what the packaging is right now. The energy is do your policies care about affordability, about Americans, regardless of what they look like, what they believe, but that every person should be able to work one job, afford health care, put a roof over their heads, and be able to feed their family three meals a day.

COATES: All right. Let's go to Carlos, who's a combat veteran from Michigan. Thank you for your service. He asks, if leadership is ultimately judged by results, how do you explain Donald Trump's continued strong support among millions of Americans despite multiple controversies? Rick? TYLER: Because millions of Americans believe that Donald Trump represents them, and he fights for them. I mean, that's what it is. I've talked to many, many voters. How has Trump helped you? You know, gas prices, etcetera, etcetera. They're like, no, he fights for me. And that is the lesson for a lot of politicians. As Ashley said, people want to vote for someone who will represent and fight for them.

COATES: Thank you all for your questions. Rick and Ashley, thank you for answering them as well. Up next, the new six-figure effort to get answers in the Nolan Wells investigation as his family has to say goodbye.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINE WONSLEY, MOTHER OF NOLAN WELLS: Hold him close in your hearts. Share his stories and never stop saying his name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Today, the family of Nolan Wells marked one of the hardest moments since his death, saying their final goodbye. Friends, loved ones all gathered for his funeral two weeks since his body was discovered. But they did so without a final answer to the question they're asking. What happened to their -- every mother knows why I'm saying this about an 18-year-old. What happened to their little boy?

Today, a hundred-thousand-dollar-reward is being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever might be responsible for Nolan's death. Fifty thousand was first put forward by Reverend Al Sharpton. That amount was later matched by Tyler Perry.

Before we go, I'll leave you with these words from Nolan's mother, Christine, and her plea to all of us to learn from her baby.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WONSLEY: He often told us that one day, he wanted to have three daughters that he would name Sophia, Charlotte, and Olivia. He had a deep love for the Lord and an unwavering faith that was evident in the way he lived his life. In a world that can often feel dark, be like Nolan.

[00:00:00]

Be the light that brightens the lives of those around you. Be the warmth for those who may be feeling the coldness of the world. Love deeply, protect fiercely, and welcome others with kindness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)