Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Leans Into "Communism" and "Cheating" Message Amid Unpopular Iran War; House Judiciary GOP Refers Jack Smith to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution; Nolan Wells's Cause of Death "Undetermined" After Independent Autopsy. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 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: It is now streaming. Some familiar faces are going to join me this week, including Van Lathan, Ashley Allison, as they reveal some pretty wild secrets, including podcast hate, ending relationships over texts, cults, and solo reservations. You can check it out at CNN.com/confessions&obsessions or on the CNN app. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump pivots from the Iran war and leans into a midterm message of fear packaged in two words, communism and cheating. And breaking news tonight, House Republicans are coming for Jack Smith. They accused the former special counsel of lying to Congress and formally asked the DOJ to consider prosecuting him. Plus, the independent autopsy of Nolan Wells is finally out and fueling even more mystery about his death. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, look, when you ain't got something good to run on, give something voters to run from. That's what the play seems to be from President Trump. He's got his back against the wall over an increasingly unpopular war with Iran. The U.S. is launching airstrikes for now 11th straight night, and the president is threatening new attacks on Iranian bridges and power plants. So, this on again, off again conflict fully back on with no off switch in sight. And now, Trump is going all in on his midterm message. Fear sandwiched between two C words. On one side, a Cold War scare tactic dusted off for 2026.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The radical left is actively trying to destroy our children's future with the disaster known as communism. It's communism. These are communists by another name, right? In my opinion, communism is the single greatest threat to our country and its history. Jon Ossoff and the Democrat communists want to let the Marxists into power. With communism, everything turns to shit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's a Latin term, by the way. There's also a lot of communism. Let's first define our terms because, yes, some Democratic socialists have scored some big primary wins. You got New York. You have Colorado. And the rise has triggered a very real tug of war inside the Democratic Party.
But Democratic socialism is not communism. These candidates say they want the government to have a bigger role in housing and health care and some key industries. You can disagree with that, of course. But communism means getting rid of private ownership and putting the whole economy under state control.
And the president's definition gets even messier when you look at some of his own policies. Federal government on Trump's watch now owns nearly 10 percent of Intel. Guess who praised that? Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist. And I bet you can figure out who criticized it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Really, it is heading in the direction of what socialism is, which would be owning all of the means of production.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I don't care if it's a dollar or a billion-dollar stake in an American country. That starts feeling like a semi state-owned enterprise a la CCCP.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Yes, his own party shouting socialism. And remember, when Trump says it, socialism and communism mean the same thing. So, would he call his policies communism? He shouldn't because they aren't. And that gets us to the second C word because if communism is Trump's explanation for what Democrats want, cheating is his explanation for how they win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Their policy is so bad that if they don't cheat, they wouldn't win an election. They're phenomenal cheaters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: In other words, it was pay, play, and cheat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Because the heat was on them, because they're cheating dogs, and you can't have a great country when that happens. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: This is the broken record portion of the show. Again, there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020, much less fraud capable of changing an election outcome. But it seems evidence isn't the point. Fear is. And why lean into that fear so hard? Well, the poll numbers at Fox News may have an answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: The truth is there's not much good news for Republicans in this whole poll we did. Underwater on the economy, as you showed. Underwater on affordability.
[23:05:00]
Everywhere you look, Republicans are down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's begin with CNN political commentator and Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, former senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, Adrienne Elrod, and Rob Bluey, the president and executive editor of "The Daily Signal." Glad to have all you guys here tonight.
I'll begin with you, Rob. Is this a risk for Republicans because voters, they're concerned about a lot of issues? The economy is one. Of course, health care. They've got a number of concerns at home, the kitchen table. But are the fears of communism and allegations of election fraud, are those prioritized for voters?
ROB BLUEY, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE DAILY SIGNAL: I think those are issues, certainly, Laura, that conservatives pay attention to. I mean, having run a conservative news website myself, I can tell you that when we publish stories about those topics, particularly on the issue of election integrity, they tend to get clicks because I think that there is a conservative base that worries about that.
But you're absolutely right that the bread and butter issues are ultimately what I think not only Republicans, but independents are going to vote on in this midterm election. They're going to look and see -- Kristen, correct me if I'm wrong on this, they're going to look and see how their personal finances are doing. Are they improving or getting worse?
And that's probably the issue that Republicans need to focus on, which is why the members of Congress need to get a reconciliation bill through the body before Election Day in order to show the American people they're actually doing something to address the affordability issue.
COATES: I mean, it's telling if you have to show the American public. And you've controlled the House, the Senate and, of course, the White House. To prove you're doing something, that should be obvious to voters if you in fact are.
Do you think that the voters are looking at this issue in that way and saying, all right, I'm concerned with democracy, I'm concerned with election fraud, of course, but if you're going to have me rank what is most important and pressing, do Republicans have it anywhere close?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Well, I do think that cost of living is the number one issue in polls. This issue 1A that I do see, though, is political corruption and the state of our democracy. But, actually, that's the top issue for the voters in my polls who are the farthest to the left. For them, they feel like the whole system is on fire enough with Donald Trump as president that that's actually even more alarming to them than things like price of gas and groceries, where for swing voters, it is that cost of living question that really drives things.
And the biggest worry for Republicans in the midterms is that Fox News poll that you just mentioned. It shows Democrats now winning on the issue of cost of living. That's an issue that Republicans have been way ahead on for a long time. It was part of why Donald Trump was ushered back into the White House by voters. If Republicans can't win or at least get back to close to even on that issue, that's a real problem for the midterms.
COATES: Well, Adrienne, Republicans want to use soundbites about Democratic socialism and mischaracterizations of some candidates' positions to try to maybe quell that concern. Is that a fear for Democrats?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HARRIS-WALZ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, it is to an extent that, you know, Donald Trump is going out there and saying communism, communism, communism all the time for a very specific reason because it does not resonate well with swing voters, independents, even some Democratic voters.
But at the end of the day, I think Democrats have done a really good job. You mentioned Jon Ossoff, some other people at the beginning, who've done a very effective job of sort of straddling that line between, yes, we are capitalists.
But at the end of the day, if we are not addressing the fact that the system is rigged, you know, Corporate America, the billionaires are benefiting on the backs of middle-class working voters in this country, then we lose credibility at the very beginning of that argument, which is why I think you are seeing such a straddling in the middle of the road with Democrats. We're talking about working class voters, what we need to do to win them back, but also not playing into the whole Democratic socialist wing of the party, which is exactly what Republicans would like us to do.
COATES: Well, you know, there's this new poll out. I'm actually curious. There was a poll out of New Hampshire. It shows that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now leading, leading the 2028 Democratic field. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is closing the gap with Vice President J.D. Vance. Interestingly enough, many people thought Gavin Newsom would be higher. He is not where he, I'm sure, would like to be. But why do you believe there is this sudden reshuffling of things?
SOLTIS ANDERSON: I think part of what's going on is that when voters feel like the economy is not going well, they're more open to the idea that you should sort of hit reset and start from scratch. Now, hopefully that doesn't actually mean wanting a communist system.
But what you've seen in a lot of polls that have come out in the last week or two, including my own data, is that there has been this erosion. And it's not just happening overnight, but it has been a slow erosion over the last few years of voters' confidence in things like capitalism. They'll say they like the free markets, but they're not as sure on capitalism. So, some of these, it's a question of terms being defined for people.
But even something like capitalism, that you would say -- you know, I actually am not so sure that we're going to see a lot of Democrats go out and say, I'm a capitalist, but I think that's actually is kind of a dirty word in the Democratic Party these days or at least that's what I'm seeing in my polling.
COATES: Are you suggesting the same?
BLUEY: Well, Laura, you pinpointed it earlier. I mean, Republicans have control of the presidency and Congress right now.
[23:10:02]
The American people, particularly younger Americans, are concerned that they can't afford to buy a house. They're delaying things like marriage and having kids as a result of some of the financial strain that they feel in their lives right now. And that's exactly why I think they're looking for the governing party to do something.
Now, you have seen some movement this week in Congress on some legislation to help address those issues. But I think the clock is ticking. The midterm election will be here soon enough. And if they don't move quickly, I think that Kristen is right, they could be perhaps looking for different alternatives.
COATES: I mean, Meghan McCain is warning Republicans this evening that -- that they face a 2028 problem, especially given New York City Mayor Mamdani and what his message has been to working class Americans. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGHAN MCCAIN, TELEVISION PERSONALITY, COLUMNIST, AUTHOR, DAUGHTER OF JOHN MCCAIN: I don't think Republicans are taking this seriously enough.
I don't think Republicans realize that he's really the best messenger for this and that even if he doesn't run, if there are any candidates running in 2028 who can somehow imitate or be inspired in the same way that he was inspired by AOC, we have a real problem. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How do you respond to that, Adrienne, if that's in fact the case and Republicans are concerned about the success in candidacy and election of people like Mamdani, who were told not too many months ago New York City is such an anomaly, you can't look at it for anything else besides New York City? That's not the case.
ELROD: Well, to an extent it is because, again, you've seen Mamdani and some other Democratic socialist candidates who have done well in New York City. Of course, you also saw Diana DeGette, who's a longtime sort of moderate Democrat who was defeated by a DSA candidate in Colorado. So, there are some pockets in this country where it does apply.
You've also seen a number of, you know, moderate Democrats, national security backgrounds, women, Cait Conley in New York, who won a very contentious primary, who may very well go on to flip that seat in Hudson Valley. Obviously, Mikie Sherrill, national security soccer mom. Same with Abigail Spanberger. Like there are some more moderate, you know, types of candidates who have won very effectively in some areas.
But the bottom line is here. I think the through line is the ones who are winning, the Democrats who are winning, either their primaries or general elections, are the ones who are going straight to voters and saying, I'm going to fix your problems, and if I can't actually fix them across the board, I'm at least going to try, which is why Mamdani has been so effective.
And again, it sorts of goes back to your point. We may not always be using the word capitalism in the 2028 Democratic primary for president, but we're going to -- I think a lot of candidates are going to try to straddle the line of being someone who is pro-business, pro- economy, pro- capitalism without always saying the word, but also not trying to go all the way to the hardcore socialist wing.
And somewhere in the middle is where you're taking on the system. You're acknowledging that the system is rigged. Billionaires are making a lot of money at the expense of average working-class voters. Somewhere in the middle is going to be the winning message. I think we're starting to see that shape out now in some primaries. They'll be honed even more in the primary/general --
COATES: I mean, we're months from the midterm elections, though. It shocks me in many respects that Democrats and Republicans are still trying to figure out their footing, as if these issues have just come about for people, as if affordability is a novel concept or the system doesn't work for the average person. I mean, these are issues that have been since politics was called politics.
So, I just wonder, from your research and thinking about it, I mean, when voters are -- we're hearing different strategists talk about this issue. And politicians, frankly. You know, the terminology they're using, is that getting through to voters or are they looking at this as kind of a, what do you mean you're going to try to help me? Why can't you just do it?
SOLTIS ANDERSON: I think there's so much cynicism on the part of a lot of voters --
COATES: Across the board.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: -- that is earned, that the politicians have earned, because, frankly, they're used to -- they heard Donald Trump say, I'm going to come into office, I'm going to make your cost of living better. And then they didn't get it. And then you had things like tariffs and so forth. And now, you know, is the Strait of Hormuz open or closed today?
COATES: Right.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: And there are things that are making it worse. But Democrats haven't done any better at saying, here's what I would actually do. They'll talk around the edges about, well, maybe we'll do some more government subsidies of this or that or the other thing, but it hasn't come together into a message that voters find credible, which leaves them vulnerable to Trump being able to say, well, you may not like me, but do you want to go back to the, you know, the way things were under Biden? Independent voters don't like that either.
COATES: Well, is it that it's not credible or they are focused on the fact that there has been such a ceding of power from different branches of government to the executive in a way that people have lost faith in the true balance of power?
BLUEY: Oh, sure. There's no doubt about it. I mean, it has happened under both Republicans and Democrats, as you know. And I think in this particular case, I mean, one of the reasons why -- I think what Congress is trying to do with this latest budget reconciliation bill is a step forward, but it doesn't go nearly as far as a lot of conservatives wanted it to because they wanted to address some of the health care costs that are really burdening people, the housing issue that we talked about.
[23:15:07]
So, the concerns about A.I., right? I mean, there are a lot of things happening in our world right now that I think leave voters uncomfortable about the state of affairs in our country. And so, if Republicans can put forward a plan that makes them feel confident about the future direction of where the country is going, I think they'll probably do well in the midterm elections.
But, as you started the segment, you know, one of the things that Trump needs to do quickly is wrap up the war in Iran because the longer that drags on, I think it creates some uncertainty and confusion about necessarily how exactly we are going to bring down the cost of living in this country.
COATES: You know what I heard? If, probably, but uncertainty.
(LAUGHTER) That's how I heard it. Voters, too. Thank you, everyone, so much.
The breaking news up next. Jack Smith now at risk of criminal prosecution after Republicans make a formal referral to the DOJ. So, what exactly are they accusing him of? And is Todd Blanche going to go along with it? Plus, a former federal prosecutor in Minnesota breaking his silence about the chaos and the cover-ups tied to the killings of Rene Good and Alex Pretti. Our very own Jake Tapper with me tonight to share his exclusive reporting, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Breaking tonight, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee is asking the Justice Department to prosecute former special counsel, Jack Smith. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan sent a criminal referral to Todd Blanche, alleging that Smith committed perjury. He testified before Congress back in January. The DOJ tonight says they have received the referral and -- quote -- "will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct."
And this all has to do with that testimony that Smith gave back in January, testimony and records he collected from members of Congress pertaining to January 6th. Now, Smith insisted that those records did not include the actual content of any messages. But tonight, Jordan alleges that they have evidence that that is not the case.
Now, the lawyers for Jack Smith, they have denied the allegation, telling "The New York Times" -- quote -- "During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work. This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law."
Joining me now, former assistant U.S. attorney, Mike Gordon, who prosecuted cases against January 6th defendants. Mike, good to see you. I want to read for you what the top Democrat on the committee, that's Jamie Raskin, what he says tonight. Listen. He says, "This referral, if ever brought before a judge, will get laughed out of court. But success on the merits is not the goal. It is meant to harass Jack Smith. It is meant to please their Fox News viewership." Do you see, Mike, any merit to what's being alleged in this referral?
MIKE GORDON, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks, Laura. No, I absolutely do not. So, a few points here. First thing is that a criminal referral is practically meaningless. It doesn't make DOJ do anything, and they don't need one to prosecute anybody.
But what's being alleged here is perjury. Perjury has four elements. You've got to have a false statement that's material, that was made under oath with the deliberate intent to willfully mislead. All right, this is going to fail on element one. It's not a false statement. He was asked, Jack Smith, he was asked, did the toll records you received contain the contents of text messages? He said --
COATES: Toll records being telephone records you get from the company. Go ahead.
GORDON: Yes. Exactly. So, toll records just tell you who made a call, who they called, how long the call lasted, and the date and time. There are no contents in them. So, whenever -- so when Jack Smith was asked, did the toll records contain contents, and he said no, that was a true statement. It would be true for every prosecutor in every case ever on every request for toll records ever made.
That's why Jamie Raskin correctly says we get laughed out of court. If the Congress people wanted to know if he had their contents of their text messages, they should have asked him that. But that wasn't the question. Jack Smith's answer was true.
COATES: The remaining elements, of course, the materiality of it, they're going to argue that it's so material given the substantive nature of the testimony he was given. They're going to say that he deliberately tried to mislead as another element of perjury. How do you think he will fare if that were ever going to court on these grounds given that he was called to testify and gave an explanation?
GORDON: Yes. Well, he was under oath, so they're going to satisfy that, right? It is material, sure. But the fourth element, did he deliberately make a willful false statement? Did he know it was false when he made it? The answer to that is going to be no, too. They're going to fail on that element also. It's just as I said before, Jack Smith knows, as I do, as every prosecutor does, that toll records don't contain contents. So, he answered that question correctly. What they're upset about is that he didn't volunteer additional information that they didn't ask about.
[23:25:00]
COATES: As you know full well and what Raskin has said, he believes that this is all about harassment. This cannot be a shock to anyone that there are even calls to prosecute Jack Smith. Frankly, this has been mounting at least in rhetoric for quite some time. The president himself has repeatedly called on Smith to be prosecuted. We've been covering how prosecutors were under immense pressure to pursue charges against Trump's political opponents or perceived ones like Letitia James or James Comey, just to name a few. Listen to what Jack Smith told Congress back in January.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. REBECCA BALINT (D), VERMONT: And Mr. Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you?
JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He has all but predicted at least a criminal referral. The prosecution, as you say, is an additional leap. Do you think that, given the criminal referral and who wants to leave the DOJ, that the DOJ will take up a case against Smith and try to pursue it?
GORDON: Unfortunately, if I had to predict, I'd say yes. This is the same administration that's prosecuting the seashells case against James Comey, the so-called defacing case against Mr. Hearn for the reflecting pool. They prosecuted the sandwich thrower. They've lost grand jury indictment after grand jury indictment, something that I've never seen happen in my career.
COATES: Me either.
GORDON: So, the idea that they might pursue a meritless case against a public figure for retribution, if you'd asked me that a few years ago, I would have said that would never happen in the Department of Justice. Now, I expect it.
COATES: A sad testament. Mike Gordon, thank you.
GORDON: Thanks for having me, Laura.
COATES: Well, Friday marks six months since the death of Alex Pretti, the V.A. nurse who was shot and killed by federal immigration officials in Minneapolis. His death came just after Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE officer. Well, in a new CNN investigation, Jake Tapper examines the tumultuous 18 days surrounding those two deaths, how the administration's immigration enforcement policies of aggression and cover-ups contributed to those deaths, and how those policies still have not changed.
OK, Jake Tapper joins me now. Jake, this is really phenomenal reporting. I mean, you dig into what was unfolding inside the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, really, as the shootings were actually happening in real time, and you spoke to one of the federal prosecutors who ended up resigning over how these investigations were handled, which is quite surprising in some respects because, remember, this is an office that had a pretty good rapport with the administration until this happened.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN LEAD WASHINGTON ANCHOR: Yes, that's true. They worked very well together throughout 2025, the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota and the Trump administration, with those fraud investigations, with the horrific shooting into Melissa Hortman, the local politician, and her husband with the Annunciation Catholic School shooting.
But then came Operation Metro Surge. And first, Tom Calhoun-Lopez, who was head of violent crimes for the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, said that he noticed that immigration agents were lying to him over and over and over, accusing protesters of assault on federal officers that weren't happening. And then came the Renee Good shooting on January 7th when something unprecedented happened. We went on a visit to both memorials for Alex Pretti and Renee Good. At the Good Memorial, we talked about that. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: This is the site where Renee Good died. The investigation was shut down into the shooting.
UNKNOWN: That's correct. The president and the secretary of homeland security both announced that there would be no investigation. Secretary Noem referred to Renee Good as a domestic terrorist, and I've certainly seen no evidence of that whatsoever.
TAPPER: And had you ever seen anything like that happen before, where the president weighs in on a shooting?
UNKNOWN: Never. Under normal times, an administration would have no objection to an investigation because the investigation may clear the officer. An investigation isn't necessarily designed to indict anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, that obviously shaded what normally would happen, which, Laura, I don't need to tell you. Normally, the FBI and the local officials would investigate as a joint operation any time that a federal officer shoots an individual, and they would launch an investigation into whether that individual, the shooting victim's civil rights were violated, and that would either clear the officer or there would be a prosecution of the officer.
But that's not what happened. The FBI withdrew any cooperation because of presumably what President Trump was saying about it, and then barred local officials from even going to the crime scene.
[23:29:55]
COATES: What strikes me, too, is normally, the benefit of the doubt that is extended to law enforcement from the U.S. attorney's office, they work so cooperatively for so many cases. To have there be the red flags raised and to no longer have credibility in law enforcement with that office, that's pretty stunning for a prosecutor's office to talk about.
And before Alex Pretti was shot, a few federal prosecutors spoke to Gregory Bovino, who was leading the operation in Minneapolis at the time. I hear that was a pretty tense phone call?
TAPPER: Yes. Absolutely. So, listen, in Minnesota, in early January, before Renee Good was shot on January 7th, a local homeland security agent warned prosecutors and others, someone is going to get killed, talking about Bovino and the border patrol coming to Minnesota. And sadly, that happened. Then Bovino, upset that these assault on federal officer charges were not being filed by Tom Calhoun-Lopez and the office, called on January 12th to yell at them, and he said a number of things that shocked him, about putting down protests, bringing the city to a heel, I'm paraphrasing. He also made some comments that they interpreted as anti-Semitic about the U.S. attorney, Daniel Rosen. And then after that call, one of the prosecutors said, they're going to kill somebody else. And 11 days later, Alex Pretti fell on the streets in Minnesota in what one of the prosecutors said to me was a summary execution.
COATES: Unbelievable. Just disorienting for so many reasons, to think about this happening just in an 18-day span in Minnesota. Jake Tapper, thank you so much. Catch all of this great reporting in "18 Days in Minnesota." It's available on CNN.com.
TAPPER: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, Trump vows revenge for the killing of American troops with a new tit-for-tat military threat that could see the war spiral out of control. Plus, Trump signs a controversial nuclear deal to let Saudi Arabia enrich uranium as Democrats and Republicans express concern. The former secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, is live with me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, the war in Iran is showing no signs of slowing down tonight. Central Command says the United States just completed its 12th consecutive round of strikes against Iran to further degrade Iran's ability to attack commercial ships.
It comes as President Trump issued a stark warning. Quote -- "From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to or in the capital city of Tehran."
And the threat came as Trump marked an especially somber day in this war, the dignified transfer of four U.S. service members recently killed in the Middle East, Private Isabella Gonzalez, First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, Sergeant Angel Rampersad, Staff Sergeant Michael Swinton. The president paid his respects to them today, but he took a lot of heat for saying this about them before the ceremony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They are indeed great heroes, actually. They said, and all of them said very strongly, we can't let -- we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. They won't have a nuclear weapon. So, we're going to honor them. And one of the hardest things to do for me is one of the hardest things to do as a president. But it has to be done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, former secretary of the Air Force under President Biden, Frank Kendall. He is also the author of the book, "Lethal Autonomy: The Future of Warfare." Secretary, thank you for being here. As you can imagine, just the solemnity of the occasion of a dignified transfer, jarring for so many, it makes war real. But also, the president being criticized for putting words into the mouths of these fallen soldiers. Can you just explain your reaction not only to the transfer but also the president intimating such?
FRANK KENDALL, FORMER SECRETARY AT U.S. AIR FORCE, AUTHOR: Well, these transfers are hard. I've done many of them, more than a dozen. And the hard part isn't what you see in the part that's broadcast or taped, it's the meeting with the families.
And normally, it's at the family's discretion. But normally, before that dignified ceremony occurs, the senior officials will meet with the families and talk to them and try to console them. Doing that is incredibly difficult because you're confronted directly with the grief and the loss that these people are experiencing.
And I've seen the full range of people who are in shock, people who are just deeply saddened, people who try to appear normal, and people who are very angry. And there's not much you can say about them. But you do internalize, you try to internalize a small piece of their grief and their loss. And that makes war, as you said, incredibly real. It makes the cost of war real.
So, I hope the president had that experience today. I hope it is something that motivates him as he goes forward with this. The thing that he announced about continuing attacks and the responses to attacks on ships --
COATES: I want to tell you, he says, again, just to reiterate, he's threatening to destroy one bridge or power plant in Iran any time they attack a ship.
[23:40:00]
And he has made similar threats, by the way, many times just in the last couple of months.
KENDALL: These threats, going back to saying he would destroy their civilization, are clear violations of the laws of armed conflict. OK? You cannot attack targets like that unless there's a clear military connection. What he is doing is simply a revenge attack.
The Middle East is a history of endless cycles of revenge and violence. We should not be drawn into that. The president needs to be bigger than that. He needs to find a way out of this. He got us into it. He got us into it all by himself. And it's time for him to find a way out.
Now, I think Iran is overplaying their hand. They're holding out for more than they're probably going to get. They need to come to the table and negotiate. COATES: Will these statements deter them from escalating in the future or is this looked as an empty threat?
KENDALL: There's no evidence that it will deter them. He has made so many threats, right? We've heard so many things from this president over the last few months about, you know, complete victory and destroying entirely the military of Iran. None of them have been true. So, I don't think we can take anything that the president takes terribly seriously.
But we need to bring this to an end. It's having a huge impact, and we're losing American lives as well as a number of other lives. Obviously, Iranians are suffering, too.
COATES: And the president continues to talk, though, about the memorandum of understanding. And we know that -- I mean, I'm not sure it's worth whatever paper it was written on given the continuous escalation of fighting. But listen to what he had to say about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This skirmish we have with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I call it that because let me tell you, they're getting hit so hard, and they want to make a deal. But I say they're not ready to make a deal because every time they make a deal, they want to change it and everything. They're not ready. They'll be ready very soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you have faith that they are either ready or even trust Trump to make a deal?
KENDALL: The problem we have is that the deal Iran at this point seems to be willing to accept would include some assertion of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. It would assert some ability to continue their nuclear program. We had a deal. It was called the Joint Comprehensive Program Agreement (ph). It was cut under the Obama administration after almost two years of negotiation.
Donald Trump threw that deal out. He said, that's not good enough, I'm going to get you a better deal. That was several years ago. There never was a better deal. What we got again, instead, was the attack a year ago, which was supposed to have obliterated the nuclear program of Iran. Apparently, that didn't work despite what the president said.
And so, now, we're back in a long air campaign, which is not producing anything other than the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a stalemate and threats now by the president to escalate further. That's a widening conflict that extended now to Yemen threatening to blockade the Red Sea. So, we're in a real mess here, and there is no clear way out of it. I think a deal can be had, but the Iranians have got to recognize there's only so much they're going to get. They've got to come to a table and willing to accept that.
COATES: Secretary Frank Kendall, thank you so much for joining.
KENDALL: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, tonight, the independent autopsy results in the Nolan Wells investigation have finally been released. Why the cause of death remains elusive and the many, many questions it's now raising about the teen's final moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The family of Nolan Wells hoped today would bring answers. Instead, they are left with more questions after an independent autopsy was released and the findings were inconclusive, inconclusive results and now immeasurable heartache for the family of Nolan Wells.
As you know, his body was found floating off the coast of an island in Mississippi on July 6th. Just two days before, Wells and some friends had been on a boat for the fourth of July. Some of those friends say that he opted to stay behind on that island after meeting someone. But his parents are questioning that story and what they see as an entirely dismissive investigative approach, hence today's independent autopsy.
The report did not reveal any fractures or deep tissue injuries on Nolan Wells, but it did reveal a 12 by 8-inch area of a red discoloration in the back of his head. The pathologist also notes he was unable to observe Wells's airway and lungs for water. And how he died remains a mystery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN CRUMP, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY, LAWYER FOR NOLAN WELLS'S FAMILY: For these reasons, this pathologist cannot rule out if any intervening, non-accidental factors contributed to or caused the death of Nolan Wells. Understand, he's saying, based on the examination of the body, he cannot rule out foul play.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, Neama Rahmani. Neama, thank you for being here. I mean, such a tragic and heartbreaking story. All the questions are still remaining for this family and community.
[23:50:00]
The independent autopsy found this sort of red discoloration in the back of Nolan Wells's head, and then it couldn't rule out any neck injuries. They also need to have parts, sadly, from the autopsy that were removed prior to be provided and included in the second autopsy, but they couldn't rule out any neck injuries. What questions do these findings raise for you?
NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Well, there are so many questions in this case, Laura, and like you said, we're nowhere near having any definitive answers. I know there are people that are watching, members of the Black community who are saying, well, how can a teenager not come back with his friends? How can a cell phone and keys return home, but not him? How can hundreds of people who were at this island not see someone drowning?
But, unfortunately, as far as today's autopsy, we don't have any definitive answers. Like you said, cause of death, the manner of death, not determined. We're still waiting for the toxicology, for the official report. And, of course, we know that that's always the last report to come in. It can take weeks.
We saw that, for instance, in the D4vd- Celeste Rivas case in Los Angeles. That was the last report. There was a lot of discussion of why it was taking the medical examiner so long.
Now, of course, in this particular case, the fact that you have parts of the throat that were removed, which are not uncommon, even the independent medical examiner said so, it's raising questions. People are asking whether there is some sort of cover-up. And, unfortunately, until we get that official report, Laura, I think those questions will remain.
COATES: And to be clear, removed during an autopsy, we're told, which means they cannot actually examine them to rule things out. I mean, the autopsy, they also could not examine, in the second autopsy, independent autopsy, Nolan's lungs for water, stomach contents as well. Obviously, those are both used to determine whether a body has taken in water or was conscious and breathing when they hit the water. How critical will this part of the autopsy be to the case, not the least of which also would include toxicology reports?
RAHMANI: Well, it's absolutely critical because you have an autopsy that was conducted in Mississippi where this death happened, an official autopsy, then weeks later, you have the body moved all the way to Washington, D.C. for this second autopsy. The medical examiner has very limited information because body parts were removed. The information that they need to make a definitive analysis just isn't there.
So, as a lawyer, I can tell you, Laura, and you're a former prosecutor, we're nowhere near any type of case, a criminal prosecution for homicide or manslaughter, not even a civil case for wrongful death. We need a medical examiner, an M.E., to say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty this was homicide or this was an accidental drowning. We don't have any of that yet. So, as far as this investigation is concerned, we're in its beginning stages, nowhere near the middle or the end.
COATES: Which is heart-wrenching to think from this family. You know, you and I are talking about this from the perspective of how we might approach it if this were to be a criminal prosecution or an investigation.
This family, and the mother is making very clear today, the reason they had gone this route of an independent autopsy is because they had so little communication and apparent faith in the Mississippi law enforcement community to thoroughly investigate. The mother saying, I just want you to imagine if this were your child. How would you investigate it then?
Neama, so many questions. And the one that they want answered, what happened to their son, is still out there. Thank you for joining.
RAHMANI: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Unbelievable. Up next, everyone, this man, LeBron James, and the viral mistake that sent the internet into quite the tailspin today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. What that means, it's time for Elex Michaelson to take over. And, officially, tomorrow for us is basically happening already. But for a few hours, Elex, NBA fans, they were convinced that they had witnessed the biggest free agency leak of the entire summer after the Heat accidentally published a LeBron James introductory press conference link. And before they could even explain themselves, everyone was having fun. I mean, look at this. Talk about -- oops, Elex. How does one make that mistake? Is it like trying to manifest what they would like to happen and just put it out there?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, I don't know. Maybe they were doing some tech checkups or other things. I mean, something like that. I could see how something like that could happen, but not particularly great for them. Maybe it's just wishful thinking. I don't know. Where do you think LeBron ends up?
COATES: Rich.
(LAUGHTER)
Yes, rich.
MICHAELSON: Rich, yes.
COATES: Seemingly wealthy and still --
MICHAELSON: He's already a billionaire.
COATES: -- more in shape than anyone I know at the age of whatever he is right now. But you know what? I think he's going to -- I don't know. Part of me wonders, I'd ask teammates this, if he'll go back to Cleveland, would he go to Golden State? I don't know. I really feel like at his level of excellence, he has the pick of where he wants to go. But I do wonder if he'll go back to Cleveland.
[00:00:00]
You think? And end it where he began it?
MICHAELSON: He says it's all about happiness. That's what this is about. Not about money. So, why not go to Golden State where he would play with one of his best friends, Draymond Green, play with Steph Curry, somebody he always wanted to play with before. There's great golfing up there.
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: He's closer to his family. And it gives him a great chance at a title.
COATES: I don't know. I mean, I think people will say happiness already reached. Have a great show, Elex.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: All right, Laura.
COATES: Take care.
MICHAELSON: You, too. Have a great night.
