Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
DOJ Admits "Errors" in NYT Subpoena Case as Trump Losses Pile Up; Trump Defends Data Centers; Tensions Flare Over Deadly Police Shooting. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 23, 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]
CARLA SANDS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, VINTAGE CAPITAL GROUP, FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVE CHAIRMAN, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE, AND FORMER ECONOMIC POLICY ADVISER DURING THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: There's no question it's tough. I mean, we are a rich country. The median income is about $85,000 per capita. It's per family. It's really -- we're -- we're -- we're a rich country, but the gas prices and the food prices, the inputs for farmers are really high.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'll just read this last one because it's related. I would like to know where these people buy groceries and pump gas. For them to say inflation is not high is ridiculous. Our senior citizens are having to choose between buying food or paying for their Medicaid.
All right, everyone, we do have to leave it there. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a federal judge accuses Trump's DOJ of cutting corners. Federal prosecutors say they are trying to pull a fast one with all of the credibility hits they have taken. And there are many. The courtroom scoreboard is getting ugly. Plus, President Trump tells Americans anxious over A.I. data centers, you can't fight it. One Florida candidate who is fighting it joins me tonight. And protesters expressed their anger in Madison, Wisconsin over fatal police shooting they say didn't need to happen. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, President Trump's DOJ has a law-and- order problem. The department that's demanding everybody else to follow the law keeps getting told by judges that it violated the law. A federal judge today tore into the DOJ over those subpoenas targeting New York Times reporters and phone records of their family members. Now, those journalists had published articles about concerns regarding the Qatari-donated jet that Trump was using as Air Force One. The DOJ wanted them to testify about their sources.
But the judge said prosecutors skipped the steps the law requires, basically jumping straight from point A all the way to point C. The judge said, "Subpoenas are the last step -- not the first step, but the last step. If this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show cause why sanctions should not be issued." The call-out actually pushed the federal prosecutors to withdraw the subpoenas. And one DOJ lawyer admitted inadvertent errors, insisting no one was trying to pull a fast one. This wasn't some rogue prosecutor or paperwork mistake. You know, we know that because of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice requires that I authorize it, which I did. And those reporters, were not targeting reporters. They're material witnesses.
REP. PETER WELCH (D), VERMONT: And the question you want to ask them is who were their sources.
BLANCHE: No.
WELCH: It goes to the heart of the First Amendment.
BLANCHE: No. The question we want to ask them is who provided them with classified national security information which everybody in this body should want to protect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Sources. OK. Well, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is the one who asked the Senate to take "acting" out of his title, of course. He is the one that confirmed last week that he personally signed off on the subpoenas.
Now, if you thought the DOJ would back off after getting dressed down in court today, well, you would be mistaken. A statement after the hearing took a swipe at the judge, saying, "This judge's conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense."
Doesn't that just fit the playbook of the president? You get checked in court, then you put the judge on trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws.
We've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president.
What these super radical left judges are doing to our country, it's incredible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But that story, it collapses the second you count the judges, right? I mean, yes, the subpoena case, it did involve a Biden- appointed judge. Take another case today where a federal judge appointed by President Trump threw out the DOJ's lawsuit demanding Kentucky's voter rolls, dismissed, by the way, with prejudice. I mean, the DOJ can't bring it back.
And look at this. The Justice Department, do you realize, is now 0 for 17 in these voter roll cases? Eleven losses were handed down by Republican-appointed judges. Eight of those came from judges that Trump appointed himself.
Or take the Trump administration's ICE detention policies. Politico, they have tracked more than 18,000 cases. The government, the government has lost 87 percent of them.
[23:05:00]
Nearly 2,400 losses came from Trump's own appointees. So, either he picked a whole lot of radical left judges or the problem isn't actually the judges. And trust me, you need a law degree for this one. Basic math is doing just fine.
My first guest knows all about challenging the Trump administration in court, Norm Eisen, attorney and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, also, of course, the head of the Substack as well. Really important when everyone is looking at, too.
Norm, the DOJ in court actually admitted to making errors, including in their effort to subpoena the family members of reporters. I mean, the idea that we've got the First Amendment that is supposedly intact, the acting A.G. signing off on this knowing full well the ramifications, and then withdrawing it later on after being dressed down, it's mind-blowing.
NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, ATTORNEY, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, EXECUTIVE CHAIR AT STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER, CO-FOUNDER OF "THE CONTRARIAN," FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP'S FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: It is, Laura. And in our over 300 legal cases and matters at the Democracy Defenders Fund, an action where I litigate this, we've often seen this kind of collapse that happened today in New York. It was stunning. It was a failure of disclosure to the court.
The judge honed in on not only the mistakes that these family members were targeted, but that the government didn't disclose when the subpoena was issued that the subpoena was going to reporters. So, there were very stern words from the judge on the facts, but also the law, Laura. New York Times v. Gonzales in the Southern District, the Second Circuit, in the federal courts in New York --
COATES: Well, by the way, Todd Blanche is an alum of SDNY.
EISEN: The last thing you do is go to the reporters. The law is, as you said, last step, not the first step. Specifically, you cannot go to the reporters under the case law, binding case law. The attorney who was arguing said, oh, I wasn't aware of that. You cannot go to the reporters unless information cannot be obtained from other sources.
COATES: Well, break that down because people might look at this and say, well, hold on, if there is -- you heard Todd Blanche suggest that this was nefarious in some way, that it was classified information, everyone had an interest in disclosing who would have given that information to, and people will say, well, how -- what is that tension between being able to protect a source and having the last step go to reporters?
EISEN: Well, you can find the answer not only in the Gonzales case but also in federal law, the Privacy Protection Act, which has special protections for reporters, and the DOJ's own regulations, Laura.
These are Todd Blanche's regulations. They were watered down by him and Pam Bondi. And here's what they say, that you can't do this unless the government has made all reasonable attempts to obtain the information from alternative sources. It's in the Trump administration's own regulations. A stunning failure to provide the courts with information, to understand the law.
And the DOJ attorney attempted to argue some loopholes here. The judge had the regulation in front of him. He took him to task. What a flop.
COATES: So, what is the greater impact here? Because, obviously, you know, I'm an alum of the DOJ. It is not as if that every case is swirling around this sort of matter. There's a lot of important work that they are still doing. Unfortunately, there has been a mass exodus for a number of reasons. But what does it say about Todd Blanche's judgment that he would have authorized this and that they're saying they didn't target reporters but they've obviously cut corners, according to the judge?
EISEN: The DOJ is on a colossal losing streak. In my cases alone, in the past weeks, we won with our teams the birthright citizenship case up in SCOTUS. Dr. Lisa Cook wrongly targeted in a different way. But like these reporters, we quashed a DOJ subpoena, criminal subpoena, to interfere with elections in Fulton County. We won the Kennedy Center case, the slush fund case down in Florida. We have a voice of America case First Amendment implications. We won that in a district court in D.C. They're not doing real lawyering. And these are career people who were yelled at by the judge today.
COATES: Yes.
EISEN: It's a warning to people who are working for this lawless regime that regular lawyers within the Justice Department are going to get dragged into the mess.
[23:10:04]
There never should have been orders to issue these subpoenas. Todd Blanche should never have done, as he admitted on camera. Unfortunately, it is time for those career lawyers -- I was told when I went into the White House, have your resignation letter in your desk if you're ever asked to do something wrong. Every DOJ lawyer indeed. Every respectable government lawyer should have that letter in their desks. Don't end up like these lawyers in court today.
COATES: It puts them in a very difficult position, but also the idea of if they have to resign whenever there is an order that is misguided. Can you imagine what's left in the DOJ and what that means to people who are relying on the Department of Justice? I mean, that's the point you're making. Really important. Norm Eisen, thank you so much.
Tonight, all signs suggest the war in Iran is escalating and promises of peace fading. "The New York Times" reports that Iran rejected a peace proposal that was delivered by Iraq. It's not clear what was in it. It comes as President Trump threatens a -- quote -- "massive attack" as negotiations stall.
And the administration is facing new questions about its treatment of soldiers in the line of fire. Today, the Pentagon website that tracks casualties of war, it removed the four Americans who were killed over the weekend. The military says a glitch caused it, and they are fixing it.
My next guest challenged the administration on the risks the war poses to U.S. forces in a very heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: You don't even know how many U.S. troops were wounded in this Iran war. Shame on you for not even knowing the basic facts. You are a U.S. ambassador and you don't even know how many U.S. troops were wounded in Iran war. You got that wrong. You should be shameful. You don't know basic facts. You should resign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Congressman Ted Lieu joins me now. He, of course, sits on the House foreign affairs and judiciary committees. Congressman, obviously impassioned about a very serious and ominous topic. Do you believe that you are even getting straight let alone timely answers on the risks to troops and even how many are being wounded?
LIEU: Thank you, Laura, for your question. Let me first say my prayers go out to the U.S. service members in the Middle East who are risking their lives in this war with Iran. Today, the House of Representatives passed on a bipartisan basis the War Powers Resolution to end this war. It is time to bring the troops home.
And to your question, I call on the Trump administration to stop lying to the American people. They repeatedly lied, saying that the Iranian military has been obliterated. Clearly, it has not because Iran has killed at least 18 service members, wounded 482. The administration has lied about the amount of offensive and defensive munitions. We are running out of defensive munitions. This war cannot last for a simply long time. And gas prices are now up again over $4 a gallon. This war has been a strategic disaster.
COATES: Congressman, the president is saying that the United States is going to use Iranian money that the U.S. controls to pay for ships that Iran damages. Do you think that that's a tactic that will work to actually deter Iran or lead us to an end of this war?
LIEU: No, not at all. Iran has figured out that it could withstand airstrikes because it has withstood months of airstrikes and it has also figured out that the president says stuff that he never executes. And we're in a situation where this is becoming a forever war. It is a bombing campaign and search of a strategy. We don't have a plan. The administration keeps shifting its goals.
It's time to bring the troops home, and it's time to focus on the American people and not endless foreign wars.
COATES: So, what can Congress do about this? Because the frustrations are mounting. People are looking at obviously the co-equal branches of government to try to check the balance. Obviously, the president has foreign affairs priority, but you've got war priorities as well. Tell me, what can Congress do? Is it just demanding resignations or is there something more substantive?
LIEU: So, the House of Representatives passed legislation to end the war in Iran. That legislation is going to the Senate. The Senate is in session. They can then pass that legislation to end the war in Iran to the president's desk, and I called the Senate to do exactly that.
COATES: Will he do it?
LIEU: It is time for the administration to end this war and bring the troops home.
COATES: Do you think, if Congress completes the legislative functions and is able to pass that, that the president will heed that given the obstinance we've seen so far?
[23:15:03]
LIEU: It has already put increasing pressure on the Trump administration. My view is that public sentiment is everything, as Abraham Lincoln has said. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. And approval for this war is at the lowest of any war in U.S. history. The Trump administration is on the wrong side of history. They need to end the Iran war now.
COATES: You know, sources tell us that the CIA has assessed that the kind of bombing the U.S. is currently carrying out is unlikely to shift the Iranian negotiating position. Does that mean that the president, congressman, is going to have to escalate beyond what he is currently even doing and does that concern you if so?
LIEU: I previously served in an active duty in the United States Air Force for four years, and then additional 21 years in the reserves, studied military tactics and training. The United States Air Force is amazing. The best air force in the world.
But when you look at history, it is very, very difficult for bombing campaigns to result in the kind of behavior change that we want without any sort of ground invasion. And so far, Iran has not changed its behavior. It does not appear to me or U.S. intelligence that Iran would change its behavior with future bombing attacks.
COATES: As always, thank you for your service and joining us tonight, Congressman Ted Lieu.
LIEU: Thank you.
COATES: Remember, you all are a part of this show. We want to hear from you. Text us your questions and your comments at 818-972-7272. We'll answer them later in the hour. Include your first name, your city or city. I want to know who I'm talking to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This isn't all negative stuff. This is you have the communities that really want the data centers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump going all in on A.I. data centers, claiming that communities are begging to have them built and that you -- quote -- "can't fight it." I don't know about that because David Jolly is running for governor in Florida where this issue is becoming red hot, and he is fighting it. He's with me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Now, this might be the sleeper issue of the entire midterms, which is -- it's ironic because these things never sleep. Yes, A.I. data centers. You know, poll after poll shows hardly anybody wants to live near one. There have been protests against them in communities all across the country.
But President Trump, he seems to be all for them. And today, he tried to ease people's concerns over data centers, asking governors and electric companies to sign a pledge to protect consumers from higher energy bills. But he also tried to lay out his case for why we should embrace data centers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You have communities that really want the data centers. And, frankly, those are the smart communities because it means tremendous numbers of jobs, very little actual disruption.
You have to convince your community how great these things. You can't fight it. You have to go with it. And you're going to have all that protection, and we're giving you automatic protection. But you're going to make a tremendous amount of money, you're going to reduce taxes, and you're going to have something that if you don't have it, everybody else wants it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, this issue becoming a major flash point in the upcoming midterms with many candidates seizing on the public backlash. My next guest has made regulating data centers a major part of his platform, calling for a statewide moratorium on these projects in Florida. Former congressman David Jolly joins me now. He's a Republican turned independent, turned Democrat running for Florida governor. He joins me now. Thank you for being here. Why did you decide to make this such a huge focus on your campaign?
DAVID JOLLY, FLORIDA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Because I'm listening to the voters. Respectfully to the president, no community actually wants a big data center. And so, what you saw there, the people joining him, were big tech donors, not voters. The voters are actually saying no, we don't want these in our backyard.
COATES: His thought is we'll be left behind if you don't have it. What's your response?
JOLLY: We need a national security strategy that accommodates the environmental protections required for big data. Understand, so, I'm running for governor in the state of Florida. We have a mixed record on water protection. As a result of under enforcement, we are number one in the number of acres of polluted lakes. I think we're second in polluted estuaries. Our aquifer is incredibly strained, and people worry about water restrictions and losing water.
So, in comes big data. And look what happened today. Big tech said, we will sign up for this. Big tech was part of a celebration. Why, Laura? Because they're getting exactly what they want. Understand, what Donald Trump did with this commission and what Byron Donalds, my Republican opponent, has done with his bill is say, you can plunder as much as you want, you just have to pay for it. Voters are saying don't plunder our water, we don't want you here.
And so, the reason I propose a moratorium is it's just that, it's a moratorium. Let's make sure we have the environmental protections in place. Let's deal with the labor disruption, the economic impact study. Right, construction provides a lot of jobs, but there's no tail to this. You disrupt home valuations, economic valuations of communities.
And then, look, I'll give Governor DeSantis credit. The third reason I say we need a moratorium and it's tertiary to the data centers is until we know that A.I. is not emotively capable of causing a young person to commit self-harm, we're not ready for this.
So, let's hit pause, right? What Governor Hochul did. Let's hit pause for a year. In Florida, we need a smart growth plan. What does this mean for our water?
[23:25:00]
And until we figure that out, don't take the deep-pocketed special interest money and just give away the store.
COATES: One thing that Congressman Byron Donalds has been articulating, yes, there is support for A.I. data centers. You said he suggested you could plunder all you will, but you have to pay for it. He does suggest some boundaries. You're talking about a moratorium just for one year. Given what you've said, is that sufficient given all the concerns? You know the bureaucracy of one year means probably nothing.
JOLLY: Donalds hasn't proposed a single boundary. Donalds's boundaries are big tech has to pay for the water that they want. They have to pay for the energy they want. He has actually referred to using private water. That's not a thing. That's not actually a thing. We don't have private water. We create private rights around water.
But understand, if we say to data centers, as long as you drill down into the aquifer, you can drill as much as you want. As long as you give me the campaign money, you can plunder all the water. What does it mean for the communities that actually need the water? This is where we're not ready for this.
And so, look, can we get there? Hopefully so. But I actually think getting there requires a national security strategy that says we should lead the world in A.I. The United States should lead the world in A.I. If Florida is not a place for the big data centers because of our fragile water infrastructure, it's OK to say that.
I'm running to fight for the people of Florida, not to fight for the big tech donors. I will draw that contrast with Byron Donalds every single day of the week. This guy has accepted $10 million in money from big tech and from the data centers. I'm fighting for the people of Florida. And if that means no data centers, great, put them in another state.
COATES: I will say he just says legislation that would require data centers to obtain electricity and water. I'm not -- I'm --
JOLLY: I know. I know.
COATES: I'm not his campaign manager. Frankly, it's what you were talking about. But I just want to be clear for the audience to understand that it would require data centers to obtain electricity and water through private sources, not the power which, of course, you've articulated why that's wrong. Let's talk about Florida going from a battleground state to reliably red within just the last decade, OK?
JOLLY: Sure.
COATES: Trump won by 13 points in 2024, DeSantis, you just mentioned, by 20 points, just four years ago. Most pundits have seemed to have written off Florida. That might be to, you know, their peril and for Democrats this year. Why do you believe you would have a shot as a Democrat to be the governor?
JOLLY: The city of Miami just elected a Democratic mayor for the first time in 30 years, and it was 19 points. Donald Trump Mar-a-Lago is now represented by a Democratic member of Congress, a Democratic state senator, and a Democratic state representative. We are closing ground in the villages. If the election were tonight, we would win. Here's the fascinating thing I've discovered about being a new Democrat. When Democrats win, we worry about winning. The truth is we're building a coalition that amplifies our values, that the economy should work for everyone. Government could be smarter in helping with housing, health care, and education. Everyone's rights should be protected regardless of the color of your skin, where you're born, who you love or who you worship. Democratic values are bigger than our party.
Democrats are winning right now. Republicans are on the ropes. I think we're in a 1974 post-Watergate moment where enough voters are saying burn the ships. We're going in a new direction. They don't care about voter registration. I would say to my Democratic colleagues, let's be cautious, we're not winning hearts and minds yet, we're winning votes.
COATES: Do you think it's unified? I mean, you say there has been a lot of talk about -- you know, every party wants to say that they're the big tent party. Every party also tries to avoid the circular firing squad when there is dissension among the ranks.
JOLLY: Yes.
COATES: There has been a lot of discussions as of late, as you know, about the true identity of Democrats, including Democratic socialism as a part of it.
JOLLY: Sure.
COATES: Clearly, you've heard Byron Donalds wanting to debate you. He has asked for three different debates. I'm sure he wants to tap into some of that, you know, disunity.
JOLLY: Because he's losing.
COATES: Well, that may indeed be the case. However, he has asked for three debates. But what do you think is going to be the identity for Florida Democrats who are voting? Is it what you're talking about? Is it more moderate? Is it Democratic socialism?
JOLLY: Let me tell you the state of the Democratic Party tonight across the country. We're winning. Democrats are winning. We don't need to litigate winning. We need to keep winning. I'm a Florida Democrat. I'm different than a New York Democrat. And so --
COATES: Or Colorado Democrat.
JOLLY: Or Colorado Democrat or New York or Kentucky. And what I would say is the real controversy sits on the far-right right now. You know, Ramaswamy ran for president saying we're going to defund and eliminate the FBI. We've had Republican candidates say that we should -- we should impose the death penalty for practitioners of reproductive health care.
We have seen this president engage in what is actual communism, a 10 percent share of intel, an armed nuclear state in Saudi Arabia, and a war of choice in Iran where he denies the casualty of American service members. Shameful.
I don't need to litigate a Democratic Party that is winning when the Republican Party is losing. I know, in Florida, I do things differently than New York Democrats. That's OK. We do things differently down there.
[23:30:00]
But we're building a coalition bigger than our party, and we're going to win in November. We're going to win this race in November.
COATES: Will you debate Byron Donalds on one or three times?
JOLLY: A dozen times. Let him get through his Republican primary right now because I'm not sure he can get through that. Let's see what he does on August 18th.
COATES: David Jolly, thank you for joining.
JOLLY: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead for us, the extraordinary fight underway between the president and his top senator that has some Republicans warning it's going to cost them in November. Plus, of course, your turn to drive the conversation. Just text us your comments at or questions, 818-972-7272. The panel takes them on with me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The president seemed yesterday frustrated with Leader Thune speaking in Georgia. Is his patience running out with Leader Thune?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president spoke about this directly yesterday. His patience is running out. He wants to see as much of the Save America passed as possible by the August recess.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A battle is brewing between the White House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. The battleground, you just heard it, the Save America Act. The White House wants it passed now, as in yesterday, at least by the August recess. But in a 50-50 Senate, the bill is practically DOA. But that's not stopping the president from demanding a miracle before the August recess. Well, Leader Thune is firing right back. He tells the White House to stop complaining and start dialing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), MAJORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE (voice-over): Maybe she or somebody else ought to get on the phone and get the votes, right? It's 50 around here. And so, instead of, you know, pointing the finger at Republicans, they might think about going after the people who are stopping it on the floor, which is the Democrats. And if there are Republicans that they think are gettable, get on the phone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Republican strategist Leslie Shedd and Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett. You heard Thune. I mean, he's looking -- he's doing the math. The math ain't mathing. Is this the right fight for Republicans a hundred days before November even if the president is impatient?
LESLIE SHEDD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think that this is something the president cares about quite a lot. And, you know, I think what Thune said, not as him trying to poke back at them, but for him to remind the president, hey, look, you are an incredibly powerful person right now, you're the most powerful person in the Republican Party, let's do this old school style, let's do this like Bill Clinton used to do, get a whip operation going and start using that power, using that work --
COATES: You didn't read any snark into what he just said. Are you kidding?
SHEDD: I think he's frustrated, but I think his point is clear. And I've been saying this for a while, right? Which is the president is incredibly powerful. He holds a lot of sway over Republicans. He's got a large war chest. So, I think if he really cares about this, he should let's get on the phone and let's start making some phone calls and getting people on the side on this bill because this is an 80 percent of American support voter --
COATES: But is it -- even with the calls, is it the right call for America? Number one. Is it the right call for Republicans given what Democrats are already obviously strategizing about if they advance this as opposed to other priorities?
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: I don't think it's the right call because he doesn't have the votes to pass it. I mean, he doesn't have the votes to pass -- overcome the filibuster. He doesn't have the votes to pass it under reconciliation. He doesn't have the votes to fire the parliamentarian. He doesn't even have a majority -- a simple majority vote to pass this or enough votes to pass it in the House, the full bill in the House.
And so, you know, he's behaving like this petulant child and lashing out at John Thune. Yes, he should be on the campaign trail, you know, taking the case against Democrats, but he's not doing that because he's used to getting his way with Republicans in Congress.
He's not getting his way right now, and so he has decided to lash out at them instead of doing his job. Maybe if he spent a little bit more time whipping votes and less time kind of enriching himself and waging a war that he can't get out of, he might actually be successful. COATES: That was a snark. I read it --
SHEDD: Yes.
COATES: That's what I took from Thune. You know -- whatever. Let's go to viewer questions right now. There was a viewer from Georgia who asked this question. We know that the DOJ is politicized by Trump. Can any legislation be put forward to stop the next president from doing this or all these policies -- are all these policies only subject to executive branch? Leslie, do you want to weigh in?
SHEDD: Gosh. I honestly don't know. I mean, I would assume that Congress could probably put laws into place to somewhat hamper the way that the president -- No. Actually, Supreme Court just ruled recently that the president has a lot of authority over the administration, that they are the executive branch, they run the executive branch. I think that if Congress did try to pass something to, you know, affect future administrations, they would have a hard time. I mean --
COATES: I think the courts are also aiding in this. I mean, they're acting as quite the deterrent in recent days and recent decisions, Supreme Court and federal courts as well, to see if they can be slowed down in their attempt to expand their authority, but we will see.
Brian from Pennsylvania asked this question. Tell Trump the data center is going to be next to Mar-a-Lago. Bet he flips on that one. All right, Sawyer, what about that nimby?
HACKETT: I think it's a great idea. I mean, you might have to move that that gold-plated statue of himself to make some room for it. But I think David Jolly, you know, just in your last segment was excellent on this. I mean, it's smart for Democrats to be leading on this issue because these data centers are a nuisance in a lot of communities.
I'm from northern Virginia. I know that there are data centers in every single person's backyard these days. They are a nuisance to a lot of people living in those communities. And so, you know, I think it's a smart issue for us to take on.
COATES: There's a question we have here about whether or not -- this is -- Donna from Florida asked, can the DOJ lawyers be disbarred based on their lack of judicial integrity and bringing some of these cases to court? Well, yes, DOJ lawyers can technically be disbarred or disciplined -- professionally disciplined for misconduct or lack of integrity. But doing so is difficult in practice.
[23:40:05]
You go to the different individual bars and ethics complaints can be risen. But yes, you can technically do that.
Here is a question we've been getting every night. Tonight, it comes from Rodd from Washington, D.C. Leslie, go ahead. You take this one. Where in the world is Mitch McConnell?
SHEDD: Mitch McConnell is recovering. He has been speaking with people. He has released photos. I hope --
COATES: No one is satisfied, though. That's some of the point.
SHEDD: I think a lot of people are satisfied. There are certain people who are either using this for their own political will, right? You saw AOC doing this or conspiracy theorists online. He has repeatedly sent pictures. He has had his staff speak out. He has reached out and spoken with multiple people. You know, he's recovering. And keep in mind, he's retiring. People are acting like he's trying to pull some kind of like wool over the people's eyes. That's not what's happening at all here.
COATES: OK.
HACKETT: He could put himself on video and make things a lot easier for everybody, but he doesn't seem capable of that.
SHEDD: He took pictures of himself. I mean, is that not enough? I think if he did that, people would say, oh, it's A.I.-generated, too. I mean --
COATES: They're saying that, anyway. But --
SHEDD: Yes. At some point in time, you have to believe the things that you see. He has come out.
HACKETT: It's just a picture, though. I mean, he could step in front of any camera, make a phone call, call in to the news shows. I'm sure, you know, Laura would be happy to have him on the phone.
COATES: What's my telephone number, 888 -- what's that number? Hold on a second. Where is it? Where's that number? I put it on the screen, 818-972-7272. Mitch, senator, people want to know.
(LAUGHTER)
I have one final question from Katy from Washington State who asks, my eight-year-old daughter is watching the news with me and saw your "text me with questions" on the screen and wants to know if he can have ice cream tonight. Yes, get some ice cream. You want a burger? Get your burger. Want some ice cream? Cookies and cream? How about some gelato? There you go. I'm that kind of mom. Leslie, Sawyer, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
HACKETT: Thank you.
SHEDD: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, there is anger and there are protests happening in Madison, Wisconsin over a deadly shooting between police and a man who they say was armed with a knife. Was the use of force justified? Former Minneapolis police chief, Medaria Arradondo, live with me and his analysis, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The streets of Madison, Wisconsin are filled with distraught and angry residents after the fatal shooting of Corey Ruiz. Authorities say Ruiz pulled a large blade knife and injured an officer as police attempted to take him into custody. But with no body cameras rolling, it was bystanders who captured the deadly three-second escalation for the world to see.
Tonight, we are breaking down what we know so far. We begin with exhibit A, the escalation. This is a warning to our viewers, the bystander video we are about to show you is graphic and deeply disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNSHOTS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We now have a new perspective on this shooting because CNN has obtained a second eyewitness video capturing fatal -- the fatal end of that struggle. This new footage is also highly graphic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNSHOTS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: All four officers involved have been placed on administrative leave, which brings us to exhibit B, the blind spot. Madison police officers do not currently use body-worn cameras, which complicates the entire investigation. The police chief has called for more funding, but admits that it will still take over three years just to phase those cameras in. Finally, exhibit C, the tipping point. Protests have broken out. The community wants answers, and they want them right now.
Now, when we talk about the tipping point, my next guest has lived it. Former Minneapolis police chief, Medaria Arradondo, he has firsthand knowledge of navigating that razor-thin line between keeping the community's trust and preventing civil unrest following the murder of George Floyd. Chief, I'm glad to have you here and your expertise. I'll lean on you in this moment.
I mean, I want to start with that escalation because the eyewitness video shows approximately three seconds between the deployment of the taser and the fatal gunshots. Why would the officer's strategy shift so quickly to use lethal force in that window? And from your vantage point, do you think, knowing what we see at this point, the use of force was justified?
MEDARIA ARRADONDO, FORMER MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF: Laura, thank you for having me. I think to go back to what you first mentioned, about the one officer utilizing their taser and deploying it, from the Madison police incident report, Laura, apparently, that was unsuccessful, but they at least felt that at that point, there wasn't a deadly threat, so they opted to use the taser.
From both videos that you just showed in exhibit A, you can see four officers there. Some are trying to get Mr. Ruiz down to the ground. One has got an arm. One has got another arm. One is behind his back. The officer attempts to deploy the taser. Apparently unsuccessful, according to the Madison police incident report.
[23:49:57]
And then within those seconds, one of the officers, the incident report describes as a veteran officer who apparently was injured by Mr. Ruiz prior to that, being taken to the ground and discharges his weapon. So, that officer felt at that time, it shifted very quickly from using less lethal with the taser, Laura, to discharging the firearm, feeling that it was an imminent threat, a great bodily harm or possibly death.
And so, those two videos, Laura, are going to be very crucial to this investigation. By the way, Madison Police Department is not doing this investigation. The Wisconsin Department of Justice's division of criminal investigations will be conducting this, an independent party. But those two pieces of video are going to be crucial, Laura, as well as Chief Patterson had stated they're reviewing other video.
So, my guess is when you look at both videos, there are businesses around. They could be looking at cameras adjacent to those businesses. There could be city cameras that might show another angle and what led up to that.
COATES: But chief, wouldn't it be so easy -- I mean, I don't want to cut you off, but when I'm hearing about all the different mechanisms that you could use to get this, I'm thinking the body-worn cameras of an officer would be very consequential in determining whether or not the use of lethal force was warranted and what danger may have been presented by the person that they say was the necessary target of that lethal force. I mean, there's no body cameras to capture their perspective.
So, do you piece the investigation together in a way, using all those alternative means, is it as good as the statements of other officers let alone the body-worn cameras?
ARRADONDO: Laura, you bring up a great question. I know that your reporting says that Chief Patterson has gone before his city elected officials to try to have his officers outfitted with body-worn cameras. I will tell you that it's almost unimaginable that a major city police department in 2026 does not at least have their frontline 9-1-1 responders not having body-worn cameras. Yes, those body-worn cameras create another vantage point in perspective of telling the story from the officer's view.
You mentioned something very critical, something happened where it went from a non-deadly threat by deploying the taser, Laura, to immediately within seconds an officer felt it was a deadly force situation. Those body-worn cameras, again, could help explain why that occurred.
And so, I will tell you this, I know that Chief Patterson, you had mentioned in your reporting, that it could take three years to phase in those body-worn cameras. My concern for any department that goes through a crisis like this, your time is not your friend.
COATES: No.
ARRADONDO: If Madison, heaven forbid, were to have another officer- involved incident tomorrow or next week and those officers do not have body-worn cameras, that's a problem.
COATES: You know what? You -- only if he was -- if he did it. But an officer shot. There were officers around. They did not seem to deploy their weapon. That will be consequential as well in determining whether that particular officer was reasonable in taking the action he did because, as you know, the Supreme Court says it is the reasonableness of other officers who are in a similar situation, and you actually have them there. So, I'm waiting to see what the investigation reveals as I'm sure you will as well. Chief Arradondo, thank you so much.
There's a quick programming note. Sunday, on "The Whole Story," Jake Tapper talks with former GOP senator, Ben Sasse, about his battle with terminal cancer. That's Sunday night at 8 p.m. on CNN.
Still ahead, is saying "Google it" about to go extinct? Gen Z weighs in with their replacement and has people feeling all sorts of ways, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. Time to bring in our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in L.A. Elex, so good to see you. Let me tell you, I saw this today and it cracked me up. OK, "The New York Times" has a piece that's reporting the young people are not saying "Google it" anymore.
(LAUGHTER)
Instead, they're saying "search it up" or "ask ChatGPT" or "check TikTok." People have some very strong feelings about the fact that "Google it" is no longer apparently the main operand.
Beth from Illinois says, I don't know why we've let Gen Z and Alpha be the arbiters of style, taste, and language when they're all walking around dressed like our dads on vacation in 1987 while thinking saying "six seven" is the height of comedy. Oh, OK, she has some very strong feelings.
(LAUGHTER)
Are you say -- do you say "Google it" or "are you searching it up?"
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I say "Google it" still. But I guess I'm old. But isn't that the way it has always been, that the young people sort of drive culture, and then we were upset when our parents thought that we were, you know, irrelevant? I mean, isn't that just kind of the way it works?
COATES: Apparently, it's a cycle of life. "Hakuna Matata" hashtag "Lion King." Yes. However, I have to tell you, like, when I say "Google it," forgive me, Google, I've been a trademark attorney, but I make it generic, like, hand me a Kleenex, xerox this. I think of it like -- I'm telling you to just go search it up. Doesn't "search it up" sound old to you?
MICHAELSON: Well, unfortunately, nobody says "bing it," and that's part of their problem. So --
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: All right. Well, let's say -- OK, I have to know this. What one 90s phrase that you want to see we're tired forever or one you want to bring back?
MICHAELSON: OK. So, I think that could go, you know, whatever from "Clueless." I think that could go. That time has passed.
[23:59:59]
In terms of bringing back, I think it is time we go back to was up.
COATES: Oh, my God! I'm going to tell was up! Oh, my God!
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: Oh --
MICHAELSON: What about you?
COATES: Where are at the Budweiser Frogs, too? Are you kidding me? I mean that for a second. OK, I wanted -- oh, I'm not going to hold you. I hate that phrase also. Also cap, like someone is lying. But the one I want to bring back is what's the 411. I love Mary Jane Blige. Like, what's up? What's the 411? It means nothing to my kids. Nothing at all. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: All right, Laura. Have a good night.
