Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Blanche Nomination Standoff Shows Why DOJ Independence Matters; A.I. Goes Rogue; Socialist Surge; Family of Nolan Wells Moves to Search for Answers. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 30, 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]

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST, AUTHOR: It was that month where we were basically getting all those videos. At that point it was the Democrat. Obviously, Bernie Moreno yesterday did it too.

But we were getting just the non-stop, just dropping F words. I was like, okay. Now we got you.

JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC", PODCAST HOST: That's their way of relating? Is that what that is?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think we threw out norms in 2016 and I think that Donald Trump is a great deal to do with norms. And the problem with Democrats is we're trying to roll around with them. And you roll around with pigs, you get muddy, and the pig likes it.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Thank you for watching "Newsnight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Todd Blanche's nomination on life support as Trump threatens to pull the plug in a risky political gamble. Plus, breaking tonight, an A.I. agent goes rogue and hacks into three organizations undetected. Could this force Washington to take emergency action? And later, the family of Nolan Wells making new moves to find answers as we learn that state officials may have finished a major part of their investigation. Family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, will be my guest tonight on "Laura Coates Live." My opening statement tonight, this Todd Blanche saga shows exactly why independence at the DOJ matters, why an attorney general must be able to tell the president, no. Right now, his nomination looks even shakier than it did last night, if you can imagine. He met this afternoon with two key GOP holdouts, senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, but nobody appears to have blinked.

And the standoff has become a test of whether Blanche can act independently. Why? We know that because of what Cornyn and Tillis are demanding, ink on the page, an agreement that permanently kills the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund and, of course, narrows the sweeping audit protections that Trump got from his IRS settlement. Sounds simple enough, right? Especially since Blanche has said repeatedly the fund is dead, but he still has not put it in writing.

And tonight, it has become even more clear what the true blocker really is. Exhibit A, what President Trump is willing to risk. He is signaling that he'd rather pull his own nominee than give two senators in his own party what they want. Now, he is assuming that he could try again once they're gone, and then skate the nomination through, but that's a huge gamble, as is everything based on an assumption like that because there's no guarantee that Blanche's nomination gets any easier after the midterms.

Exhibit B, what Cornyn and Tillis say is happening behind the scenes. They're taking skeptical to a whole new level because they think Blanche isn't actually the one stopping a deal, it seems. And when they follow the strings to find the puppet master, they're pointing pretty high up to the very top.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: If this were just between me and Todd Blanche, we would have worked this out, but, apparently, he's getting some pushback from higher ups at the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: My reaction is the president is getting bad advice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TILLIS: The only reason why we wouldn't move forward with this language is because that same advisor wants to bring it back to life at some point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Exhibit C, what Blanche says, what Trump says, side by side, in their own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: We're not moving forward with the fund. There is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward. And I've said it's dead repeatedly.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I love it. I think it's so important. The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I think the weaponization fund is a great idea. And so do many other Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, you've got an acting attorney general who says the fund is finished, a president who won't say he has abandoned it. In fact, he loves it. And what do you call something that has been pronounced dead, but has no legal death certificate?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Please open his mouth. Now, mostly dead is slightly alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Slightly alive, exactly what Cornyn and Tillis are afraid of, that the head of a DOJ that ought to be independently fighting for justice for the people of the United States might instead be saying, as you wish, to the president. We're at this point because a couple GOP senators are not falling in line. Neither of them has an election to fear. Call them maybe the YOLO or you've got nothing to lose caucus.

[23:05:00] My first guest knows firsthand the price of defying his own party's leader. He chose actually not to run for re-election in 2018 after fierce and public clashes with President Trump. Former Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, joins me now. Senator, thank you for being here. You've got GOP senators from Cornyn and Tillis and now GOP Senator Bill Cassidy joining along and not committing to backing Blanche. All three have supported much of Trump's agenda. All three are about to leave office. So, what does it tell you that they feel perhaps so confident and free to speak out when they're on their way out the door?

JEFF FLAKE, FORMER ARIZONA SENATOR: Well, let me tell you, I was in Washington this past week for Lindsey Graham's funeral, and there was a great outpouring of support, bipartisan support, that made me feel good. But what makes me feel the best this week is to have a couple of senators actually standing up and doing what senators have typically done, exercising their prerogative to demand some answers and some information from these nominees. So, I'm glad to see it. It looks to me that they're holding firm, as they should.

COATES: Should there be more than a couple?

FLAKE: Yes. Yes. I can tell you, a lot of other Republican senators feel the same way. They hate this weaponization fund. They think that the terms of the agreement, you know, protects the president and his family far too much from IRS audits in the future. So, they all feel this way. Gratefully, a few, and all it takes is a few, are standing up right now.

COATES: We've heard this for years now, about Republicans being privately upset, but publicly not vocalizing that. What do you think is the real reason that they are not? Is it because of fear of not being reelected? Is it fear of Trump's wrath or is it because they don't care as much about this fund as they're professing?

FLAKE: Well, obviously, President Trump has had a grip over the Republican Party, and it's the voters. It's the MAGA voters, that subset of a subset of a subset, that controls Republican primaries, that have made most Republicans very fearful about speaking out against the president or standing up.

That is going now. Filing deadlines are all gone. The primaries are almost all finished. We're going to go through some midterms here. The president is losing that grip quickly. And so, I mean, this notion that he's going to put it off, this nomination off until after the midterms, that may not be the best thing to do.

COATES: That's a hell of a gamble. It's interesting you mentioned the idea of the calendar as being a way for people to get greater confidence because the idea of being primaried, as the verb, would no longer be possible. The wrath would still certainly be there.

But, you know, you sat on the judiciary committee. You have vetted many a nominee, in fact, nominees for this exact job. If you were still in that seat tonight, would you confirm Todd Blanche?

FLAKE: Absolutely not, given what he has done already in terms of weaponization of the justice department, going after people like Jim Comey on the flimsiest of evidence. That would have been enough for me.

But, boy, I'm glad they're standing up. I mean, he ought to put this in writing, that this weaponization fund is over and that they'll narrow the scope of the IRS deal. There's no reason for him not to do that other than the president wanting to keep this weaponization fund alive and wanting to broaden the scope of the immunity, basically, from the IRS.

COATES: Do you think that the president could face even more resistance in Congress after the midterms? I mean, the clock for the lame duck presidency really begins.

FLAKE: Yes, most definitely, especially because, you know, if the president -- you know, he's going out, he'll be a lame duck after the midterms. If his policies were really, you know, popular, that would be one thing. But they're not right now. In particular, the war is not going well, tariffs are driving up prices everywhere. So, you know, there's really no reason for Republicans now to fix themselves so closely with the president and his policies.

COATES: I wonder if he'll dangle the possibility of bucking the system again and running a third time just to sort of light a fire under those he wants to follow. We'll see. Senator Jeff Flake, thank you so much.

FLAKE: Thanks for having me on. COATES: I want to turn to New York Times reporter and author of "Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice," Devlin Barrett, and former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Gene Rossi. Glad to have both of you here.

[23:09:55]

I mean, look, Devlin, why do you think the administration is so fiercely holding on to this point, knowing that it could tank a nomination of somebody, frankly, that Trump has a vested interest in having in that position, given the yes-men tendencies?

DEVLIN BARRETT, AUTHOR, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI REPORTER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I mean, look, there's arguably 1.776 billion reasons not to do it. That's the amount of money that was originally envisioned to be in this fund that Trump says he loves. Even Blanche says there's still a good reason for the fund.

And, look, I don't know how it works for most people, but if someone promises you something, and then you say, fine, can you just put it in writing for me, and then they won't put it in writing for you, I think you have to question how much of a promise -- how much is that promise actually worth. And he doesn't lose -- Trump doesn't necessarily lose very much, even if he tanks this nomination because Todd Blanche is already the deputy attorney general.

COATES: Right.

BARRETT: Todd Blanche gets to stay the acting attorney general even if the Senate rejects him. So, you know, on the one hand, you have all the financial incentive to keep this alive, to keep the audit protections in place and, on the other hand, you have, you know, a distinction without much of a difference.

And maybe what the president is really signaling with his threat to pull the nomination is that he cares more about the fund and more about the tax protection for him and his family than he cares about getting Todd Blanche permanently in the job.

COATES: So, talk to me about from inside the DOJ, though.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Yes.

COATES: I mean, there is, maybe to the outside world, not much of a distinction. Whether he's acting or not, he's still the person in control. But for those who are line attorneys or career prosecutors making decisions about cases that are totally unrelated to the world of Trump and what his priorities are, does it make a difference to them that he would be in an acting capacity? Are they more inclined to not go rogue, but wait him out as well?

ROSSI: There's zero chance they would do that. I worked under Acting Attorney General Eric Holder way back in the late 90s, and I've served under eight or nine attorney generals. If he's acting attorney general or confirmed, it makes no difference for the worker bees in the division, the career trial attorneys, new and old.

I got to add this, though.

(LAUGHTER)

There are 1.776 billion reasons why he may not put it in writing. I'm going to add 440 more. That's the number of times he took the Fifth in a civil tax case in New York.

Donald Trump, in my view as an old tax prosecutor, he is deathly afraid of tweaking that tax settlement not only for himself, but for his kids, his family, and his corporations. I think it is 80 percent of the tax deal that he's afraid of. The fund, ah, as they say. Larry David, ah.

(LAUGHTER)

It's the taxes. He is deathly afraid of exposure, 444 reasons, about his criminal and civil liability. You know this, Laura. In a civil case, if you take the Fifth, it's an adverse inference. Criminal, it's different.

COATES: That's a really important point. I wonder if the weaponization fund is the bright, shiny object meant to distract from the IRS protections, of course.

You have new reporting, Devlin, out right now, that the DOJ is making payouts --

BARRETT: Right.

COATES: -- to people who believe they've been wronged by the government in spite of the promise that was said verbally, that the fund is dead. Reconcile this for us.

BARRETT: So, on Tuesday, even as all of this pressure is being brought to bear on Blanche and the nomination, on Tuesday, another payout was announced for a purported victim of weaponization, someone who was prosecuted, convicted at trial by a jury in Tennessee, and that Blanche is said as a victim of the Biden administration. That person was paid a seven-figure settlement, so at least a million dollars.

It's remarkable that that gets announced while this fight is happening, while these two senators are still very concerned about the fund existing by another name. I think it shows that the administration is determined to pay out significant sums of taxpayer money to people it claims were harmed by the previous administration.

COATES: That's important because it, again, makes it appear as though the person who is trying to be the head of the Department of Justice has no idea what the left, right, right foot, right, left foot, hand, everything, is doing if he's saying one thing and other things are happening.

Now, the government can pay out for people who have grievances against the government.

ROSSI: Yes. COATES: That's not unheard of. That's nothing new.

[23:14:59]

But the nature of this particular dispute seems to be much more in line with the anti-weaponization fund substance.

ROSSI: Laura, I don't think Donald Trump cares about that fund. I really don't, for the reasons you just said.

COATES: Taxpayers do.

ROSSI: Taxpayers do. And politically, they do. I have to go back. He is definitely afraid of tweaking that tax settlement.

And I've got to say this. We are forgetting how this started. Trump is dealing with himself in this settlement. It's a meeting of the minds in contract, but you have two people who are different. Trump is basically having a meeting of the minds of himself. And he had his attorney, current or former. He had a Freudian slip, saying he is the current attorney for Donald Trump. But he's got his old attorney negotiating a meeting of the mind settlement between himself. That is outrageous.

COATES: And a judge said so. I mean, a judge is questioning the very substance of all of these. Gene, Devlin, thank you so much. We've got so much more ahead.

Still ahead tonight, of course, the rise of Democratic socialism in America. It's hitting new heights. We have new numbers. It has Democrats worried, Republicans ecstatic. Plus, breaking tonight, another A.I. agent goes rogue and hacks into three outside organizations in a stunning breach. Fareed Zakaria is just back from visiting Anthropic, and he is with me on this very story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking tonight, it happened again. A.I. models escaping to the internet and breaking into organizations undetected. This time, it's Anthropic. The company says A.I. models that were training in a closed testing environment actually escaped and accessed the internet before breaking into the systems of three organizations. Anthropic says they only found this out after collecting a review once they heard about a similar incident at OpenAI last week.

I want to bring in Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS." Fareed, good to see you. I mean, look, we've now seen A.I. models from two, two of the most popular A.I. companies in the whole world breaking into other organizations. Do you see that as a kind of a break glass moment for the A.I. industry? FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Yes, but we should have had the break glass moment a while ago because Anthropic, which is actually the most responsible company of all the major companies doing this, has been warning of precisely this kind of thing.

Now, what happened here, it's very interesting. The models were essentially doing cybersecurity drills, and they had been told they did not have access to the internet. In these three cases, they looked at 140,000 cases, and in three of them, by mistake, literal human error, they were in fact granted internet access.

But the models had been told, you don't have internet access, so the models thought this was a simulation, this was they were being -- they were being sort of tricked into it, they were being given a charade simulation where it looked like this was the internet, but it was actually not the internet.

So, it's an -- you know, it's not a problem that makes you think, oh, my God, we're all going to die or anything like that. What it should show is that it is very important to monitor these. It is very important that there be some standards. It is very important that we get this stuff in place now because, Laura, the main thing that's about to happen is the models are going to start writing themselves. This is something in the field they call recursive self-improvement.

So, you understand, right now, the models are still being written by human beings. You can imagine putting in some of these guardrails and regulations and saying, double check if you actually have internet access or you don't.

At some point, Claude 7 is going to write Claude 8, and Claude 8 is going to write Claude 9 because they're going to be so much better than any human coders that they will be writing themselves. And at that point, we don't know what kind of controls are in there. We may think we know, but these are such super smart programs with so much millions and millions of lines of code. Nobody is going to know. So, it's very important that we start thinking about it.

Anthropic, I spent two days at Anthropic last week. They are trying their best to figure this out. They've written a constitution for their programs, nobody else has, you know, which is kind of like a governing document that tells it how to try to steer it in, you know, ethical, lawful ways. But it's an awfully difficult task because these things are getting smarter and smarter, and the level of complexity is soon getting to the point it's beyond human beings.

COATES: That timeline of when it could engage in the level of self- improvement such that a human being or a human entity could not regulate or try to undermine it is what the real fear for people is. If they can't essentially prevent it either through human error or otherwise, I wonder how regulators like people in Congress or across the globe could possibly endeavor to do so if those who make these programs and then watch them improve are unable to contain.

Is there a level of inevitability around these companies about the prospect of one day not being able to control the beast? ZAKARIA: Look, there's an inevitability that it's going to get very, very complicated and humans are going to be struggling to keep up.

[23:25:04]

And probably what we will do is we'll use A.I. to regulate and detect A.I. But there is a path. Look, no government is going to sit back if there is some major -- you know, the danger here is if you do nothing, there will be some major negative event. And then government will step in. It will regulate badly. It will overregulate. So, it's much better to get in earlier.

The one model -- there's no perfect model because A.I. is just so much more transformative than anything. But if you look at the financial industry, the way the Fed regulates banks and other entities is it takes a lot of expertise from the banks. It gets a lot of people, some of them on loans, some of them work full time. There's a kind of rotation in and out. They talk to industry all the time, to the bankers. They try to -- you know, it's almost like a public-private partnership.

And I wonder if that is the kind of thing we need with A.I. because we are not going to be able to get some bureaucrat in Washington who hasn't spent time in the, you know, the bowels of Anthropic or OpenAI or Gemini knowing what's happening.

COATES: Well, a bureaucracy can't react in that level of speed you require. Fareed Zakaria, thank you so much.

ZAKARIA: Pleasure.

COATES: Up next, Democratic socialists on the rise and making serious gains within the Democratic Party. We've got a revealing new poll tonight that begs the question, just why are they gaining so much traction? One of the DSA candidates running for Congress live with me next to answer that and more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Democratic socialists are riding a wave of momentum in this midterm cycle. Now, some strategists have dismissed it as merely regional success. But, soon, that theory is about to be tested. Primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin and Florida over the next month could prove whether their brand of left-wing populism resonates in purple and red states. These are all states that the establishment wing believes can only be won by more centrist candidates.

But one thing has changed. Some voters are truly embracing the Democratic socialist label. A new CNN poll found one in three Democrats say they self-identify as Democratic socialists. I'm joined by one of them right now, Oliver Larkin, who is challenging Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz in Florida's 25th congressional district. Oliver, thank you for joining. You identify as a Democratic socialist. Why?

OLIVER LARKIN, FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Democratic socialism for me gave me the language to describe my political philosophy where the United States has a citizens united decision that allows for unfettered corporate spending in our elections.

I believe in bold universal programs that the Democratic Party and its rosiest history has embraced. And I think that we need to be fighting for policies like Medicare for all, universal child care, paid family and medical leave, raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

And, too often, we see the corporate wing of the Democratic Party tell us that we can't afford these things or we need to compromise on them or we need to means test them. But I believe that bold universal programs are what not only Democratic socialists but the vast majority of Americans want to see reflected in our government's priorities.

COATES: What is your reaction to the criticism that some establishment Democrats feel that you are not hijacking the message, but you are a thorn in the side who they believe could actually win the elections? What is your reaction to this criticism of Democratic socialists?

LARKIN: I'm coming to you from a state in Florida that has drifted further and further to the right. We've seen establishment Democrats, including former Republicans, now Democrats, losing elections by upwards of 20 percentage points. The last time Florida was truly competitive, we were running a progressive candidate for statewide office who was fighting for Medicare for all and many other bold universal policies.

And I'm also coming to you from a closed primary state where we're actually bringing young people, non-party affiliated people, folks who are disaffected with the political process into the Democratic Party, and that's rebuilding the voter registration disadvantage that Republicans have really used to their great advantage.

So, I think we're part of the project that the Democratic Party needs to embrace if it's going to be competitive and win states like Florida again.

COATES: You are competing against Moskowitz, who won re-election in 2024, despite Trump winning his district by nine points. So, I'll be curious to see what happens in your race.

But the DSA platform, Oliver, it was just approved. It contains phrases that Democrats have been trying to steer away from, phrases like abolish ICE or abolish the police, even abolishing the Senate. And some Democrats like Van Jones, they want nothing to do with that. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I've been waiting my whole life to see a youth movement do what it's doing. But it's being hijacked by people who are putting in nutty ideas supporting terrorists, nutty ideas saying that we don't need cops in prison. We can't deport anybody even if they rape somebody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Obviously, you need not be in line with every point that was raised in that platform, but do you share the viewpoints of the platform that has been conveyed? What do you say to that criticism from Van and others?

LARKIN: We need massive democratic reforms in this country. And I do believe that we need to abolish ICE.

[23:35:00]

This is an agency that I'm older than it. We had immigration enforcement in this country prior to 2003. We don't need a militarized police force.

And I think the American people and the vast majority of the viewers will agree that government, as it exists today, is fundamentally broken. It is not representative enough. It is overtaken by corporate influence in our politics.

And we need broad structural reforms. There is a system that allowed for Donald Trump to be elected that includes the electoral college. We've seen two elections within our lifetimes, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, where the popular vote loser gets elected to the presidency.

I mean, if we are going to really reform our democracy and make it truly a democracy, then we need to take these broad structural reforms. So, with respect to Van Jones, who I've followed for many years, this is a difference of opinion. I don't see this as being a hijacking. This is the future of the Democratic Party. Young people overwhelmingly identify with Democratic socialism. I think that's what our campaign is embodying. If people want to support that, they can visit our website, www.oliverforcongress.com.

COATES: You mentioned abolish ICE. What about abolishing the police or abolishing prisons or the idea of abolishing the Senate? Are there parts of the DSA platform you disagree with?

LARKIN: I'm coming to you from a district that holds the corporate headquarters of the GEO Group, the private prison corporation, that has received so much of the $170-plus billion in funding because when the one big beautiful bill last year and the pro-ICE legislation was passed, that money does not just go to federal agencies, it goes to the private prison contractors like GEO Group and like CoreCivic.

And I don't believe that we should live in a country with the highest mass incarceration on the planet that allows for private prisons to be able to exert their influence in immigration detention and deportation. I think that is just a completely asinine philosophy.

And to be clear as well, abolishing the Senate, I mean, this is a position that John Dingell, the late congressman from Michigan, after 60 years serving in the House of Representatives, penned as his assertion for how we can fix government.

So, I'm willing to work with the system as it exists today. That's why I'm pragmatically running for office to be one of 435 representatives and work with allies in the Senate. And I hope in the state of Florida, that we can elect a broad, a bold senator like Angie Nixon who's going to fight for progressive values. So, I'm willing to work with the system as it is, but I do agree that the Democratic socialists at large need to see these broad changes made to our government to really reflect our 21st century democracy that we aspire to.

COATES: Oliver Larkin, thank you for joining.

LARKIN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: With me now, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden, and Rob Bluey, the president and executive director of "The Daily Signal." I want to begin, Neera, with you. You hear him say it is the future, it is the future of the Democratic Party. There's going to be real tests about the primary. Obviously, there are positions that have been stated in the platform that have gotten a great deal of pushback and are viewed as quite extreme. Do you see the DSA as a part of the future of the big tent of Democrats?

NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I mean, I think what we've seen in most parts of the country so far, and we'll see, we'll have primaries coming up, and so far, you are having DSA candidates win primaries, sometimes in blue states, sometimes in blue areas, sometimes -- we'll see in the coming weeks, maybe in blue states.

But the challenge is they so far have not won statewide. We do have some experiences in the first Trump term, where we had DSA-aligned candidates, very progressive candidates, run in swing districts, and they lost those swing districts.

So, I think the test here is not the arguments you can just make in a Democratic primary. It is whether you can win statewide. And I would say, an important test of this, you know, that the candidate was talking about, you know, I think he's hearkening back to past races.

In 2018, in Florida, we had Andrew Gillum run against Gwen Graham. A lot of people said he was a much more exciting candidate, Gwen Graham was not as exciting, she was establishment. Andrew Gillum went up. And I -- you know, I knew Andrew, I really liked Andrew, but he lost that race to DeSantis. I think some of his positions were seen as out of step. Florida has gone even more far to the right.

And I think you're seeing in the governor's race, people actually embracing a more moderate candidate who right now is very competitive, for the first time, against the Republican gubernatorial candidates.

COATES: Well, Rob, how do you see it? Because the right has really seized on the platform of the DSA. And they are, you know, picking the word "abolish" and anything that comes out of it and after it, and they're showing this as exhibit A for why this cannot be. I want to play for you for a second -- you know, Trump has this new attack line because of it.

[23:40:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think the 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's not communism, first of all. There's a very big distinction between Democratic socialism and communism. But the tagline he's trying to use and play upon a lot of people's ignorance, I don't mean that in a pejorative way, about what the platform is, what it really means, he's playing on that. Is it going to work?

ROB BLUEY, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE DAILY SIGNAL: Yes. Well, what you see Trump doing there is exactly what you're describing. He's trying to paint a contrast between what he is positioning himself and the Republican Party as caring about the working class American, focusing on issues. Hopefully, that will resonate when it comes to lowering taxes, making the cost of living more affordable, things of that nature.

Now, I think that President Trump and the Republican Party could do a lot more when it comes to passing legislation out of this particular Congress to show the American people they're working on their behalf.

When it comes to that contrast, though, you're going to continue to hear more of this, not just from President Trump, but also other Republican candidates because I think that they realize not only does it animate the conservative base and will turn them out to vote, but it's also a turnoff for independents, and that's a group that President Trump was successful at winning in 2016 and 2024 when he was able to do that.

COATES: Is that a Democratic concern as well? Obviously, you have to envelop more people to want them to participate in our elections. Will this be alienating? Will this undermine Democrats' drive to reclaim the House or the Senate?

TANDEN: I mean, my overall take here is that in very liberal places, very liberal cities, very liberal places in America, if the electorate wants more liberal people, that's like a reasonable thing. I think where there's a tradeoff is what happens in red states.

To take the Senate, we actually have to -- Democrats actually have to win in places like North Carolina, Iowa, Texas, Ohio. And in those places, I think some Democratic candidates are going to say they disagree with these platforms. They vociferously disagree. Annie Andrews, who's running in South Carolina, put out a statement affirmatively saying, I disagree with the positions of DSA.

I think in a big tent party, we have to fill out candidates who will disagree. You know, most Democrats don't believe in abolishing prisons or abolishing the police. And so, I think what you're going to see is a robust debate, and candidates in red and purple areas and in swing districts are going to very much differentiate from these policies and positions.

COATES: That's an interesting point because the very ammunition people are trying to use against Democrats to suggest, aha, this is who you are, the so-called tolerance of diverse opinions within the party, is a criticism that they share for Republicans, where it's just MAGA or nothing else, Trump or nothing else. That could be used against Republicans.

BLUEY: Oh, sure. And you're seeing some of that fighting that's happening in the Republican Party right now, particularly, do they pass a third reconciliation bill with the Save America Act? There are some senators who are on different sides of that.

But I think that the one thing that both parties have in common, and they're struggling to resonate with certain voters, particularly young voters, are those issues, as you identified. They're populists, right? Americans, particularly younger Americans, are frustrated with the high cost of housing. And there's not really the solutions that are going to solve that problem for them.

Now, I think Zohran Mamdani in New York tapped into that frustration and was able to seize the moment and obviously win an election. I disagree with the policy solutions that he's presenting. But I think if you had a Republican candidate who appealed to that same group of people, they might find some enthusiasm.

TANDEN: I guess I'd just quickly say, I do think what's really important is that very liberal Democrats, normally liberal Democrats, leftist Democrats, and also a lot of independents are really asking fundamental questions. How is it that we can spend a hundred billion dollars on an Iran war and yet take away health care for millions of people? How is it we can afford the one big beautiful bill act and tax cuts for billionaires but take away programs for people who are hungry? I think that's an animating idea for the left and the center of the Democratic Party.

COATES: Rob, Neera, thank you both so much. Up next, there is a major development in the Nolan Wells investigation, reports that the official state autopsy may now be complete. And tonight, the family is taking new steps to try to get answers.

[23:45:00]

Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, is live with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELMORE WONSLEY, FATHER OF NOLAN WELLS: If Nolan was really your best friend, for the people who said that he was their friend, please come forward.

CHRISTINE WONSLEY, MOTHER OF NOLAN WELLS: We are begging, if anyone knows anything, his friends, strangers, please call the hotline because we will not be able to rest until we get answers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The heartbreaking plea from the parents of 18-year-old Nolan Wells, a case that has truly captured the nation's attention, and so many of you watching this show who have been reaching out. They're demanding an update on where this investigation stands. And I hear you, and here is what we know tonight.

[23:49:56]

Twenty-four days since Nolan's body was found along the shoreline of Horn Island in Mississippi, his death still remains under investigation. NBC News reports the state autopsy is officially finished. But the results, they have not yet been made public. This is important, extremely important, because officials are waiting on crucial toxicology tests to try to determine a cause of death. Newly obtained audio by CNN captures the panic on the water that 4th of July weekend.

Listen to this distress call from the exact boat Nolan had been traveling on as those on board scrambled for help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Our bilge pump stopped working. We're sinking. Can you all please come?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It looks like you're on Horn Island, correct? Are you on Horn Island?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yes, we are on Horn Island. Yes.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): All right. Is the boat sinking or you have it aground?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): We were sinking, yes.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is it aground is the question.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): No, we're not aground. We are in --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): -- a 17 foot of water. We're in 31 foot of water.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I want to bring in the attorney representing the family of Nolan Wells, Benjamin Crump. Thank you so much for being here. I desperately want to hear what's happening, and whether you or the Wells family have received an official notification that the state autopsy was completed.

BENJAMIN CRUMP, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: We found out from the media. That's not to say that the district attorney did not attempt to contact us, but we did not hear from them. We found it out from the media as many did today.

COATES: Your team plans to meet with the D.A.'s office, is that right? Do you expect them to hand you the full report or give you any updates and keep you fully in the loop?

CRUMP: Well, I know we're going to meet with them next week. Whether they're going to present the autopsy report to us is unknown. We would hope and pray for transparency. We think that is the key to this whole journey to justice, to find out what happened to Nolan Wells. It's about transparency and getting answers. That's what everybody says they want. So, if we all want answers, we should be able to be transparent with one another. We made our independent autopsy available and very transparent. I would hope that the state of Mississippi would do the same.

COATES: Have officials presented you with even a possible cause of death? Have they given any timeline for when their investigation will even conclude and where they are as we speak?

CRUMP: No, they have not, and we will pose that question next week. But in the meantime, we're going to persist on doing everything we can to dot every I, Laura Coates, and cross every T. I know we're consulting with audio engineering experts. We're consulting with oceanography experts. We are still asking everybody who has a video, photograph, any kind of communications on Snapchat to call the tip line. We're very grateful that so many people have called, and we believe we're starting to get a more clear picture of what happened.

COATES: There's a report that your team has subpoenaed several major tech companies to try to get records of Nolan's social media accounts. Is that accurate? And if true, why do you think that was necessary, to even take that step?

CRUMP: It is true. Our team has subpoenaed many of the social media records of Nolan, phone records. We want to preserve evidence, Laura Coates. You know as an attorney, it's so important to preserve evidence. That is about -- you don't know what is going to be relevant. You don't know what is going to help answer the lingering questions that Christine and Elmore and their family want so desperately. So, we're in a ferocious search for the truth, and we have been unrelenting, and we're going to continue to zealously go after the truth.

COATES: Time is certainly of the essence. I wonder, have you formally asked that the witnesses preserve their digital footprint from that weekend, and would your subpoena apply to those personal devices if they refuse?

CRUMP: You know, we're going to explore every legal remedy to preserve evidence. We would hope, when we present Nolan's phone to the experts with the DA and the FBI's office and our experts, that they would be, you know, transparent and that they would share others who have cell phones, who have social media interaction with Nolan, text messages with Nolan, because you want the truth.

[23:55:03]

If everybody wants it, we should all be sharing information.

COATES: Do you think public scrutiny is silencing witnesses? Are you concerned at all that people want anonymity before they'll come to you?

CRUMP: I can't say that in particular because we've gotten so many calls from the tip line. You know, the reward was offered by, you know, Reverend Al Sharpton, Tyler Perry, Terrell Owens, and then we understand there has been additional award -- reward offered. So, we want to believe that everybody wants answers.

And so, hopefully, because people have been calling, because people have been on social media ad nauseum talking about this matter, we believe it's a good thing that people feel, that people think it's important what they saw, what they heard, what they know. And as Nolan's mother and father said, if you're truly Nolan's friend and the roles were reversed, do what Nolan would do for you.

COATES: Benjamin Crump, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)