Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Blanche, Pirro Drama Reveals DOJ's Trump Loyalty Test; Polls To Open In High-Stakes Michigan Democratic Senate Primary; Miller Faces Calls To End Reelection; Caitlin Clark Breaks Silence On Transgender- Athlete Debate. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 03, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Some quick viewer feedback from CNN.com/abby on Jeanine Pirro. "Seems like Trump isn't very good at hiring people if he just ends up firing them." Another question or comment says, "The question should be, how many more lawyers who have worked all their lives to be where they are are willing to risk their career for a guy who cares nothing about the rule of law?" And then the final one, "I think if he can get immunity from the past with the IRS, I should be able to as well."

It's all we got time for tonight. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Don't forget to stream my show, "Confessions and Obsessions," any time on the CNN app. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the loophole attorney general, how Todd Blanche convinced GOP holdouts to back him with concessions that may not be what they seem. Plus, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro makes the cardinal sin of following the law and not the president. Why her job may now be at risk over the botched reflecting pool case that she dismissed. And later, a choose your own adventure for the Democratic Party in Michigan about to get decided. Which path will voters choose? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, this is the DOJ where terms and conditions may apply, where you've got loophole after loophole, where every rule seems to have a Trump size exception. And no one has more riding on the fine print today, tonight, ever, than Todd Blanche because two documents may have just saved his bid to become the attorney general.

Take a look. One signed by Blanche declares the $1.8 billion weaponization fund dead. The other says the IRS audit protections are limited to Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization, and only apply to past tax claims. Now, this is what two Republican holdouts said they wanted, something in writing that kills the fund and limits Trump's IRS protections.

But here's what any lawyer will tell you. Just because you've got a signature doesn't mean you have rewritten the original signed deal. Todd Blanche, he certainly knows that. But, apparently, it's enough for GOP Senator John Cornyn to give Blanche the green light for confirmation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: We basically got the -- a stake driven through the heart of the weaponization fund. It binds not only him, but also the Department of Justice as a whole. And so, I think -- I think that satisfies my -- my demand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I guess we're going with some sort of vampires right now because if we're running with that undead metaphor, this stake Senator Cornyn is talking about, it wasn't made of wood, maybe like a broken toothpick. But here's why: The IRS settlement that would have created the fund can only be changed with the written agreement of the parties who signed off on it in the first place. You can see that line right here.

That means the government and the plaintiffs, Donald Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization that gets what's missing from Blanche's document. Any written agreement from the Trump side and no Blanche previously being Trump's former personal lawyer, that doesn't count. You don't have to have taken contracts in law school to understand this, guys. OK?

Imagine you enter into a contract with someone, you both agree to the terms, and by the way, they are great for you, so you both sign it, then all of a sudden, the other side says, never mind, there's no contract anymore, no benefits for you. What do you do next? You're going to put your head down and accept it or exactly.

But even if Trump's side is missing, the administration's fingerprints are apparently all over this. Sources tell us the White House was directly involved in Blanche's order to spike the fund. Blanche kept top officials briefed on the key sticking points. So, he wasn't defying Trump to save his own nomination. The White House helped him find a way through, even though Trump denies he personally reviewed the deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't look at it. I understand there has been a sign off. But I didn't -- I don't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanche agreed to reconfirm things that he has already said, and what he said was OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But there's another case where it looks like the White House was left out of the loop.

[23:05:02]

And Trump is furious about it. It actually may cost Jeanine Pirro her job. Sources tell us that Trump is considering firing her as the U.S. attorney in Washington DC. Remember, they're political appointees. And why? Because her office says the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool was damaged by a botched renovation, not vandals with box cutters like Trump claimed. And then she dropped felony charges the DOJ filed against a three-time Olympian. Pirro was at the White House earlier this evening, just a couple hours after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Jeanine Pirro made a mistake. It was vandalism. Frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department. And I guess she choked. I don't know what the hell happened. And I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. She -- she folded like an umbrella.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sources tell us that Trump didn't fire her tonight nor did she offer her resignation. But the message to the DOJ still seems pretty clear, right? Hold the umbrella for the president or you might find yourself left out in the rain.

With me now, Democratic congressman from New York, Dan Goldman. He is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thank you for being here. Obviously, you have seen that the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, he is saying that the anti-weaponization fund is beyond any doubt, his words, dead. But there are a lot of uncertainties around it even still. Is there a version where this fund is not actually dead and maybe just on pause until he is confirmed?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D), NEW YORK: Well, certainly, he can redo it at any time he wants, especially if he's confirmed, and then he's got free reign to do whatever he wants, he can promise the world. And, you know, this is a pattern we've seen with Trump nominees, is they promise the world to the Senate but, very quickly, they renege on those promises and do something entirely different.

This -- quote, unquote -- "agreement" that Blanche reached with senators Cornyn and Tillis is hardly an agreement of any consequence because, certainly, there are other ways of making sure that the cop beaters get paid, if Donald Trump wants to do that, even though those cops who were beaten can barely get disability payments.

And the immunity part of this really doesn't change. It is still complete immunity for Donald Trump and his family for any tax returns or any tax years up to and including this year. And by, you know, some rumblings, there's perhaps as much as a hundred million dollars of taxes that may be owed by Donald Trump.

So, I don't really understand what senators Cornyn and Tillis were holding out for. If this is all it is, this is effectively nothing. And it's disappointing. I have a lot of respect for senators Tillis and Cornyn. I think it's a shame that Donald Trump ran them out of the Senate, and I just don't understand why they would think that this is meaningful in any way. COATES: I do wonder about why -- whether this was all performative, whether it was all the idea of suggesting that they would get something with it being in writing as opposed to doing away with it entirely for the reasons that many have articulated. Why do you think they might be fooling, if they are the American public, to think they've moved a needle here?

GOLDMAN: I have no idea. They're on their way out of the Senate, pushed out, both of them, by Donald Trump. They have absolutely nothing to lose to stand up for what is the right thing. This is not a partisan issue. They have acknowledged and recognized it. The overwhelming majority of American people are disgusted by this slush fund for January 6th cop beaters and seditious conspirators, and they have every good reason to stand up for their principles.

[23:09:45]

It's not that this agreement means anything because the fact that Todd Blanche would have entered into this agreement, and I view the immunity as totally separate and removed from the initial slush fund, it was released under Todd Blanche's signature the day after that agreement was reached and is completely out of the blue, out of nowhere, has nothing to do with anything that the lawsuit that was a sham to begin with or even the agreement.

And the fact that Blanche would do this tells you everything you need to know, which is that this guy is only going to do the bidding of Donald Trump as he has since he was his personal attorney --

COATES: So --

GOLDMAN: -- prior to coming into office, and that should be disqualifying.

COATES: So, what's the recourse in Congress or anywhere else? Is it just waiting for the judges to decide? Is it a messaging fight?

GOLDMAN: Well, look, we all know because we don't even talk about the idea that the Department of Justice might actually investigate the president or other members of the administration for crimes that there appear to be occurring. It's not even something we discuss. It has been normalized so much.

Most departments of justice would actually hold people accountable to the law, even if they were the president. But we know that's not going to happen until 2029. In 2029, if there's a new attorney general, they can throw these agreements, they can throw the slush fund, they can throw the immunity in the garbage. It's not binding on any future Department of Justice.

So, it really is just to paper over and give some kind of excuse or illusion of legitimacy because it was -- quote, unquote -- "associated" with this lawsuit that Donald Trump was on both sides of. So, not much changes in terms of either the immunity or even the slush fund, which can be that money can be provided through other means if they truly want to. The only thing that changes is there's no colorable excuse for them to

do it, but it's not worth the paper it's written on because a new attorney general comes in in 2029 and throws this immunity into the garbage and can certainly investigate him.

COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you so much.

GOLDMAN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: So, now, the question is, is Jeanine Pirro about to find herself in the chopping block? The president met with her at the White House today along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the department that she blames for not giving her enough information before her office indicted through a grand jury a former Olympian. Now, Trump is furious with her for dropping the reflecting pool case. But sources tell us that the meeting ended with no pink slip and no resignation. With everything on the president's plate, you have to keep asking yourself, why is this top of mind?

I want to bring in CNN's political commentator and former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger, also former DOJ prosecutor, Brendan Ballou. Thank you both. I got to start with you, congressman. I'll start with you actually, Brendan, here because, look, it is an injustice to try to pursue a case against someone when you do not have any facts to support even probable cause. That's what Jeanine Pirro said actually happened. There wasn't probable cause to even really indict this person because it turns out it wasn't vandals. It was a botched job by the contractors themselves, she suggested.

But the idea that they would try to prove the case nonetheless, as the president seems to think they could have done, would have been very, very problematic for the attorneys who tried the case and the office's credibility and DOJ more broadly.

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. You know they have specific obligations as prosecutors. As you know, as a lawyer, under the model rules of professional responsibility, Rule 3.8, that they can't be bringing unjust prosecution to those supported without probable cause. So, the situation that you have here is one where the president's interests are coming in direct conflict with his actual lawyer's professional obligations.

And I don't mean that with regards to Jeanine Pirro or the political appointees, but the line level attorneys who are responsible for prosecuting these cases who are actually going to follow these rules. I think what was clear from the filing that you saw is that these attorneys realize that they face serious professional risks if they continued with this case. They were very explicit that, you know, at least in their minds or at least what they were publicly saying, they were not to blame here. It was the Department of Interior that was feeding the bad information that they relied on it.

And so, you know, it might not be terribly surprising that Jeanine Pirro has her job, at least tonight, because no lawyer could bring this sort of case and not face serious professional consequences for doing so. [23:14:59]

COATES: Not the least of which is a judge saying, do you actually have facts to support it? No. OK, then get out of my courtroom.

But, congressman, let's talk about senators Cornyn and Tillis, who appear to be satisfied. I find this mystifying, frankly. But they are satisfied with new assurances by Blanche that this fund is dead and the Trump IRS immunity agreement suddenly satisfies them. You've been questioning their motive. I mean, do you think that they have been conned here? Because I don't really see, as you heard from Congressman Goldman, I don't see a change, particularly with respect to the immunity and the tax issues. Isn't that what Trump wanted, anyway?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, they haven't been conned. They always wanted to get to yes. They always intended to get to yes. They wanted to put up a little bit of a fight.

But here's the thing: In your prior segment, it was like, what do they get out of this because they're not running again? Here's what they get: When they leave office, I mean, every former congressman and senator deals with this, when you leave office, you have to go get a job. And what is that job? Most members of Congress in the Senate want to go lobby. What do you need to be a good lobbyist or a good consultant? You need access. You need access to the people that you work with. Those are other senators, other members of Congress, people in the administration, in the administration, in the cabinet. You need to have access to them.

So, the one thing you don't want to do to hurt your future prospects is to make people mad now. So, you can put up a fight, but you're not actually going to take it to the very end because you'll get kicked out of your tribe and your future job prospects will be harmed. That's why all these people that aren't running again still go along with it, because they're like, well, I can fight, but I can only fight so much, right? I can't shut the system down. I just need something to paper that over. It's that. That's the reason.

And so, yes, no, like Donald Trump and his family is still immune from the IRS. This thing can be thrown out. But they can both go. Tillis and Cornyn can both go and say, I fought, I got it, this worthless piece of paper.

COATES: That is so revealing and sickening at the same time. And I think the reality that many people are watching and wondering, why on earth is there no pride, no shame, no conviction? Well, you actually have the reasons why. But hold on. If you were to go beyond this, congressman, do you think now that everyone who put up a pseudo fight before this on the Republican side is going to actually confirm him when this goes to the fuller body?

KINZINGER: I think there could be one or two surprises, probably people we aren't talking about now. I hope so. I mean, look, the other thing for Cornyn and Tillis is, OK, let's say you even had an agreement to throw this thing out. This is the guy that created the agreement you were so opposed to in the first place.

So, what are his -- what are his natural reactions here? What is his -- what is his thing as attorney general? He is the guy that created this $1.8 billion fund, not to mention about Ghislaine Maxwell and getting her moved to a nice prison, everything with the Epstein files. So, it does appear these two will vote to confirm him. They're kind of on record now. There may be one or two surprises in the Senate. But here's my prediction, Laura. There will magically be just enough votes, just enough votes to confirm him.

COATES: I believe you. Brendan, I know you're working with two former police officers who defended the Capitol in a suit against the anti- weaponization fund. Something tells me your work is not yet done even now. Thank you both for joining me.

Up next, it all comes down to tomorrow. Polls in Michigan just hours away from opening in what will be a defining battle for the future of the Democratic Party. Can Haley Stevens hang on for the establishment or is Abdul El-Sayed about to give the far left the win that they have been dreaming of? Democrats Van Jones and Nina Turner are live to debate it all, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tomorrow, the progressive wave faces its biggest test yet. Can they win in a purple state? Just hours from now, voters in Michigan will decide which Democrat will win the contentious Senate primary. Will it be the insurgent, progressive public health expert Abdul El- Sayed or will it be establishment favorite, Congresswoman Haley Stevens?

In this race, it has become a major draw not just because it will shape the direction of the party, but because it could very well impact Democrats' chances of taking control of the Senate in November.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABDUL EL-SAYED, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: The vision I have for electability is one where you can inspire a movement of people around a set of ideals that allows you then to go out and legislate around those goals. That's what electability means to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HALEY STEVENS (D-MI), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: Whether they're making fun of me or they're just making fun of Michigan, they don't get to think they're better than us, because what I know is I am your voice, and I'm eager to be your voice. The jokes, they just make me want to fight harder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, let's have the debate with two Democrats, CNN senior political commentator Van Jones and former Ohio State senator and co- chair of Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, Nina Turner. Glad to have both of you guys here.

I'll begin with you, Van, because people always talk about the margins in these races. We're going to figure out just by how much one party wins or loses. But let's just have a hypothetical. If El-Sayed were to win in a blowout, what message would that send to the establishment?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it sends the message that, you know, there's a credibility gap between the insurgents and the establishment. I think people are feeling, hey, we've tried it your way for so long and all we've gotten is Trump twice and higher prices, we want to try something else.

[23:24:58]

There's a credibility gap that he would have exposed, but also an innovation gap when it comes to how you campaign. There has been a tradition in Democratic Party. How do you get attention? You go to big donors, you bring in big consultants, and you spend money on big ads. Well, they did $60 million of that in that state. He just went to the people. It turns out that you can use social media and go to the people and disintermediate, to coin a phrase, that entire system.

And so, if it is a blowout, what it says is that there is a credibility gap and an innovation gap that the establishment is paying the price for. That's called democracy.

COATES: Well, Nina, there has been some polling that suggests that Black voters favor Stevens over El-Sayed. This has been a knock on the progressives, frankly, for years. So, tell me, in your view, what do progressives need to do to win them over, knowing how crucial Black voters in Michigan may be in this decision?

NINA TURNER, FORMER OHIO STATE SENATOR, CO-CHAIR OF BERNIE SANDERS'S 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, Black voters are always crucial, Laura. I mean, those polls may or may not be capturing all of the heart and essence of the Black community. I mean, certainly, progressives, just as I would say the mainline Democrats, have co continue to do a better job of not just courting Black voters, not just whispering sweet nothings to Black voters, but actually delivering for Black voters.

I don't think that this is just necessarily a challenge for those who are more on the progressive side. I think this is a challenge with the Democratic Party writ large, especially when it comes to Black men. I mean, we know that Black men certainly did not vote any, you know, much less for Democrats than Black women. But when I was on the ground, both in 2016 and 2020, Black men were feeling very much left behind by the Democratic Party itself.

When it comes to progressivism, I think if we're asking Black voters about the issues, health care, child care, child tax credits, paid family leave, then you get a bigger response from Black voters than if you just float out the word progressive itself.

COATES: That's an important part because, obviously, people are talking about the issues. People are not thinking of themselves, just the title that someone wants to assign them, Van, in terms of where they meet on the spectrum. They care about the issues.

And then there are strategists who will think about the future of who might fare better in the general election because you've got polls that suggest that Stevens would beat the Republican nominee, Mike Rogers, in a general election, and you got Bernie Sanders, a senator, of course, thinking that Republicans would break for El-Sayed. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: The reason, I think, that Dr. El- Sayed will win in Michigan is that if you're a working-class Republican, you know what? You can't afford health care. You know the system is broken. If you're a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you're going to listen to what El-Sayed says, and I think many of them will end up voting for him. Independence as well, of course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sanders endorsed El-Sayed. Van, do you buy what he's saying?

JONES: Look, here's the case on either side of it. The case that Sanders is making is based on the fact that a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump are no longer enthusiastic about Donald Trump, that there is a disaffection with Donald Trump among Republican voters, which could suppress their turnout or could even have them look for different options. I think the more cautious tale, though, is that this is a must-win seat for Democrats. If we mess around and lose Michigan, there is no chance for Democrats to hold the Senate.

And, you know, Haley Stevens is somebody who does have a cross party appeal that has been demonstrated in terms of her ability to flip a red to blue seat and in her ability to legislate and to reach across.

So, I think that the more cautious view is that Haley Stevens is the better shot, but there is an argument to be made that the balloon is coming -- the air is coming out of the balloon for Donald Trump and some of the people who came out for him three times in a row may not come out at all or might even be looking for different options.

COATES: You know, one person who has been on the campaign trail for El-Sayed, Hasan Piker. James Carville says that if the party keeps embracing him, then that's a bridge too far. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I am not going to be in the same party with Hasan Piker. I can tell you that right now. If he becomes a force in a Democratic Party, I'm out of here. I have no intention of ever being in the same political party with that guy. One of us is going to leave. It might even be me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, one, I wonder if you believe that Democratic voters will care if Carville leaves the party, figuratively speaking. Two, Carville says that Piker's views are antisemitic. Piker argues he's anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. But does the party risk this sort of permanent schisms and departures if it continues to embrace him?

TURNER: Laura, we had a problem before this.

[23:30:00]

I mean, that's rich coming from him. Most of the faithful don't, won't, doesn't even know who James Carville is. So, leave. Hit the road, Jack. Don't come back. No more, no more, no more. Who cares whether or not he leaves? And the sense of arrogance that he gets to decide. I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be a big tent party. But according to James Carville, only certain people belong in the Democratic Party, and that is just wrong.

You know, we want to talk about electability and all of that's important going into November, certainly, but the time, the real time to care about that was in 2024. President Donald J. Trump, if mainline Democrats had listened to the voters and the needs and the outcries of the people, he would not have a second tour of duty.

So, those Democrats need to take a look at the men and the women and the people in the mirror and take responsibility for the fact that we do have President Donald J. Trump for the second time and stop blaming of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It's all on them.

COATES: Van, do you have a response?

JONES: Well, look, I do think that James Carville is speaking for a lot of people in the party. He's maybe the most flamboyant in the way he talks about it. But I think people are concerned that some of these ideas from the Democratic socialists of America are nutty and crazy. No police, no prisons, no borders. You can't deport anybody if they rape somebody. I mean, just nut job ideas. I think people are uncomfortable with that. There are characters like Hasan Piker that make a lot of people feel uneasy. And so, I do think that James Carville is speaking in a colorful way for a lot of Democrats that are concerned.

COATES: Real quickly, I know we're out of time, but there has been a lot of conversations about Democrats being a big tent party. But, obviously, we see a lot of infighting when Democratic socialists are brought up or are running. There seems to be the opposite of an embrace. What's your reaction to the fact that there has been such a visceral reaction to Democratic socialists?

TURNER: I mean, I hear Van loudly and clearly, but Democratic socialists winning or their candidates winning some seats does not make for the whole of the Democratic Party. I think what we should be easy on is people who can't afford their mortgages or their rent or people who can't afford childcare.

We should be uneasy that when the Democrats were in power, they did not increase the federal minimum wage, they did not pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, they did not pass the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. Those are the types of things that we should be uneasy about. We should be uneasy about a Pentagon budget and war making machine that continues to get more and more money while almost 500,000 people in the United States of America, the hegemon of the world, are unhoused.

And so, let's have these debates, but for the love of God, not blaming progressives or anybody that says that they are DSA for the failures of mainline Democrats who have been in power the entire time. Was it DSA's fault in 2016? Was it DSA's fault in 2024? I think not.

The people are crying out. I think Van and I would agree at least on this point, is that the people of this country are really crying out for something different and something better. They want people to hear their cries. There's going to be an impact to whether the Democratic Party is going to be the party that will act on behalf of the working- class people of this country.

COATES: Tomorrow, we will see. Van and Nina, thank you so much.

JONES: Amen.

COATES: Up next, Republican Congressman Max Miller defiant amid allegations of domestic abuse, claims he denies even as his father-in- law, Senator Bernie Moreno, urges him to step aside. What about the rest of the Republican Party? Will they speak up? Julie Roginsky live with me on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

COATES: Republican Congressman Max Miller is vowing to stay in his race for re-election. That's despite pressure for him to drop out following the allegations of domestic abuse, allegations he denies. But tonight, Axios is reporting the president himself called Miller to tell him -- quote -- "things aren't looking good."

Axios says that Miller reiterated to President Trump he is not dropping out, but the president did not go as far as calling on Miller to drop out publicly when he was asked about it today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a very sad thing. I know Max. He's a good person. I mean, I always thought he was a very good person. I'm going to let the families figure that out. You know, those families, I know they're working on it. But it's accusations, and I'm going to let them figure that out.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: The allegations against Miller are serious. CNN had previously obtained police recordings where his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, describes instances of physical abuse and intimidation, including one incident where she alleges that Miller held a gun to her head, which he denies.

Moreno is the daughter of Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, who just recently called on Miller to resign. Quote -- "He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter. If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them."

Here's what Miller said in a statement yesterday, denying the allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAX MILLER (R), OHIO: No criminal charge has ever been filed against me. My former wife is engaging in a pattern of reporting incredible, serious, and destructive allegations with absolutely no evidence. I'm not getting out of this race, and I'm winning in November.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky. She's also the author of the Substack column, "Salty Politics."

[23:40:02]

Julie, thank you for being here. I mean, the latest reporting is that Trump told Miller privately that his reelection is not going to be easy. But you heard his comments today where he called Miller a very good person and refused to get involved. What does that tell you?

JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, AUTHOR OF "SALTY POLITICS" ON SUBSTACK, CO-FOUNDER OF LIFT OUR VOICES: Well, it tells me that Donald Trump couldn't care less about women. We've known that all along. We've certainly known that going back to the allegations against him over and over and over again. I think, in fact, he sees these kinds of allegations and automatically gets defensive and disbelieves the women or at least doesn't want to acknowledge that this is something that women should come forward and talk about.

Look, this is not the first time that Max Miller has been alleged to be a domestic abuser. Stephanie Grisham, Donald Trump's former White House press secretary, said that -- publicly said that she told both the first lady and President Trump during the first term that Max Miller had done this to her. She said that they didn't really care. I think that's probably one of the reasons that she ended up severing her ties to them.

Look, how many times does the president need to hear from how many women that this man is not fit for office and that he's an abuser before he starts to take these concerns seriously? And while, of course, this is something that's between Emily Moreno and her ex- husband, it also has to do with who's fit or unfit for office. This is not the first time the president has heard these kinds of allegations. She is not the first woman from whom he has heard those kinds of allegations.

COATES: Now, Miller denies all the allegations of domestic abuse against him from every source. And I want to play one moment from his statement yesterday that has been drawing a lot of criticism. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLER: Only weeks later did the story of February 1st assault appear. So, ask yourself, if I had assaulted her, would she had offered to cook me dinner six days later?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look, I was a prosecutor for domestic violence cases. I think it is so insulting to think that people could assume the behavior of somebody who was victimized. His statement, particularly crass from my prosecutorial experience. But how do you feel about how he has been addressing the allegations?

ROGINSKY: I mean, that made my blood boil probably more than anything else. How many times have we heard stories about women who, for whatever reason, can't leave or are just in no position to leave, particularly if they're mothers, particularly if they share a child with their alleged abuser? How many times have we heard women, for reasons -- one reason or another, stay after being abused, and then something happen, and sometimes don't survive those situations?

You know better than anybody else as a former prosecutor exactly what happens in those kinds of situations. I've never been in that situation myself, but I certainly talked to enough survivors over the course of my non-profit work to know that this is not atypical. So, even if you take him at his word that six days later, she offered to cook him dinner, which is a very weird turn of phrase to begin with also, a little trad wifey there that he's putting her in that position.

Look, you have the Republican senator from the state of Ohio, somebody who has zero interest in seeing a Democrat win the seat, break his silence after many, many, many days, for my opinion, waited a little too long to do that, finally say that he holds his breath when his granddaughter is in the presence of her father. That's still not good enough for the president of the United States, to listen to a senator of his own party, somebody who he supported and continues to support, very strongly politically. Still, this isn't good enough.

I mean, at some point, I think -- look, I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Democrats just went through something similar, although allegations not quite like this, but still very bad allegations in Graham Platner in Maine. You have to stop and just think this should not be a partisan issue. It doesn't matter if somebody has a "D" or an "R" after their name. I said that about Graham Platner months ago and got a lot of trouble -- you know, into a lot of trouble from members of my own party for saying so. But I say this to my Republican friends, my God, look in the mirror. Surely, surely there is somebody other than Max Miller who can run for the seat while there is still time. And surely, even if Max Miller decides to stay here, this is not somebody who's fit to be in office, even if he agrees with you on every political issue you stand for.

There are things in life more important than politics. The safety of women, the safety of children should be chief among them. And for some reason, I don't understand why we're in a world right now where you have Republicans who just can't say that Max Miller needs to go, starting with the president of the United States.

COATES: Julie Roginsky, thank you so much.

ROGINSKY: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, the WNBA becoming ground zero over the debate surrounding transgender athletes.

[23:45:00]

Caitlin Clark now being asked where she stands after her teammate, Sophie Cunningham, sparked a firestorm over her opinion. Jemele Hill is with me live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAITLIN CLARK, INDIANA FEVER GUARD: I think for us, it's like, you know, it's not really a discussion we really have in our locker room. I think it's for leagues and the governing bodies to work with their athletes to find solutions. But our focus is on basketball. That's what we talk about and how we can get wins. And, obviously, we didn't do that tonight. So, you need to find an area to improve in that way.

UNKNOWN: Do you have any, you know, reaction to the --

CLARK: I just answered for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Superstar Caitlin Clark finally addressing the debate over transgender women in sports by, well, not saying much about it at all. And yet again, the WNBA sits at the center of another culture war. This started when Clark's teammate, Sophie Cunningham, came out in support of banning transgender women from female sports.

[23:49:57]

She told ESPN last month -- quote -- "I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn't have to go against biological men."

And in an instant, the GOP had their spokesperson for a hot button midterm issue. Conservatives have celebrated Cunningham's statement and called her an American hero. Even the Department of Ed posted on X -- quote -- "common sense prevails." Now, some WNBA fans have thanked Cunningham for taking that stance and being unapologetic about it. Other fans have protested her position and argued that trans athletes are being used as a scapegoat.

But one thing is clear, conservatives did not like how Clark handled it. Look no farther than Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh. Today, they both called her -- quote -- "coward" for staying neutral.

I want to bring in Jemele Hill, contributing writer to "The Atlantic" and co-host of the "Flagrant and Funny" podcast. It's a good one. Jemele, good to see you. I mean, you actually think Caitlin Clark's response was reasonable. Explain why.

JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: Yes, it was reasonable because if she does not want to be involved and she just wants to focus on basketball, it's her right to do that. I understand that she's the most popular player in the league and that people are looking for somebody who is 23 or 24 years old to be a spokesperson on everything, but I actually have a sincere appreciation for athletes who understand when they're out of their depth and there's things that they don't want to speak about. She's not required to do that.

And the reality to me is it exposes the people, it exposes the hypocrisy of the people who are calling her a coward. It's funny they're putting this pressure on her to say something because wasn't this the same crowd, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, Laura, who also stood firmly behind shut up and dribble or does that only apply to the Black people? Like, let me know.

And now, all of a sudden, that is an issue that they care about which -- by the way, let's just talk about that for a minute. They've won. I don't know what they're still complaining about. Twenty-nine states have banned K through 12 participation by trans girls in sports. It is trans girls and women are no longer allowed to participate in sports in the NCAA. They can't compete at the Olympic level.

What will it take them to leave this community alone? That's what I want to know. What will satisfy you from continuing to demonize and dehumanize a population that is roughly one percent? What's it going to take for you to get off the back of a community where by last count, according to the NCAA president, there are 10 trans athletes who were in college out of 500,000 athletes? What will it take for you to shut up and leave this community alone?

COATES: Don't forget, the Supreme Court also having the backing of the decision of 29 states as well. You mentioned the juxtaposition between the need to hear from Caitlin Clark and the complete horror at the thought of LeBron James speaking up about his views as well as many others.

Laura Ingram was one of the people who did not like the idea of people who didn't just shut up and dribble. And she said this on X: "Speaking out against boys and men playing in women's sports is not at all political. She's defending her livelihood and basic commonsense." What's your reaction to her statements now?

HILL: Well, I would also say it is common sense that unarmed Black people shouldn't be killed by the police. I would think that's not a political issue either that there shouldn't be state-sanctioned violence against Black citizens. But she somehow thought that was a bridge too far and that was asking too much and that was entirely too political.

And so, when Black athletes started to bring attention to racial injustice, which everybody by the way should care about, racism, racism isn't a political issue, it's a right and wrong issue, but when that happened, Laura Ingram told everybody to shut up and dribble.

And I actually have to thank her because I worked on the documentary that LeBron James's executive produced, called "Shut Up and Dribble," I was a narrator and a writer on it, and she gave us the title. So, thank you, Laura Ingraham because you put money in my pocket, and I appreciate that.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: That's like an exponential level of shade. I just love you, Jemele Hill. OK, let's talk about Caitlin Clark, though. Caitlin Clark has been and has seen the backlash against her teammate, Sophie Cunningham. Cunningham was also just speaking her mind. Is the backlash against her affair?

HILL: Listen, even if I don't agree with what an athlete has to say, I don't ever champion them having to be quiet or not allowed to express their beliefs. Whether I believe with them or not, I'm consistent in that way. But if you put them out there, they deserve to be critiqued and challenged.

My issue with Sophie Cunningham is that she has recently become one of the most popular athletes in the WNBA. She's got a huge platform. She's got a podcast. She is suddenly now the darling of the right-wing community. She uses that platform to punch down on a group of people who are just struggling to exist, and I find that to be despicable.

[23:55:04]

Listen, she could say that I'm just doing this out of love or I'm doing this to protect girls and women, but her language is very telling and it's very obvious. She wanted to make sure that she left you with the most stark and demonizing image possible. Young, defenseless girls. Big, hulking men in the locker rooms taking advantage of women in sports.

And she should know as a female athlete. I would love to hear her thoughts on whether or not in her career, did she think it was trans women that were holding her back or did she think it was funding, lack of opportunity and investment? Because I would guess it was those things and not anything to do with trans girls or women.

And considering, by the way, that she has been able to gain this popularity and this platform, to me, it's just really shameful that she hasn't used it more responsibly. I get it, it's her 15 minutes of fame, she's trying to extend it to 20, but your words have real consequences. There are people out there, trans people, who are losing their lives, who are being demonized at every corner in this society. That to me is something -- if it sits right with her, if you like it, I love it. It doesn't sit right with me.

COATES: Jemele Hill, thank you for sitting here with me. And thank you all as well. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is coming up, next. He sits down with legendary actor, Tom Selleck, in a wide-ranging interview that includes a question about his views on President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)