Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Three Different Trump Officials, Three Different Loyalty Tests; Democrats Hope to Pull Off Upset Win in Kansas Senate Race; Nolan Wells Investigation Continues. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 06, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The new episode airs Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific on CNN. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, three different Trump officials, three different loyalty tests. Someone who knows the president and quite a few of those officials, Geraldo Rivera, is my guest tonight. Plus, did Democrats have a fighting chance to flip a Kansas Senate seat for the first time in nearly a century? Well, the nominee says yes, and he's here to tell me why. And charges connected to the Nolan Wells investigation, but not for what happened to Nolan Wells. We'll explain. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

On my opening statement tonight, there's the job you were hired to do, and then there's a job President Trump expects you to do. And when those two do not line up, they can put you in a hell of a bind. Tonight, three top Trump officials are facing different versions of that same rock and a hard place squeeze.

We'll start with loyalty test number one, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Now, her office now has to decide whether to pursue charges against Dr. Anthony Fauci. Why, you ask? Because a GOP-led Senate panel voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

And here's the wrinkle. Republicans said, no, we don't need a full Senate vote on this. Senator Rand Paul sent the referral straight to the Department of Justice which, by the way, raises all kinds of questions about whether any prosecution is even legally viable.

And remember, this is just days, days after Pirro dropped the felony case against three-time Olympian David Hearn. Her own office undercut Trump's vandalism narrative, saying the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool damage was actually, actually from a botched installation.

So, now, Pirro faces another test, pursue a case against one of Trump's biggest political enemies, perceived, even if it's legally questionable, or risk telling the president no, again, even though he was very clear that he was furious with her over the pool case.

And there's very little mystery about what Trump wants. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, you know, they prosecuted Peter Navarro, and they prosecuted Steve Bannon, two very decent people over something that essentially was never prosecuted before, and there are sorts of telltale signs of similarity. So, when you see that happen, you sort of say, maybe he should. What he did is far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You think so? Well, it brings us to loyalty test number two, Todd Blanche. His nomination to be the attorney general looks like it may actually be back in danger. This pendulum shift will give you whiplash. Why? Because Republican senators Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski, well, they are staying mum on where they stand. Blanche, you know, can only lose two GOP votes in the full Senate. Senator Susan Collins has already said she's a no. So, here we are again.

Now, this could all be part of the Capitol Hill theater that we're all so keenly familiar with or it could be a push to get Blanche to make new pledges to earn the votes he needs, little Senate leverage, and that's where his own loyalty test comes into play. What happens if what those senators want to hear isn't what Trump wants him to say and the president isn't exactly staying out of it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I will lobby if I need to. I will lobby very, very diligently because he's outstanding. Anybody voting against him would be doing a great disservice to the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And finally, loyalty test number three, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. CNN is reporting that Trump has been fuming about reports of dwindling U.S. munitions because he believes they may weaken his hand in negotiations with Iran. Now, officials say that Trump's anger isn't directed at Hegseth and the president says he's extremely happy with the job he is doing.

[23:04:58]

One source tells CNN, this is all about the leakers, and Hegseth knows the president takes that seriously because he has made going after leakers a priority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The Department of War and the Department of Justice have created a joint task force to identify and prosecute leakers.

Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president's agenda.

I don't have time for leakers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, here is Hegseth's real test: When the Pentagon has a munitions problem, what gets the priority? Dealing with the reported shortage or the people telling you about it?

My first guest is someone who doesn't just observe these power dynamics, he has lived them. He knows most of the players in Trump's orbit, well, frankly, better than anyone else, almost anyone else. Here with me now, former Fox News host, Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo, good to see you. I mean, look, you --

GERALDO RIVERA, JOURNALIST, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, Laura.

COATES: Hi. You and Jeanine Pirro, you go way back. How do you think she'll handle the Dr. Fauci contempt referral?

RIVERA: It's a great question. I've known Judge Jeanine since the 1990s, Laura. I've always known her to be an honorable and professional person. I think that her competence and her loyalty to the Constitution was in full view when she dropped that lame reflecting pool case, that travesty of a case, when she dumped that despite the president's wrath. That's the true Jeanine.

Now, it's ironic that she's going to catch Tony Fauci, Anthony Fauci, Dr. Fauci. This referral will go right to her, and this will be another test coming right after she was in every way attacked by the president saying that she folded like an umbrella and really other things even more pejorative than that. He was extremely critical of her.

COATES: But that's the thing, Geraldo. Will she -- I don't want to cut you off, but will she pass Trump's test or the Constitution test? Because I will say, Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're entitled to take the Fifth, I mean, to plead the Fifth. The issue about having a preemptive pardon is what might muddy the waters and there are viable questions to be answered. But which test will she pass?

RIVERA: Well, I hope it will be the constitutional test. It will be a challenge. However, the animosity toward Dr. Fauci is immeasurable. They hate him. The Republicans hate Fauci. He's the symbol of everything that the GOP detests. There's tremendous pressure on the U.S. attorney, Judge Jeanine, to ignore the pardon, to insist that he testify.

You know, it is, to me, bizarre that you have a situation where all of these -- the only thing I want to know from Anthony Fauci is where the virus started and who is responsible for the leak that cost millions of lives. That's what I want to know. He's pleading the Fifth Amendment as he has every right to do, and I think that it will be a test of whether or not the pardon, the Fifth Amendment, can protect him going forward.

As this referral goes to Judge Jeanine, she has to make a real decision as to whether or not -- this situation, he pled the Fifth a hundred times, over a hundred times. Donald Trump pled the Fifth 440 times when he was being questioned by Letitia James, the attorney general in New York State. You are allowed to plead the Fifth --

COATES: Yes.

RIVERA: -- even if you are pardoned. Why? Because you could still be prosecuted in state court. There are still other actions that could be taken against you. You can plead the Fifth. You can say --

COATES: Right.

RIVERA: -- I will not be forced to testify. And those comparisons to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are absolutely bogus. Neither of them pled the Fifth. Both of them wanted to go to jail for a political statement. Their argument to stay out of jail was -- and they knew, weak and collapsed. They wanted to be martyrs to their cause because -- and they did four months each.

COATES: What's fascinating about the way you describe your --

RIVERA: This is not the situation --

COATES: This are the distinctions you're making. And you're right, there is still exposure at the state level.

[23:09:28]

Obviously, a presidential pardon is only federal and the protections ended at the day their pardon was issued, not for statements going forward. So, certainly, there is a viable fear given that Senator Rand Paul, as Fauci believes, has it out for him for criminal prosecution.

But I want to turn to Jeanine Piero's boss, I'm talking about Todd Blanche, because he obviously wants to not be the acting, he wants to be the attorney general. If Trump has to swoop in to save his nomination, does he enter the DOJ looking like an independent attorney general or someone who would be indebted to the president in a way that he serves only one master, not the people?

RIVERA: I am tempted to say that Todd is toast. I don't know -- I don't know him, by the way. He was not part of the Fox News team when I was -- when I was there. But he has a very tough road to hoe. All he needs is to lose one more Republican, and he will absolutely go back.

I advise the president through the television that what he should do with Blanche is withdraw that nomination, keep him as acting attorney general because he can stay as acting attorney general for the rest of the president's term in office. So, I think that he's going to be -- I don't want to project, but it would not surprise me if his nomination was -- fell to the resistance --

COATES: Well, we will see.

RIVERA: -- because they're trying to link him with so many things.

COATES: And he doesn't do himself that many favors in trying to distance those links, and yet he believes he is still viable. And today, speaking to you, he indeed is. Whether it will go there, we don't know.

But let's just talk about how sources are telling CNN the president, I mean, is furious over the leaks about the depleted munitions. He wants to grab the people who have made the information public, though he did appear to confirm today that some stockpiles are tight. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have certain types of munitions that are very powerful, that we have unlimited -- virtual unlimited supply. We have others where it's a little bit tighter, and we're getting them in on a daily basis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: From what you know about the president, do you anticipate a crackdown on whistleblowers or reporters even more so than we've already seen, frankly?

RIVERA: I don't -- I think that he will make a lot of noise, and then there will be a press conference and he'll say some nasty things. But I understand. The frustration is this was supposed to be a six-day war. Then it became a six-week war. Now, it's a six-month war. So, we've shot over a thousand Patriot missiles, $6 billion-plus worth of Patriot missiles. They're precise defensive weapons. We are exhausting the stockpile, according to most sources. Now, the president is angry because someone told the truth about that, apparently. Then he confirmed that it was true.

I think that the biggest story is the challenges. We should talk about the challenges of asymmetric warfare. I mean, we are a superpower. We're going after Iran, a medium power. It reminds me of my time in Afghanistan and Iraq where a million-dollar tank would be taken out by a hundred-dollar IED. So, we are really frustrated that we're spending all this money when our enemy is spending chump change, relatively speaking, and therefore can probably sustain this war effort for a very uncomfortable length of time.

And Pete Hegseth, it seems to be -- I don't know. I don't want to judge his performance in office. Some things I like and other things I don't like.

But the frustration over leaks goes way back to the Pentagon papers, way before there was cable news. You know, in the early 70s, they were worried about leaks. It is the tension of press people, reporters, being in that very high-pressure, high-security place. All they need is a whisper, a phone call. They're running short of patriots. It starts a huge, you know, kind of a landslide. I understand their frustration. On the other hand, the press has to do the job they do.

COATES: That tension is there, in part, frankly, of democracy. Geraldo Rivera, thank you so much for joining.

RIVERA: Thank you, Laura. Thank you. COATES: Next, we've got some breaking news, a big loss by a Trump- backed candidate in Tennessee. What does it mean for the power of the president's endorsement?

[23:15:00]

Plus, Democrats look to take a Senate seat in ruby-red Kansas as a Republican incumbent attacks his challenger as a -- quote -- "woke pastor." The Democratic nominee, Reverend Adam Hamilton, joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: This week, attorney general nominee Todd Blanche agreed to rescind the so-called anti-weaponization fund as he works to shore up support for his confirmation. But the legal challenges to the controversial fund, well, they're not going anywhere. Tonight, for the first time, a new lawsuit is specifically targeting the IRS immunity portion of the deal that protects the president, his sons, and the Trump Organization.

[23:19:50]

The union that represents career IRS workers argues that -- quote -- "breathtaking corrupt deal" forces career civil servants to fall in line for the president or obey the law, and say the Trumps are getting -- to say they're getting a lucrative perk, one that violates the Constitution.

I want to bring in former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Ashley Etienne, former communications director for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, John Hart, and former U.S. attorney, Harry Litman. Of course, I could expand on all of your resumes there, but we'll focus on that for now. Harry, does a federal union have standing to end this settlement agreement or is this a symbolic protest that a judge might look at and dismiss?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: You put your finger on exactly the question, Laura, and not only at the district court, but what's going to come to the Fourth Circuit. The order is unconstitutional, unlawful, six ways from Sunday, but is there a plaintiff who can challenge it? That has always been the question.

Brinkema found already that a plaintiff could challenge. And now, there's a new challenge. And their idea of why they're injured is, if we have to quash audits that we should be doing, that makes us violate our oath. It's a creative theory. I think, in general, standing in this lawsuit is going to be tricky, especially at the Court of Appeals.

COATES: And they might think down the line if they don't. And there's a new attorney general who might look at what they've done and say, that was wrong. I wonder if they feel they might have exposure legally. I want to turn to you, John, because there was a CNN poll last week that found that 64 percent of Americans think that the president -- quote "has gone too far" in pursuing his personal business interests while serving as president. Describe the political liability then that you might see about the ongoing nature of this IRS immunity because it might be low-hanging fruit, obviously, for anyone who wants to say, look, look what he's doing.

JOHN HART, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, SEN. TOM COBURN: Well, look, I think what the American people care about more than anything is the cost of living. And we've seen all over the country this new trend of socialists winning races. And so, the argument I make to my Republican friends is we're not going to beat socialists by becoming socialists.

So, what the Republican Party has done is we've started to buy up private stocks and companies. We had zero a few years ago. Now, we have 30 companies where the government has bought shares. And there's not enough outrage about that.

And so, what the president needs to do is focus on the things he did in his first term: Lower taxes, less regulation, reduce the size and scope of government. DOGE could have done that. DOGE, you know, fell way short. We were pretty successful in the Coburn era. We cut a trillion dollars over 15 years.

So, I think what the American people want the president to do and what elected officials to do is shift, you know, dollars and decisions back to local communities and focus on their interests and not the interests of politicians in Washington.

COATES: But they remember, I mean, I remember, in his first term, his first campaign, he talked about people, I'm paraphrasing, taxes are stupid, right? And the backlash politically was, you know, there are two things that are certain, death and taxes, and everyone got to pay it. And come April, people are trying to figure out whether they owe the government or they're going to get anything back. It's normally the former. The idea that people are concerned about just the imbalance and the inequity of they've got to pay taxes, they've got to have audits sometimes, why not him and his family?

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the whole thing is this reek of corruption. I mean, you're sort of trying to protect yourself, to me, in the interest of having committed some level of crime. I mean, you know, why would you need protections if you are operating above board? And why would your children need protections? I mean, we just saw in the last hour where they were talking about, you know, the Trump sons doing deals upwards of $3 billion, each one of them.

I mean, this whole thing, sort of, you know, Trump promising the American people that he was going to drain the swamp. And now, he has become the swamp, he has deepened the swamp, and to the degree which -- I think most Americans are just baffled at the degree of corruption that has just overtaken this White House and now has spread throughout the entire government, from the DOJ to now the IRS.

So, really, that's what this boils down to, is corruption. And I will say, the one thing that Democrats are getting right from the Senate to the House is they're going to focus their November midterm messaging on this issue of corruption and highlighting the fact that this is by far the most corrupt president in American history. So, they're going to contrast that with his focus on the American people. He's more interested in his own -- his own fiduciary interests, protecting his hide versus, you know, lowering costs and addressing the high costs of gasoline right now.

COATES: And yet, they have made that argument previously, and he was reelected.

[23:24:58]

I think that's one of the issues I think people are looking at to figure out whether the message can be solely that or it has to be expansive. And yet, I want you to address this point, but Harry, the administration, they unveiled two new executive orders that seek to narrow birthright citizenship.

And for those of you at home who are wondering, I thought this was solved, is this like a deja vu because the Supreme Court ruled? You are correct, but it's back again, an executive order form, and it includes the future children of -- quote -- "foreign diplomatic staff, alien enemies, people who belong to a federally-declared terrorist group, mothers who deceptively enter the U.S. to have a child, and those born in U.S. territories like, apparently, Puerto RICO."

But all actually require an act of Congress. Do these executive orders carry any real weight, especially given the fact that the Supreme Court, although they entertained this for months in terms of deliberating on this issue, they already block the effort to limit birthright citizenship?

LITMAN: Well, the first one does exactly that, and it is going down. What they've tried to do here, they've -- Trump and Stephen Miller have announced that they agree with Justice Thomas's lone opinion of what it means. The Supreme Court said, you're born here and you're subject to the laws. That's it. You're a citizen. Foreign diplomats, as some of us know, they get parking tickets, they can rip them up.

But do alien enemies or supposed terrorists or people who come here to have children, are they subject to the laws of the United States? You bet they are, and that means these flies in the face of the Constitution.

The other one is a little bit trickier. It just says you should do these things to try to keep birthright tourists, as they call them, from coming in. That may or may not go down, depending on how it's interpreted. But this first one just completely flies in the teeth of the Supreme Court order. It will not stand.

COATES: And yet there also are laws that protect against so-called birth tourism and disincentivize. I want to turn to John and Ashley on this because Trump-backed congressman, Andy Ogles, just lost the Republican primary to Charlie Hatcher, and it was a seven-point margin. How big of a black eye is that for the president? Because he -- the endorsement was there and we are always looking to figure out the true power, even in an entering of a lame-duck period of his administration, the power and the hold that Trump would have on Republicans and how Democrats could use that to their advantage. Is this a notable defeat that you think will cause that black eye?

HART: I think it's a blemish, not a black eye. I think it's a mistake to overinterpret what happened. There were some unique factors in that race. There was a redistricting. There was a very popular former ag commissioner. It was a more rural district. So, I think all politics is local, and I think there are a lot of local dynamics. But nationally, it's not a good sign for the president to have this loss at this point.

Andy Ogles was known as someone who was very kind of on the MAGA vanguard. He said things like pluralism is a lie when our founders said, no, actually, our country is based on this idea of pluralism.

And there's a debate on the right about -- you know, there's an identity politics on the right problem where, you know, the question is, are we Americans because we're endowed by our creator for certain rights or are we more American if we've been here longer? And on the right, we have to reject that blood and soil nationalism argument because that's what this country was founded to reject.

So, I think those are the bigger issues at stake, I think, in the Republican Party. Andy Ogles represented kind of that blood and soil nationalistic position, and I think that's part of the reason he perhaps lost.

COATES: Is there a comparable sort of identity crisis among Democrats going into November that they have to solve in order to secure not a rebirth but a reclamation?

ETIENNE: Well, I mean, we were just talking about this in the green room. I think the sort of DSA candidates and sort of the El-Sayed, you know, sort of DSA-connected candidates, are really representing an existential threat to the Democratic establishment.

The Republican Party has gone through three transformations in the 20 years I've been in politics. So, from the Tea Party to the Freedom Caucus to now the MAGA movement, and with each one of those, they've tactically and strategically gotten stronger. They've expanded their base of support. They've won more seats than we have.

The Democratic Party has not confronted what's in front of it, and that is it's not speaking yet to where the American people are. There's a sort of shift happening beneath our feet that I just think that we're ignoring in the interest of being safe and protecting the institution and many of its dated leaders.

COATES: Really important and insightful. Harry, Ashley, thank you so much.

[23:30:00]

John as well. Stick around. Remember, you are a part of this show. We want to hear from all of you. Text us your questions and your comments at 818-972-7272. We'll answer them later in the hour. Give me your first name, your city or state. I like to know who I'm talking to.

Ahead, Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate in nearly a century, but Democratic nominee and pastor, Reverend Adam Hamilton, thinks he can change that. He'll join me, next. Plus, there are new charges tied to the Nolan Wells investigation over threats made to a judge and a witness. What does it mean for the case and the investigation about what happened to Nolan? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Democrats are feeling lucky this midterm cycle, and they're rolling the dice on a Senate prize more elusive than Texas or Maine. They want Kansas. You know it has been 94 years since a Democrat won a Senate seat there? It was this guy, George McGill, in 1932. And the Senate seat opened this year? Well, that has been in GOP hands since 1919. Yes, that's the longest either party has held on to one Senate seat.

So, Democrats are putting their faith in a man of faith, Reverend Adam Hamilton. He beat a crowded field in this week's primary to challenge incumbent, Roger Marshall. And while this is still a long shot race, there are some glimmers of hope for Democrats. Hamilton built his Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City into a 22,000-member strong sanctuary. He has a national following. And he can raise money, more than $3.6 million in just the first two months of his campaign. It's why some election forecasters believe the Democrats may have an opening to make this race competitive.

With me now, Reverend Adam Hamilton. Good to see you again, reverend. A lot has happened since last we met. You describe your congregation as split, roughly 50-50, Democrat and Republican. Tell me, what are you hearing in the pews that led you to even make this run?

REV. ADAM HAMILTON, KANSAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think there's a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who feel frustrated by what's happening in Washington, D.C. They're tired of the hyperpolarization, the efforts of politicians to divide us. But they're also tired of the costs of goods going up. They know that there are people who are struggling in our community here in Kansas City, across the state of Kansas. They recognize decisions are being made in Washington that are actually hurting people here in Kansas. And so, there's a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who are saying we have to do better than what we're doing right now.

COATES: The kitchen table remains the center of many people's world. And your opponent, Senator Roger Marshall, has made this more of a cultural moment as well. He says that you are -- quote -- "too woke" for Kansas and called you a woke mega-church pastor. What's your response?

HAMILTON: Well, I find that interesting. I guess if you're far to the right, then being in the center seems woke. But I'll tell you, I just am curious, you know, when is it that caring for people, loving your neighbor, doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, doing justice and loving kindness, when did that become a bad thing? And I'm wondering how it is that our sitting senator has so lost his way that he thinks that seems somehow abnormal or not OK.

And part of what I'd say is, if he spent more time in Kansas, listening to people in Kansas, he might understand that those are Kansas values. That isn't somehow out of the norm. That's who we are as Kansans. And I think that's who we are as Americans at our best, is we care about our neighbor.

COATES: You know, you have described yourself as an independent- minded Democrat. You have voted as a Republican before. You've even contemplated running as an independent. You're still, you know, beholden, in many respects, or pigeonholed, depending upon the label someone wants to assign you, right? Republicans say you're too far left. Some Democrats say you're not Democratic enough. So, where exactly in this landscape, when it seems that the Democratic Party is trying to find its identity under this big tent, where exactly do you fit in this party?

HAMILTON: Yes. Well, I'd say, first of all, I am an independent- minded Democrat. I am somebody who cares deeply about the values of the Democratic Party, but I also understand where Republicans are coming from. I've been a pastor to thousands of Republicans over the last 36 years. So, I understand them, I love them, I care about the things they care about, and I care about the things Democrats care about.

I think where I stand is in that place in the middle where I'm trying to both champion the things that Democrats really care about because I care about them and to say we can't just dismiss Republicans.

You know, what's been happening in Washington is we end up looking at the other party and we demonizes the other party. That doesn't work. It doesn't serve anybody well. Democrats need good Republicans. Good Republicans need great Democrats. We need to be working together to solve problems like immigration, health care, to bring costs down, but that's not happening today.

COATES: One of the irritants of people who are running for office is that you're often not able to just focus on your specific race. People want you to answer for those who are running who might be left of you in other races, and there are several Democrats running for Congress who are further left than you on the spectrum. Are there issues where you think the left wing of your party has gone too far in such a way that it might impact your chances in Kansas?

HAMILTON: Well, here's what I remind people of in Kansas, is I'm running for the people of Kansas. I'm not running on a national Democratic agenda. And I will say this, that there are people further to the left, but that's true in everything. I think about Republicans. There are people who are way farther to the right.

[23:40:00]

Most Republicans I know say, hey, that's not me, I'm actually more towards the center. I'm asking this question. I'm not really that concerned about what a Democrat somewhere else is interested in. I'm really interested in the needs of the people of Kansas.

People have asked me this question: If, say, Chuck Schumer, the national Democratic Party, said you have to do this, what would you do? And my answer is, if it's good for Kansas, I'll do it. But if it's not good for Kansas, I'm not going to vote for it. I'm not going to support it. My primary concern is the people of Kansas, and I want to vote for them.

COATES: And yet, as a sitting senator, they are often called upon to support the party, to move the entire nation in the direction that the party would like to go as well. How will you deal with the pressure to not only be thinking about people in Kansas but, as a senator, you represent really people all across the nation?

HAMILTON: Sure. Well, I am going to be interested in what's good for our country as a whole. That really does matter to me a lot. Every senator is elected not only for their state, but to be concerned for the entire United States. We're voting on issues that affect everybody. So, I take that very seriously.

And at the same time, you know, again, I want to say, my primary concern is asking, is this going to be good for the people of Kansas? I've had people say, well, you know, if you don't vote along with the party, they're going to not give you good seats or whatever. And I'm like, you know what? I'm pretty sure if I'm the first Democrat elected from Kansas in 94 years, they're going to go, hey, we better be paying attention.

And Kansas is the heart of America. I mean, Kansas is literally almost the geographic center of our country. And our politics are very centrist as well.

COATES: There's domestic, and then there's foreign policy. And Democrats are grappling with America's relationship with Israel. And some, like Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, believe it is time to end unconditional military aid to Israel. Listen, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Are you opposed to all funding for Israel, period, military funding?

ABDUL EL-SAYED, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm opposed to unconditional military aid for any country. That is Israel, yes, but that's also Egypt where my family immigrated from, that's Pakistan, that's Saudi Arabia, that's UAE. And that's not because of a focus on what's happening anywhere except for a focus on what's happening here.

COLLINS: Some people might hear that and say, well, does he support, you know, funding defensive systems like the Iron Dome in Israel? Do you?

EL-SAYED: I don't believe that there's really a difference between offensive or defensive weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Would you support limiting military aid to Israel? Do you see a difference between offensive and defensive?

HAMILTON: Well, first, I've been to Israel many times, Israel and Palestine. I care deeply for Israel. I care deeply for the Palestinian people. They matter a lot to me. And what has happened over the last year and a half is, you know, what happened to the Israelis and to Israel on October 7th was egregious. And what has happened in the death of 50, 60, 70,000 Palestinians, many of them women and children, is a horrible atrocity. These two things are both equally -- not equally. I'm just going to say they're -- I can look at both those things and say both of those things are wrong.

Here's what I'd say. Israel is our ally. Just like we would with any other ally, we're going to support our allies, we're going to care for them. If they're attacked, we're going to stand with them. We are going to do that. At the same time, I would not want my tax money going to weapons that are being dropped on women and children in Gaza.

And so, for me, I hold these two things together. Israel is our ally. We're going to stand by them, we're going to defend them. At the same time, I do not -- and I look at Israel right now, we're providing a great deal of aid to Israel, $3.8 billion. What I've heard is the government there saying, we're not sure we need America's aid anymore.

And I think they're a very wealthy country. They're a very small country, but a very wealthy country. They matter a lot to me. And I think they're probably on the right track. They may not need that aid anymore.

And so -- but I do, I am going to stand with Israel if they were attacked. They are our ally. I'm going to stand with them. But I also stand with the Palestinian people. So, I stand with both.

COATES: It will be quite the needle to thread, policy-wise. Thank you, Reverend Adam Hamilton. Nice to speak with you.

HAMILTON: It's really great. Thank you. Great to speak with you.

COATES: Next, it has been a month of many questions and few answers about what happened to Nolan Wells. But now, three people have been charged over threats tied to the investigation. We'll explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Three people were just charged in connection with the Nolan Wells case but not for any reason having to do with his unexplained death. The charges were instead for violent threats that were made towards officials, a witness, and a judge tied to the investigation. The three people charged are from different states and do not appear to know Wells or his family or anyone involved in the case.

And the allegations are pretty scary. We're told that one Illinois man allegedly called a witness and threatened to kill them and their family. Another woman from Ohio allegedly called in bomb threats 21 times to a county clerk's office. And a local judge says she received a threatening Facebook message that a bomb will be mailed to her office. That judge's son was with Wells the day he was last seen alive. She has insisted her family has never tried to impede the investigation and that her son is fully cooperating with authorities. All these threats come amid growing speculation over the circumstances of Wells's death and a lack of trust in the investigation.

Joining me now is trial attorney and legal analyst Monique Pressley, also the host of "The Monique Pressley Show" on YouTube. Monique, it is so good to see you here. I mean, what do you think is fueling these threats? And there is an obvious lack of trust in the transparency of the investigation.

[23:50:00]

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY, LEGAL ANALYST: There's definitely a lack of trust. I don't think that the lack of trust itself is new, though, Laura. I think that we've seen not just in southern states but we've seen throughout the United States, the numbers show, the data reflects, that there is a lack of transparency and a lack of willingness to push to the edge to solve murders when it involves black bodies. We, for good reason, therefore, don't trust that the investigations will be handled right, don't trust that DAs will bring charges. That's not new.

But in this information age, in this internet age, where everyone can become an investigator, everyone is a pathologist, everyone is an expert witness detector, what we've got really is mania, right? We've got an information technology age gone wild, and that the internet and the things that people are saying, the unsubstantiated claims, the unverified rumor mill is taking charge.

And when that happens, dangerous people, people who believe everything that they see or that they read, whether it's factual or not, then we end up appealing to the worst elements in our society instead of the best. And so, I blame first the lack of transparency, frankly, from the sheriff's department.

COATES: Let's talk about that because you've made some very poignant points about the anonymity of people who are seizing on this family's pain. I've talked to his mother about the internet gone wild and how they have really just devastated this family even further. But they have also -- the family has made repeated calls for a fully transparent investigation. We've yet to get a major update from the investigators in this case or the D.A.'s office, and we're still waiting for results from the official autopsy. Is the silence from those investigators showing more distrust or should you view that as prudent pause?

(LAUGHTER)

PRESSLEY: It's probably both. I mean, you and I both spent years in government and understand that there are things that can't be said when there are pending investigations, especially criminal investigations, because you don't want to threaten the investigation itself by putting information out beforehand when the investigation is active, when witnesses can end up in danger, like what we're talking about tonight. So, there are reasons why government actors, why a sheriff's department or a district attorney's office would not share everything --

COATES: But?

PRESSLEY: -- but that doesn't mean you don't share anything. We've watched with missing person case after missing person case where, frankly, the person was not Black or brown, where you end up getting day after day of updates and press conferences, and those things at least put the public somewhat at ease and give them confidence that something is being done.

Even if all you step in front of a microphone and say, we're interviewing more witnesses, here's what we have, somebody, if you hear anything, report it, that, I think, would aid in comforting the public.

COATES: And the family. Monique Pressley, thank you so much.

PRESSLEY: Thank you.

COATES: Coming up, it's your turn to ask the questions. Text me, 818- 972-7272. We're going back to the panel. We'll go to deep dive to get your answers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We have been getting tons of questions from you guys all night long. We're going to do something a little bit different tonight. Instead of taking through as many as we can, I want to spend more time on one that seems to be very pressing for so many of you and go a little deeper.

Ashley Etienne and John Hart are back with me now. This question came in from Stacy from New Jersey, and she asks, I believe Dr. Fauci saved millions. Why is this even an issue? So many people want to know about what's going on right now. Any insight you can give us to why him, why now, why? Who wants to go? HART: Yes, people are so frustrated with Fauci because he had an opportunity to really have discussion about the response to COVID, and he pleaded the Fifth 111 times. Now, look, I think what we need, Laura, is we need a truth and reconciliation commission on COVID, on that whole response, because what we've gotten are partisan hearings that haven't been as productive and haven't really brought these issues to light.

But at the beginning of COVID, people were censored for asking basic questions about the origin of the virus. They had their social media accounts taken down. We had the COVID lockdown that went on far too long compared to other European countries. And so, people feel like their voices weren't heard. And so, when you have Fauci pleading the Fifth 111 times, he was pouring salt in the wound of all of those millions of Americans who had legitimate questions about the government's response.

(CROSSTALK)

We haven't really had that conversation. And that's what -- an issue that's important. If we're going to have another -- imagine having another pandemic.

ETIENNE: Which can happen, yes.

HART: And have we learned -- have we learned from it? We haven't had that reflective conversation as a country.

COATES: What do you think, Ashley?

ETIENNE: No. I think that's absolutely right. I think we do need a commission, not to look just backwards, but to look forward, to make sure that we're prepared if this were to ever happen again, to save lives, to give shots in arms. I mean, all of those things.

I was in the White House in the midst of all of these, where there was no infrastructure in place to get not just shots in arms, but to get the economy running back again.

So, I think that, you know, our country should be demanding that Congress come together in a very bipartisan way, get experts, not just Fauci, at the table, and let's discuss how do we, you know, prevent this from happening again. If it were to happen, how do we move through it? But here's the way I see --

COATES: Is Fauci being scapegoated? If there is a need for a commission, that means more than one person would have to be questioned and be the person who is responsible.

ETIENNE: Oh, absolutely. I think he is being scapegoated.

[00:00:00]

I think what they're really trying to do is to relitigate and really change the dominant narrative about the sort of most consequential and controversial things that have happened under Trump's watch and during his tenure. We saw that happening with January 6th. We saw that with Trump's interference in the 2020 election. Now, we're seeing it right now with COVID.

But here's my point. This is an opportunity cost for the country. These are very serious times. The FBI right now is investigating whether or not Iran is initiating a cyberattack on seven states. This is what the Homeland Security Committee should be focused on, not on Fauci.

COATES: Ashley, John, thank you both so much. Thank you for your questions, Stacy. And hey, thanks for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is up next.