Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Democrats "Woke 1" Era Haunting And Fueling New Crop Of Candidates; Trump Tries To Upend The Childhood Vaccine Schedule; Tupac Shakur Murder Trial Begins Nearly 30 Years After His Death. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired August 10, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: And then finally, we have one more note here. Ms. Egbewole must have nerves of steel. From home all the hand gesturing on either side of her look like they might take out an eye.
NIALL STANAGE, WHITE HOUSE COLUMNIST, "THE HILL": So it's Irish excitement, you know. We have to speak with our hands to some extent.
YEMISI EGBEWOLE, FORMER ADVISER AND CHIEF OF STAFF, BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE AND FOUNDER, PODIUM STRATEGIES: I loved it.
BERMAN: You survived it. You go home with all your eyes.
Thank you all for being here. It was great to see you all. It's nice to be up this late at night.
I'm going to be back in about, oh, was it say nine hours? No, it's like seven hours, six hours. 7 a.m. tomorrow morning for "CNN News Central." "Laura Coates Live" starts now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, progressive Democrats are chalking up old woke comments as bad takes, and tomorrow, Wisconsin voters will decide if Francesca Hong can move past hers. Plus, President Trump tries to upend the childhood vaccine schedule, and doctors are warning the changes will put kids at risk. And who killed Tupac Shakur? A former gang member goes on trial, and prosecutors say his own words may help answer that very question. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, politicians love to change their minds. Now, before you say, well, thank you, Captain Obvious, here's the part that isn't always so obvious. Sometimes, changing your mind is considered growth, and a lot of times, it's just convenience. Voters get to choose which one it actually will be and whether what a politician said years ago should come back to haunt them. And tomorrow, Wisconsin voters will get to decide that very idea.
Take Francesca Hong, the Democratic socialist leading the Democratic field for governor. She has backed several controversial positions in the past. And by the past, I mean, five or six years ago. They include things like abolishing the Senate, getting rid of prisons, defunding the police. Her explanation? Bad takes from a different time. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCESCA HONG, WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: You have some hot takes, sometimes bad takes on Twitter, and I let my feelings out into the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: She says she has evolved. And now, AOC is coming to her defense. The New York congresswoman argues that you have to look at what Hong believes now and understand what was happening when she made those comments and the context. She says COVID was raging, political ideas were in a very different place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: Francesca Hong has made clear her present stances to her electorate.
UNKNOWN: Yes, she has moved away from a lot of that.
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right, she has moved away from it. And I have a local city councilman that has this saying, woke one was crazy.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Woke one was crazy, as in woke 1.0, apparently. And that may explain the moment we were all living in six years ago. But does it explain away what someone said? Chris Christie says, no.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: Why should anyone trust her? The things that she has said previously, now when she senses that she didn't know what she was talking about, and she was out of touch with the American people and now wants to advance her career, now, all of a sudden, she's saying different things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, of course, that's rich coming from Christie, right? He's not the best messenger. He has his own very public flip-flops on, say, President Trump. And his epiphanies, reversals, however you want to call them, they have politically haunted him.
But the question doesn't go away. How are voters supposed to know what these candidates really believe now? If they're being told not to put too much stock in what they said then, and if woke one was crazy, then what exactly is woke 2.0?
The president is already going well beyond the word "woke." He's using words like communism and jihadism to describe the new progressive crop of progressive candidates. I have to tell you that those labels are politically -- well, they're just scare tactics, but he's going there, anyway.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have jihadists being elected all over the place. We have this -- whether it's communism, jihadism. When you look at the radicalism and the craziness of the candidates and the stupidity of what they're suggesting, let's get rid of the Supreme Court, let's get rid of the presidency, let's get rid of the Senate, sometimes, I'd like to get rid of the Senate, too, but I don't say it and wouldn't do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He says he doesn't say it, except he just did. I want to start in Wisconsin where the voters will have their say in just a few hours from now. I want to bring in one of the Democratic candidates for governor, Milwaukee County executive, David Crowley. David, thank you for being with me this evening. Good to see you.
[23:05:00]
DAVID CROWLEY, MILWAUKEE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Good to see you as well. Thank you for having me.
COATES: Well, you know, one of your opponents, Hong, her critics say that she is way too extreme. Do you share those concerns?
CROWLEY: You know, as I've been traveling across this state, there are a lot of people who are concerned about the Democrats, us, our party, being able to nominate somebody that can ultimately defeat Tom Tiffany this upcoming November. But as I focus on not just my vision and my mission for the state of Wisconsin, but what we've been able to do and how we're going to tackle the affordability crisis and the health care crisis, we're getting more people on our side.
And so, I think it's extremely important that we elect a candidate that not only has executive experience, but has the governing experience and has the ability to coalesce folks around the state to make sure that we ultimately win.
COATES: And, of course, the look ahead to November's general election is of paramount importance. And one of the reasons people have been so critical of people in your race have been, including Hong, is that some of her views have evolved, but she's most concerned about helping Wisconsin voters, she has said. Do you think that there is a clear delineation between those views that she has said and her desire to truly help Wisconsin voters or do you believe that you are the more appropriate candidate for that?
CROWLEY: Yes, I do believe that I'm the best candidate for this job. It's one of the reasons why we've had our current sitting governor, Governor Tony Evers, endorse our campaign. And, you know, when I think about Governor Evers, his experience in the past eight years, he has a chance to see all the different candidates, work with them in the state legislature or many folks served in the cabinet with him. I'm the only candidate that has gotten things done. And when I think about our track record of -- you know, delivering the lowest unsheltered homeless counts in the entire country is right here in Milwaukee, how we've lowered overdose deaths by 40 percent in just four years. We're talking about having a candidate that can actually bring folks and coalesce people across the political spectrum.
COATES: The polls show you trailing her, which is why I'm focusing on her with you. Is your issue with her policies or her lack of experience?
CROWLEY: Well, I just think that, you know, our democracy, we need to make sure that we have good people running for office. And, you know, no matter if it's, you know, Francesca, Joel or Kelda who's in this race, we have to make sure that we're showing what our resume actually entails.
And, again, you know, I represent 19 different municipalities, right? And each and every single city and town that I represent, they fall somewhere different on the political spectrum, but we've been able to move forward with the one million people that I represent. And so, I think the clear difference is that I've actually done this job.
I have receipts as far as being able to move this forward, and not just for Milwaukee County, right? We have helped every city, every town, every village, and every county in the state of Wisconsin. And so, I've built my entire reputation on building authentic relationships and trust, and that's what we need in the governor's office.
COATES: There are a large portion of undecided voters. They don't have a preferred candidate. Mandela Barnes, who's now out of the race, had pitched himself as the more moderate version of Hong. He couldn't muster the support. What is your message tonight to those undecided voters?
CROWLEY: Well, look, I know you're frustrated, right? You're frustrated with Republicans, frustrated with who's occupying the White House, but also frustrated with Democrats. You know, yes, I believe we've been fighting back, but we haven't been clear as far as what we've been fighting for and what our mission and vision is for Democrats here in this state, but also across this country. And so, now is the time for us to --
COATES: Is that because there have been a variety -- I don't want to cut you off, sir, but is that because there have been so much conversations around the identity and the big tent of Democrats when you have DSA candidates and beyond? Is that clouding the clear identity for voters to know who Democrats are?
CROWLEY: I think people are tired of us responding and reacting directly to Donald Trump and Republicans. We haven't had the opportunity to get on offense. We've been on our heels playing defense, and that's where fighting back comes from. But now, it's about focusing on those policies, getting back to our Democratic roots, and making sure that when that tide rise, all the boats rise. I'm an organizer, right? And I come from a place where I was told that if you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu. And so many workers, so many farmers, rural communities, people of color, women, students, older folks, you name it, we haven't lifted up their voices to be able to be a part of the solutions.
COATES: You know, in Michigan, Congresswoman Haley Stevens says that she is committed now to campaigning with Abdul El-Sayed in the general election. Would you make the same commitment if Hong wins tomorrow?
CROWLEY: Absolutely. I think that, at the end of the day, the biggest fear that we have is continuing to see Donald Trump's agenda spread here in the state of Wisconsin. We know that Tom Tiffany is going to be an extension of him. He has voted with Donald Trump and his agenda 100 percent of the time.
[23:10:01]
And so, it doesn't matter what happens on August 11th. On August 12th, we all have to come together and we have to vote blue no matter who gets through.
COATES: If you win, has she committed or would you ask her to campaign with you?
CROWLEY: Absolutely, I'll be asking not just her, but all the candidates in this race. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, we've all committed to that.
COATES: David Crowley, thank you.
CROWLEY: Thank you so much.
COATES: I want to bring in my political experts tonight, Rick Tyler, former spokesperson for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, and CNN political commentator Karen Finney. Glad to have both of you here. Karen, I'll begin with you because you heard him. He didn't focus much on Hong's positions, but she is a self-described Democratic socialist. The party only has a 25 percent favorable rating in Wisconsin. Do you think that her ties to DSA would hurt her enough to give him an edge in tomorrow's election?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: I think, at this point, he got to convince voters why he is the person that's going to deliver what they want because, you know, we've been talking a lot about the fact that people are angry. They're tired of people who they perceive to have been part of the status quo or part of the group that wasn't fixing the problems.
But I also thought it was smart of him to talk about some of the accomplishments, some of the things that they have delivered. So, if I were him, I would stick with that, and I wouldn't be talking about my opponent as much as I would be talking about why me, especially because I believe he was in, he got out, he got back in.
COATES: Yes. FINNEY: So, he needs to make up that time and make sure voters know who he is and what he stands for and why he's the better choice.
COATES: You know, there's a poll that suggests that the Republican candidate for Wisconsin governor, Congressman Tom Tiffany, holds just a slight advantage over Francesca Hong. It's only three percent. That's not a clear leader if you're looking at this. Do Republicans believe, though, that a Hong victory would actually help them in November if it's three points, three-percentage points?
RICK TYLER, DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED SCHOOL OF POLITICS AT THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE, FORMER NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON OF TED CRUZ'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Yeah, I think they do. The Governor's Association has invested over $3 million based on that preference. They've been running ads that would clearly help Hong. She definitely would be the favored candidate.
I think it's really interesting that in a year and the reason Tiffany is probably at 43 and not higher is because it is not lining up to be a great year for Republicans. The president's poll numbers are down. Gas prices are high. Affordability is still an issue. And as Hong was saying and your guest Crowley was saying, people are mad. Democrats are mad and Republicans are mad.
But the answer is not economic populism, which is what the Trump administration has been offering and which is what the CSA has been offering, economic populism. It sounds great, give everybody what they want, but it's not really a policy and it doesn't lead to pro-growth policies, pro-job policies. It doesn't help people gain more wages, have better opportunities, but that seems to be all it has offered.
The reason is because Trump took the middle class. Well, I would say the Democrats gave him the middle class because of woke one, and he held onto them. And now, the working class is looking at another alternative, and they're looking at the CSA, but they're also answering to economic populism.
COATES: So, what do you think about this idea of woke one? I mean, it's really woke 1.0, right, they're trying to suggest. And that's one way that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tried to sort of distance. And the idea of woke one was crazy. That political movement of the late 2010s and obviously up to 2020, is that the appropriate strategy given how much of an albatross at times certain comments from that particular era, if you can call it that, continue to haunt some Democrats even today?
FINNEY: You know, I think it's stupid to take the bait on such a dumb question for like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Why are you letting somebody else define who you are? When I work with candidates, I always talk about this is why we should do values-based messaging because then you're never explaining a stupid comment that you might have made. You know --
COATES: Even if you -- you should comment on something?
FINNEY: Well, but if Hong had said, look, I made the comment on Thanksgiving, I made that comment at a time when we were having a conversation about acknowledging the very real pain of Native Americans, that's very different than I was a chef and I like to cook for people. I mean, what are you talking about?
If you can't explain your own values and your own positions and, by the way, I agree that people evolve, if you can't explain your evolution, then why are you asking me for my vote? And a voter is right to say, I don't buy that. And so, I think it's less about -- and I say this as someone who always hated the P.C. movement because I always felt like if you hate me, if you're a racist, say it to my face and let's deal with that.
[23:15:00]
But I think it's important that, again, we should be talking about our values. When we were talking, having the conversation about defund the police, horrible slogan. But the real policy idea, which actually was then turned into legislation that unfortunately we couldn't get passed, was so much deeper than that.
It was so much more about what does public safety need to look like. Instead of weapons of war on our streets, how about better training for our police officers, body cameras and, you know, diversion programs? Many of the programs, quite frankly, when you're seeing these cities and states around the country with reduced crime rates, it's because of the investments in those kinds of programs. That's what they should be talking about.
COATES: And yet we're often told, if you're explaining, you're losing, and that's why people turn to slogans, albeit ones that are not particularly advantageous for the long haul. When you're looking at this as you're a strategist thinking about it, how do you seize on this? Can you accept because, frankly, many Republicans have seen and talked about Trump 1.0, Trump 2.0, beyond.
TYLER: Yes.
FINNEY: That's different.
COATES: No, but I'm saying --
FINNEY: It's off the chain.
COATES: But the idea -- OK, but it works both ways and both parties want to suggest that they are able to grow.
TYLER: I think Karen and I have different policy solutions, but she's exactly right on the politics. We should welcome politicians evolving and changing their mind, but it has to come with an explanation. It can't come with a new communication strategy or it can't come with a rebrand. Tell us why you reject those policies or what you said. Explain it. Either apologize for it or explain it, and then move on to talk about the values or what you believe.
But that's not what they're doing. It's very clear that they've talked to pollsters and consultants. This is what you need to say because you're going to lose this big middle-class voter if you talk like that again.
COATES: Rick Tyler, Karen Finney, thank you both so much. We'll see what happens.
Up next, the president orders changes to how kids get vaccinated, as he suggests, without evidence that it will help prevent autism. My next guest says this is about ideology, not about science. Dr. Michael Osterholm is with me live to explain, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: This is so wrong. Those are the exact words of a Republican senator tonight who also happens to be a doctor, Bill Cassidy. He is slamming the president's latest effort to overhaul the childhood vaccine schedule, an effort championed by RFK Jr., whom Cassidy voted to confirm. And I say effort because it's unclear if the president's new executive order is even legal, but it could have major implications for public health, especially among children.
So, what does the executive order do? Well, for starters, it seeks to cut the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11. It also calls for these to be administered over a longer period of time. It also advises splitting up the measles, mumps, and rubella, you know, it is MMR, that vaccine into three separate shots.
And in announcing this, the president stood alongside his health secretary, RFK Jr., and once again suggested without evidence the changes will somehow lower autism rates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's going to make a big difference. You know, there are some groups that have virtually no problem with autism. You know, I have to say this, they are groups that aren't big into the world of vaccines. So, there's something wrong. We see record numbers all the time, every year, for years and years. Every year, it gets higher, higher, higher, autism. And we think we have a very good recommendation, and a lot of good things are happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Again, there have been many scientific studies on vaccines that have found no evidence of a link to autism.
Joining me now is Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He also served as a coronavirus advisor to President Biden. Professor Michael, thank you for being here. We have heard from experts all day, including yourself, warning that this is a mistake that could potentially be dangerous. Why?
MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY, FORMER CORONAVIRUS ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, let's just, first of all, lay out what has been promoted in this administration as gold standard science. And what we got today was a dose of fool's gold in that what they stated had no factual basis whatsoever. It was ideology.
And that is very dangerous. It's not just potentially dangerous. Children will die because we will see fewer kids getting vaccinated. And as a result of that, we're going to see more diseases like measles. And we have to reckon with that.
COATES: We mentioned one of the things this executive order calls for is to split up the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, we know it obviously as MMR, but to separate it into three separate shots. Here's what the president said earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have the MMR. We want it in three separate vaccinations, given at separate times. Together, there could be a possibility they're quite lethal. And separately, it looks like they are not at all lethal but just very effective.
UNKNOWN: Mr. President, I think I heard you say that the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella is quite lethal. Is there any evidence of that?
TRUMP: No. What I've heard is that there are some people that say it is that way.
[23:24:58]
And I say, well, let's say there's a five percent chance of it. Let's split it up. Let's split it up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is there any evidence that giving all three together is lethal? Is there any benefit to separating the three?
OSTERHOLM: There's absolutely none. And let's just remember also, today, to get your child vaccinated often means you have to take them to a clinic of some kind. It means you have to leave work. Parents, particularly single parents, don't have the luxury of now going to an office for six different shots as opposed to two before, where they had three doses in each shot. This is also going to be a hit on the health care financing. How many times do I have to pay to get my child vaccinated versus what I had to do before?
So, I think everything practically about this situation, everything scientifically about this situation, and most of all, everything from a public relations standpoint, which parents hearing this only become more confused. And I think we have to call this out for what it is. This is just plain dangerous.
COATES: Administration officials in the past have defended these proposed vaccine policies, arguing that other countries like Denmark do it this way. Why shouldn't we? What's your response to that?
OSTERHOLM: Well, first of all, Denmark is the outlier, which is quite interesting. They, of all the countries in the world, have the fewest number of vaccines recommended. And in the case of what happens in Denmark is they have a population just slightly bigger than the state of Maryland, and they have access to health care for everyone.
And so, today, for example, one of the vaccines that's not routinely recommended in Denmark is rotavirus vaccine, a vaccine that helps prevent very severe diarrhea. Well, if you're in the United States, that can become a life-threatening situation for a child trying to get into a health care system. In Denmark, they have ready access.
So, we have to understand, if anything, Denmark should be working to get more like us, not us like them.
COATES: Michael Osterholm, thank you.
OSTERHOLM: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, Todd Blanche officially sworn in as the attorney general of the United States, and it appears Trump has given him his first loyalty test. Yes, it's about the anti-weaponization fund.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's official. Todd Blanche is now the attorney general of the United States. He was sworn in by his former Trump defense team colleague, Judge Emil Bove. Blanche was greeted by a long line of applause at the DOJ headquarters today, which is tradition, but he faces a slew of critical loyalty tests that will define his tenure.
The Epstein files. Will DOJ fully pull back the curtain or will the secret stay locked away? The reflecting pool. How will Blanche handle the fallout from the drop cases? The anti-weaponization fight. Is the controversial fund really dead or is it just getting started?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The anti-weaponization fund, do you think it's still alive at this point, and are there any options that you're looking at to --
TRUMP: Well, that would be up to Todd Blanche. He was a new and who will be, I think, a great attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A curious statement by the president since the attorney general rescinded that very fund last week. I want to bring in chief Washington correspondent for the Meidas Touch Network, Scott MacFarlane. Glad to have you, Scott. So, was that comment a kind of a wink and a nod to whether this was a zombie of a fund? SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDAS TOUCH NETWORK: It's an orphaned fund. Nobody wants to take ownership or parenthood of this fund. Everybody is passing the buck, which means everybody thinks this thing is still alive.
COATES: Yes.
MACFARLANE: Whether they say it's dead, it's not really dead, it's not permanently dead. Todd Blanche punted this over to the administration at one point. They have punted it back. It's going back and forth. And in the meantime, not only is the prospect of $1.7 billion for crooks and cop beaters stay alive, but it looks like a presidential mandate at this point. Trump wants to see it happen. It's now on Blanche to make it happen, despite the promises he made to senators to get the job.
COATES: That would be quite the egg on their face if they said they got concessions. They felt confident. Two of them are outgoing, anyway, and won't have to answer for it if, in fact, does renege on his -- quote-unquote -- "commitments."
But there are also those who don't want it to be dead. Those are those who think they were maliciously prosecuted. You've got a group of former January 6th defendants. They're suing the government. Dozens are seeking at least a million bucks each. There is a remedy, you know, to tort claims to be able to address grievances to the government. But if the fund is truly dead, why would these be coming up now?
MACFARLANE: There are a multitude of ways January 6th rioters, including those who beat cops or menace the media or menace the staff, are trying to get money. You mentioned one, through the Federal Tort Claims Act, kind of obscure but very effective way to secure money from the federal government, from taxpayers. You still have the possibility of this slush fund opening up its treasure chest, its Pandora's box of money, to convicted rioters.
But there are also several, Laura, who have filed just traditional federal civil lawsuits in the U.S. district courts across America saying their reputations have been damaged, they've suffered emotional harm, that they've suffered from infringements on their civil liberties, and they would like taxpayer-funded handouts through the courts. Now, they have to win the suit to get that unless the Department of Justice agrees to settle.
[23:35:02]
Who's in charge of the Department of Justice? Todd Blanche.
COATES: Funny how this works, all the connecting of the dots. There's another former Trump personal lawyer, though, his name is Will Scharf, who will now serve as the new White House counsel, and that starts next month, actually. He is currently the White House staff secretary, which he has used as a role to act as a kind of a cheerleader for the administration's most hardline policies. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILL SCHARF, WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY: This was obviously one of the instances of the weaponization of law enforcement, powers of prosecution against you and others.
Vote by mail in this country has become rife with fraud.
This is, frankly, it's action that's overdue, and I'm thankful that President Trump is finally taking decisive action to combat this issue of birth tourism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is there any feeling in Washington, D.C. among those who are watching this, that he might take a hardline stance against any constitutional injustices by the president on these issues?
MACFARLANE: One of the parts of Will Scharf's backstory that's uniquely interesting and pertinent here, Laura, is that when he ran for attorney general of Missouri in 2024, when the Republicans were running for that seat, he was characterized as an election denier, somebody who was questioning or calling rigged the 2020 election.
He brings that backstory into the world of White House counsel. You have Todd Blanche as attorney general. You have Jay Clayton running director of National Intelligence. You have Will Scharf in this post. And, oh, by the way, Kash Patel is FBI director. Really has stacked the deck with people who have supported his 2020 election lies. That's the latest edition.
COATES: Scott McFarlane, always great to have you here. Thank you so much.
Up next, one of the enduring mysteries from the 90s may be closer to getting solved. Who really killed Tupac Shakur? The man accused of orchestrating his murder is now on trial in a case that could see Suge Knight and even Diddy take the stand. Can prosecutors prove the case after all these years? We'll get into it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It has been almost 30 years since the murder of Tupac Shakur.
The 25-year-old rap icon was shot multiple times in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas in 1996. His murder has remained a mystery ever since, and no one had stood trial until now.
Well, today, jury selection kicked off in the trial of Duane Keith Davis also known as Keffe D. He is charged with one count of murder with a deadly weapon in Tupac's death. Davis has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing. One thing to know is that prosecutors aren't alleging that Davis actually pulled the trigger. They say he was the shot caller who orchestrated the murder and provided the gun after his nephew was assaulted that same night.
At the heart of the case is Davis's own words, including a memoir he published in 2019. Now, prosecutors say passages in the book, combined with other statements, amount to a confession. But Davis's lawyers have disavowed the memoir as fiction he didn't even write.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Did you have anything to do with the murder of Tupac Shakur?
DUANE KEITH DAVIS, DEFENDANT IN TUPAC SHAKUR MURDER TRIAL: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. I wasn't even in Nevada. I wasn't in Nevada, period.
UNKNOWN: Do you regret the book and the interview?
DAVIS: Yes, I was just after the money, and they said I was covered. I did it for money.
UNKNOWN: Did anyone close to you say it's not a good idea?
DAVIS: That was the ghostwriters did it. I didn't write that book. I don't know nothing about no Winston Churchill, Frank Sinatra. Just read the book. You know I didn't write that book.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, host of "Toure Show News" on YouTube and ABC News contributor, Toure. So good to see you, my friend. Look, you know this mystery has fueled like 30 years of conspiracy theories and questions and conflicting narratives over who was actually responsible. What would it even mean to have this trial competing with all of those narratives?
TOURE, YOU TUBE HOST, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, we're getting down to Occam's razor, the simplest possible answer. Tupac and Suge got into a fight in a casino and beat up a gang member from a different set. It doesn't matter what set he was from. They beat up a guy whose uncle was a shot caller, was a big man in the set. So, he was big enough to say, let's go get Tupac. I don't care it's Tupac and Suge. We're going after them. He allegedly masterminded this.
But you say he talked about this extensively in his own memoir. But not only that. In a 2008 interview with police, which he thought was proper, that will never be convicted, will never be indicted for this information.
COATES: He thought he had immunity there.
TOURE: Yes. And he did have immunity there. But he broke the terms of the deal. But the subtext here, if the prosecution's theory is correct, that this man has been talking about this for 20 or 30 years, and he talked himself into the penitentiary, this is Keffe D testifying against Keffe D.
So, the jury will have to say -- do they believe what he has been saying for 20 years, that he masterminded this, that he was in the car, that he felt like he had the green light to retaliate against Tupac and Suge, or what he's saying recently, my memoir is not to be believed, my interview with the police is not to be believed, I didn't actually do this? OK.
COATES: And yet, this is the funny thing about this trial. I don't mean funny in a ha-ha. I mean, odd. And that is the prosecution is going to have to get up there and try to convince the jury that he is not a liar, that he is to be believed.
[23:45:04]
And the defense is going to say, no, he was lying. He's a liar. You can't believe anything he has to say. This is going to be the conflict of credibility throughout all these.
But also, Toure, if you think about it, so many people have wanted to know, what happened to Tupac Shakur? Who was the one to kill him? The prosecutors here are not alleging that Davis, the one who will stand trial, actually pulled that trigger. What does it mean that the first person to stand trial isn't even the alleged shooter? Is that going to satisfy these questions after all these years?
TOURE: Well, I mean, I think all the conspiracy theories need to be laid to rest. As I said, very simple situation. You attack a gang member, they're going to come back at you. The streets handled this in their own way. The person who Keffe D said shot Tupac, the person who we've long thought shot Tupac, is no longer with us because the streets handled this. Everybody who was in that car, except for Keffe D, has been dealt with on a street level. So, the streets took care of this a long time ago.
I think people thought, well, it's a group of Black people, so the justice department doesn't really care, the prosecutors don't really care. Apparently, if you run around for 20 years saying, I did a murder, I masterminded a murder, eventually, the prosecutor is going to say, let me see if I can make that stick.
COATES: I want to go back to the fact that this person, Keffe D, is essentially saying, look, this book, this book that was written by ghostwriters, he's mentioning Winston Churchill and Frank Sinatra, but he's trying to suggest that the ghostwriter added parts of a story that he would never have said. It just goes to show, he's trying to suggest, that this ghostwriter didn't actually capture his words fully, he would never have done it, didn't even read the book as well.
We've seen rap lyrics used in court as evidence of motive, of intent, even a confession they have tried to use. And critics have warned that you can rely on -- that when you rely on the idea of these rap lyrics, that it is an offense to the First Amendment, that people are oftentimes exercising in bravado and hyperbole and just using it as an art form. But here, this book doesn't raise those same concerns because, one, it's not a musical rap lyric, right, people are talking about this, but also, it's the idea that he is saying, has adopted as his own, this is my memoir, this is what happened.
TOURE: I don't like analogizing a memoir and rap lyrics or any sort of songwriting because songwriting is an art form, a lot of people exaggerate, and we expect that in songwriting.
In a memoir, we expect this to be your actual life. I've never been a ghost. I've been a co-author on several celebrity memoirs. I have never added some crazy embellishment that the subject, like, well, I never even went to Maui, but hey, it's a great story, let's add that, that is not part of -- there may be moments where we dial the story up a little bit, but never -- there should never be something that the subject is like, wow, I never lived that moment, but thank you for adding a complete fiction.
But that argument, legally and on a human level, might make sense if he had not sat with the police and basically snitched on himself for several hours and told the police, I did this, that happens. So, he can't now say, I repeated that in the memoir and in multiple interviews with the Art of Dialogue and with DJ Vlad and with A&E, but I was lying all those times, I just said it for the money multiple times, get out of here.
COATES: Well, that's exactly what the defense wants the jury to believe. Selection is underway. This has been 30 years in the making. The witness list is a tale of all the beefs we've seen. Toure, thank you so much.
I'll be covering this trial in real time on CNN All Access. Our coverage will also be available on HLN and Amazon Prime. My team of analysts and reporters will be with me daily, beginning at 11:30 a.m. Eastern.
All right, well, it has gotten to this point, former NBA player Enes Kanter signing up for the WNBA draft in a provocative stunt that's meant to force the league to take an action on the transgender debate. Will they actually respond? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Middle of a new golden era. Tonight, the league can't seem to escape the culture wars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ENES KANTER FREEDOM, FORMER NBA PLAYER, SIGNED FOR WNBA DRAFT AMID TRANSGENDER DEBATE: It's officially official. I just declared for the 2027 WNBA draft in April. join me in this journey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom. He, along with former NBA player Royce White, say they are declaring for the WNBA draft. Let's be clear, this isn't about trying to make a roster, it's about a public dare aimed to force the Women's Basketball League to reject them and define its rules on transgender athletes and women's sports.
[23:55:06]
Stephen A. Smith says the onus is squarely on the WNBA to take a stand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN A. SMITH, TELEVISION PERSONALITY, RADIO HOST, SPORTS ANALYST, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, ACTOR: The right is maneuvering its way through the terrain and making and politicizing this issue. It doesn't negate the fact that the WNBA left the door open for it to happen. The time has come for folks to stop whining about how stuff is being politicized and do something about it so it can't be politicized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan, who's also the author of "On Her Game: Caitlin Clark and the Revolution in Women's Sports." Christine, I'm so glad you're here. I mean, look, WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert is passing this conversation to a task force rather than issuing a decisive statement. Is a task force the right call?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: No, it's not, but the WNBA and Cathy Engelbert as the commissioner, Laura, has done a terrible job of trying to navigate all kinds of issues since what I would call the Caitlin Clark era, which is the last three years. As the interest in the league has grown, the spotlight, you and I have talked about this, there's great players all around, but they never got the attention they deserved. Caitlin Clark comes in. And now, there's this focus.
And, you know, it's kind of like, you know, people, it's a blank canvas and everyone wants to throw something on it, every issue, because of the attention, not because of Caitlin Clark herself, but just how everything has grown so exponentially.
This is a tough issue for them but, of course, you've got these two players who are clearly mocking the transgender community. We've got to say that right off the top. But also, they're mocking the lack of leadership in the WNBA and the fact that, on so many other issues, Cathy Engelbert has been silent or missing in action.
Now, the good news is that the international basketball community has given the WNBA the way to go. The FIBA, which is like FIFA for soccer, FIBA for basketball, has a policy that if you've gone through male puberty, you cannot compete in any of their events, world championships or World Cup basketball. Next month, Caitlin Clark and 11 other players will represent the U.S. at the World Cup. All the WNBA needs to do is just say, we are going to follow the rules that the international governing body has, where 12 of our players will be competing for the U.S. in just a month, less than a month.
COATES: Will they do that, though?
BRENNAN: There are so many ways to handle this.
COATES: Given how you've talked about the missteps or the silence, do you think that they would indeed do that? It seems like a road they could pursue, but the task force, instead of just making a statement, will she do that as a commissioner?
BRENNAN: Right now, they're not. You make a great point, Laura, that this league has just been paralyzed on so many things, led by Cathy Engelbert. It's a shame because Cathy Engelbert was an official at Deloitte, a woman in a man's world, the exact kind of woman that we celebrate, right?
But I do think, in this case, the missteps and the fact that this league -- it's a bit of a conundrum and it's understandable. The WNBA, as I think you know, we talked about this back around the time of Colin Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick, when he came out and was kneeling with the terrible things happening, Black Lives Matter, the whole issue that we saw occurring, the WNBA was a month ahead of Colin Kaepernick. The Minnesota Lynx, Maya Moore and company, were a month ahead of Kaepernick. Most people don't know that or remember that or even paid any attention.
So, the WNBA is an activist league, no doubt about it, 74 percent Black, 30-40 percent gay, and they are very liberal-minded. And so, now, they've got to deal with an issue that is clearly not liberal- minded. And so, Engelbert has to try to sell that to players who would obviously be for transgender rights.
So, that's where, again, if you were to go to the international rules, and even the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, their rules, once Donald Trump issued his executive order on transgender rights, as in no transgender women in women's sports, at that point, the USOC, OPC chartered by the U.S. had to then go along with Trump. So, the U.S. also is giving the WNBA, the USOPC giving the WNBA out as well. There's a lot of opportunities here.
COATES: I wonder if they will indeed follow that road and if it's the one that they want to take because, as you said, it is a league of people who may have some similarities, but others who are voicing their desire to have the individual activism as well. So, we'll see how all of this goes down. Christine Brennan, thank you so much.
BRENNAN: Thank you, Laura. Great to see you. Thanks.
COATES: For me as well.
[23:59:59]
And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
