Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Supreme Court Allows Trump To Pursue Mail-In Voting Limits; Canada And U.S. Headed For Trade War As Talks Collapse; El-Sayed Clashes With Fox News Host Jesse Watters. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 24, 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)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Breaking tonight, 71 days before the midterms and the Supreme Court hands Trump what he calls a major win on restricting mail-in voting. We'll break down why this isn't the final word and what the ruling does and does not do. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG FORD, PREMIER OF ONTARIO (voice-over): I have a lot of real estate on my (bleep). So, he has a lot of room because of my (bleep).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The insults fly between the United States and Canada in what "The Wall Street Journal" calls the dumbest trade war ever. Will Trump back down or escalate even further? And later --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: I'm not scared of you --
ABDUL EL-SAYED, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: If you think --
WATTERS: -- Abdul. I just think you're a little misguided.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Democrat Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed goes into the Fox den. That's all tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, the Supreme Court keeps trying to shape the playing field for the elections. The same court that gutted the Voting Rights Act in April is now handing the president yet another win, albeit a much narrower one but with a real risk of injecting confusion among the voters and the public. And this time, it's about Trump's mission to restrict mail-in voting. And this time, the six to three ruling comes with only 71 days before the election.
This is all tied to the president's executive order that was signed in March, and it would give DHS and the Postal Service an unprecedented role in running elections. It's why Democrat-led states sued to block it, because the Constitution, as you know, says states run elections, not the feds. Well, Trump's executive order would let DHS create state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in those states. Yes, lists.
The Supreme Court said that was fine because states are not yet harmed by lists being created and it's not them who has to do it. It also says the A.G. can prioritize investigating and prosecuting people who give ballots to ineligible voters. The court again ruled that's fine and within the president's circumscribed power.
The third part, though, is the big one, and it calls for the Post Office to propose new rules about who even gets a mail-in ballot. Now, Trump wants it so that a state that does not comply with his order wouldn't get mail-in ballots sent out. The Supreme Court didn't actually rule on the merits of that. They just said it was premature for states to sue before the proposed rule was actually made. Quote -- "The court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell."
Hmm. Time will tell. Well, time tells me that the Postal Service issued their finalized proposal Friday and it says it would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that don't share their data with the government.
So, the Supreme Court is leaving the door open to eventually hear the actual merits of that case. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks it's a cop-out. She slammed it as a kind of catch-me-if-you-can approach, saying -- quote -- "The court declines to explain when, exactly, is the right time to bring a meritorious election-rule claim challenging unconstitutional interference with electoral processes. The majority just signals that these claimants had to wait -- even though the election cycle had started and despite facing pocketbook costs, threats of prosecution, and an affront to their sovereignty -- before receiving the relief to which they are likely entitled." I want to begin with two election experts, the Democratic secretary of state for Arizona, Adrian Fontes, and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, Richard Hasen. Secretary and Richard, thank you for being here. Secretary, I'll begin with you because I want to know if you plan on complying with the Post Office demands for voter rolls.
ADRIAN FONTES, SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARIZONA: Well, thanks for having me. And first, this fight isn't over. We have refused to hand over those voter rolls.
[23:04:59]
And like 22 other states in the District of Columbia, the DOJ's prior illegal request for sensitive data from voters has been denied by courts across the country, including by judges who were appointed by Donald Trump. So, turning this information over to the federal government is now by law and adjudicated as not legal, and so we're not going to do it.
Now, the Constitution, in my view, is very, very clear. As you indicated. Article 1, Section 4 says the states run elections. It is a time, place, and manner job of the states to do that. And so, I think the Department of Homeland Security's problem is that we can't rely on their data as a really critical issue. I think folks need to pay attention to that, too, that the data from the feds is just garbage.
COATES: Secretary, at least 80 percent of your state, I understand, uses mail-in voting. Eighty. Eight, zero percent. So, if the administration were to implement these mail-in voting restrictions, how would Arizona voters be impacted?
FONTES: Well, Arizona's voters are going to vote by mail because this overreach, this federal intrusion into state's lawful operations is illegal. And I have faith -- although some people have a lot less faith, I have faith that the rule of law still means something in this country.
I think the Supreme Court, in its hedging and in its dodging, is going to ultimately come down on the side of the law. Now, that may be blind faith, and I hope that I'm right. That being the case, we're going to do everything that we can to serve our voters well.
Let's not forget, Arizona, we have 27 days of early voting and live in-person voting for 27 days before Election Day. So, we've got a lot of wiggle room here, we've got a lot of resources here. It's pretty easy to vote in Arizona, particularly by mail.
And while in most general elections, it's upwards of 80 to 85 percent, in this primary that we just had, 90 percent of our voters voted early and almost all of them by mail. And so, it's going to be almost impossible. Even for states like Washington and Oregon and others who only vote by mail, it will be almost impossible to implement this thing at this late date in the cycle.
COATES: Let's talk about this date, Rick, because one of the things that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent was that this is going to inject chaos into the election, adding -- quote -- "It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges."
So, just describe just how much confusion a ruling like this might cause ahead of November.
RICHARD HASEN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, UCLA: So, you know, this was a weird ruling. As you mentioned at the top, the United States Postal Service issued a rule late Friday night, and the Supreme Court just didn't mention that in its order. Probably had this thing written but didn't adjust it.
And the whole point of the government's claim before the court was that this was premature because there was no final rule. Well, now, we have a final rule. So, we're going to go through this all over again.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking. I believe North Carolina will be mailing ballots on September 4th. There's a federal law called UOCAVA, which protects military voters and overseas voters, requires ballots to be sent out at least 45 days before the election, which takes us to mid-September.
So, I just don't see how it's possible to -- that there's going to be a district court judge who's going to rule again on this final rule. It's going to go up to the appeals court. It's going to go back to the Supreme Court. Is this going to happen in time for the election? It just -- it just would be chaos to try to roll this out in the days, if not, you know, maybe a couple of weeks, before people are actually going to be receiving their ballots.
COATES: So, why do you think, Rick, they put this opinion out today? I mean, it's the first business day after the Friday ruling that the finalized rule from USPS was actually put out. Why would they put out this opinion if the issue wasn't even resolved within the Postal Service?
HASEN: Well, so, the majority on the Supreme Court said -- I think they were trying to make a more general point, which is you can't really challenge a proposed rule. You have to wait until the rule actually comes out, and then you can challenge it.
Now, the state said, it's already costing us, we have to prepare for this, we might have to buy new ballot envelopes, we have to prepare lists and all of these things. And the court said, well, that's too speculative, it's hypothetical. But it really was a strange thing to say given that, Friday night, they actually issued the final ruling from the USPS.
And so, all they've done is postponed things for a week or two or three. In the meantime, the clock is ticking. This case was filed July 27. So, it almost took them a month to do the first one.
[23:10:00]
So, I just don't see how there's time, even putting aside the legal matter, to actually get both of these rules out and implement and get the states to follow them. People have already bought envelopes that they need for mail-in. And this rule would require throwing out millions of dollars of envelopes to change the envelopes that are used for mail-in ballots. Just take one small step (ph).
COATES: Oh, my goodness. Secretary Fontes, Rick Hasen, thank you both so much. With me now, CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton and the publisher of "The Watchdog Report" on Substack, Kurt Bardella. Glad to have both of you here.
I mean, look, I know the president has had quite an attack on mail-in ballots, although he did just vote in a mail-in last week, I want to say, in Florida. But this idea of the confusion among voters, why root for this if you're the administration? They think it's a huge win. I mean, about 30 percent of voters nationwide, that includes deep red rural areas, I learned, they rely on mail-in votes. So, this feels like stepping on quite the rake.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes. Look, about 60 percent of Trump voters in the most recent presidential election were over the age of 50. And then around 30 percent, 32 percent were over the age of 65. Now, there is a difference of about 15, 18 percent between registered Republican voters and registered Democratic voters. But what's even more concerning for me as a strategist is that our voters are more concentrated in the rural areas.
COATES: Right.
SINGLETON: And so, for me, I'm always wondering, Laura, how do you maximize, engage turnout among those people, particularly as they're aging?
COATES: Mail ballots?
SINGLETON: Any advantage that you would have as a strategist, Kurt, you want to maintain that advantage, you want to double down on it, you want to spend more money on it. And so, if the president's critique is we need to systematize our voting process because it takes too long to count the ballots, I think most people would say that's not unreasonable. And maybe the federal government could provide funding for states to improve that process.
But this, to me, just strategically, I don't think in the long run would benefit my party overall, particularly when you look at Democrats that are younger. They're more enthusiastic about the process right now because of economic conditions, etcetera. This just doesn't make a lot of sense, Laura.
COATES: So, is this trying to lay the foundation, the groundwork to suggest that if these states aren't agreeable, which he's trying to punish states that don't hand over voting -- I mean, you're talking about lists. They're going to have lists of people that they say these are citizens and they get to vote. The post office will be the ones that will determine who gets it.
I mean, we know the president has never gotten over the idea of his bogus election claims about election fraud. And while there is -- there has been instances of fraud, don't get me wrong, it has not changed the result. We've seen widespread data to confirm this over and over again. So, what's the point here? To lay that foundation?
KURT BARDELLA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR REPUBLICANS AT HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, PUBLISHER ON SUBSTACK: Listen, the reality is there is not a single election result that has been in any way impacted by election fraud.
COATES: Right.
BARDELLA: So, we're trying to create problems by solving a problem that doesn't actually exist. That's number one.
Number two, the only reason to try to do something that would impact turnout and in the last midterm election, in 2022, almost half the votes cast in that election were by mail, the only thing that this serves to do is to depress turnout. The only reason why you would want to discourage participation in the Democratic process is because you firmly believe that if the playing field is level, there's just not enough votes for you to win, so you're trying to sabotage the process.
And number three, the USPS is about the worst run entity in all of the federal government. The postmaster general has testified multiple times this calendar year, saying we are insolvent, we are on the verge of bankruptcy, we are understaffed, we don't have the resources or the expertise to carry this mission out, sorting data sets, deciding who should vote, who shouldn't, who's qualified, who's not. They ain't up to the job. So, it's terrifying that they would want to have the USPS postmaster general decide who gets to vote in American elections and who doesn't.
COATES: And what states are the ones who are in charge of their elections? And, by the way, in terms of funding, the president did fire key members of an overseeing body that would help to figure out how to distribute funding to be most resourceful and useful to the states. And so, I mean, Republicans have been arguing for decades that states, not Washington, should run elections. This turns it on its head.
SINGLETON: Yes. And I agree with that traditional orthodoxy because every state is different. The states know best where their voters are, and the state knows best how to engage with their voters around what is really a cornerstone of America's democratic republic process.
That said, though, I do wonder if this may inadvertently backfire because, again, I think about some of our voters, I think about confusion among older voters who are thinking, well, can I still vote by mail or do I now have to figure out a way to travel 25 minutes to vote? And the court, to me, it was odd the way they made this ruling. It was almost like they were saying, well, you know, the president has the right to say it should be approved, but he doesn't have the constitutional authority to override the state's rights here in terms of the overall voting process.
[23:14:59]
BARDELLA: I feel like he's using your target demographic for turnout. Keep doing it, Republicans. Keep doing it.
COATES: Confusion doesn't sow trust. Shermichael, Kurt, stick around because we all want to hear from you. Give me your questions, give me your comments, 818-972-7272. Yes, that's really our number. And we're going to answer them later in the hour. Just make sure you include your first name and your city or state.
Well, the administration threatening an economic D-Day against Iran, but will the rest of the world get on board? Plus, Canada's fiery message to President Trump as the United States vows to place more tariffs on Canadian goods. How bad could this get? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The trade war between the United States and Canada is turning into a war of words. After Trump slapped that 50 percent duty on Canadian products, Ontario's premier, Doug Ford, had three words for him. [23:20:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FORD (voice-over): Well, he can kiss my ass as far as I'm concerned. We need to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him. He's arrogant. He's cocky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Trump called that talk "bluster," labeled Ford a "flunky," and called the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, "governor." Well, Doug Ford fired back at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FORD: I have a lot of real estate on my (bleep). So, he has a lot of room to kiss my (bleep). We'll wait it out for two years, even if he lasts two years. But we'll wait it out. And, hopefully, they will come to their senses when they see the pain he's putting on the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And on Ford's last sentence, even "The Wall Street Journal" agrees with that and warned that there's a political consequence for waging this war. Quote -- "One reason for Mr. Trump's frigid approval rating is that voters believe Mr. Trump is waging blunderbuss wars without a strategy, and on trade they're right."
I want to bring an economics professor from the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers, and lead security analyst for the Washington Post Intelligence, Josh Rogin. Glad to have both of you here. I'll begin with you, Justin, because the president keeps demanding Canada acquiesce in this trade war, posting on Truth Social -- quote -- "Someone should get these clowns to 'fall in line' or, the consequences for Canada will be far worse." So, what does he really want from this trade deal with Canada?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Look, I'm just going to say that sort of language just isn't going to help anyone here. It's a real puzzle, what he wants from Canada, because it turns out -- I've done a lot of research before this just for you, Laura. It turns out America actually has a free trade agreement with Canada.
(LAUGHTER)
President Clinton negotiated it. It was called NAFTA. And then, do you know what happened? Was first President Trump didn't quite like it, so he ripped it up and renegotiated it, which basically meant he rebadged it, and he called it the USMCA. That was passed by the U.S. Congress, and that's law in both Canada and in the United States. So, I think the current President Trump is really angry at that imbecile who put the existing free trade agreement into place.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I wonder who that would be, Josh, in terms of who that is. I mean, this puts Republicans in quite a bind, as you can imagine. They're talking about affordability ahead of the midterms, especially in border states. And listen to how Senator Susan Collins put this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I still think imposing new tariffs on Canada is a mistake. Yesterday, I thought we had an agreement. This morning, I read that it had collapsed. So, who knows what tomorrow will bring? But I hope it will bring an agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I will predict the spin heading into November.
ROGIN: You know, basically, what Trump is doing is he's instituting a worldwide trade extortion scheme. The tariffs are not about any particular outcome. They're about going to each country and saying, hey, nice country you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
And what he's seeking from each of these countries is submission. He wants them to submit their economic independence and sovereignty to him. And, of course, the effect that that has in those countries is the opposite of what he wants.
It puts the incentive to all the politicians in Canada to oppose him because if they do submit, they'd be thrown out of office right away. So, what he has done is he has ensured the failure of his own policy, and in doing so, ensured that the retaliation will come.
Now, while it's true that Canada will suffer more than the Americans, it's also true that the Canadians are so pissed off at us right now. Eighty percent of Canadians are against the United States for the first time in living memory that they're willing to suffer more for the point of maintaining their sovereignty and standing up to Trump.
And so, that's not the case in Michigan. That's not the case in Maine. People in America are not a fan of these trade wars. They don't. They're not on board with Trump's strategy. So, there will be political consequences, not for Trump because he's not running, but for Republicans, but it's pretty clear that Trump doesn't care about that.
COATES: I mean, Justin, meantime, the Trump administration is sharpening its economic weapons against another country, Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened new sanctions against any country doing business with Iran. He said this this afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: In the Second World War, D-Day marked the historic beginning of a campaign with our allies to target and drive the enemy from its positions, including those in third countries. Today, in that same spirit, we are launching an economic onslaught against Iran's financial connections around the globe, around the globe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He said it twice, but took out -- didn't name two countries, China and Russia. So, what good are these sanctions if those countries aren't targeted?
WOLFERS: I mean, does this work before?
[23:25:00]
Let's spend a little bit of time with history. Laura, I want to share a quote with you. This is from John F. Kennedy's secretary of state. He said, our aim is to tighten the noose around the blank economy until that regime becomes a complete pariah. It was 1963. The blank there was Cuba. Castro lived a long and healthy life at the top of the Cuban regime. He passed it along to his brother, Raul, who handpicked his successor.
We're six decades in to this exact same strategy. We're photocopying the old strategy, crossing out the word "Cuba," and throwing in the word "Iran" and hoping it works this time.
COATES: Josh, when you hear that, I mean, Iran calling the sanctions -- quote -- "another failure," said it's prepared to retaliate if they're enacted. I mean, they've lived under sanctions for decades, to Justin's point, in terms of longevity, and the appetite of even Canada now talking about wind this up a little bit more just to make a point. Trump insisted today that the country is -- quote -- "completely collapsing." He's talking about Iran. I mean, does the latest round like this move the needle at all?
ROGIN: Well, it's pretty amazing that the treasury secretary announced an economic D-Day on Sunday, and then on Monday, when D-Day was supposed to come, he didn't announce what it was. There were no specifics. There was no actual action. It's just an empty threat at this point.
If that had happened in the original D-Day, we would all be speaking German right now. OK? This is not a serious effort until there's an actual serious action. And until then, the credibility of the Trump administration is understandably not taken very seriously after all this time.
So, why would the Iranians take it seriously? Why would the Canadians take it seriously? Why would the Chinese take it seriously? Everybody knows that Trump always chickens out. So, if he's going to announce an economic D-Day and not follow through on that economic D-Day, he's again undermined his own purpose, which is to raise the pressure on Iran. And that's not to say it would have worked even if he had done it.
COATES: Well, it's important to hear both your perspectives. Justin Wolfers, Josh Rogin, thank you both so much.
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed venturing into hostile territory and sparring with Fox's Jesse Watters. So, what does Beyonce have to do with it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAYED: I think she would be happy to invest in good roads in her community. I think she would be happy to pay a little bit more so that everybody had a little bit more.
WATTERS: You're reaching a little deeper into the pocket --
SAYED: It's insane to be defending billionaires from your channel, Jesse. That's a crazy thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: So, you're saying Beyonce, who just became a billionaire, she has to break you off something every year? She has to pay the politicians.
EL-SAYED: It's not me. It's the American public. Beyonce, I think, would be happy. WATTERS: You're the one that wants the money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's not what break you off some means. Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed ventured into hostile territory tonight, sitting down for an interview with Fox News's Jesse Watters, and it went pretty much as you'd expect it would go. The two clashed on just about everything from Medicare for All to abolishing ICE, even taxing Beyonce. But things really went off the rails once they got into culture war territory like with this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: So, you think it's OK for a parent to slash his kid's ding-a- ling off? You think that's OK?
EL-SAYED: I mean, do you -- so, do you really want to have this conversation? Are you circumcised?
WATTERS: Yes. Yes. But, I mean, that's a personal question, doctor.
(LAUGHTER)
EL-SAYED: OK. So, you probably should want to move on. You probably should want to move on.
WATTERS: A circumcision is different than castration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And El-Sayed's response to all that? He straight up said voters don't care about those things.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EL-SAYED: Jesse, you have not asked me one time about the issues that people actually care about in Michigan. You don't want to talk about gas prices. You don't want to talk about groceries. You don't want to talk about health care. You don't want to talk about this stupid trade war that's about to destroy Michigan's economy.
WATTERS: We spent the whole interview talking about that stuff.
EL-SAYED: That's destroying -- that is destroying our own military. You don't seem to want to talk about any of those things. You want to bring up all this culture war.
WATTERS: I'm getting at whether you think men should play in women's sports. It's a big issue.
EL-SAYED: I'm interested in getting money out of politics, putting money in your pocket, and passing Medicare for All.
WATTERS: You're filibustering, Abdul.
EL-SAYED: What sports kids play?
WATTERS: You're filibustering. It's a big issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Shermichael Singleton and Kurt Bardella are both back with me. Kurt, I mean, he seems to be using a kind of Mamdani playbook where he just puts it back to the issues of affordability which, frankly, is a huge kitchen table, dining table, corporate boardroom table issue in terms of affordability. He's got a lot of gotcha questions instead.
What are voters looking at when they see an interview like this? Are they seeing that they're trying to lay traps and he's walking around and saying, affordability, I see what you're doing?
BARDELLA: All right. This can be groundbreaking here.
COATES: Oh, God.
BARDELLA: Nobody watching that interview doesn't already know who they're voting for in November. There are no new votes here. If you're watching Fox News, Jesse Watters, you're probably not going to vote for Sayed. And if you're a Sayed supporter, you're not going to not vote for him because he went on Jesse Watters, did good, bad, indifferent or somewhere in between. But the issue here of constantly stoking the culture war flame, it's what you do when you don't have anything to talk about, when you don't have accomplishments, when the economy is bad, when the war is going horribly, when --
COATES: Well, that's Abdul El-Sayed's point, right?
[23:35:00]
He's essentially saying by this point.
BARDELLA: It's a great point to make, but I will say there's no votes there. I'm a campaign guy. So, I believe you put your guy where you can. What's it called? Get the most votes to win the election and do all this grandstanding after because there's nothing there for him in Michigan that helps him move the ball forward to win this election. No new votes there. So, why waste the time?
COATES: Here's where I disagree. I'd love for you both to offer your insight. There is something to be said about somebody who knows they're going into unfriendly territory and goes anyway. I mean, there's a hell of an episode of "Game of Thrones" when you've got Jon Snow knowing the whole battles against him. He stands with his sword up anyway. Why? Because he's a fighter. Isn't that what voters want, somebody who's, like, OK, I'm never scared?
SINGLETON: Yes, that's what a lot of Democrats have been making clear, from my opinion as a Republican. However, I don't think you can divorce culture from the kitchen table issues. I think there is a very clear through line. And I think there were some pronouncements that El-Sayed made that Republicans were absolutely used to say, you know, maybe you don't like certain aspects of what President Trump has done over the past 16, 17 months. Maybe you liked the other Democrat who was running. But this guy's values aren't your values.
Kurt, you know this well. There are a lot of voters who will look at that culturally. They will look at his religious background. These are not my views. I know people get uncomfortable having these conversations, Kurt.
BARDELLA: Right.
SINGLETON: But they do matter.
BARDELLA: Right.
SINGLETON: And you can turn on that switch to motivate people behind some of those uncomfortable things.
BARDELLA: I think --
COATES: I want you to respond to that, but I do want to play -- you mentioned religion. I mean, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim senator if elected. And a lot being made of his faith. And MAGA is throwing, you know, buzzwords like Sharia law, etcetera. And he responded when he was asked about this. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: So, getting rid of Sharia law's white supremacy, can you explain that one?
EL-SAYED: Do you know what Canon law is, Jesse? I assume you're Christian, right?
WATTERS: Yes. Tell me.
EL-SAYED: All right. So, Canon law is the name for Christian law. I don't begrudge your right to practice your faith as you choose. I don't know why the idea that I could practice my faith as I choose is a problem. Nobody is trying to push Sharia law on anyone else just like, I hope, nobody is trying to push Canon law on anybody else because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion.
If the only answer that Mike Rogers and Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have to this economy is to point to me and say there are scary words associated with him, I'm just going to tell you, those scary words are not raising gas prices or keeping you from seeing your doctor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Evaluate his response.
BARDELLA: I think -- I think that's a fine response. But I think that out of this interview, Republicans have more to play with, to attack him with --
SINGLETON: Yes.
BARDELLA: -- than Sayed has to flip it around. And that's why it's a net loss.
SINGLETON: You're right, Kurt.
COATES: How so? Tell me. Explain more of that. Why do you think he has more?
BARDELLA: Because if you play out these sound bites in an ad, you don't have a great answer on women in sports, you don't have a great answer, really, you just attack the Christian faith as how it will play, right? Like, again, the goal is to get the most votes. And in order to do that in Michigan, which is not a deep blue state, by the way, you're going to have to get some independents, you're going to have to get some people who don't always vote Democrat, and that's the kind of stuff that will scare them away from you, when you're compared to a vanilla candidate like Mike Rogers.
SINGLETON: Laura, he's a hundred percent correct. Kurt used to do this --
BARDELLA: Stop the interview right there. SINGLETON: Kurt used to do this for a long time when he used to be a Republican. Kurt, you remember how effective we have always been in mobilizing those issues, where Democrats would say, well, why are people voting based on this? This has nothing to do with the tangible and it was always effective every single time because for the average layperson, the way they view the world and their values, having a connection to a candidate they are potentially going to vote for, it matters, Laura, every single time. I think Kurt is correct on this one.
BARDELLA: And the bottom line is, if this election is about kitchen table issues, Democrats will win huge. If this election is about anything but that, Republicans could hold on to power.
SINGLETON: Yes.
BARDELLA: And this played into that.
COATES: All right. Shermichael, Kurt, stick around. We've got a lot more. You get to drive the conversation coming up. Text us your questions at 818-972-7272. The panel is back with me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We're getting lots of questions from you guys tonight. So, let's start answering them. And just a reminder, if you want to participate, text us your question at 818-972-7272. Yes, that's the way the number. Give me your first name and city or state as well. I got Shermichael Singleton and Kurt Bardella back with me.
All right, first question, this is Sharon from Pennsylvania, and she asked this question: I'm 71 years old, and I've been voting by mail for the past three years. Should I worry about my right to vote by mail? That was your exact point earlier, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: That was my point earlier that I was making. I would say get clarity immediately. You've got to get clarity.
COATES: From who?
SINGLETON: From your local officials. This is why I was saying, to me, the way the court decided this, it just didn't make a lot of sense because there's so much ambiguity here. The average person is wondering, well, does this mean I can't vote by mail? What exactly does this mean?
BARDELLA: Josh Shapiro, if you're watching, get on this.
COATES: All right. I've got David from California, and he asked this question again: How can changing the election rules for any election in little more than 60 days before the actual election seem reasonable or fair? Your trust issue question. BARDELLA: Well, it's not. And this is why this isn't going to happen, because these election officials do not have the ability to actually implement any major change. Ballots are already being printed right now and sent out. So, it's too late for this cycle, in my opinion, for this to actually take effect. It will just create confusion.
SINGLETON: And they said it wouldn't be until next year, potentially, anyways.
BARDELLA: Yes.
COATES: Potentially. Listen, a viewer from Illinois asked this question: Again, voting, it's on your mind. If Trump can vote by mail, then why is it not OK for everyone else? He has time to golf, then he can make time to vote in person.
(LAUGHTER)
All right. Well, Shermichael, he did vote by mail.
SINGLETON: He did vote by mail. And, as I said, I don't see voting by mail as a negative. Kurt and I, we were both on the same side before he went to the other side.
[23:45:02]
We used to talk about this for years, Kurt. How do we maximize the turnout with our people?
BARDELLA: It was our advantage.
SINGLETON: Our people are getting older. We want to spend more money to make sure that the operation is more robust and more efficient as possible. So, come election time, we're not scrambling trying to make sure those people can participate. And here we are, what, 10 years later --
BARDELLA: Old people like Donald Trump like to vote by mail.
SINGLETON: Different perspective on this. I just think we're making a strategic mistake.
COATES: Well, tell it to the people. On the president's tariff war with Canada, Jason from Minnesota -- hi, Minnesota -- asked this question: Why does the president continue to burn bridges with our allies and alienate the United States? Well, that seems like a rhetorical question. But Kurt, do you want to answer it?
BARDELLA: I mean, is it -- is it Monday? This is what he did. This is what he does. Burn bridges. I mean, ask anyone who has even worked -- go ask Mike Pence how working with Donald Trump works out when you're his vice president. Like, he torches everybody at some point in time.
COATES: Well, then, how do you cross that bridge when we need to, like times in the future? Liz from British Columbia asked this question: Do the GOP have any and even the slightest clue how badly pissing off Canadians is going to go for them? Shermichael, do you want to take that one?
SINGLETON: I mean, look, for me, it's not that I'm worried about pissing off Canadians. It's that I'm worried about the president not being on message for this election cycle. And all polling data, all surveys, all focus group, qualitative assessments, all indicate that that's the number one issue impacting Americans.
And so, I want the president talking every single day how we're going to resolve this conflict in Iran, how we're going to drop gas prices, how we're going to make housing more affordable. That has got to be the focus for the administration. We're what, 72, 71 days --
COATES: Seventy-one.
SINGLETON: -- before people start to really vote. It's just crazy.
BARDELLA: Donald Trump is your biggest liability coming into November at this rate. Democrats just go on vacation.
SINGLETON: -- for years.
BARDELLA: You just let him keep talking.
COATES: Talking about soundbites looping and looping. Shermichael Singleton, Kurt Bardella, and hey, all of you out there, thank you.
All right, it was day six of the Tupac Shakur murder trial. Another dramatic turn today as prosecutors confronted the jury with Duane "Keffe D" Davis's own words. This time, we heard from the interview that he gave to a filmmaker nearly a decade ago for the documentary "Death Row Chronicles," which brings us to exhibit A, why did he even break his silence in the first place?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: So, why did you agree to tell your story after all these years?
DUANE "KEFFE D" DAVIS, ARRESTED AFTER BEING INDICTED BY GRAND JURY FOR THE MURDER OF TUPAC SHAKUR: I agree to tell my story?
UNKNOWN: Yes, to us. Yes, I know why you told your story to police.
DAVIS: Save my (bleep) life. And I was really facing the difficulty. I felt we were all betrayed. Betrayed and, you know, just the way it was done by the crooked cops, the media, everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He's talking about his earlier case that was unrelated to this one where he was giving a proffer and was hoping to avoid criminal charges there. And then there's Exhibit B, no remorse. Just listen to how Keffe D describes the late hip-hop legend who, by the way, I remind you, was just 25 years old at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: Did you ever feel bad? I mean, this is a kid on, you know, the prime of his life. Yes, an artist that everyone loves.
DAVIS: To me, it was an ignorant kid in the prime of his life doing stupid (bleep) out here. Jumped on my nephew, him and his little gang. You know, you're a rapper, stay in your lane. I hate doing stuff like that. You know, it really changed my (bleep) life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Changed his life. And finally, Exhibit C, the apology that never came.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you want to apologize to his family?
DAVIS: No. No, I didn't do it. I didn't do it to his family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He does admit in earlier interviews that he was not the trigger puller, but the shot caller that led to the death of Tupac Shakur, which he stands presumed innocent today. His own words, the star witness by the prosecution. And that final moment hit hard today as Keffe D's refusal to apologize echoed through the room and Tupac's own sister was seen tearing up. Look, day seven picks up tomorrow. I'll be back covering all of it on CNN All Access. It's also available on Amazon Prime and HLN.
It's Emmy season, everyone. And who better to count down to the big show than CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister. She's going to be here from L.A. with her new gig with some of Hollywood's biggest Emmy-nominated stars.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Emmy season is officially upon us. If you're a fan of hit shows like "The Pitt," "Euphoria," "The Diplomat" or "Widow's Bay," you are not going to want to miss this new series hosted by my great friend, Elizabeth Wagmeister. She sat down with the stars of all of those shows for in-depth conversations about their careers and everything in between. The show is called "Coming Up with Elizabeth Wagmeister" and is now streaming on the CNN app. Wagmeister, welcome.
[23:55:00]
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Thank you so much. I am so excited to talk about this new series with you.
COATES: I'm so excited. When I saw it, I have to watch every single episode. You have quite the roster, my friend, of stars from this year's hottest shows. What are you hoping to achieve through these conversations?
WAGMEISTER: So, really, the idea behind "Coming Up" is I am sitting down with these esteemed world-renowned actors, but I'm talking to them about their journey coming up in a very tough industry. So, we have heard them all on press junkets and we see them on red carpets, but I really wanted to get a more vulnerable, real side of them and to talk about the times that it wasn't so easy.
So, as you see there, we have Matthew Rhys, he is a double nominee, Allison Janney, Colman Domingo, Paul W. Downs who is not just one of the stars but also the co-creator of "Hacks" which is the top- nominated comedy of this year. We have Katherine LaNasa who is from one of my favorite shows, "The Pitt," which is the top-nominated show this year at the Emmys.
So, it really shows you a different side, and I really hope that all of our viewers really love that and get to see something new.
COATES: They will love it. You are so easy to talk to. They open up in ways that most people cannot get them to. They're very vulnerable, they're raw with their emotions, and they're fun.
And you sat down with somebody who is so phenomenal, Colman Domingo, who is having a fantastic year just so far. He starred in the box office smash hit, "Michael." So, my kids think he is now Joe Jackson, but that's beside the point. He's now nominated for two Emmys for his roles in "Euphoria" and "The Four Seasons" as well. So, what did he tell you about seeing his work finally recognized in this way?
WAGMEISTER: He really is one of the busiest men in Hollywood. He's not just starring in those two shows and that movie. When I was interviewing him, Laura, I'm not kidding, I also forgot that this year, he was also in Steven Spielberg's movie "Disclosure Day." That's how busy he is that I forgot that that was also this year. So, this man is constantly working. He was just a dream to speak with. He is so lovely. And as you said, he is a double nominee, both for "Euphoria" and also for "The Four Seasons," which is a Tina Fey comedy. And he told me what it meant to be nominated for both of those. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLMAN DOMINGO, EMMY-NOMINATED ACTOR: The idea of being impactful in both comedy and in drama is pretty extraordinary. That's why I've always wanted to be seen in the industry that I can do anything. I've always believed that I have attributes that can lean into all different forms and mediums, which is why I do so much. I'm a writer, director, a producer, and an actor. But also, I feel like I don't want to pigeonhole myself. So, I'm always challenging myself with different genres.
So, this acknowledgment is really -- it's really beautiful. It makes me feel great. You know, just to get one nomination, please. It's a crowded television landscape. I know the idea of getting a nomination is huge. It's a feat these days. And so, to get two is extraordinary. I'm very grateful. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I love that. I love his voice, too, by the way. I mean, obviously, like, he's so genuine and authentic. And he has different voices for all these. I mean, OK, I'm a big fan. Go ahead. Love it.
WAGMEISTER: As I said, he was so lovely. And he also spoke a lot about paying it forward and how he wants to create spaces for others. And for him, when he was coming up, he didn't see roles written for him, so he became a writer, then he became a producer, then he became a director. He has always created his own lane. And now, he's trying to do that for others as well. So super, super inspiring stuff from Coleman Domingo.
COATES: Well, hey, I'm in Washington, D.C. You spoke to the Oscar winner and seven-time Emmy-winning actress. Of course, Allison Janney. You know why I'm referencing Washington, D.C. and the West Wing. She played the president on "The Diplomat." And she has come a long way from that breakout role on the West Wing, which she landed at the young, tender age of 40. What has that taught her about ageism in this industry, particularly for women actors?
WAGMEISTER: You know, look, Laura, you say the young age of 40, and let's be honest, it is. But also, this is Hollywood. Something that Allison Janney and I spoke about is that Hollywood really values youth. They put a lot of emphasis on youth. And many women say it's done by 30, you can't get any roles.
Allison Janney said the fact that she got that powerful role of C.J. Cregg at 40 was a big deal. And now, later in her life, to play the female president of the United States on Netflix is incredible. So, she said the roles keep getting better, but let's hear it in her words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALLISON JANNEY, EMMY-WINNING ACTRESS: The roles are far more interesting for women nowadays.
WAGMEISTER: How have you seen roles change for women throughout the course of your career?
JANNEY: I've just seen them having parts that aren't dependent on a relationship with a man.
So, let's talk about the Senate.
They're their own thing. And they're more interesting. The characters have gotten more interesting. They're able to be more than just one thing. And I hope that keeps happening for me, too, because I want to keep -- I can't ever see retiring from doing this. So, I can't wait to see more changes come for women.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[00:00:00] WAGMEISTER: Well, one quick thing I want to say, Laura, as our friend Bevy Smith always says, it gets greater later.
COATES: I love that. And, of course, you get better every single time I see you. Wagmeister, this is an incredible series. I'm so proud to watch it and see you in it and, of course, all the people you have featured. So, thank you so much. Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
