Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump's Detour In Iran Now Turns Into A Six-Month Slog; Fired Publisher Speaks Out; CNN Updates On Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 28, 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]
GINEVRA IVERSON, EXECUTIVE CHEF, FOOD NETWORK: So, this is also a little bit of a tribute to him.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I love paella. This is seafood, but a little chorizo.
IVERSON: A little chorizo, a little chicken.
PHILLIP: A little chicken, which is why Denver has his own plate.
DENVER RIGGLEMAN, FORMER VIRGINIA REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE SENIOR STAFFER: I have a special plate. Thank you so much for the special plate. I have alpha-gal, so I can't eat any mammal meat or anything with a nipple. So, I really do appreciate this. I appreciate this special dish.
PHILLIP: I promise you, he did not make that up. You can scan the Q.R. code to get the recipe.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Tomorrow, you can watch "Table for Five" at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the end of the war has to. Trump's little detour in Iran turns into now a six- month slog. How much longer will Republicans stay the course? Plus, the Pentagon fired him, and now he's taking them to court. The former publisher of Stars and Stripes is live with me to make his case. And did the jury just give us a major clue? What piece of evidence the jury in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial wanted to hold for themselves? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, so much for that short-term excursion. Remember when the president said that about the war with Iran? That was back in March, a hundred and seventy-two days ago to be exact. Here's a receipt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our country is doing really well. I mean, at a level that nobody thought. We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that to get rid of some evil. And I think you'll see it's going to be a short-term excursion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The war that was supposed to last four to five weeks has now hit the six-month mark. Six months of spin along two fronts. The first one, that the pain is temporary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Rest assure to the American people, the recent increase in oil and gas prices is temporary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WRIGHT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF ENERGY: You`ve got to go through short-term pain to solve a long-term problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The president said this, and I certainly agree with it, this is a temporary blip. It's not going to last forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I actually thought the numbers would be worse. I thought that it would go up more than it did. I thought it would be worse. Much worse, actually. I thought there was a chance it was going to be much worse. It's not bad, and it's going to be over with pretty soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I kept looking at the screen to see the dates, didn't you? Like March and all the different dates people said that. Then there was the other spin, the stranger one that bears an uncanny resemblance to a gaslight, the one where the president keeps saying to the country that he has already won the war multiple times.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Let me tell you, we won. You know, you never like to say too early you won. We won. We won the bet. In the first hour, it was over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, I don't like to say this. We've won this. This war has been won. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've taken a country that was going to have a nuclear weapon, and we've virtually destroyed its military. They have no navy, they have no air force, they've been virtually destroyed militarily.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP (voice-over): I don't know if you heard, but we ended the war with Iran today, and they have agreed never to have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I call it -- we denuclearize Iran, and that has happened. They will never have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, if that were true, there would be no need for an economic D-Day, right? Remember, Secretary Scott Bessent announced that mission just on Monday with the goal to get Iran to finally break because six months in, they have not.
"The New York Times" tonight writing -- quote -- "It is hard to dress up what has clearly been an American failure to bend Iran to its will, despite the might of the combined American and Israeli militaries. Not only has the Islamic Republic survived, but it effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz. It has strengthened its influence in the region, with even the countries it was bombing a few months ago trying to reinvigorate ties with Iran."
And the economic toll looks like this: Before the war, a regular gallon of gas was $2.98 a gallon. Today, it's $4.10. And that's just the money you've got to spend to get to where you need to spend more money. Not to mention that you have to borrow money from Peter to pay Paul to cut into the other budgetary things you had to go without.
Now, the president says that he will never apologize for that. And he says it's worth it to make sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon and that he's in no particular hurry. And that may be so. But just like the generals tell us that the enemy gets a vote in war, so too do the American people. And that vote is coming up and in a hurry.
[23:04:56]
There's so much to talk about with my Friday night panel. Jason Rantz, host of "The Jason Rantz Show," and Mo Elleithee, former communications director for the DNC, both join me now. All right, Jason, let me begin with you. Welcome. I haven't had you on the show before. JASON RANTZ, PODCAST HOST: Thank you.
COATES: It's six months in. It's an indisputable number. But can the message from Republicans continue to just be, this is short term, this is short term, now that you've got the six-month mark?
RANTZ: Yes, I think it's problematic when you're saying it's short term. At the same time, it's also ridiculous with respect to "The New York Times" piece to make the claims that they did there. The way that if you were to read that, you would get the assumption that they do in fact have control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran does not have control over the Strait of Hormuz. We're getting 10 million barrels of oil through. Is it as open as it was before? No. Indisputably, it is not.
But we are getting more and more control. We've removed the danger, the threat for the most part there. We've destroyed their military apparatus. They don't have an air force, and they do not have access to nuclear weapons and their production anymore. It's under rubble. That's a good thing for us, and that's why the president is saying that it's a victory.
COATES: So, yes, he is saying it's a victory. They use the word "effectively," Mo, when you're thinking about how this all looks. You know, I think the American people can remember that there was a time, the Strait of Hormuz, there was not the geographic control that Iran held. So, having less control now, when they did not have that control before, they view that as not a particular gain. It's moving backwards.
MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR DNC: That's exactly right. I mean, part of the challenge here is the president never truly articulated a consistent set of goals at the outset of this. Every day, there was sort of a different goal.
But if we look at each of the different objectives that he laid out, I guess I have a less rosy outlook than Jason does. Have we degraded their military capabilities? Yes, but degrading is different than eliminating, and the fact that they do still have effective control over the Strait of Hormuz. Three tankers got through the other day, just three. There used to be far more than that going through on a daily basis. That's 20 percent of the world's oil that is on hold.
RANTZ: It's different.
ELLEITHEE: So, it's different, but it's not eliminated and it's still enough that the greatest navy in the world cannot fully open the Strait of Hormuz, which was not true before the war.
COATES: I want --
ELLEITHEE: Gas prices --
COATES: I hear you, but I want to drill down to a very specific point here because I think, oftentimes, we hear about gas prices, we hear about the Strait of Hormuz. I think there's a disconnect with the American people in the sense of is anyone listening to how it impacts them on a daily basis? You know. And I think that's what's missing in the conversation.
And Republican Senate nominee for Minnesota, Michele Tafoya, she told voters months ago to, you know, cut back on Starbucks to deal with the rising gas prices. She's doubling down on that. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELE TAFOYA, MINNESOTA SENATORIAL NOMINEE: I support our troops. Full stop. And so, right now, they are in harm's way, and I'm going to continue to support them. And if that means that they need funding, we have to do that. But, look, we do need to be patriotic about this, so I stand by that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: She poses it almost as an either or either you can support the troops or you can complain about higher prices. Is that really the selling point in terms of this being an act of patriotism? Because, really, the best patriotism is one that says that you're able to redress grievances with your government.
RANTZ: I don't think that was actually her point. I think she's talking about the greater goal of making sure that Iran, the nuclear threat, doesn't exist as a nuclear threat, and we do have to be patriotic, support the troops who are there, but we also have to take on some of, and there's no doubt, the pain that's associated with this.
The president said from the beginning we can have honest conversations and discussions about the timing of it and the argument, the optics of saying, you know, short-term pain for long-term gain. What is actually short-term? What does that actually mean?
But the end goal is the right one. The president did not create this goal. This has been the goal of every single president for decades. He's just the one who's now taking it one step further because it hasn't worked what we've done in the past. They still had access to nuclear weapons or they would have very quickly, and I think that's what the president was trying to address, and he has done that effectively.
COATES: But Jason, let me ask you. I'll ask you about it, Mo, as well. You know, it's a very tough and uphill battle to sell any participating voter to suggest, well, the ends will always justify the means, right? That's a tough sell. And as you're 60 or so days away from the midterms, you know, it goes from the theoretical. Of course, nobody wants them to have nuclear weapons, but is it mutually exclusive?
[23:09:58]
Is it either you support them not having nuclear weapons or you can complain about not having the articulated reasons and an end date in mind because a lot of Americans are looking at the impact of our troops having to do so and, of course, the expense?
ELLEITHEE: The families of the troops who are serving bravely overseas are suffering with higher gas prices as well, right? I mean, we all are. And this is a president who says it's worth it because we're eliminating Iran's nuclear capability. That is not clear, that we have eliminated Iran's nuclear capability. A majority of the enriched uranium that they control is still under their control.
RANTZ: It's underground.
ELLEITHEE: It's underground. I mean, it's under rubble. So, we don`t know. And so, there's a lot of uncertainty out there. And people are feeling a lot of pain while the president is out there saying it doesn't matter, you're fine, this thing is over. They don't feel it's over.
COATES: I want to talk about -- well, let us turn to the political question because I want to turn to what the voters are going to do, right? We can opine all we want about what they might do, what they're thinking about. They're six days away until they're actually going to tell people what they think about these issues.
In Texas, I want to go to Texas because I asked Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett just last night if she was ready to campaign with her former primary rival, James Talarico, who the president has a new nickname for. We've already learned about it. We don`t need to repeat it. Let's hear her response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Will you campaign with him?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D), TEXAS: I will be campaigning down ballot. For me, I think that making sure that people that maybe are getting overshadowed because it seems like it's only about one big race. I'm really invested in a number of candidates that I didn't get to do anything for because I was running my own Senate race, candidates that I really do believe can make a difference no matter what happens ultimately at the top of the ticket. We've got to have wins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: All right. Mo, I have to ask you this question because, you know, a lot of Democrats really, probably Talarico as well, really want her to help him. But her point is that she can do more for the party if she's focusing on these lesser known candidates because he's got a ton in the coffers, a lot of national exposure. Do you agree that that, one, would drive voters to him ultimately, but that's where the focus ought to be?
ELLEITHEE: I think the two are not mutually exclusive, right? Sure, I'd love to see her out there campaigning with him. She did incredibly well with Black voters in the primary. He did not. And so, having her out there would be helpful.
Having said that, she's not wrong that by propping up congressional candidates, many of whom are Black candidates running in, you know, African-American communities, that can actually help Talarico, by building up that ground game. If they're going to turn out, if voters are going to turn out for those congressional candidates, they will likely cast a ballot for Talarico as well. So, the two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
RANTZ: An endorsement would help.
(CROSSTALK)More than just saying it once. I mean, I think the subtext of that interview was that, no, clearly, I'm not going to support him in any meaningful way, I'm going to do what I need to in the tweet form.
ELLEITHEE: I disagree.
RANTZ: She could go out there and appear at any one of his rallies at any point while also campaigning for any one down ballot. Your point about the -- I do think that there's some validity there.
But, you know, at the same time, he's going to be spending a lot of focus on catering towards Black voters to get them to come on, and it would be so much easier if she would go out there and be a little bit more direct, and she's choosing not to do that.
And folks remember her claims about the whole system being racist. Just last month, she made that claim, during the primary process, and I do think that that does stick with some voters.
ELLEITHEE: I will say this, though. When you look at the two candidates in this race, in the polling, Talarico is polling about 91 percent of Democrats. Paxton's polling mid-80 percent of Republicans. John Cornyn, his primary opponent, said, I'll vote for the guy, but I ain't going to do anything for him. So, you know, both of those primary opponents are kind of staying on the sidelines in the Senate race. Talarico has done a better job of consolidating his base than Paxton has so far.
RANTZ: Before the spending comes in from the Republicans in a meaningful way.
COATES: Well, we'll see with Black voters. They don't necessarily need a mirror, they need a champion. Jason Rantz, Mo Elleithee, thank you both.
Up next, he led the story of Stars and Stripes military paper for 19 years until he was fired by the Pentagon last week for -- quote -- "insubordination." Publisher Max Lederer joins me on this set in his first CNN interview on his fight to get his job back.
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The fired journalists from the military paper Stars and Stripes are fighting back against the Pentagon. They're suing to keep their job, saying that they were illegally pushed out for statements protected by the First Amendment. Tonight, the Pentagon agreed to hold off on terminating them for a week as the lawsuit progresses.
In their suit, the paper's longtime publisher, editor, and a reporter say they were forced out for -- quote -- "speaking up as private citizens in support of the press's freedom to cover military operations, its need to reach all service persons, and in retaliation for their publication of a news report on deteriorating conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln during its extended tour of duty in the Mideast."
We reached out to the Pentagon for a response, and they declined to comment.
[23:20:00]
Max Lederer has been the publisher of Stars and Stripes for 19 years. He joins me now for his first CNN interview. Max, thank you so much for being with me. Nineteen years, you have worked and invested. Are you surprised that the Pentagon has decided to delay your firing?
MAX LEDERER, PUBLISHER, STARS AND STRIPES: That was a surprise today. We expected in the hearing on the temporary restraining order that the judge would make a ruling that would set the hearing for a later date, and we would be separated and be off the payroll. So, the judges urging today to Department of Justice to give an extension so all the parties could come together next Friday and have a hearing on the merits was a bit of a surprise and a small little win in the process.
COATES: Some people may be surprised to know that you want to return to your job. Tell me why.
LEDERER: It's not about the three of us. It's not about Erik or Lara or myself. It's really about what we believe in. We're in the job because we believe in the service to the military community. We believe our men and women deserve a balanced, trusted, credible journalistic product. That's what we've dedicated our careers and our lives to, and we want to be able to continue to fulfill that mission.
COATES: You know, people are hearing about this, and they're confused, frankly, as to where the insubordination accusation, where it comes from. And the Pentagon says that you were fired for insubordination after you refused to fire editor Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte after they did an interview with CBS in June. But your lawsuit attributes your firing to a report about the conditions aboard that USS Abraham Lincoln. So, tell me in your own words, walk me through what happened and why you think you were dismissed.
LEDERER: So, about five weeks ago or five weeks before we got our notices of termination, Lara and Erik did an interview with CBS. They expressed their personal opinions about the value of independent journalism and how important it is. Again, it was their personal opinions. Nothing happened for quite a while.
And then I received -- the day after we did the report on the Lincoln and broke all those stories about how poor the conditions were, I received a directive to fire both of them in a written document with my signature on it. I analyzed it. I felt that they were exercising their First Amendment rights and it was unlawful to terminate them or discipline them in any manner.
COATES: Who directed you to do that?
LEDERER: That was Andrew Brey, the principal deputy for the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.
COATES: And they had already signed your name as if it was a foregone conclusion you would follow.
LEDERER: No. They expected me to sign it and serve it. And I believe, as a supervisor, you should make your own determination and decide whether or not you think it's valid or not. And if you don't believe in it, that's your right to reject it.
COATES: Why didn't you believe it?
LEDERER: I believe that they had the First Amendment right to speak the way they did, and it was unlawful and unethical to hold them to a different standard, which is what we support as an organization and what the department says they believe in for Stars and Stripes.
COATES: What do you think is going to happen now? I mean, obviously, there is the national attention on this. There has been the criticism of insubordination. There's now a lawsuit pending. What is the outcome that you hope?
LEDERER: I hope that Congress and the public will make their will know that our military deserves independent information that's credible and trusted, and that will be restored, and that Erik, Lara, and I will be able to help support that mission into the future and take care of our military men and women.
COATES: Before I let you go, I mean, people might not understand the relationship between the Pentagon and Stars and Stripes. What is the relationship between the two?
LEDERER: So, it's a strange relationship. It's unique in the world. It's the definition of democracy within a military governmental organization. It's the same as if the IBM CEO said, I'm going to help pay for and provide this newsletter. How long do you last the first time you criticize that CEO? We've done that over the years, and the military community and the political leadership have felt that that is worthwhile and valuable. But it's a difficult practice of our democracy, but I think it's something we should be proud of.
COATES: Are you hearing from service members about this firing?
LEDERER: Service members, family members. I heard from an 81-year-old Marine who's just really upset about what's happened and remembers how important Stripes was to him when he was serving in Vietnam.
COATES: Max Lederer, thank you so much for joining. We'll follow this.
LEDERER: Thank you, Laura. I appreciate it.
COATES: New tonight, the DOJ fighting back after another court blocked President Trump's limitations on mail-in voting. Is this case headed to the Supreme Court a second time? Plus, the Republican Party rolling out a new impeachment scare tactic ahead of the midterms. George Conway joins me on all of it, next.
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump waging multiple legal fights this week on multiple fronts with some mixed results. First up, a federal judge once again rejected Trump's bid to move his New York criminal hush money case to federal court. Trump wanted it moved there so he could try to overturn the conviction. Then there's Trump executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship. A federal judge just raised questions about it, but rejected a request to block it for now. And finally, the Department of Justice appealed a temporary block on the post office plans to restrict mail-in voting. The appeal comes just days before the first states start sending ballots to voters.
[23:30:05]
Here to talk about it, former conservative lawyer turned Democrat George Conway. Good to see you, George.
GEORGE CONWAY, LAWYER, FORMER DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: How are you?
COATES: Glad to see you on set. I mean, the DOJ, they really want the nationwide block on mail-in voting restrictions to be lifted ahead of the midterms. If this fight lands back at the Supreme Court, which it very well could, and they seem to have implied that they want it back, what will happen?
CONWAY: I don't see how the DOJ can win and the Trump Justice Department can win in the Supreme Court. There is just no basis under the federal constitution, no basis under federal law to get the post office involved in monitoring the security or monitoring who is casting ballots. That has always been a state function, and it's not a function of the federal government.
And Donald Trump, by directing the Postal Service to issue a regulation, can't make it an issue that's governed by federal law. It has to be done either by the Constitution, I think, or by Congress if the Constitution authorized Congress to do that, and I'm not sure it does.
COATES: Even if it did, the Post Office doesn't have the resources. How would they possibly get this done? And it also seems retaliatory.
CONWAY: Yes, it's retaliatory, but it's really what it's meant to do, I think, I mean, because the only rational reason that you would do that, of course, Donald Trump is always rational, is to create chaos. I mean, the Post Office has enough problems actually delivering the mail. The notion that it is going to check the mail against voting lists provided by the DHS and by the states is -- it's just hard to imagine that that could ever, ever actually work. And I think, you know, the only reason why anybody who is in the position that Donald Trump is in would want to do this is to create chaos in a congressional election that he's almost sure to get beaten in.
COATES: Let's play the next sound. Can I get a sound bite so I can cough?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I want you to imagine a nightmare scenario with these insurgent Marxist Democrats taking over the Congress. They would impeach the president on the first day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), MAJORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Democrats aren't even being shy about it. They're telling you what they would do. I mean, they'll impeach the president on day one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RUSS FULCHER (R), IDAHO: If this happens, then the very few elites go into charge and, all of a sudden, you've got this revolt. We're spending all of our time with impeachment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If we lose, you're going to lose your border. I'm going to be impeached. They're going to impeach me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that going to motivate voters to the polls?
CONWAY: I hope so. That's one of the reasons why I ran for Congress, is to try to get people motivated to vote and maybe get people motivated to think about the impeachment of the president. I mean, this president has committed countless high crimes and misdemeanors. He is the most lawless president in American history. I don't think anyone even comes close.
And I think, you know, what he's doing now with the U.S. Postal Service, the attempt to allow the U.S. Postal Service or require the U.S. Postal Service to interfere with elections that he knows he will lose, that could cause him impeachment, is itself an impeachable offense. So, it's sort of like recursive impeachment.
COATES: But does impeachment carry the same level of threat given that he has beat it?
CONWAY: Well, he has beat it because, you know, he has beat it before. Well, first of all, he beat it the first time. It was a much, much smaller matter than what we could -- what -- the charges that we brought now.
And the second time, he beat the rap because he was no longer president and Republicans in Congress, even though 10 of them, 10 senators did vote for impeachment, they thought, well, he's just going to go away, and he didn't. If Congress is doing its duty, it should impeach the president, it should remove the president precisely because he fails to execute the laws properly, fails to follow the Constitution properly in almost everything he does.
COATES: George, thank you so much. I'm going to take a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Day two of deliberations wrapped in the Nancy -- Lindsay Clancy trial. And jurors today asked the judge to see two things. The knife that Clancy used in her attempted suicide, which they had previously seen when they did a walkthrough of her home. The jury also asked to see prescription pill bottles, a crucial piece of evidence because the defense is arguing that Clancy suffered from psychosis, saying in closing arguments that -- quote -- "damn medicine made her do this." Remember, the jury must find that she intentionally killed her children and is criminally responsible.
Joining me now, reporter for Los Angeles magazine, Lauren Conlin, who has been following the case to a T inside the court, along with criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon, who has been following this case along with me.
Elyse, I'll begin with you. You and I both know that trying to guess where a juror's head might be at is a total fool's errand. But how are you reading their requests to see evidence like the knife or the prescription bottles?
[23:40:00]
ELYSE HERSHON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's a great question. Thank you for having me back on your show, Laura. So, we don't know, we never know, but we analyze as lawyers, right? We argue things both ways in a million ways. Essentially, what it tells us is there may be some disagreement or maybe they're just methodically going through the different pieces of evidence. They didn't get all of the pieces of evidence back there, I'm imagining, because it's inherently a dangerous weapon, a knife.
And the jury, when they get these exhibits in the jury room, they're allowed to put gloves on and go through. You know, if it's a gunshot murder case and someone was shot, they can take out the bloody T-shirt and look at the stippling and the fabric. They can examine these things.
So, sending a knife back or sending pills, pill bottles with pills in them, which they also reportedly asked for, it's not sent back in the first round because it's a little bit dangerous and it just could be risky. But they asked for that. So, it's curious.
I think both sides made a big deal both about the medication that she was taking the whole time. That really goes to what the defense is and what the accusation is by the prosecutor, right? The state of mind. Was she undertreated and overmedicated to overcome her criminal responsibility?
Also, with the knife, the prosecution made a big, big show. The first week, I think every day and every witness, they got up and said these were superficial cuts to her wrist, these were superficial cuts to her throat.
Remember, the prosecution started out and they said this was essentially a fake suicide attempt. They altered and sort of transitioned that theory, changed it partway through the trial. We get to the end and they said, well, it was kind of a real attempt. So, it was confusing there. It probably confused the jury, and they're looking at the knife, saying, could this have caused a deeper cut?
COATES: Right.
HERSHON: But why they're asking that? We don't know.
COATES: Lauren, remember, there were those two bags of pills, the ones from the nightstand the defense showed in court that were never collected by law enforcement, then they had the paper bag that her husband brought to law enforcement which the jury learned had only -- had a few pills taken from each.
This goes to part of what the prosecution was trying to establish, that she was aware of the medication, she was manipulating and, somehow, the self-reporting and what was being taken or not. What kinds of questions do you think the jury has about those pills specifically given what the prosecution put forward?
LAUREN CONLIN, REPORTER, LOS ANGELES MAGAZINE: Well, I completely agree with Elyse. Just being in the courtroom there, the prosecution's story really seemed to completely flip in terms of, you know, she's calculated, she's manipulative at the beginning. That's their opening statement.
Then, closing arguments, she is mentally ill. They concede she's mentally ill. And, you know, you're just sitting there, like, OK, this is a solid closing argument. Don't get me wrong, and I'll get to your question, I promise, but it was -- it was just not consistent where the defense has been very consistent throughout this whole trial.
So, in terms of medication, you know, we're all sitting there in the courtroom, I can see the judge holding these Ziploc bags, but I couldn't see the knife. And I find it very curious why the judge wouldn't say what was going on in open court because we actually had to find out from Kevin Reddington in the hallway what was going on and if the judge was going to allow the jury to see this evidence. Some lawyers were actually saying in Massachusetts you don't have to hand over all the evidence, which I also found curious. Regardless, they did see it.
I took this as, this is a diligent jury. This is a very, very hardworking jury. They want to see all those medications. I'm assuming these are not doctors, nurses on the jury. We don't know their employment status. That wasn't revealed during jury selection. So, you know, I kept thinking, well, maybe some of them are nurses. Maybe they just want to understand this better and see how many pills were missing from the bottle, etcetera.
As you pointed out, the pills in the drawer, they were found actually by Kevin Reddington and Patrick Clancy or not found but they were taken to the police days after the killings and the suicide attempts, and then the other pills were actually found in the kitchen, and those were -- I believe those were obtained by police. So, there was a lot of curious things that kind of recently came out in terms of evidence and in terms of lack of police work, I guess.
COATES: You know, one thing that also has morphed, Elyse, has been the idea of going from, you know, this was either going to be guilty and criminally responsible or not criminally responsible. They now have five different options to choose from in this jury. They're going to have to parse through anything from first degree murder to manslaughter to even not guilty as part of it as well. There have been a lot of people with a lot of national attention on this particular case. And this jury is not sequestered.
[23:45:00]
They're not supposed to have access to anything or look up anything through their own independent research. They're going to have to use the dots that were connected by the prosecution or not to consider all those possible verdicts. Does this present, Elyse, an additional hurdle for these jurors to come back, not hung?
HERSHON: Absolutely. And that manslaughter charge that got on the verdict slip through Attorney Reddington's advocacy at the end of the trial, prosecution objected. They wanted an all or nothing. They want a conviction under murder one. And Massachusetts murder two is also on the verdict slip. That goes with murder one. Attorney Reddington did a very smart thing by asking for manslaughter to be on there.
There was a case you might remember, the Louise Woodward case. It was the shaken baby case. It got national global attention. And, essentially, her lawyers did not request manslaughter to be on the verdict slip. You don't have to ask. It's strategic. It's totally up to the lawyers. And, reportedly, the lawyers didn't ask for that to be added because they were so confident in their acquittal. They thought it was going to be an acquittal completely. Well, she was convicted of second-degree murder. The judge actually stepped in and said it was a miscarriage of justice and reduced the second-degree murder down to a manslaughter, gave her time served, and she went back home. She actually embarrassed her, over in the U.K. right now.
So, all these to say that it's completely strategic whether a lawyer asked for a lesser included or not. Manslaughter essentially could result in Clancy going free. There's no minimum requirement, minimum mandatory sentence or up to 20 years or some sort of probation conditions package. So, actually, if she got convicted of manslaughter, she could get less time than the civil commitment under not guilty for criminal responsibility.
COATES: Lauren Conlin, Elyse Hershon, thank you so much for your coverage. We'll continue to follow this. We'll be on verdict watch next week for both the Lindsay Clancy and Tupac trial. We'll have coverage on CNN and CNN All Access. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: This weekend may be the most exciting one all year for tennis fans. On Sunday, the U.S. Open begins in New York. But before that, one of the game's most legendary champions will be enshrined into history. Tomorrow, Roger Federer will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. And CNN's Don Riddell asked Federer what is this weekend going to mean to him.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROGER FEDERER, FORMER TENNIS PLAYER: It's definitely going to be a moment in time and, potentially, for a lot of people, a long time coming. But it's an incredible moment, I think, for my team and my family, also maybe all my fans, you know, to see me getting enshrined and inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. So, it's nice to stop time for a second, be able to be really grateful and thank everybody who has helped me along the way. So, it's going to be definitely a very special day.
DON RIDDELL, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Roger, I suspect your second act is only just getting started. So, when all is said and done, how would you like Roger Federer to be remembered?
FEDERER: I know I get that question a lot. I don't know exactly how to answer it. But it would be nice, of course, if I would be remembered as someone who has pushed the game in the right direction, somebody who has maybe been also a role model to a lot of the children and has represented the sport well and the values of the sport and maybe my country, Switzerland, as well.
I obviously always tried my very, very best in the pressure cooker moments, you know, on the court, to keep going, keep believing in myself, and also show my fighting spirit, which not always has been talked about a whole lot because a lot of people always talk about my elegance, about my effortless playing style. But if people remember me as driving the game in the right direction down the road, that would be enough for me, plenty. (END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Our thanks to Don Riddell for that. And, hey, listen, we all have those people in our lives, like the friend who feels the need to flex their big vocabulary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEO GONZALEZ, COMEDIAN: The dichotomy of it all, right? The dichotomy of it all, bro.
I know you're used to this already, but I just feel ambivalent, you know? Like, I just feel like it's not diminutive. It's just not. You know what I mean by diminutive? You know what that means? So, what is diminutive?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I don't know if you've ever sent back your Starbucks for botching two percent with half and half, but can you really blame the baristas for not putting up with it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GONZALEZ: I can't just pull out the whole milk of that.
UNKNOWN: But, usually, the customer is always right.
GONZALEZ: Who said that? You ordered the vanilla latte, and you failed to let us know that you wanted a different milk. You got exactly what you paid for, right? And so, why would I lose money because you made a mistake? You know what I mean?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And it's one thing to make small talk. It's another to try doing it in situations where it's totally uncalled for. I'm talking to all the moms and dads out there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GONZALEZ: Let me get you the insurance first. How you doing today?
UNKNOWN: Good.
GONZALEZ: Are you?
UNKNOWN: Yes.
GONZALEZ: You take care of you? You're resting?
UNKNOWN: Yes.
GONZALEZ: Good. Good. I'm glad. Because if you don't, no one is going to do it for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:55:01]
COATES: That comedian is Leo Gonzalez. And if you haven't come across his content before, he has over three and a half million followers on TikTok, nearly two million on Instagram. And he is my guest in tonight's "Meet the Creators" where we introduce you to the people you cannot scroll past. And for me, that's Leo Gonzalez. So, welcome. I'm so glad you're here.
GONZALEZ: Thank you.
COATES: I love your work.
GONZALEZ: Oh, Laura, thank you, thank you. I have beef with you. It took you a long time to get me on your show.
COATES: Well, I mean, I can't be blamed for that.
(LAUGHTER)
I don't know. I was at the Starbucks waiting to get my order.
GONZALEZ: I know, I know, I know.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Listen --
GONZALEZ: I'll drop everything.
COATES: I'm so glad you're here. I read somewhere that this wasn't always the plan, which is unimaginable because you're so good. But you originally wanted to be a T.V. news reporter. So, how did you end up becoming such a hit sensation over social media? Why aren't you here?
GONZALEZ: That's what I'm saying. Why am I not here?
(LAUGHTER)
I brought my resume. I have my resume in the green room, Laura. That's what I wanted to do. Thank you. And if you want me to fill in for you any time, I'm here, I'm here. No, I got really lucky. I did. You know, during the pandemic, I started some random skits. I was on news, too. That was my very first one. And everything changed. The whole plant changed.
COATES: I hear it as well. Also, I mean, this has not been an easy struggle or journey. And, you know, it looks easy now and obvious. But at one point, you were living in your in your car. Did you ever think you would have a massive following of millions of people who cannot wait to hear everything you say?
GONZALEZ: Yes, yes. At some point, in my hometown of Hanford, there was a big, you know, crazy season where a lot of things had happened. And that was like, what, seven years ago. And that was before I ever -- that's when I was going to Lemoore College. Shout out to Lemoore College. And I was studying communications. And yes, I was staying in my car. I was just pushing through. And then a year later, I got a job at a local news station. Doesn't matter who. Not CNN. But I went over there to Reno, and everything changed there. That's where I did the first video. Yes.
COATES: People have seen -- we've seen your videos. They always think themselves, like, I know someone just like that. I mean, it's always that guy, that friend, that moment. I mean, I might work with some of them. I'm not going to say who. But, I mean -- I can't, I can't because, you know, you might fill in through that you want for me if I do. But it's your take on news anchors in particular that I love. Let's watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GONZALEZ: Our thoughts tonight, of course, going out to that family. Such a devastating story. Coming up, a break from the sun. And if so, will it last? That's a big question. We'll have those details. Plus, yes, plus, forgive me for being cheesy, but it's National Quesadilla Day and we're pulling you in on some of the celebrations. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: OK, I'll give it to you. I went from a murder trial in our last block to this. So, OK, I got it.
GONZALEZ: I got you. You guys do the serious, and then you go to the goofy one at the end of the show. That's crazy.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: It's crazy, but it's you. So, what is the secret to creating these characters or situations that so many people relate to?
GONZALEZ: You know, I'm just a people watcher. I love watching everybody. I love everybody in society. I think everybody is so funny. You know, news anchors and baristas and bus drivers and everybody is so interesting. I love people who love their job, too. You know, I love going to a place, a grocery store. And the person like -- they run that ship, you know, like that is there.
COATES: Yes.
GONZALEZ: If I have it, it's going to be there, you know, like -- so, I'm just watching everybody all the time, and it's a hobby.
COATES: I think you are brilliant in your approach and in your study of human beings and all that we are. And for that, not all of your jokes make us laugh the same way. Some of them actually weave in some pretty heavy and emotional themes. And a lot has to do with even battling illness, including your mother. I learned about that. And tell me, why is it so important for you to strike a balance between the funny and the personal to connect with people?
GONZALEZ: There's -- I mean, so many people deal with so many horrible, quiet things. And so, that's what I -- you know, to be honest, like those, you know, difficult things that still happen in my life, I mean, they're still happening. They haven't stopped. There's, you know, my mom's illness really began in 2016. And now, it's 10 years later and we still go day by day through that.
[23:59:55]
And so, as much as I want to make sure that these videos are helpful for people that are about to go to sleep or riding the bus home, they're really healing for me, too, because it makes going through this stuff now, 10 years later, so much more fun. You know, I think when I first -- before I started and my mom was sick and a few things that happened, things were not funny anymore, and I think that they're funny again. You can find that again.
COATES: Well, Leo Gonzalez, you bring a lot of light into this world, and I'm so glad to know you. Thank you so much.
GONZALEZ: Thank you. Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Here comes Elex Michelson, everyone. Can't wait to watch.
