Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Army Secretary Resigns After Months of Tension With Hegseth; CNN Provides Updates On Tupac Shakur Murder Trial; Voters Feel The Pain From A.I. Data Centers. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 31, 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)
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, a wartime shakeup at the Pentagon. The Army secretary resigns amid tensions with Pete Hegseth as top military leaders warn against extending the Iran war. Plus, breaking news in the Tupac murder trial. "Keffe D" found guilty for orchestrating Tupac's death. Will the verdict end the mystery? And later, voters say they're feeling the pain from A.I. data centers. President Trump's response? Let data reign. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Good evening. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. So, when you're in the middle of a war, a major shakeup at the Pentagon is going to set off alarms. Tonight, CNN has learned the Army secretary, Dan Driscoll, is out. We're told he submitted his resignation to President Trump.
And this is not a departure that came out of nowhere. Driscoll had been at odds with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for months. One major source of that friction was Driscoll's access to the White House. He's a longtime friend of Vice President J.D. Vance. And CNN has reported that Hegseth viewed Driscoll's relationship with the White House as an effort to go around him.
And there are more signs of friction around Hegseth inside the Pentagon. Look at this headline from "The Washington Post." Military leaders warn Hegseth against extending Iran war operations. Now, the reporting says top military leaders are telling Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is not sustainable, that it risks weakening America's ability to confront threats in other parts of the world. And the warning is coming from across the military. The Post says it came from the heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the four-star commanders overseeing U.S. operations throughout Europe and Asia and Latin America.
President Trump dismissed the concerns today in the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Number one, we have nothing else in mind. Number two, we're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. Number three, we have so much ammunition and munitions, as they like to call it, all over the world that we can always take from if we want. And this is a relatively little war for us. This is not a big war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Well, this relatively little war, as the president calls it, is now six months old. The White House initially claimed it would last for four to six weeks. Hegseth testified the war had already cost $37.5 billion, and that was in July. And as for those munitions, sources told CNN earlier this month that senior military commanders were warning that Pentagon munitions stockpile was dangerously low.
Let's start tonight with lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin, and CNN senior political commentator, Air Force veteran, and former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Welcome to you both.
Congressman, let me start with you. We've seen the high turnover inside the Pentagon. The president got to a point with Kristi Noem that it was too much. He got to a point with Pam Bondi that it was too much. Do you foresee that there will be a point for the president that this tumult inside the Pentagon, especially at wartime, is too much and Hegseth will offer too much for the president to tolerate?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AIR FORCE VETERAN, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: I've got to imagine, yes. I mean, the thing I worry about is this president has shown a stubbornness when it comes to, you know, when the drumbeats or whatever start, then he kind of digs in and says, well, I'm not going to fire anybody because, you know, the liberal media wants me to or whatever.
Hegseth, though, is a real problem. And I'm telling you, Victor, I've talked to people that have actually worked in the Pentagon for Hegseth in the past that say it's out of control. I've had a lot of people that are currently still pilots in the military saying that they are burning out the Guard and Reserve. And I think there's going to be a point at which, you know, especially with Hegseth probably not telling President Trump the truth about everything, that it's going to come to an end.
I mean, honestly, what should have happened today is when Driscoll offered his resignation, the president should have instead fired Hegseth and appointed Driscoll as secretary of defense because Driscoll has actually shown to be a pretty solid player. He's focused on bringing the Army into the 21st century. And there are indications out there, at least on the Twittersphere and in some of the media, that part of the reason Driscoll resigned was because Hegseth was blocking his efforts to reform the Army at every front.
[23:05:02]
BLACKWELL: So, Josh, let me ask you about this. "The Washington Post" reports this classified warning from top military brass to Hegseth. Draw this Iran war out any longer and risk pushing U.S. troops to their limit. And Congressman Kinzinger actually wrote something for Substack about that. You heard the president brush this off as a relatively little war, and the congressman brought it up. Do you believe that the president is getting the candor that he needs from the Pentagon?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST FOR THE WASHINGTON POST, AUTHOR: Yes. Well, one issue is whether or not he's getting the candor. The other issue is whether or not he cares, whether or not he's following and listening to that advice because you don't need a classified report to know that the military is under great strain. Six months of war, 18 U.S. servicemembers dead, 750-plus wounded, 18 U.S. bases damaged.
We hear the stories from servicemembers and their families every single day. It's all over the media. It's all over the social media. It's obvious and clear and public that the military is under great, great strain. Now, you can argue that that's worth it or that's not worth it, that's an opinion, but it's a fact that the military is under great strain.
And what we learned from my Washington Post colleagues is that our military commanders agree with that, as well they should. And Trump can't say that he's not aware of that because it was in "The Washington Post." So, he is aware of it.
BLACKWELL: Yes.
ROGIN: It doesn't seem like he cares. It doesn't seem like he's going to do anything about it. He believes that his objectives, whatever they may be on any given day, are worth it. But the fact is that the longer this goes on, the higher the strain on our military and their families, and the more it takes away from all the other threats.
There's a reason that Putin is escalating in Ukraine, because he knows that we don't have the ability to keep Ukraine flush with interceptors. There's a reason the Chinese are increasing pressure on Taiwan, because they know we're withdrawing troops from the region.
So, all of these things are connected and all of these costs have consequences.
BLACKWELL: Let's talk about these influencers, congressman. "The Washington Post" is reporting that the Pentagon is secretly putting partisan influencers into civilian Pentagon roles. This is to try to amplify the secretary's agenda, potentially alter policy. You've called this a violation of federal military law. Explain that. But also, if his own Pentagon is running the program, who's actually going to hold them accountable?
KINKADE: I mean, this is the whole point, right? Like, keep in mind, at the beginning of Donald Trump's term, there was this whole thing called DOGE where they were firing civilian employees. Everybody wanted to save money. We come to find out now that at least some of those people, those positions that were opened up, were being filled with special government employees that all happened to be influencers on Twitter, that all happened to be Republicans who are hardcore Hegseth supporters.
There's this guy, InfantryDort, who I just learned about a week ago. He's a lieutenant colonel in the Army, an active-duty lieutenant colonel sitting in the Pentagon, tweeting a hundred tweets a day. Listen, Victor, when I was on active duty -- when I was in Congress and I took active-duty orders as a guardsman, I never touched Twitter. Even my staff brought all communications down because that was the rules in the DOD directives.
You know, there is a massive violation, there is a massive problem when U.S. taxpayer money is going to fund positions that are pushing partisan political talking points from the perspective of the Department of Defense, and the DOD still refuses to tell us what they were doing.
This is -- "The Washington Post" has done great work on this, The Bulwark" as well, in getting to the bottom of what's going on here, and I fear that they're just at the tip of the iceberg on these paid influencers.
BLACKWELL: Josh, one more for you. I want to get your thoughts on what we heard from Brett McGurk, CNN global affairs analyst, who served for multiple administrations, including in the first Trump term, makes the case in this new CNN op-ed that Iran is not winning the war. Let's put it up on the screen. Pressure is now compounding on Iran, and not the U.S. And if Iran loses its ability to hold the strait hostage, its leverage dissipates rapidly. You agree with that, that Iran is running out of leverage in the strait?
ROGIN: You know, I respect Brett McGurk's service. I happen to think that he's a little bit wrong here because the fact is that Iran wins by not losing. And, you know, all Iran has to do is survive and keep its ability to threaten ships in the strait, and then they can't lose. That means that they're winning because that means we're stuck.
And the administration's theory of this is that if we just keep the pressure on them, eventually, they're going to fold. No idea of how exactly that happens or when exactly that happens. That's not a question that Trump can answer, it's not a question that Brett McGurk can answer because it seems like the Iranians can hold out for a very, very long time. They held out in the Iraq-Iran war for eight years and lost 600,000 military members and still didn't surrender.
[23:10:03]
And we're in the sink for six months. So, I think if you're advocating for a strategy of slowly pressuring the Iranians, you're going to be waiting for a very, very, very long time.
BLACKWELL: Josh Rogin, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, thank you both.
The Supreme Court is giving President Trump the go-ahead to keep building the White House ballroom, but today's ruling was a divided 5- 4 decision, and it still leaves the biggest question unanswered. Is it even legal? The conservative majority did not rule on that. Instead, it said that the group trying to stop the construction did not have the legal grounds, didn't have the standing to sue because it wasn't directly harmed by the project. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberals in his dissent. Joining me now, former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou. He's the founder of the Public Integrity Project, which has filed several lawsuits challenging actions by the Trump administration. Brendan, first question here. Thank you for being here first. The Supreme Court says the National Trust does not have standing to bring this challenge. If the trust doesn't, who or what does?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FOUNDER OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY PROJECT, AUTHOR, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think that's sort of the genius of the conservatives' argument here, is that it essentially forecloses just about anybody from bringing a case here. So, there's a case called Lujan. That's a very famous Supreme Court case that says that people can bring suit for what are called aesthetic harms. And what we mean by that is not just that, you know, somebody thinks something looks pretty or looks ugly, but it affects somebody in a way other than monetary harms.
That was the basis for the suit here, that this was an organization that had members who were experts on D.C. architecture and history, who were being harmed personally and professionally by the White House allegedly breaking the law here and tearing down the East Room.
By foreclosing that kind of harm in this sort of case, it's very hard to figure out who could have standing. And even if they did have standing, given how quickly the administration is moving here, it's hard to see how somebody could bring a case without it being rendered by the time it gets to the court.
BLACKWELL: OK. So, is that then the lesson, though? We've seen the Trump administration do it before. Knock it down, build it, put your name on it, change it, and then we'll litigate it later. You don't have to win the legal argument. You just have to get far enough down the construction project to make it unrealistic that you can turn it around or reverse it.
BALLOU: I think that's exactly right. And I will say, you know, the court -- the administration is able to do that sort of thing because the court lets it. This, I think, served a lot of purposes for the administration, both in building the ballroom, pleasing donors to the ballroom and, you know, building national security bunkers underground.
It also served the court. The conservative justices, I think, have been very critical of broad theories of standing, the idea of who can sue over harms by the administration. This both gives the Trump administration a win, which the court has been allied with, and it also has broader implications for who can bring cases in the future.
BLACKWELL: So, Brendan, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers. Congress has not authorized this. The plaintiff trying to stop it doesn't have standing to sue. So, who actually now is supposed to enforce this limit on presidential power?
BALLOU: Yes. And again, at the risk of being a little repetitive here, I don't think that there's a lot of obvious options here. Obviously, I think we as lawyers are going to be thinking hard about who else could bring a case here. But, ultimately, I think the court has made very clear that it is going to be very solicitous for the Trump administration in these sorts of theories of broad executive power.
Arguably, now, this is a challenge for Congress to take up and seeing whether it can withhold appropriations for building this. But, to be clear, the administration is already blowing through the alleged appropriations it has for doing this project. So, even if the theory for stopping this is based on withholding money, arguably, the administration is already breaking the law there, too.
BLACKWELL: Brendan Ballou, thanks so much.
Breaking news, up next, Duane "Keffe D" Davis found guilty in the murder of Tupac Shakur. Will this verdict finally put the conspiracies to rest? We'll unpack it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Breaking tonight, after nearly 30 years, the only person to ever be charged in the murder of rapper Tupac Shakur is now convicted. Duane "Keffe D" Davis was found guilty of first-degree murder, not for firing the deadly shots that killed Tupac, but for orchestrating his killing. The verdict comes just two weeks before the 30th anniversary of Tupac's death.
Tupac's family was seen crying, embracing one another after the verdict was read. The jury ultimately did not buy the defense's closing argument that Keefe D's stories were fiction. Instead, they sided with a prosecution who said, take him at his word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BINU PALAL, PROSECUTION: When you have the shot caller (INAUDIBLE) shotgun as shots are fired, there can be no doubt that Mr. Davis is liable for that murder, is responsible for that murder and, frankly, coordinating that murder.
MARC DIGIACOMO, PROSECUTION: This case is not about provability. It is a slam dunk, absolutely, totally, no defense to murder case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:20:00]
BLACKWELL: Joining me now is documentary filmmaker RJ Bond, who directed several films about the Tupac case, including 2024's "Tupac: Cover-Up." Also with me, former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, Neama Rahmani. Thank you both for being with me. Neama, let me start with you. You said the defense delivered a strong case. Are you surprised with the verdict? NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Victor, I am surprised at this verdict. It could have easily gone the other way. And there's a reason that many prosecutors passed on it over the past 30 years.
But I have to give credit to the Clark County District Attorney's Office. They brought a very hard case, a case without corroborating evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapon, relying entirely on the defendant's own confessions when he is admittedly a liar. He lied to LAPD after Biggie Smalls murder. He said he had nothing to do with the Tupac killing. He lied seemingly when he said Diddy offered him $1 million to kill Suge Knight and Tupac. This was a challenging case. I give credit to the D.A.
And finally, after 30 years, the Shakur family is getting the justice they deserve.
BLACKWELL: Yet no physical evidence here was mostly Keffe D's words. So, RJ, you covered this case for years across multiple films. You said the prosecution actually failed to offer anything new. You told one of my producers that they flatlined. Why do you think the jury found their case more compelling?
RJ BOND, FILMMAKER: I think you always have to look at the amount of time the jury actually deliberated. I think they were in there for a whopping two hours in this case. That's saying a lot, you know, when you're talking about a capital crime.
I think there was a number of issues with the -- with the case, especially at the end, with the jury instructions. They were very much. You don't have to corroborate anything. If you just believe it to be true, it's true. You don't -- it doesn't require any corroboration. When you start getting kind of jury instructions like that, it's very wide open.
And basically, the jury instructions were -- all you have to do is believe that it happened and that's good enough for a conviction. So, when you're that broad in terms of your jury instructions, I think that you can -- you know, you can actually put forth a pretty weak case and the bar is lowered enough that you don't have to actually, you know, corroborate or prove anything.
And again, the complete lack of physical evidence here. Essentially, we're talking about trying a man for his own words. You know, it's a little bit -- it's a little bit scary that we've kind of crossed that Rubicon in terms of how we deal with confessions and alleged confessions.
BLACKWELL: Neama, essentially the decision was, was he lying then or is he lying now for this jury? Would "Keffe D" ever really be in this position if he hadn't done the podcast and written the book?
RAHMANI: Not at all, Victor. I think history will view "Keffe D" as one of the world's dumbest criminals. He would not be prosecuted at all had he not given an interview to a federal task force in 2008, gone on BET, done a documentary, wrote a tell all memoir. He was still doing interviews while in custody to local Las Vegas reporter.
He is every defense attorney's worst nightmare, uncontrollable, and I think that's the reason they didn't put him on the stand. He just wanted to talk about the case. Even when law enforcement searched his home, he had -- he had all these newspaper clippings of the Tupac murder from 30 years ago. He's someone who wanted the limelight, who sought it. Ultimately, he's going to die in Nevada state prison as a result.
Had he just kept his mouth shut, this case would not have even been filed. So, he really has only himself to blame for all these.
BLACKWELL: RJ, a lot of unanswered questions still. Which piece of this puzzle is still missing considering no one else is alive?
BOND: I think one of the big problems this case had and it had all along, and I think it was one of the reasons that they may have actually passed on prosecuting it for years, is the jurisdictional issue with subpoenas. You know, you have an act that happened in Nevada, yet most of the players that were involved, alive or dead, are all in California. So, you have a lot of problems with subpoenas and involuntary compulsion to bring somebody to court, force them to come and testify.
You know, a lot of times, if they just don't want to do it, you just can't get them to do it. If you're in Nevada, that's one thing. California is a whole different matter. So, I think you have a little bit of play there in terms of who was able to be produced, who the defense might have gotten to be able to testify, you know, even in an involuntary basis.
So, I think that that's a big problem that this case may see in an appeal. You know, that and a couple of other issues. But I definitely think that -- I agree that, you know, if he kept his mouth shut, it reminds me of stolen valor, you know, stolen infamy.
[23:25:01
Maybe you didn't do it, but you're going to step up to the plate, make that claim, and somebody is going to call you out on it. What are you going to do at that point?
BLACKWELL: RJ Bond, Neama Rahmani, we will see what happens on appeal.
Thanks so much.
Up next, Vice President J.D. Vance goes on the attack against Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed. He calls the Democratic Senate nominee evil and criticizes him for his ties to podcaster Hasan Piker. Tonight, some Democrats are throwing it back at the GOP and asking, what about Trump's ties to Laura Loomer? My political panel is with me on that and more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Abdul El- Sayed, one of his main campaign surrogates suggested that America deserves 9-11.
(CROWD BOOING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: That was Vice President J.D. Vance going after Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed over his ties to controversial left-wing streamer Hasan Piker. But in an interview with "The Breakfast Club," El-Sayed walks a fine line without disavowing his relationship with Piker entirely. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL EL-SAYED, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Now, there's this massive effort to cancel Hasan. My point is that I don't do cancel culture. I go everywhere. I talk to everybody. He never spoke for me. I don't speak for him. He has his opinions. I have mine. There's a lot of them I agree with. There are some of them that I don't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett, CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton, and White House correspondent for "The Hill," Julia Manchester, at the table. Welcome to you all. Sawyer, first to you. Has Abdul El-Sayed done enough to distance himself from Hasan Piker?
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: I think so. I mean, I think that those comments would resonate with a lot of Americans. They're tired of this kind of like cancel culture, anybody associated with somebody in politics needs to be distanced from, and people who are in the media have to have to serve as some sort of like political figure within their campaign.
You know, Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Mike Rogers are desperate to make this race about a Twitch streamer because they know that they can't run away from the fact that they're in charge of everything, and everything sucks right now. They're in the middle of a war. Gas prices are four dollars a gallon. Grocery prices are through the roof. We're dealing with measles crisis and salmonella and all of these things. And they have no idea to address any of those problems. And so, they want to make this race about a Twitch streamer when most Michiganders couldn't even tell you who Hasan Piker is.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Mike Rogers is a normal old school Republican. And I think the brilliant part of what his campaign is focused on here, they're trying to draw a contrast and say, maybe you don't like Trump, maybe you don't like J.D. Vance, but Mike Rogers is someone you may like. He's the guy that you live next door to. Here's a guy that whose values you don't have to question, even if you disagree with --
(CROSSTALK)
-- as opposed to -- as opposed to a candidate who hangs out with someone who said the country deserved 9-11. Now, maybe the candidate may say those are my values, but then Rogers will say, well, why do you continue to hang out with him? Why won't you completely disavow him when you knew even some within your own party said this guy was controversial?
And so, when you look at it from the perspective of Jewish voters, independent voters who may be like some of his pronouncements, Mike is simple. Wait a minute here. Do you like his beliefs? That's a very different argument. And I think it may be effective and it may land with some voters.
HACKETT: If, you know, Abdul El-Sayed gets tagged with any kind of supporter of his in the media, then Mike Rogers gets tagged with any kind of politician support that he gets from somebody like Donald Trump --
(LAUGHTER)
SINGLETON: Sawyer --
HACKETT: -- who has --
(CROSSTALK)
-- with Nick Fuentes. How is he not the same?
BLACKWELL: Shermichael, Shermichael, let me ask you this because you're talking about, as you say, he's an old school Republican --
SINGLETON: Yes.
BLACKWELL: -- talking about this may not be someone you like. The vice president is going to step further than that. And he is attacking El- Sayed's faith in Detroit. Let's listen to what he said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: There's something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil and on the rise in the United States of America today. What I see is a man who has sympathy and compassion for people who share his religion, but have nothing for people who don't. And what I'd ask all of you to do is to reject it in November.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: If they had a policy argument, why go after faith?
SINGLETON: Well, I think they're making a cultural argument, right? I mean, because to Sawyer's point, the cost of living, when you look at a lot of data points and the number of special elections that Democrats have won, it is because you guys have been very effective arguing that Republicans have failed here. And so, if we don't have a strong standing on that, then it appears to me that what the vice president doing is, wait a minute, we're going to make this about culture, we're going to make this about values, and let the voters decide if they want the values of El-Sayed or you want the values of a Mike Rogers.
Now, ethically, morally, I think we could debate whether or not that's problematic or not, but we have seen that there had been some effectiveness with these types of cultural debates going back to 2024 with Trump and the vice president. Therefore, they, them, and I'm for you, if you remember that ad running in Pennsylvania.
BLACKWELL: That's also a policy conversation as well, not a religious conversation.
JULIA MANCHESTER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE HILL: Yes. And it is interesting hearing Vance make these comments today in Michigan. Vance, after Michigan, went to Las Vegas to address the Republican Jewish coalition. Vance himself has faced quite a bit of backlash from some of the conservative community and many -- some Jewish voters for his ties to people like Tucker Carlson who have platformed people like Nick Fuentes. So, you know, it's sort of the flip side going on in both sides of the aisle on this point.
But when it comes to Hasan Piker, I think in particular, I think there's two schools of thought on it. You know, one, Hasan Piker is not on the ballot in Michigan. It's not the number -- Hasan Piker is not the number one issue among Michigan voters.
[23:34:57]
That being said, though, Abdul El-Sayed brought Hasan Piker onto the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. There's an argument, I think, that there is, you know, a part of the, you know, liberal coalition on the left that helped propel Abdul El-Sayed to this nomination, who get a lot of their information and watch people like Hasan Piker.
BLACKWELL: So, let me ask you about Laura Loomer who over the weekend continued her racist tirade, close ally of President Trump. She then went on and unleashed this explicit racist attack on Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon. Typically, I wouldn't read this. It is probably going to make you uncomfortable, but I want you to see it. She tweeted, "I called you a ghetto bitch, because you are, Angie, and your record proves it. But you speak Ebonics though, so maybe I need to bark at you and tug your leash and then you'll finally understand."
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene even said that the Republicans own Laura Loomer. Should the president condemn it? Why isn't he? Why aren't more Republicans?
SINGLETON: Oh, it should absolutely be condemned, Victor. You know, Sawyer and I was just talking about the support that Trump got in 2024 among Black men. We were talking about my critique of my party, about the failures of why I don't think that support is going to last going forward.
And when you look at examples like this, whether Black men and other demographics have some critiques about the Democratic Party as opposed to the Republican Party, what people don't want to belong to and support is the degradation of people in their community, regardless of where you may stand, philosophically and politically.
And so, even if you're thinking through just a pure political lens, the intellect would tell you, you know, this just isn't in the best interest of the party. But even on a human level, you then say, this is just not how we critique each other in politics.
BLACKWELL: But this ain't new for Laura Loomer.
SINGLETON: But that doesn't mean, Victor, that we shouldn't call it out, whether it's new or not.
BLACKWELL: Sure. What I'm saying is --
SINGLETON: And the obligation is on the party to say, this doesn't represent us, we don't stand for this.
BLACKWELL: The party has had the opportunity to condemn it long before this weekend, and it has not happened. And so, at what point does the party condemn it if, in the same breath or the next one, they condemn Hasan Piker and his connections to Abdul El-Sayed?
SINGLETON: Victor --
BLACKWELL: Can you do both?
SINGLETON: I think you absolutely can do both if you're going to be morally consistent, right? If I'm going to call out El-Sayed and Hasan Piker, then I must also say what Laura Loomer said is despicable. It doesn't stand for the party.
MANCHESTER: Well, and Angie Nixon's opponent, incumbent Senator Ashley Moody, I don't think she has commented yet on this. And Ashley Moody, I think, has commented on Hasan Piker and has, you know, gotten involved in that debate. So, I think this is going to, I think, shed light on a Senate race which theoretically -- and I'm not saying it's going to be a toss-up now, but Ashley Moody was appointed to the seat. You know, it's definitely a lean red seat. But, now, she has this added on to her plate as an incumbent who wasn't elected, who was appointed.
BLACKWELL: All right, everybody, got to wrap it there. Thank you so much for being part of the conversation.
Up next, Trump mocks communities who oppose data centers, warning them they'll end up backwards and poor. Is that really what Republicans want him to be saying right now? We'll get into it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: It may be the one campaign issue where most Republicans and Democrats actually agree, A.I. data centers and the backlash against them. But despite all the pushback, President Trump is showing no signs of toning down his support. He wrote this, "The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign." He goes on to say, "If we kill the golden goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti- data center movement. Actually, they can't believe it is happening."
But when Vice President J.D. Vance was asked about his position shortly after, he too signaled support, but struck a very different tone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I think probably 99 percent of the backlash to data centers has come in areas where building a data center means higher utility and higher electricity for the people on the ground. If you build a data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out. And if that is happening, I don't think the data centers are that controversial. It's when the utility bills get so much higher, that's when it's a real problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: So, just how strong is the opposition? Well, a recent Fox News poll found that 70 percent of voters opposed building an A.I. data center in their area, including 60 percent of Republicans.
Joining me now, New York State assemblyman and former Democratic candidate for Congress in New York, Alex Bores. He made regulating A.I. a central part of his campaign and called himself big AI's number one target.
Assemblyman, thank you for joining me tonight. So, there are a lot of Republicans running for office now critical of data centers. "The Wall Street Journal" reports this: "Some of Trump's outside political advisers have privately expressed concerns about the president's support for data centers, worrying that the public will see him as out of touch with their concerns, according to people familiar with the matter."
What do you think informs the president's support?
ALEX BORES, NEW YORK STATE REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Well, there's no secret that the president likes to collect big campaign contributions, big contributions to the ballroom, and otherwise has put so much up for sale. And the A.I. industry has been willing to play ball, and a small subset of them have been willing to contribute massive amounts of direct campaign cash of soft dollars and now, today, announced Build American A.I., this shadow C4 that is going to spend $50 million in just three contested states to try to convince the American people that -- don't believe your lying eyes, the data centers are actually for you.
[23:45:10]
I think Trump is following the money.
BLACKWELL: I want to come back to that in just a moment. But let's talk about one race in particular. This is the race for Texas governor. Recently, Governor Greg Abbott pivoted and issued a pause until the state can audit the energy use and the water use of these A.I. data centers. I want you to listen to what one lifelong Republican voter told Laura last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM WEEKS, LIFELONG TEXAS REPUBLICAN PLEDGING TO VOTE FOR DEM: And we realized that the Republican Party has given us nothing more than the middle finger. I have been a staunch Republican my entire life. I'm done
Anyone that was in office during this mess that hasn't supported us is not going to get my vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Now, we asked that same voter for his reaction on Trump's remarks today. Here's what he told us: "I think it is B.S. rhetoric and it is insulting as hell. It is insulting our intelligence because they don't want to hear this noise on their property. Let them build one at Mar-a-Lago. People who think we are backwards morons are not the ones living with it. I think he has made some moronic statements."
Now, Abbott clearly saw enough political risk to change course. What is Trump risking by digging it?
BORES: Well, Abbott whiplashed so quickly because of voters like Tom, because Americans are seeing what this means in their community and that their voices aren't being heard. There's some truth to what J.D. Vance said, which is that if you actually listen to voters and address their concerns, you see popularity change.
It is not just energy in the grid. It's also the noise, pollution, what it means for jobs, what it means for the environment, and also what it means for A.I. broadly. People feel like they are not getting a say in how it is getting rolled out and events of the last month with OpenAI hacking hugging face have people scared for their safety broadly.
But if you were to actually listen to voters and address them, that would be a much better place. What we see from President Trump is talking down to voters, which he has done a lot. But now, he's talking down even to his own base and basically saying, you know, get on board or we're going through you. That's generally not rhetoric that Americans like to hear.
BLACKWELL: You mentioned what it means for jobs, but there are now some trade unions who are vowing not to support candidates who oppose data centers. The rep for an electrician's unit in and around D.C. told "The Wall Street Journal" that you're not a friend if you're taking away great career opportunities. This is a once in a generation opportunity to really get into the upper middle class.
And so, you suggest that the threat to jobs may be the problem. They say that these are actually creating jobs. These are groups that traditionally back Democrats. So, how should your party navigate that?
BORES: Both of these things can be true at once. A.I. can be a real threat to people's jobs as it automates more and more of the workforce and the AI companies themselves measure progress by how much of a human being's economically valuable work they can replace and the build out can have good jobs for the trades. Both of these things can be true.
The problem right now is that the American people feel like they have no say in what trade-offs are made. They feel like A.I. is happening to them. There will be some winners and some losers. But with anything that is this dramatic, the American people should be the ones that are setting the pace of it and setting what those trade-offs are.
BLACKWELL: You mentioned the $50 million now on this Build American A.I. Axios is reporting that an advocacy group has been created to focus on Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Do you think that just a better P.R. campaign, as the president says these data centers need, will move the needle?
BORES: No. You need to actually listen to Americans. You can't talk down to them. I have no doubt that if you spend $50 million or $100 million, you're going to get views, you're going to maybe shift a little bit here and there. But what we actually need is to hand the microphone to the American people. The question should be, who decides this technology?
It can't just be five billionaires from Silicon Valley. It has to be the American people themselves. So, make your case, put it out there, but make sure you reassure the American people that they'll actually get a vote. That's the only way you're going to change hearts and minds.
BLACKWELL: Alex Bores, thanks. Up next, he never played a single down in the NFL, but prosecutors say he ran one hell of a play. Ahead, the alleged fake 49er charged with swindling women out of more than a million dollars.
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: If this were an ESPN "30 For 30," it'd start like this: What if I told you that you didn't have to play in the NFL to live like an NFL player, that you just need the jersey, the cars and the flashy social media accounts, and some people would believe you? If you didn't get the reference, go look at one of the "30 For 30."
[23:55:01] That's the story of feds. They tell about Daejon Love. Prosecutors say he pretended to be a 49ers wide receiver who actually conned more than two dozen women out of a total of $1.3 million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAEJON LOVE, FAKE 49ERS PLAYER: I know I get a lot of fans who want to know how football works or how I got involved in the league and stuff like that. I know it's difficult now since switching teams and stuff like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Yes, they say it was videos like that that helped him pull it off. Videos of him in 49ers gear, workouts, exotic cars, all to convince women that he was rich with access to investments that would make them rich, too. According from the complaint here, they say that once victims had no more money to invest, or if they asked too many questions, Love blocked communication with them, but kept their money. Love and his alleged 18-year-old accomplice were arrested last week and now face charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
With me now is Edward Lewis, senior sports reporter for the California Post. The more I hear about this story and the more videos I see, the more absurd it becomes. What did you find out about the lengths he allegedly went to pull this off?
EDWARD LEWIS, SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER, CALIFORNIA POST: So, prosecutors have outlined the allegations against him in a 47-page document. And it all relatively stems around the same concept. He meets a girl via a dating app such as Bumble or Tinder or Hinge, and then he convinces them he's a 49ers player, using videos like the one you're seeing on the screen where, you know, he's kind of in that first person, I'm an athlete, this is my fancy car, this, that and the other. He's got diamonds, jewelry chains. And his 18-year-old accomplice, Taylor Chan, he then brings into the scam, allegedly according to feds, as his financial advisor.
So, it all seems like, oh, man, we're really hanging out with an NFL player. He's got a financial advisor. If I send him $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, maybe he'll invest it for me. I could double and triple it. He has even gone to lengths of saying, according to prosecutors, that is, as saying he's a relative of Packers quarterback Jordan Love. And he has also gone to lengths of saying he's friends with guys like Tyreek Hill, Antonio Brown, and John Brown to try to convince his victims that he is this NFL player, and they should send him this money.
BLACKWELL: So, the first thing I thought was, they could have just googled this man, right? However, the complaint says that some of the victims actually typed his name into Google and saw results that suggested that he really was a 49ers player even though he obviously was not. Is it clear to investigators how he was able to get those search results to suggest that?
LEWIS: Yes. I've got this question a million times. Actually, there's like a full page in the complaint that kind of explains what happened here. So, back in the old days, when you googled something, it would give you links, right? If you googled Daejon Love and 49ers roster, it would give you the roster and you could easily see it.
But now, there's -- when you Google something, it kind of gives you like an A.I. summary of what you're googling. And when you Google it, they showed a screen grab and it said Daejon Love and his LinkedIn, then it said 49ers roster underneath, then add some sort of other affiliation with 49ers.
It seemed to prosecutors that because he had linked himself so heavily with 49ers on his IG, on his LinkedIn, on his social media pages, that the crawl of this A.I. was able to kind of lump him in.
And if you're like an uneducated NFL fan, you could see, oh, I just briefly Google, I see Daejon Love, I see 49ers, I'm not going to click on the links, I'll believe them, look at all the jewelry, look at the Ferrari's, look at the 49ers' insignia, this has got to be real. So, if you really went into deep, you could see that he wasn't, but if you just kind of cursory googled him, according to the complaint, you could get lost.
BLACKWELL: I will also say he has the name of a wide receiver, Daejon Love. I would -- you know, the name to me sounds like something, OK, maybe he does play for the 49ers. All right, so, I know you have some new reporting on what happened at his court hearing. Fill us in on that.
LEWIS: Yes. So, he went to court on August 27th and it was kind of radio silence. If you looked inside the PACER documents on federal documents, it went dark. So, I called a bunch of people this morning, and they were able to tell me that he suffered kind of a big loss in court on Thursday, last Thursday.
He was trying to get out of basically on bond or whatever you want to call it until his next court hearing when he's transferred from Idaho to Oregon. He was arrested in Idaho. So, he's currently being held in custody in Idaho, and he's going to have to face charges in Oregon. So, he wanted to be out. But according to the people I talked to this morning, he did not get out. So, he's going to be in custody until that hearing happens.
Now, another person I talked to close to situation said it takes a long time to transfer people from out of state to in state. So, he could be in custody now for the next couple of days, a couple of weeks, a couple of months, even before he sees a judge in Oregon. And then when he sees them, it's quite possible he doesn't get out of -- out of custody then either. So, he's in a lot of trouble here.
For as funny as the story is, like these charges carry a maximum of 20 years each. He's facing two of them.
[23:59:00]
And now, he's in custody for the foreseeable future. So, it's not only laughing matter anymore for this guy. BLACKWELL: Yes. And it's a lot of money that these women have lost. That photograph of him with the helmet on the beach, the idea that you need to wear the helmet on the beach, nobody is running at you, man. All right, Edward Lewis, thanks so much. And thank you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
