Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Vulnerable Republicans Unsure About Trump's Convention; Pete Hegseth Faces New Pressure; SEC Goes to Court in Bid to Stop NFL Players' Return to NCAA. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 02, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I've got one more. Egg prices may be down, but my trip to the gas pump today cost me $130 and some change, which this person must have a really large truck. It is that we got the idea. It is expensive. I like all the Michigan representation at the table tonight, at the other side of the table.
JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: Covering all across the state.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump leans into his midterm strategy of me, me, me, but when it comes to his big GOP convention next week, some Republicans are saying, I'm busy, I'm not sure yet, maybe. Plus, new pressure on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. One Republican senator who voted to confirm him is telling the president, find someone else to run the Pentagon. And should NFL players be able to go back to college to play football? That's now a legal question, and we'll talk about it tonight on "Laura Coates Live." Good evening. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. I don't have to tell you that President Trump is not on the ballot this November but, tonight, he says he's going into the final campaign stretch like he is the one running.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm going to take the final 30 days, maybe a little bit more than that, because it's all about 35 races. I'm going to go to every one of those 35 places, and we're going to see if we can get everyone elected. I think we'll get all those people elected, but I'm going to have to work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: And if he has to work, he wants voters to see him as the one getting it done. A new pair of midterm ads from a pro-Trump super PAC is trying to sell voters on the president's record rather than the Republicans actually running.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA WHITE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: He is the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.
TRUMP: We gave you no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security. We're telling the major tech companies that they have the obligation to provide for their own power need so that no one's prices will go up.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): He's fighting for you every day. Help him finish the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Well, that lines up with the message the president has been sending for weeks, making the midterms all about him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What I really want you to do is pretend, please, that I'm on the ballot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I am on the ballot. We're all on the ballot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm asking the people to get out and vote, pretend I'm on the ballot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: The last decade may help explain that strategy. The Trump base is less likely to turn out when he is not on the ballot. But going all in on that plan this time, it really is a serious risk because the president himself, deeply unpopular, historically unpopular.
CNN's poll of polls puts his approval rating at 35 percent. And another recent poll puts him underwater on the issues that could define the midterms, the economy, the cost of living, the war with Iran, immigration.
Look, you can dismiss the polls, but even some Republicans don't seem eager to play pretend. Take the president's big party convention in Dallas next week. It's dubbed "Trumpapalooza. Two days the president will headline it. It apparently costs lawmakers $25,000 to attend. I mean, that is if they choose to attend.
And it's really not clear how many actually will because Politico surveyed more than 70 Republicans, 45 said they're outright skipping it. Others still deciding. Dozens more would not say one way or the other. And you can hear the hesitation on Capitol Hill. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you going to the Republican convention next week?
UNKNOWN: I plan to be in my district.
RAJU: Are you going to the Republican convention next week?
UNKNOWN: I'm thinking about it.
MANU: Are you going to the Republican convention next week?
REP. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR (R), FLORIDA: I have to be in the district because I have events. I would love to go. I was thinking about it. I'm going to miss out on something important, but I cannot be in two places at the same time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: My first guest chose not to run for re-election in 2018 after fierce and public clashes with President Trump. A former Republican Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, joins me now. Senator, thanks for being on the show. You heard the intro there. The president and his team, they believe that the midterm message, all about Trump, will win it for Republicans. Let's look at the two audiences here. First, is this the best shot for the base, for the GOP, to get MAGA out?
JEFF FLAKE, FORMER ARIZONA SENATOR: No. I mean, it would be something if the president talked about what he talked about or what that ad talked about but from a different angle.
[23:05:02]
It was these members of Congress who passed no taxes on tips or no taxes on overtime. But instead, he's saying, I did it, and help me do it again or carry it through. So, it's just focused on the wrong person. Somebody with a 35 percent approval rating should not be getting out front on these races.
BLACKWELL: And so, if you don't believe that this argument doesn't even get MAGA out, I assume you think it's the wrong message for independents.
FLAKE: Oh, certainly, certainly. Yes. Look at Arizona. You know, we've nominated people on the MAGA right the last couple of cycles. As a result, we have two Democratic senators, a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, a Democratic secretary of state, simply because people were, you know, kind of impersonating the president on this.
It's just not the message in an election like this, particularly a midterm election where it's difficult, it's an uphill battle for the president in any way. But with these low approval ratings, what's going on in Iran, what's going on with affordability and gas prices, it's just not a good message to have out there, to have the president out front.
BLACKWELL: Let's focus in on Iran because the president says that the Republican Party -- quote -- "respects the fact that he has taken a hard line on Iran." He also says that Republicans are fully on board with him on how he's handling the war. Do you agree with that? Do you think the, you know, at least they know where I stand argument will work?
FLAKE: Not really. I mean, nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. There are other ways to do that than the way the president has gone about it. But I think most Republicans realized we're in a weaker position now than we were before the war started.
So, no, I don't believe that Republicans are in general with him on that. Certainly, more Republicans than Democrats are, but independents certainly are not. And in these kinds of races, in midterm elections, you've got to reach out to independents, and I don't see the president doing that in any way, shape or form.
BLACKWELL: All right, let's talk about Texas. The president appears to be concerned about his guy, the one he backed in the primary, Ken Paxton, in this race. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a guy named Ken Paxton. And some people don't like the way he dresses or some people don't like the way he interviews or talks. But you know the one thing about him? He was the best attorney general in this country for the last 10 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP (voice-over): Sometimes when they want change, even if you're doing a great job. But if they change Texas, Texas will be a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: So, the president is concerned. Here's the question. MAGA Inc., the president's -- the super PAC aligned with the president, he says they got $850 million. Not a dime spent in Texas yet. What explains that? Why isn't their money being spent two months now until the election day?
FLAKE: Well, Republicans in the Senate in particular were begging the president to back John Cornyn, and now we're seeing why. I think we all knew there were other reasons than the way John Paxton dresses. Perhaps it's because he was impeached by a Republican state house in Texas for bribery and a bunch of other issues. So, I just think there are a lot of reasons that the president -- I'm sorry, that voters in Texas aren't going for Ken Paxton. BLACKWELL: All right. Let's talk about what you said in the past about James Talarico, that if you were Texan, he would have your vote. CNN's KFile unearthed 2020 remarks. Talarico described capitalism as an oppressive system that needs to be dismantled alongside white supremacy. The Talarico campaign, they say that those comments missed the mark. Does that change your view of that race? Would you still support him if, obviously, if you were in Texas?
FLAKE: I certainly don't agree with those views. I think that you said that they weren't very smart. I would agree with that. But look back at Ken Paxton's record. Ken Paxton didn't just say that the president won the 2020 election or say that there was a problem with voter integrity, he asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the results of four states.
And that's -- you know, that's -- if there's a threshold issue for a conservative, it ought to be that if somebody loses an election, they step down and they say, I'll run again, I'll have a better message next time, not to try to overturn an election. So, things like that are more important than a comment made five or six years ago.
BLACKWELL: Former Senator Jeff Flake, thanks for starting us off tonight.
[23:10:00]
FLAKE: You bet.
BLACKWELL: With me now, Democratic strategist Joel Payne and executive editor for the Washington Examiner, Bob Cusack. Welcome to you both. Bob, you heard the numbers there from Politico --
BOB CUSACK, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes.
BLACKWELL: How many Republicans in Congress. You know, I've got some -- Congresswoman Salazar, I have an event, I can't be there --
CUSACK: Right.
BLACKWELL: -- and it's important. If the president's strategy is, make it about me, but the people, when they have an opportunity to stand next to him and say, I ain't with him --
CUSACK: Right.
BLACKWELL: -- how do you reconcile those strategies?
CUSACK: Well, it's a real problem for the Republican Party. And Trump says, as you reported, that he's going to go to 35 battleground districts. Well, I'm not so sure those 35 want him in those districts. Some do because you've got to get the turnout. And Mike Lawler in New York did ask the president to come, and he's in a very tough race.
But, you know, this convention, it lacks juice right now. And remember, they're going up against the NFL. The first couple of games are Wednesday and Thursday. And now, Trump is going to be speaking both nights.
This -- and also, the other thing, a couple of months ago, we were hearing from Republicans, we're going to make this about the socialists, kind of a continuation of the State of the Union. You know, they're crazy, we have common sense. Now, we're hearing it's all about Trump and his numbers are in the 30s.
So, he lost the House in 2018. He said similar things about pretend I'm on the ballot. They still lost the House. And right now, they are probably going to lose the House again.
BLACKWELL: Let's talk about Texas. And for years, Democrats have said that this is the cycle. You know, this is the time when we can win statewide. I want you to listen to Laura Trump, and she talked about what could happen there in Texas beyond the Talarico impacts and race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARA TRUMP, FORMER CO-CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: The fear is that if the GOP turnout isn't high enough, it's not just about the Senate seat, it's obviously about House races, then the state legislature. And so, you have a state like Texas that has, again, been a very Republican state for a long time, that if we're not able to turn people out in that state, it could look very different. It might not just impact the Senate and the balance of power in Congress, but the state as a whole.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: You were nodding all the way through that.
JOEL PAYNE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I agree with Trump, Laura Trump in that instance. I think she's right. And I actually think that might be one of the reasons why you see Governor Abbott somewhat struggling in his race and some of the polling that you've seen against Gina Hinojosa because I think that, generally speaking, Republican energy in Texas is really facing a lot of, you know, backdraft right now in terms of the energy that's in the state and that's in the country.
Look, Trump and Republicans, and I think Donald Trump in particular, he puts Republicans in this box where you have to make a choice. They can't run against him. He doesn't allow them to run against him.
So, you know, he talked about going to those 35 battleground states. That's the only choice that they have. The only choice that they have is to lean into Trump, turn out their base, and get people fired up in an environment where the economy has not rebounded the way Donald Trump has promised, where people are not feeling as buoyant about the Trump agenda, where Donald Trump is, you know, building, you know, ballrooms and focusing on the tech oligarchs and making them richer and not everyday people. You're not really giving your base anything to turn out for, and that's a challenge for Republicans right now.
BLACKWELL: To that point, new Gallup poll shows 89 percent of Americans believe government corruption is widespread and at its highest level in 20 years in that poll. How far should Democrats lean into that issue versus, you know, the economy and affordability?
PAYNE: Victor, I think Democrats should be very bullish on this. But I always say, and I advise anyone who's thinking about how to talk about this issue, to what end? The corruption piece only works if you actually explain how it's negatively impacting people. Yeah, people don't like corruption, but you need to actually do the work of spoon- feeding people why they should be concerned about corruption, not just that someone is skimming off the top or that they're taken from the government kitty but it's negatively impacting you.
I actually think that's one of the reasons why John Ossoff in Georgia has had so much success in his races, because he has done a good job of telling the story about not only that corruption is happening, but it's negatively impacting you. Your health care is more expensive because of this. You're not getting your needs met because of this. Democrats have to do that well all across the country.
BLACKWELL: There's also the question of what the president spends his time working on and focusing on. He started the event at the White House, talking about the patio and the helipad. Now, they've introduced these dollar gold coins, $25 worth will cost you $61. How does the president, if it's all about him, convince the voter? What's the reporting say about that he is focused on, more than just putting an ad, what matters to people?
CUSACK: Well, I've talked to some Trump supporters, and they think the president is involved in too much. You mentioned a lot of that. He loves the ballroom.
[23:15:00]
He's redoing a golf course in Washington, D.C. He wants the NFL to change a kickoff rule. And it's too much, especially when people are struggling.
And the other thing, Victor, is that the president, kind of like Joe Biden in 2024, said the economy is fine. Well, two out of three people, generally speaking, don't think the economy is fine. And the reason is, I think, mostly because the White House said in 2025, wait until 2026, the big beautiful bill will take in effect. But what is sucking all the oxygen out of the room? The Iran war, and there's no end in sight. The war may be going on as people are voting, and that's a real problem for the GOP.
BLACKWELL: All right. Bob, Joe, stand by. Up next, the backlash against Secretary Pete Hegseth now reaches GOP ranks as Senator Thom Tillis tells Trump to fire him. Will more Republicans speak out? Congressman Eugene Vindman joins me on that and more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
BLACKWELL: The senator who helped get Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed may be having a case of buyer's remorse. Outgoing North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis called on President Trump to -- quote -- "find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it."
That post was prompted by the resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. He's one of dozens of military leaders who have left since Trump's second term began, departures that Tillis and others worried could threaten the nation's defenses. Tillis claimed Hegseth is ginning up culture wars and is inept at managing the Pentagon.
But that doesn't appear that President Trump is ready to fire Hegseth. Just this week, Trump said Hegseth was doing -- quote -- "a fantastic job."
I want to bring in now retired U.S. Army colonel and Virginia Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman. He's also sitting on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, good to have you tonight. You'll remember that Tillis voted to confirm Hegseth last year even after he raised some serious questions about the nomination. What do you make of Tillis's reversal on Hegseth now?
REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D), VIRGINIA: Look, I think it's a little too late -- too little too late for that matter. The last 20 or so months of management at the Department of Defense have been nothing short of devastating to readiness, to the -- to the culture of the military, to accountability. It is just -- you know, this is the least competent, least capable, least knowledgeable secretary of defense that we've ever had. I've called for his resignation numerous times. He needs to go.
And there is no prospect for an improvement in the environment with him still there. I mean, imagine we're at war now, six, seven, eight months, and we don't have a secretary of the Army, we don't have a chief staff of the Army. There are several four-star generals that have been fired. And this is just not serious leadership, it's not serious management, and it's very unfortunate for the United States of America.
BLACKWELL: So, you say that he needs to go. If he does not resign and the president does not fire him by next year and if Democrats win control of the House, do you think your party should move to impeach the secretary?
VINDMAN: Look, I'm a former prosecutor, I deal in evidence. I think we've got, frankly, a lot of investigations, a lot of inquiry. We have only scratched the tip of the iceberg. I mean, all the information that we have is as a result of news reports. The communication between the Department of Defense and Congress has been abysmal and it has been, frankly, a problem recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike.
So, I think we really need to gather the evidence and let the evidence lead us to what the ultimate conclusion for accountability is. I will tell you for a fact that we do need accountability. Right now, this secretary, starting at the earliest possible days, which seems like a lifetime ago, Signalgate, has mismanaged the department and it's costing us -- this war has cost us 18 servicemembers' lives, billions of dollars in treasure, and there is no end in sight because it started with no plan. And with this secretary telling the president, he told me himself when I questioned him at that Armed Services Committee hearing, that he fully informed the president. So, it's either on the president or it's on him but, in any case, the country is off in a much better position than it was before this war started.
BLACKWELL: Let's talk about the war. I want to ask you about what the president said about Iran. He posted on social media, "When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?" But then a little later, he acknowledged that the Iranians really can't do much. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, when I asked that question, I asked it sort of knowing the answer. The only answer is that they're being shot. The regime is getting weaker and weaker by the day. And at some point, they're not going to be able to shoot so easily because I think the people aren't going to take it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Do you think that there is a feasible way for the Iranians to, as the president says, rise up without U.S. military support?
VINDMAN: Look, the reason this war started was the president was convinced by folks like Pete Hegseth and others that the Iranian people would rise up and that air power was sufficient.
[23:25:00]
The plan was one based on hope, and everybody -- anybody who served over a day in the military knows that hope is not a plan. So, the Iranian people did not rise up. Air power is not sufficient. And now, the Iranians are holding the global economy and the Strait of Hormuz hostage, and there's no good prospect.
The only thing worse than, you know, this sort of on again, off again ceasefire is active conflict because it's going to be mismatched every few days we get claims from this administration that there's a ceasefire, there's a peace deal. It's just lies upon lies.
BLACKWELL: Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you.
VINDMAN: Thank you.
BLACKWELL: Up next, the backlash against Flock cameras is growing and it's growing quickly. Cities and states are cutting ties as Democrats and Republicans now try to make it a campaign issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: It's about making sure A.I. does the right thing, curing cancer, not spying on us with Flock cameras.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: In a time where it seems like both parties can never really agree on anything, everyone seems to be concerned about this question: Who is watching you? The answer has both Democrats and Republicans sounding an alarm about Flock cameras. And if you haven't heard of them, these are A.I.-powered license plate readers law enforcement are using to prevent crime. There are more than 120,000 of them across 49 states.
But critics say the rapid expansion of these cameras is creating a widespread invasion of privacy with more and more cases of officers allegedly misusing them. And if you do just a quick Google search, it seems like every day, another city or state is either trying to limit them or talking about it.
Here are just some headlines from the last couple of days. Florida bans Flock cameras and other license plate readers from state highways. Milwaukee police announced more changes to use of Flock safety cameras. Dallas police removing over 300 Flock cameras.
And the outcry only seems to be getting louder. But the company, Flock Safety, has defended the cameras. They argue that they're a critical tool to help police departments solve crimes.
Joel Payne and Bob Cusack are back. Also with me, Douglas MacMillan, a corporate accountability reporter for "The Washington Post. His team investigated alleged misuse of Flock cameras. Thanks for joining the table. A hundred and twenty thousand of them across the country. You point out that these are not new. They've been around for a while. But what has led to the explosion of the concern over the last few weeks and months?
DOUGLAS MACMILLAN, CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes. Well, my colleagues and I got a tip back in May that we should look into this case of an officer who was being charged with misusing these tools to stalk, basically, his romantic partner. We started looking into that, and we realized that this type of activity is pretty widespread. We eventually ended up counting more than 70 cases now of officers around the country, all states, all around the country, who are using this tool, misusing their access to this tool to basically look up the locations of people in their personal lives and stalk their romantic partners.
I think that the realization that police can use this tool not just for tracking, you know, where one license plate is at one point in time, but to actually kind of get the entire movements of someone's entire daily life throughout their day has really kind of opened people's eyes around the country to how this tool could be used in innumerable ways.
BLACKWELL: And largely without a warrant.
MACMILLAN: Warrants are not required at all at this point.
BLACKWELL: So, Flock says that it supported about one million law enforcement investigations last year, helped locate more than 10,000 missing persons, also claimed vehicle thefts in areas with Flock cameras have dropped by 11 percent. The safety versus privacy conversation is not new. What's the law enforcement argument? How crucial do they say the product is?
MACMILLAN: Yes, I would argue that we don't know enough about either of those sides right now. This company is relatively young, this nationwide network is relatively new, and we don't really know enough about how much it's helping to keep people safe.
We also don't know really enough about how much, you know, it's taking away privacy. What is happening to data? Where are police officers? What is Flock doing with this data? We don't really know enough about that.
In terms of the actual safety benefits, they have not been really thoroughly studied. The numbers that Flock puts out there are not based on any rigorous academic research. They're based on extrapolation from some of their customers that they surveyed. So, there hasn't really been intensive academic research on this, and we ultimately don't really know right now definitively what the safety benefit of having these cameras up is.
BLACKWELL: Before I bring Bob and Joel in, after your report, what was the response from Flock? Did they make changes?
MACMILLAN: They almost immediately. They changed several safeguards that experts we spoke to were advocating for in the system, including requiring every police officer to put a case number. When they're looking up a search, they have to basically tie that to an actual law enforcement investigation. Flock initially had that as an optional, as an option for law enforcement agencies.
[23:35:02]
After our story, within about two weeks, they made that mandatory nationwide. So, they are responsive. I think they see this moment as a crisis for their company. They want to try to figure out how to restore faith and try to build faith in their tools by people around the country. But, you know, I think that they kind of got out ahead of their skis and they built this system really fast without a lot of the safeguards that people are advocating for.
BLACKWELL: We were talking during the break about how this blew up over the summer and this is now a political issue. Bob, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has put a pause on funding of new Flock cameras. His opponent in that race, Gina Hinojosa, has been hitting him on this. Let's watch a portion of a campaign ad here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Welcome to Texas, you all, where we celebrate freedom from big government. So, relax. There are only 10,000 Flock cameras reading your plate, logging where you sleep and pray. No warrant needed in Greg Abbott's Texas.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The freedom capital of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Is this really akin to the A.I. conversation as it relates to like the opposition to the data centers as well, like you've got these now physical representations of A.I. that people are against? How big of an issue do you think is going to be in November?
CUSACK: I think it's pretty big. I mean, now, this is the new data center issue. Both outrage a lot of people. I think there's going to be a lot of congressional oversight, especially if Democrats win the House or the Senate. Abbott is in a tough race. So, he's -- I mean, those polls are getting really tight. So, he's getting nervous on this.
And let's face it, privacy is a big issue for Americans. I do think the company got to say, hey, here are a lot of examples of where it worked. But it's really shouting into the wind right now because it's so intense.
BLACKWELL: Yes. Again, I said rare issue where Republicans and Democrats agree that, many of them, that this is a problem to be surveilled in this way. I'll use that term. How important do you think it's going to be as it compares to the other issues, Iran, the war, the economy, affordability?
PAYNE: This is, I think, an accelerant issue, and it's a part of a larger thing. I actually think that, you know, for a long time, big tech has kind of been, you know, kind of very hard to disentangle from our lives. And I think at certain points, people have thought of it as like, oh, it's a nuance and it is inconvenience. Now, it's being seen as a threat.
And you add to that, that these big tech barons, the people who lead these companies, have now found themselves in the political sphere, whether it's in Elon Musk or whether it's the folks from the A.I. industry or the crypto industry who are funding campaigns. And so, beyond what the technology is doing, you have reason and you have thought to question what the people who are behind them are doing. I actually think that that complicates it as well.
And you're right, there is a constituency against big tech creep, both in the Democratic and in the Republican coalition. I think that the industry is going to have a hard time moderating that.
BLACKWELL: Just the start of the conversation. Gentlemen, thank you. Up next, deadlocked again. The Lindsay Clancy jury hits another wall. And now, the judge has a big decision to make. Plus, ask yourself this, would anyone other than Tiger Woods have gotten the plea deal that he got today? Dave Aronberg prosecuted Woods's 2017 DUI case in Palm Beach County, and he's with me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Well, after six weeks, more than 80 witnesses, 300 exhibits, and five long days of deliberations, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial told the judge for a second time they are deadlocked. And tonight, a mistrial seems a whole lot more likely. The judge read jurors what's known as a dynamite charge. It's a legal nudge that tells jurors to listen to each other and keep trying until they reach a verdict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, JURIST AND LAWYER, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: There is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to 12 persons more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it, that more or clearer evidence will be produced. And with this in mind, it's your duty to decide the case if you can do it conscientiously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Deliberations will pick up again tomorrow. And if the jury still cannot agree to a unanimous verdict, the judge could declare a mistrial. That would pave the way for a whole new trial.
Joining me now, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aronberg. Dave, good to see you again. So, listen, I understand that this is speculation, but what do you think the jurors might be struggling with most in these deliberations?
DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: This is a tough one, Victor, because the jury reflects the country's divide over this. There's evidence that she was taking these severe drugs and she had this psychosis and she had insomnia and she was crying out for help. But on the other hand, the crimes that she did were so horrific that people are caught. They are caught between sending her to prison or sending her to a mental institution. She's not going free.
But under the law, you got to show that she knew her actions were wrong and she could control her behavior. That's really tough. And the jury has just asked not about the instructions, not about the law.
[23:45:01]
They asked about a couple pieces of evidence, the knife, the pills. But clearly, I think they're just struggling with their own conscience. Do we want to send her to prison or should this woman who is weeping in front of them, in a wheelchair, paralyzed for the rest of her life, should she be sent to a hospital?
BLACKWELL: Yes. Dave, I mentioned the 80 witnesses, the 300 exhibits here. If a judge is forced to declare a mistrial because they can't come to a unanimous verdict, do you see any scenario in which prosecutors choose not to try this case again?
ARONBERG: I do. I think it's -- if they get a count that is 11-1 against them, if it looks like it was 10-2 or 11-1 in favor of acquittal, I think the prosecutors are going to try to cut a deal and call it a day. Look what this has done to the community and to the country. I mean, we're so divided, and there's so much time and energy spent on this.
And so, I think that to put the country through this again and the community and the state attorney's office there in Massachusetts, I think it's a lot if it looks like you're not going to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
BLACKWELL: Let's turn to what happened in Florida today with Tiger Woods. He pleaded no contest to reduced reckless driving charges today. He avoids jail time, will lose his license for five years, have to pay $2,000 in fines. Prosecutors say there was significant deterioration of proof in the case, a quote from them. Before we talk about the terms of the deal, are you surprised that Woods changed his plea?
ARONBERG: No. It wasn't in Tiger's interest to go to trial here. He doesn't want his dirty laundry aired. And in Martin County, you have a chance of getting incarceration for a first time DUI. So, he didn't want to roll that dice.
But on the other hand, the state didn't have a perfect case. There were holes in the case. Tiger Woods did not submit to urinalysis. So, they didn't have the data that they need to convince a jury, I think beyond a reasonable doubt, without the body camera footage, which was ambiguous. It's hard to say that Tiger was loopy on that video because he was on pills or was it because he was in a rollover accident?
BLACKWELL: So, nothing you've highlighted here has to do with Tiger being a global celebrity. So, I wonder if you think this deal would have been offered to, you know, Teddy Woods or anybody who's not a celebrity. Did he get special treatment because he is so well known?
ARONBERG: I don't think so because I know the state attorney there, Tom Bakkedahl. He's a no-nonsense guy. I don't know if you saw that press conference today. He was really upset that people thought he was going light on Tiger and others thought he was being too harsh. Maybe that's when you know you've been just right when both sides are mad at you.
But Tiger Woods here is a celebrity. But at the same time, the evidence is what it is. You can't get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, I think, if there are holes in the case.
And the prosecutors thought that without your analysis, without a breathalyzer, and with an excuse that Tiger had, that he had just been involved in a rollover accident and that's why he couldn't do the roadside sobriety test properly, that that's why he got into the accident, that's why he was not impaired under the law, that's a good argument.
BLACKWELL: Dave Aronberg, always good to talk with you. Thank you.
ARONBERG: Thanks, Victor.
BLACKWELL: Up next, a question that's about to get its day in court. Should NFL players be allowed to go back and play college football? How the SEC is trying to stop it and what it means for the game if they cannot. Former NFL player Donte Stallworth live with me tonight to weigh in, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Should NFL players be allowed to play college ball again? That's the question a judge will take up tomorrow, which could change the college football landscape. This all started when the NCAA granted players a fifth year of eligibility, but it did not include players from the class of 2022. They had already left school.
Well, now, some of those players want to go back to college ball, but there's a catch. Some of them were drafted by NFL teams and have even been training with them. And not everybody wants them back. The Southeastern Conference passed a rule that blocks these players from returning, but a judge temporarily blocked the SEC from enforcing that ahead of tomorrow's hearing.
Let's bring in now Harvard law professor and legal expert at Sportico, Michael McCann, and 10-year veteran of the NFL and standout player at the University of Tennessee, Donte Stallworth. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Donte, let me start with you. These are players who are now, even if it's for a few weeks, a few months, professionally trained. Do you think they have an unfair advantage if they go back to college ball?
DONTE STALLWORTH, FORMER NFL PLAYER: No, I don't think they do. They've only been in the NFL for a few weeks of training, a couple of months of training. The biggest issue to me, I think, is that a lot of -- there's this narrative that a lot of people were under the impression of, I was actually as well when I first heard this, I thought it was kind of this wild, wild west free-for-all, that any player who was just attempting to leave college and play in the NFL, that could go back to college. But that's actually not the case, as you noted in the intro.
[23:55:00]
The NCAA explicitly left out the 2022 -- the class of 2022 from high school. So, they're the only ones that don't have a fifth year of eligibility. And the courts ruled that that was -- that the NCAA had essentially broken antitrust laws.
And I'm actually not mad at these players for having an opportunity to go and get their fifth year of eligibility like the other players who are three, four years older than them and the guys from this point on will have. They don't have that opportunity. I don't know why they were left out.
BLACKWELL: Michael, that's a good point because let's talk about scope here. How many players were actually talking about how long this will be a concern and if it's really going to resolve itself after a season?
MICHAEL MCCANN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, LEGAL EXPERT AT SPORTICO: Yes, it could be thousands of players because it goes beyond football. It goes into other sports, other athletes that have graduated or otherwise finished college and moved on and are no longer in their class. And Donte is right, there's a good argument that it would have been easier to include that group rather than exclude them.
The NCAA would say, well, there are athletes that decided to go to a particular college that are 18 years old. They have a reliance interest. They thought they would have a roster spot. They just started freshman year. They thought they would get playing time. They're now going to conceivably be pushed aside by players who are 22 or 23 years old.
And a big part of this is that coaches are not following NCAA rules. They are in some ways rooting for athletes, top players to come back and take those roster spots. It's a really interesting scenario where teams are at odds with the league in a way, and I think it has led to some hurt feelings and some concern among certainly newer players in college.
BLACKWELL: Lane Kiffin, coach at LSU, agrees with you, Donte, that, you know, they don't have a huge advantage, that there aren't many who are upset about them coming back. How pervasive is that, Michael? I mean, are Donte and Coach Kiffin outliers or are they mainstream on this question?
MCCANN: I don't know if we know. I mean, I think Donte's position is one that others have, and Coach Kiffin has a similar viewpoint. I think the counter argument is that the NCAA is a private association. It has the right to set rules just like the Southeastern Conference has a right to set rules.
In fact, the Supreme Court, if you remember, the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA in a case five years ago involving expenses for college athletes. But in that decision, the Alston case, the Supreme Court also said conferences can do as they wish. So, the Southeastern Conference saying we can set our eligibility rules is consistent with that Supreme Court decision.
BLACKWELL: Yes.
MCCANN: But, you know, a side issue to all this is, as Donte knows, that because the athletes aren't employees, they can't be in a union, that these rules are unilaterally set. They're not like when Donte played in the NFL, right? There's a union that negotiates those rules. We don't have the luxury of that here.
BLACKWELL: Donte, this month marks 10 years since Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality. Kaepernick spoke to NBC, called out Roger Goodell for saying in 2020 that the NFL should have listened to players more often on social issues and encouraged them to speak up.
Let's put the quote up. He said, "We had been trying to address the issue that the NFL created with blackballing me for years. To come out and say we should have listened on the back of that -- while I'm still actively trying to play in the NFL -- it's so performative." Do you agree with that, performative?
STALLWORTH: You know, I think that when -- initially, when Kaepernick took the knee, there was obviously a lot of blowback for that. And I felt at the time, I wrote a piece in "The New York Times" that the NFL didn't do enough to not only protect him, but to protect other players, protect them from the president of the United States, protect them because they were just basically exercising their First Amendment right.
But also, it was for, as Kaepernick eloquently put it in that interview with Lester Holt, he was -- he was protesting for the safety of Black bodies, Black and brown bodies. And so, to me, I think that the NFL waited too long to come out and even make a statement about it and even really show that they were going to move the needle on it at all. And so, I think it took a couple of years, but a couple of years too late. Kaepernick is, I think, rightfully so upset about how this has been handled since -- 10 years ago.
BLACKWELL: A couple of years too late. We've only got a few seconds left. Do you think there has been progress in the league on this question?
STALLWORTH: I think the NFL has done more than they probably wanted to.
[00:00:00]
But there's still going to be a lot of pushback from the owners who essentially own the NFL. It's not necessarily the commissioner or the players. It's really on the owners.
BLACKWELL: All right. Donte, Michael, thank you both. And thank you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michelson" is up next.
