Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Proposed Ban "an Illegal Assault" on Constitution; Trump Says Fixing the Kennedy Center Should Mean He Gets Name on Building; Source: False, A.I.-Assisted U.S. Intel Report "Almost Started a War"; Holdout Juror Speaks; Laura Goes One-On-One with Internet's Sassiest Barista. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 18, 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]

ROY WOOD JR., COMEDIAN, ACTOR: Biden, you know if you say Joe Biden name five times, he'll appear.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL IAN BLACK, TEAM CAPTAIN, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": What's so weird is this is the one inheritance he hasn't squandered.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch an all new episode tomorrow at 9 P.M. on CNN and streaming the next day on the CNN app with an all access subscription. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Coates, and you know I have been asked about this all day. So, you know what? Let's just talk about it, that post from the president of the United States announcing that he is banning CNN and two other news organizations from the White House. Now, it's not clear what it actually means because CNN reporters were actually still at the White House workspace as of this very evening. The president went on to defend the stated ban in the Oval Office, including when he was asked if it would hold up in a court of law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. But I think it's good. I think it's good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn't. I mean, I don't think a court should allow, depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you, I don't think that a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day. It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into my -- into the people's house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Oh, did you catch that at the end?

UNKNOWN: Yes, you do.

COATES: The proverbial record scratch when he says "my" before saying the "people's house?" Now, that's the key to understanding all of these. You can tell someone to get out of your home. You can tell them to shut up in your home. Your house, your rules. But when you're talking about the -- you heard of the "people's house." We're talking about the government, and the government cannot violate your First Amendment rights.

I know we all hear the words "free speech" all the time, and it is true the First Amendment protects free speech, but it's also true that there are limitations. You may be free to say what you want, but you might have consequences as well. Think of crimes like conspiracy or hate speech or perjury, right? You said what you wanted, but you can get prosecuted for what you just said.

Let's talk about the government, though, and their limitations because they can't be selective about who gets to speak freely in the people's house, not when it comes to public spaces. And let's just take the White House and the press out of it for a second, right?

Imagine the government allows people to hold rallies in a public square. Open to everyone, right? Let's just make it Pennsylvania Avenue instead. And someone from the government goes around and says, you can speak. So, can you and you? And then they point and say, but you. No, not you. You can't speak. I don't like what you've been saying. That's the First Amendment issue. That actually has a name as well. It's called viewpoint discrimination, silencing someone because of the content of their speech, not just the act of speaking or because they weren't supposed to say it in a time or a manner or a place that the government chose.

Now, the White House is not a public street. But you heard the president, it's the people's house. Yes, I'm going to keep saying that, and if the government gives the access to the press in general when you can't shut news outlets out of areas open to the rest of the press corps because it doesn't like their reporting at all.

And tonight, CNN is putting out a statement. It says, "CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting. We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right."

Now, no one understands the pressure of a Trump-era newsroom better than my next guest. Martin Baron ran "The Washington Post" during the first Trump administration. He's also the author of "Collision of Power: Trump, Bezos, and The Washington Post." He joins me now. Martin, glad to have you here, but we are having a deja vu moment, it seems. The president has railed against the press ever since he ran for office, but this move is a real escalation in sorts. How do you see it?

MARTIN BARON, AUTHOR, FORMER EXECUTIVE EDITOR AT THE WASHINGTON POST: I think it is. I mean, I think it demonstrates yet again that there are no limits to Trump's aggressions against the press. He doesn't actually believe in the First Amendment. You know, he wants the press to serve as his stenographers or really his propagandists.

[23:05:00]

You know, it's interesting that on his first day in office in this term, he actually signed an executive order. It was called Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. But ever since then, all he has done is try to quash freedom of speech, to punish freedom of speech. And all he has done is act as a censor. He is engaged in all sorts of acts of censorship, and that's, again, what he's trying to do today.

COATES: Well, here's a second, I think, trying to do, and that is to pressure outlets to start changing their coverage because they don't want to actually be next. They don't want to be restricted. It is a pressure campaign, right? It's an act of intimidation. He even says, I don't know if a court of law is going to hold this up, but it's almost like I'll throw it out there nonetheless. Why? Because they've seen the pressure campaigns in other fields certainly impactful. Is that what's happening here, too?

BARON: Well, I think he'd like to do that but, of course, he's not going to achieve that goal. There's no way he's going to. I mean, look what happened at the Pentagon. The Pentagon ousted all the legitimate reporters because they wouldn't sign a pledge that they wouldn't report on or even ask questions about subjects that weren't officially part of a press release, that weren't officially released by the Pentagon.

Has that changed the reporting on the Pentagon, on the war in Iran? It has not. In fact, the reporting has been quite aggressive, quite energetic, as it should be. This country goes to war. There have been all sorts of reports that have talked, you know, in quite detail about how he got into this quagmire in Iran.

So, if Trump thinks he's going to change some behavior on the part of press organizations by excluding the White House, he's got another thing coming.

COATES: Well, dig deeper for me because it might seem to people, oh, this is rich. You know, we're talking about the media fighting with the president and there is a head-butting happening, but this actually does directly relate to the American people. Explain to Americans why this matter to them.

BARON: Well, look, freedom of the press is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The press is actually the only profession that's mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And, really, it's part of a broader principle, and that is freedom of expression for all people.

But when, you know, James Madison, in talking about that First Amendment, he was the principal author, he talked about the need for examining public characters and measures, public characters being our government officials and, of course, the president of the United States who is the single most powerful person in the world. And I like to focus on the word "examining," which is the word that was used by James Madison, and that means to investigate, to inquire into, to hold to account our most powerful public officials.

That is the job of the press. That's the first assignment the founders of this country gave the press in this country, and it's why they provided for freedom of the press. There is no country in the world that has a democracy that doesn't also have a free press. A democracy cannot really exist without freedom of expression and without freedom of the press.

COATES: There are those who might believe that that very notion requires universal solidarity. Do you think other news organizations should boycott White House events? Would that ultimately just hurt the public, by reducing the coverage they need?

BARON: You know, I think it's an interesting question. I don't know that it would be effective. I think that we have to cover what the president is doing. But I think by going to court, the press can make its point. It did so during the first term, Donald Trump's first term. Jim Acosta was barred from the White House. Jim Acosta at the time, as you know, was working for CNN. CNN went to court. They won in court. And I think if the press goes to court now, they will win again because this is clearly unconstitutional.

COATES: We shall see, right, what the ultimate conclusion would be. I can't imagine a court. Well, the president said they couldn't either. Well, Marty Baron, thank you so much.

I want to turn to former chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Alex Vogel, CNN contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro, former chief of staff and advisor to the Biden White House Press Office, Yemisi Egbewole, and former conservative lawyer turned Democrat, George Conway. He's also the co-founder of the Marque PAC. Glad to have you back here and talking about this.

I mean, Alex, let me start with you. It's kind of unbelievable that we are here and yet it's not too hard to believe that, in fact, we are here given the threats. But the White House is facing a lot of criticism and pushback from prominent conservatives. And Fox News says that if the president thinks this will lead to more favorable coverage, I think he is dreaming. That's Fox News's Brit Hume. Why do this?

ALEX VOGEL, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR RNC: So, couple of things.

[23:10:00]

Number one, let's remember, this tension between the president and the media is not only not new with this president, it's not new with presidents generally. JFK tried to have "The New York Times" turn out of Vietnam because he didn't like the coverage. In the Obama presidency, Anita Dunn said, I don't think Fox News is a real news organization, don`t call on them at the pool events at Treasury.

We've seen that tension before. And until we know what the president means by ban, if he means, I'm not calling on you, and I'm not giving CNN or Politico or any news outlet a specific sit-down interview, I think he can probably do that from a constitutional perspective. If it's, we're going to pull the hard passes of specific networks because I don't like your coverage, I think the courts have been pretty clear on that, and I think it will get resolved pretty quickly in that regard.

But as I understand things right now, it's a little speculative. Everyone still has their passes, as far as I know. And so, we'll see how that plays out. But I don't think we're quite at, you know, constitutional crisis.

COATES: Really? When the executive head says there's going to be a ban on news? Tell me what your response is, George.

GEORGE CONWAY, LAWYER, CO-FOUNDER OF THE MARQUE PAC, FORMER DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: All right. I've got a bunch of different takes, which a couple of them will be just agreeing with everybody and one will be quite the other way.

COATES: OK.

CONWAY: First of all, I agree with the legal analysis. I agree with your opening. You have to be contract neutral when you are dealing with the press and when you are dealing with anything involving free speech or freedom of the press. You cannot discriminate against one viewpoint and over another.

That being said, I think you're absolutely right. If he was banning everybody, not giving interviews to anybody, not holding press conferences, he could probably do that.

And I also agree about the importance of the free press to our democracy and to our society. And I believe that the concept of whether it be the Obama administration or the Trump administration or any administration banning the press and not answering questions from the press, it's an outrage.

That being said, I do not think that this is a terrible -- it's a terrible -- necessarily a terrible thing, what he's doing here. And the reason is he doesn't answer questions, anyway. He's not capable. This president is not capable of giving rational, coherent, responsive answers to questions that are being posed to him. He just doesn't. If he's asked a question that contains any fact that is a factual reality that he wants to deny and doesn't coexist well with his delusional brain, he won't answer it.

COATES: But that's a cop-out, and I'll tell you why I think so. I'm going to ask you guys to weigh in. I think it's very valuable. If that is how the president operates or how he responds or doesn't respond to questions, part of the press's role is to show what the answer of that is.

CONWAY: They don't do that. The press doesn't do it.

COATES: Well, what press? You're talking to Laura Coates. This is press.

CONWAY: What his answers show --

COATES: Is that he's not answering the question, and that's very telling.

CONWAY: No. What his answers show is that he is mentally ill.

COATES: No --

CONWAY: Yes, yes.

COATES: Well --

CONWAY: No. Listen. You're doing it. You're doing it.

COATES: No. Don't talk over me. Stop.

CONWAY: OK.

COATES: What I'm trying to say is, when I'm talking about this, I'm not going to conclude somebody's mental illness because my J.D., as yours, is not actually that level of doctorate. What I was saying to you, and I wanted you to explain a little bit more on this issue, is you're suggesting that because you're not satisfied by the answers he gives, he should be able to ban press because he doesn't want them to hear it?

CONWAY: No, no. I don't think he should be able to do it at all. I think that the press is not making --

COATES: But you just said that.

CONWAY: I don't -- no. I just don't think it's a great loss because the press doesn't do its job in asking the president. And Martin Baron, his book actually shows that. He's a great journalist. There's a whole chapter in his book where he was asked to by editors and others to talk about Trump's mental illness in response to an article I wrote, in part, in "The Atlantic" in the fall of 2019. And they just wouldn't do it because we're not psychologists, we're not psychiatrists.

But as that tweet you showed, he is dreaming, he is delusional. What these answers -- the press would be useful in asking these questions if they picked apart the answers and had experts say this man is delusional. He's psychotic because he really is psychotic because he is out of touch with reality.

COATES: Well, that doesn't -- CONWAY: And that's conceal and that's what makes this difference.

COATES: Do you know what's problematic right now?

CONWAY: What?

COATES: That it's psychotic to have these brilliant minds at the table --

CONWAY: All right. OK.

COATES: -- and I can't hear from them because I'm only hearing from you.

CONWAY: I'm sorry.

COATES: Lulu, why don't you get your point in?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Well, I don't even know how to follow that.

COATES: Take it away, Lulu.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is what I'm going to say about this. I do think I actually disagree with both of you for various reasons, which is this. The role of the press, among many things, is to be the representative of the people. We're in the room because people cannot be, right?

[23:14:58]

We are there to ask questions, to work behind the scenes, to report because the vast amounts of Americans are not there to do that. And so, when you ban a certain group of members of the press, you are saying to certain segments of the American population, I don't care about you.

Donald Trump, the trick that Donald Trump constantly makes is that he tries to make it him versus the press, right? And that's not what's happening. It is him versus the people because we represent the people, and that's what infuriates me.

COATES: Yemisi, go ahead. Excuse me.

YEMISI EGBEWOLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO BIDEN WHITE HOUSE: Well, I'll say as somebody from just a staff perspective, having worked in a White House press office, that it is OK for a White House to get frustrated with the press. In Biden White House, we got frustrated a lot of times when we felt like they asked a question, the president answered, and maybe the response was misconstrued. However, it doesn't matter what the president responds. The press should be inside of there to ask the question.

And I have to say, there are oftentimes when the president can be doing a speech in a different room where you have to make the press pool smaller, you don't get to include all the press. That is so much different than making an outright ban. And you're right, we don't know yet if it's just he's not going to answer those questions or if he's going to take away the credentials. When we had conversations about having to take away a reporter, I would consider him a blogger's credentials that kept interrupting the press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre. We went through White House counsel. There were weeks of meetings. We probably talked to every lawyer in Washington. This was just the president on Truth Social in what feels like a very abrupt moment.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But can I tell you, and this I will agree with you, George, in this sense. Why is this happening right now? What was the thing that triggered this? What was the thing that triggered it? Because, apparently, you know, it took members of staff by surprise inside the White House. And you only have to look at the polling numbers. You only have to look at gas prices. You only have to look at what is happening with the races. We are reflecting reality.

CONWAY: Yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And Donald Trump --

CONWAY: Exactly.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, Donald Trump is not embracing that reality and wants to --

CONWAY: Exactly.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- shut down the people who are actually --

COATES: I want to go there. Stand by. We're going to come back and have more of this conversation. It's important one. We are going to talk about this. The president is digging in on a number of things, including his name on the Kennedy Center, it is sparking protests outside, as one Democrat suggests, just let him do it. Plus, a cautionary tale for the Pentagon. How an A.I.-assisted intelligence report got it wrong and nearly triggered a military attack.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: What is seen tonight outside the Kennedy Center, where hundreds showed up to protest the president's threat to tear down the living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. Trump says that he should get to have his name on it if he's going to raise money to fix it. And if he doesn't get his way, it appears he may be willing to demolish it. Photos showed him reviewing potential plans to do just that. The president was asked about that photo today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Here's the problem with the Kennedy Center. I should be very careful because Bobby is standing right behind me, and I cherish that, too. I actually like the name of Kennedy and Trump, Trump and Kennedy, because it showed bipartisanship. I can say that easily. But why should we be doing that and then raise money for the rest of our lives to keep it afloat? Because that's what you have to do if we get no recognition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm trying to remember the definition of public service. Hold on. Is it -- is it altruism and no recognition? We'll talk about it later.

CONWAY: That's not what you could do for Donald Trump.

COATES: Oh, are you quoting Kennedy? The irony there.

(LAUGHTER)

Look, a judge did rule that Trump must give 30 days-notice before any action is taken to demolish it. The panel is back with me now. I mean, George, I want you to jump in because you were there at the Kennedy Center tonight.

CONWAY: I was there.

COATES: What happened?

CONWAY: It was -- it was -- it was a lot of fun. I think the thing that struck me the most was that there were, you know, probably 4,000 or 5,000 people there. Just guessing. I mean, literally. And lined up. You know, there are these barriers that are designed not to protect the Kennedy Center but to prevent people from looking behind the curtain there to see the name "Kennedy" because it's carefully designed to obscure the name "Kennedy" because we don't want to see the name "Kennedy" if the word "Trump" isn't there.

But there were 5,000 people against these barriers and, like, three security guards standing in front. And there were no police to be seen except on the streets. It was so peaceful, so -- you know. And people were singing "America the Beautiful." They were talking about the First Amendment and the Constitution and freedom of -- freedom of --

COATES: Assembly.

CONWAY: -- democracy and freedom of assembly. It was just a wonderful civic moment.

COATES: Well, interestingly enough. I want to play with you all what the former Obama advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, suggested. Give him that. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN PFEIFFER, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST: Can I offer a solution to this problem?

UNKNOWN: Yes. PFEIFFER: Let him put his name on it, and then we'll just take it off.

UNKNOWN: That's true.

PFEIFFER: Like, why do we care?

UNKNOWN: It's an easy one.

UNKNOWN: I --

(LAUGHTER)

I think --

PFEIFFER: Like, I think it's fun. I think it's embarrassing for him. I love him losing. I love him just being destroyed in his soul for not getting his name on it. But if we're playing the long game, why not put his name there?

UNKNOWN: Better than letting him demolish it.

PFEIFFER: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do you think, Yemisi?

EGBEWOLE: Yes, I kind of agree. This might be a generational thing because I did see the protests outside, and I thought it led more towards, like, the no-kings crowd of maybe an older generation that feels very dug into this. This is a threat to our democracy. And I do feel there is a generation of folks who have had Donald Trump as president for 10 years and are tired.

[23:25:00]

And maybe not every single battle, especially ones that happen inside the Beltway, are large and impactful to the national conversation, especially at a time when we have consequential races at the midterms.

So, let him put his name on it. And if he builds up a ballroom, we're not going to waste the next administration that we have tearing it down just because he built it. There are certain stylistic things that I think the president is doing that don't reach as hard to certain groups of people. And so, I'm in that camp.

COATES: What do you think, Lulu? Is it something indicative of maybe the outside of the Beltway? Is this issue playing nationally, you think, on that issue?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think it has a lot of symbolism. I don't think -- I mean, I take your point. Obviously, the ballroom, not the ballroom, the Kennedy Center, Trump, you know, what does it matter to people? They might never go to D.C., to go see something at the Kennedy Center. But I do think, symbolically, it does a couple of things. It first of all shows someone who is obsessed with playing with his buildings and not really caring about people, right, and not really caring about addressing the many issues that are facing real people. So, as a symbol, I think, it does quite a bit of damage to this administration.

And then I'd also say, it's illegal, and the courts have ruled on that. And so, what I guess --

COATES: Because Congress --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because Congress has said that this is a memorial to -- and it should be Congress's role to decide what name gets put on it. And he has demolished half of the White House, and he's doing something without authorization.

And the problem that we have with this is that, you know, how far does this go, right? I mean, if all of these things get eroded over time, it doesn't matter. Let him put his name on it. Oh, this other thing doesn't matter. And then you're in a situation where nothing matters. And there is no sense of how things should proceed. And certain people get to do things while other people don't. And that, to me, I think is deeply problematic.

COATES: Alex, take us forward. I want you to respond. But take us to November as well. I mean, this is an issue that people are -- I mean, it's not higher than inflation, but does this help or impact Republicans in the midterms?

VOGEL: I don't think it impacts anybody. I think if you went to the event tonight, my guess is it was a really big deal. If you live in Chevy Chase or Bethesda --

COATES: Suburbs of Washington, D.C. and Maryland.

VOGEL: -- the suburbs of D.C. --

COATES: No King's crowd.

VOGEL: -- I don't think anybody in 435 congressional districts, especially the ones that are competitive, is going to bed tonight thinking, I'm persuadable that I'm really focused on what's happening with the Kennedy Center tonight.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But he spends a lot of capital talking about it. And so, therefore --

VOGEL: It's his prerogative to do so. But I'm just -- look, as to the question of, is this an impactful protest? Is this an impactful issue on the national debate? I think people are focused on what's happening internationally. They're focused on gas prices. I do not believe any persuadable voters are fired up about these issues.

EGBEWOLE: I don't think candidates --

(CROSSTALK) I don't think Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan is going to raise this in a speech or anything like that. I also think, yes, it's terrible to have it, but will candidates pick it up and actually use it? No, they won't as well.

COATES: Well, Senator Thune -- I want you to answer this really quickly. Senator Thune was asked if Congress may need to step in to rein Trump in about the Kennedy Center. He said -- quote -- "I hope we won't get to that point." That seems to be a strategy for some Republicans, to hope that this issue goes away so that it does not take the air out of them in other areas.

CONWAY: OK. It's not about the Kennedy Center. And I absolutely agree with Lulu. I mean, first of all, it's illegal and this is the man who is sworn to uphold the laws in the Constitution. And secondly --

EGBEWOLE: But what --

CONWAY: Exactly. But this is the point. The second point, which is what you made, you talked about symbolism. It's more than symbolism. But you're absolutely right. It shows what he cares about. OK? He is a narcissist of the highest order, a sick narcissist.

And he absolutely does not care that people are paying higher gas prices, that people are paying higher grocery prices because of tariffs. You know his defense department is lying about the number of people who died as a result of his war. He doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about a living memorial to himself, his 747 that he got from the Qataris. He only cares about his ballroom, his arch. He cares about putting his name on things.

COATES: Well, we'll see in about 40-something days whether the American people care. Thank you, everyone.

Still ahead, a new alarming story about A.I. being used in a faulty intelligence report that sources tell us almost started a war. I got the details on that, next. And later, the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial speaking out with a message for his fellow jurors and the public.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, CNN has exclusive new reporting tonight over A.I. use in the military that nearly led to armed conflict. An intelligence report circulated across the military in the spring falsely stated a Chinese ship in the Middle East was carrying components of a nuclear weapons program.

That sources say the military immediately made plans to intercept the vessel with armed U.S. troops even preparing to board that ship until officials found out. The report was put together by an analyst with the help of an A.I. chatbot, one that misidentified the material on that ship.

[23:35:02]

A source tells CNN the report was -- quote -- "entirely false" and that it "almost started a war."

Joining me now, former Pentagon official and senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, Alex Plitsas. Thank you so much for being here. I mean, how alarmed should we all really be by this reporting? I mean, could this really have started a war?

ALEX PLITSAS, SENIOR NON-RESIDENT FELLOW AT ATLANTIC COUNCIL, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND PENTAGON OFFICIAL: I mean, it certainly had the potential to in the sense that, you know, it was a Chinese ship, and if we had taken military action against it, that could have been drawn a response from China and then, as you just correctly noted, all of which would have been under false pretenses because this intelligence report was false and it was generated by artificial intelligence with placeholder data.

COATES: What should the military be doing to prevent this kind of thing from happening or any close call like this in the future? Are there guardrails that could be identifiable and implementable?

PLITSAS: Yes. And you know what's funny? They exist and it's not all that different from what folks at home who are listening are experiencing. So, if you're using chatbots in your own day job or if you're using it personally, you've ever asked it to generate something for you, how often does that happen where you end up with, you know, incorrect or placeholder data that's in there because the tools are still imperfect?

You know, artificial intelligence is trying to get to artificial general intelligence or being as smart as a human in the next couple of years and then try to get to artificial super intelligence. But in the short term, it's still not perfect. And those same types of tools are being used in classified environments. They're just being hosted on a classified server as opposed to the stuff that you and I use every day in our regular lives.

COATES: Well, can you give us a sense of how A.I. is already integrated into the military and its systems? This is one close call. But you said it has been used in a classified setting instead. How so?

PLITSAS: So, in this particular sense, this would have been a classified setting. So, when you look at the military networks or across the intelligence community, for that matter, you have your regular unclassified internet or your NIPRNet, right? Then there's secret level internet, which is a separate system. You have a top- secret level internet, and then there's other special programs that reside on different networks. They all have their own servers, but they're basically just computers that are connected through servers on encrypted networks.

So, it's no different in terms of computers or networks or servers than what we use as regular people, civilians, except for the fact that they're just encrypted and they contain top secret or secret or classified information. So, the information that's flowing through the A.I. tools in those particular cases happens to be classified where it's just regular unclassified information that you and I would use. So, again, the same types of things that we experience during the day would be what they'd be experiencing in those particular cases.

COATES: Something tells me this might just come up during that Trump- Xi summit next week. Alex Plitsas, thank you so much.

Still ahead, the lone holdout in the Lindsay Clancy jury breaking his silence and hitting back at the other jurors who openly criticized him. We have his version of what happened, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial is finally breaking his silence. He put out this statement through his attorney: "I didn't have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned."

The holdout juror came under a lot of scrutiny once his fellow jurors started going public. The foreperson said in an interview he -- quote -- "admitted he had reasonable doubt, but still refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity."

Another juror last week revealed to CBS's Gail King that the holdout was a Black man. His attorney described him in a statement as -- quote -- "an American hero and champion of justice who supports our amazing leader, President Donald J. Trump, as a fellow defender of common- sense, liberty, and sanity" -- unquote.

With me now, former Massachusetts superior court judge, Jack Lu, along with CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur. Glad to have all of you here with me. Judge Lu, I'll begin with you, Your Honor, because the juror is disputing this public claim that he had reasonable doubt. Does that put to rest the questions about the judge's decision, after speaking with the jurors, not to remove him?

JUDGE JACK LU, FORMER MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: It absolutely does. There was never any basis, I'm afraid, to the well- meaning but wrong-headed suggestions that the judge should have done more. The judge handled it exactly, which is delicately. That delicacy was perfect. That's the way he should have done it. And all of the talk about doing more was really good faith, but a mistake of judgment.

COATES: Judge Lu, a YouTuber who spoke with the juror says that he insisted that he did disclose his arrest from a 2021 domestic violence misdemeanor charge, which was later dismissed. He disclosed during jury selection the voir dire process. If he was selected, while being fully transparent, is the fact of an arrest a problem?

LU: The short answer is no. Absolutely not. An arrest, accusation or a civil restraining order, the violation only of which can sometimes be a criminal violation, all of that -- these are all just civil or allegations of criminal conduct and are not a problem.

[23:45:04]

It's a bit of a hysteria, I'm afraid. And even if he did disclose it, I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done. But if he disclosed it, it was nothing like a lot of folks thought at the beginning. It's a lot of well-meaning folks on social media trying to influence the legal system, and it's not a good thing.

COATES: Leah, the YouTuber the juror spoke with says this is the reason why he believes he's being targeted. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAY MARCEL, YOUTUBER: He is a Black Republican. He has conservative views. He believes he might be getting targeted because of that. I don't know if this is the reason. He's not sure if it's the reason. But he believes that's why he is getting attacked. And this is also why some people are shocked that it's a Black guy that stood his ground. And not only that, the world is going to be shocked now that it's a Black guy who was a Republican.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Leah, do you see this as an attack because of the juror's political beliefs?

LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, HISTORIAN: So, first, this is an absolute horrific tragedy. And I think it is just heartbreaking to watch this entire thing and to watch kind of the breakdown and, ultimately, the mistrial, particularly on behalf of those three children. And I am deeply sympathetic to all of the members of the jury.

But in no way, shape or form is this about whether or not this one holdout, this one juror, is a Black Republican. In fact, no one knew that he was a Black Republican until he chose to disclose it to the world through a YouTuber in a series of interviews.

Now, there is a world in which Black Republicans, Black conservatives, can be and are oftentimes ostracized for their beliefs, ostracized whether it be from their racial communities or be ostracized because of their race, from their political communities.

But this is not the case. This is not actually what's happening here. Instead, what we are seeing is, I think, a breakdown from a group of people outside of the spectrum who have no idea what's going on within these rooms, and yes, may be shocked that a Black person is what ended up being the holdout. But it's not simply about the political ideology. I think what's important to remember here, too, is that by politicizing this, explicitly politicizing this, this has taken this case to a different dimension. This trial now has a different aspect to it.

And I think it's one that actually detracts from the overall complications and the overall implications from this case. It overshadows the ideas about the actual victims in this case by turning the juror into the victim, right?

It overshadows what we have learned and what the country has learned about postpartum psychosis. And it's also overshadowed the fact that between 2020 and 2026, there has actually been an uptick in the number of men and women that are engaged in family annihilation, who are actually courting and harming their families and murdering -- in many extreme cases, murdering their families. All of that gets erased when someone decides that they're going to make it about political ideology.

COATES: Well, Judge Lu, I mean, as a judge, would you have reprimanded Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, for calling out this juror publicly in open court or was he just being a zealous advocate trying to ensure that there was some -- what's known as a material necessity or lack thereof to call this mistrial?

LU: I would not have called up the lawyer, Mr. Reddington, because he's obligated to do that. He's obligated to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, in front of and in the way of an incarceration of his client.

But the problem, and I'll expand on that a little more, it's not Republican versus Democrat here that is the real societal problem. That's just the usual chatter. The real problem is that social media, well-meaning people on social media, including YouTubers and many thousands of others, are now trying to interfere in the legal system.

This case is the latest, but quite a very good example of social media, true crime, interference with the legal system and with jury deliberations. It's wrong. The harassment of this juror, no matter what his politics, the holdout juror, it has been wrong, it shouldn't have happened, and we need to take an action about this.

COATES: Judge Jack Lu, Leah Rigueur Wright, thank you so much for being here. Wright Rigueur, excuse me. Up next, it's time to lighten things up on the Friday night with the latest installment of one of my favorite series, "Meet the Creators."

[23:50:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You guys are open! I've always wanted to try this place, but you're never open!

UNKNOWN: Yeah, we're not on Bloomingdale. Those are ours. But you really should be checking our Insta story regularly for updates. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: She has been called the internet's rudest barista. Maybe the funniest, too. The creative mind behind BK Coffee Shop is live with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: First, let's see your judgmental glare. OK. It's a little dead behind the eyes. I need a bit more boredom, a little more disdain. Like, you looked at me and you already know I'm the problem. More like mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Judgmental glare, eight out of 10.

POOJA TRIPATHI, ACTRESS, WRITER, CONTENT CREATOR: What? Seriously?

UNKNOWN: We're known in Brooklyn for our judgmental glare.

UNKNOWN: You were there for a moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Welcome to the "Brooklyn Coffee Shop" where the customer isn't always right. Pooja Tripathi AKA Thyme is the internet's most over-it barista, and she has zero patience for the eccentric characters crashing her counter. The former corporate marketer turned content creator has racked up millions of views on social media with her Webby award-winning series. Her constant eye-rolling has drawn in celebrities from and including Kumail Nanjiani and Padma Lakshmi, just to name a few. And Pooja Tripathi is my guest in tonight's "Meet the Creators," where we introduce you to the people you cannot scroll past. I sure can't.

Pooja, I'm so glad you're here. I love the work that you do. I think it's hilarious and witty and insightful. And I'm so glad you're here. So, tell me, because you took a totally ordinary coffee run and turned it into a hilarious skit with characters that we all, who've ever gotten a coffee, recognize. How?

TRIPATHI: I mean, first of all, thank you so much for having me and for saying all those nice things. I think, you know, I love satire. I love looking at the world and seeing kind of, this is what's going on. And let's turn up a few notches. Let's turn up all things you know about a character up. Exaggerate them and kind of make people pay attention to the most ludicrous and ridiculous aspects of everyday life.

And that's kind of the type of humor that we have on the show. And, you know, you have different characters on it. It allows you to talk about many different topics that I think are more relatable for people than I even realized they would be. COATES: They're so relatable. And I'm sure there's some coffee story and barista you were thinking about when you were doing this role. But your path to content creation, it wasn't exactly planned. You were planning to go to medical school before deciding to take a very different path. So, tell me, what inspired you to make that pivot?

TRIPATHI: Well, you know, so I left the medical school path very quickly as soon as I realized that I cannot do needles. I can't even do the hospital lighting.

(LAUGHTER)

Like, everything about it made me squeamish. So, I decided to go into fashion. I was in the corporate world for a couple years. And, you know, corporate isn't for everyone. And I think when you're, like, secretly a comedian in a corporate environment, that's something that's like always trying to burst out of you, you know? So, I think I always knew I wanted to have a creative career ever since I kind of realized that wasn't going to be it.

And, you know, I made a web series in the Netherlands and New York called Amsterdam Ave first, and that led me to get representation. My manager told me, why don't you just try comedy? That could be your bread and butter, which I thought was ridiculous. No one had ever said that to me before.

But I just decided to experiment on TikTok and then, you know, landed on a few things that work, and ended up going in the direction of satire around characters in New York and L.A., and that's kind of what led me to starting "Brooklyn Coffee Shop" as well.

COATES: I love that you bet on yourself. And I love that, as funny as you are, you thought that it was a crazy idea to do this full time. So, tell me, for someone who is thinking about making the jump into content creation, who might be thinking of themselves in their corporate space, the only thing I like about my job is that my chair spins, what do you tell them?

TRIPATHI: I would say -- if you're going to choose that path, I would say really remember that there's going to be a period of time where you're not going to get a lot of societal validation. You know, you're going to leave this corporate company that maybe people know what you do for a living, and they can understand what your job is.

And for potentially years, for me, it was a couple years at least, people will be like, what did you say that you do? And you're going to have to be like, yes, I'm like an actor, I'm a comedian, and you'll be like a little embarrassed at parties until you get the confidence or you start to get those small successes.

And I think you just have to really believe in yourself and know that you're a little ahead of the curve. People may not see it yet, but when they eventually do, that's going to be a moment.

COATES: I love that. I'm going to remember what you just said. And I wonder, though -- I mean, I love where you are right now, I love being able to watch it, but where is "Brooklyn Coffee Shop" coming next? Am I going to see a television series as well?

TRIPATHI: I think what has been so amazing about this format is we're kind of, every week, we're learning like how far the reach can go. I think it's pretty incredible, the number of people that have seen the show in various industries, including obviously Hollywood.

And I think, right now, we're very open. I mean, I think if the right opportunity came our way, that could definitely be a possibility. And, you know, casting directors are watching the show now.

[00:00:00]

That's something that DJ, who plays the other barista, he and I are noticing is that it's kind of widening our opportunity across the industry. So, every week, I'm like, what email is going to come in today? You know, you never know. And so, I think I'm very curious as well to see where it all heads.

COATES: Well, thank God for that hospital lighting. We never would have seen you otherwise. Pooja Tripathi, thank you so much. Nice to meet you.

TRIPATHI: Thank you.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.