Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

White House Blocks CNN From Trump Trip On Air Force One; Trump To Campaign In Deep Red States As GOP Plays Defense; Trump And Xi Wrap Summit Heavy On Pomp, Light On Substance; Nevada Debunks Trump Administration's Claims Of Illegal Voters; Court Leaves Texas Woman's Illegal Voting Acquittal In Place; Laura Coates Interviews Steve Hilton. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 25, 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: It's OK for our leader to say negative and mean things to the media, but when they ask tough questions and say negative things, it's a problem. The reporters are only doing their jobs. Few people with some comments about the so-called media ban from President Trump.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight" tonight. Tomorrow, be sure to catch "Table for Five" at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. And don`t forget, you can stream both shows live or watch on-demand any time with an All Access subscription. Scan that Q.R. code at the bottom of your screen or go to CNN.com/watch to learn more. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. And just when you thought President Trump's feud with the media was cooling off, he has decided to escalate it. The White House is now barring CNN from flying on Air Force One tomorrow. CNN had been scheduled to carry out T.V. pool duties for the president's trip to Tennessee, but the network got notice tonight that it will no longer be allowed to travel with him.

Now, let's take a step back, shall we? I want to lay out clearly what is going on because the back and forth can get pretty head-spinning, I realized. You'll remember a judge on Thursday temporarily blocked Trump's White House ban against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. He ordered the administration to restore those outlets' hard passes. And that eventually did happen, hours after the judge's ruling. The reporters were ultimately allowed back on the White House grounds.

But there were still questions over whether CNN would get to resume pool duties. And a reminder, the T.V. pool is a group of five networks that include CNN that provide coverage of presidential events. Now, today, CNN, as part of that pool, was able to cover Trump's visit to the National Archives with Chinese President Xi Jinping. So, it appeared like the pool was operating normally again, right?

Until tonight. The White House hasn't told CNN why it's blocking the network from flying on Air Force One tomorrow. We have reached out for comment, but this is the latest salvo in Trump's media fight. You might be wondering, does the judge's order restoring White House access apply to CNN's pool duties, too? Great question. The attorney representing CNN and the other two outlets originally banned argue, yes, it does.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED BOUTROUS, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CNN, MS NOW, AND POLITICO: We believe that is covered by the temporary restraining order. We raised this very issue in our motion, and we asked the judge to issue an order to grant our motion restoring the access to CNN and its reporters that it had before this ban was imposed. So, we think that that restoration of access means back into the pool.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, First Amendment lawyer Conor Fitzpatrick, the chief supervising attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. All right, Conor, give me your read of this. Does this move by the White House now, how does it square with the judge's order from the other day?

CONOR FITZPATRICK, CHIEF SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: So, this move is part of the Trump administration's full court press on the press. It is of the same vein as pulling the press passes from your organization and to others, the same vein as going after ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, and even going after the Des Moines Register and Ann Selzer, another lawsuit that he lost this week.

It was very clear in CNN's motion earlier this week that they wanted resumption of what's called the status quo, the way things existed before the Trump administration pulled these press passes, and that's what Mr. Boutrous thinks is being violated here.

COATES: Well, it's the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, right? The way we sort of get cute is in the letter of the law and saying, well, I'm following your order, but if it was intended to restore access, not just the actual pass, but what it actually would get you, that was the point, right?

FITZPATRICK: Right. So, if we look at the actual text of Judge Kelly's order from about 1:30 yesterday morning, it feels like a lifetime ago now, but if we look at the text of that order, he is ordering just the return of the actual hard passes for the three organizations. So, Mr. Boutrous and CNN, I assume, will argue that the spirit of this order was to undo what the Trump administration did.

COATES: Yes.

FITZPATRICK: The DOJ will likely argue we are following the judge's order to the letter and we are not going an inch further than that. But let's be very clear here. What is going on here is an affront to the First Amendment. It is the Trump administration trying to wield its power and bully press organizations who report things in a way that it does not like. COATES: There is an ongoing case since, I think, last November with the AP when they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America and there were consequences, and the DOJ, in their filing, tried to use that case to argue that the president was valid in being able to block access even, they say, for viewpoint discriminatory reasons.

[23:05:00]

But that case is still pending, and it has now greater importance in this litigation, right?

FITZPATRICK: It absolutely does. And, again, in what seems like a lifetime ago, the Associated Press litigation where we went through this whole exercise last year, where Donald Trump tried to throw the Associated Press out of the White House and out of the press pool, and they had to sue.

So, the issue that's pending at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals right now, it was argued last November, just before Thanksgiving, is whether the press pool is something that the president can eject someone for viewpoint discriminatory reasons. Judge McFadden, the district court judge, held that that violates the First Amendment, and now that issue is pending at the Intermediate Appellate Court. But either way you look at it, this is the Trump administration wielding its authority against media outlets that it doesn't like.

COATES: The court could have gone further in their order. They chose not to. It's a 14-day long ruling. We'll see what happens in the interim. Conor, thank you so much for being here, explaining it all.

I want to turn to my political panel for tonight, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings and Democratic strategist Mike Nellis. Glad to have both of you here. I'll begin with you, Scott, because even some conservatives took issue with the president's restrictions, and yet that's not sinking in. How could he think this fight is helping him right now with all, frankly, of the other matters that Americans particularly find all the more pressing to their specific everyday lives?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Yes, I mean, it may be that they think fighting with the press is good for generating enthusiasm among his political base. That's something they could be thinking of.

My view on this has been that this gambit was unlikely to succeed, and it didn't succeed in court, and it's only leading to him being muted. I mean, I think that when you are interrupting the pool coverage, when you're interrupting the normal operations of the press, you know, giving the president access to speaking to the American people, for them to see him, that's a backfire, to be honest with you.

This college football trip this weekend, I mean, I would think he'd want as many people as possible to see you going to a college football game. That's a good thing to do. I'm glad he's going, actually. So, my concern about this from the beginning has been that this was not going to deliver the intended results, and I think that has turned out to be true so far. I'm not sure it's a winning issue for him. It's obviously one he feels strongly about, which is obviously why they're pressing the case tonight.

COATES: I mean, Mike, it's the quintessential cutting off one's nose to spite their face, right? The muted aspect of it.

MIKE NELLIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, HOST ON SUBSTACK, FORMER ADVISER TO KAMALA HARRIS: Yes.

COATES: But, certainly, this seems like a knee-jerk reaction rather than one that was strategically thought out. And yet, this is not the first president of the United States to face tough questions from the press, to have an adversarial relationship with the press as well. I mean, we heard from someone who knows what it's like to face the tough press. The former president, Bill Clinton, also weighed in. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There were lots of times when I wanted to ban the White House Press Corps.

(APPLAUSE)

You know? And there's a reason we have a Constitution, because none of us are immune from being pissed off.

(LAUGHTER)

But I'm glad I never did, and I'm glad I couldn't. And these people shouldn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Why do you think the president is not exercising the restraint that, frankly, could serve him well if he were to focus on other issues besides the war with the press, say, for example, the actual war in Iran or the economic wars or affordability or any number of things that he has talked about in the past?

NELLIS: Yes. Well, Donald Trump doesn't know the meaning of the word "restraint." And when he's backed up against the wall politically like he is right now, and he's really backed up on the economy, this war which there's no end in sight, to affordability and so many other issues, he falls back on the things that he believes helped him get elected in the first place, and that was having this adversarial relationship with the press, that it's attacking trans kids, and calling every Democrat a communist, and all kinds of things like that.

None of that has worked over the course of the last six to eight months of his presidency. In fact, his numbers are declining drastically every single day.

And so, I just think the president is falling back on his old norms, and it doesn't work. I think it works when he's the dog that's chasing the car. Right now, he's the dog that's driving the car, and he's the reason that your life is significantly worse, everything is more expensive, and his party is about to be punished in the midterms because of it.

COATES: Let's talk about the midterms, Scott, because we've got, what, 39 days to go. You've got a lot of headwind. You've got the approval rating of Trump at historic lows. You've got gas at $4, diesel at $6. You've got mortgage rates at 7 percent. And, yes, the economy added 162,000 jobs in August. That's great. It doesn't seem to be moving the needle, at least in terms of the projections and what the voter morale seems to look like, neither, frankly, is, you know, blame Biden as a strategy.

[23:10:01]

So, what do you think will be the most effective way for Republicans to try to rally their voting troops in 39 days?

JENNINGS: Well, look, it's going to be a contrast election. Republicans are going to have to run contrast campaigns, and they're going to have to be very unsubtle about what the Democrats left behind when they left office and what the Democrats would do when they come back into office.

And you're talking about a group of very radical Democratic candidates. Many of them have anti-American attitudes. Many of them prefer socialism to capitalism. All of them voted against tax cuts last summer. All of them virtually are promising to repeal the tax cuts if they get back in power. They're all promising to reverse the president's views on immigration, which would have the effect of reopening the border. So, there's a real contrast campaign to be run here.

Now, no Republican should be under any illusion. It's going to be easy because of the economic conditions that you laid out. I mean, the bottom line is every election is about the economy, and if people feel like cost of living is too expensive or if economic conditions are not working in their favor, of course, they take those to the ballot box.

But the Republicans aren't without arguments. They can make arguments against Democrats. And as you pointed out, they can also make arguments that the country is actually on a better trajectory when it comes to job creation, manufacturing growth. There's evidence of that out there right now as well.

So, it's going to have to be a contrast message in a midterm when, historically, the party out of power ought to have a little bit of an advantage, anyway.

COATES: You know, it's interesting, the idea of some of the things you point out, Scott. And Mike, I'll go to you on this. I mean, Mamdani seemed to be the boogeyman representative that many Republicans wanted to point to as what was wrong with the trajectory of democratic races.

And yet you see President Trump, you know, not shying away from cozying up, from, you know, showering some form of praise on him, which I always find very interesting given the greater landscape the Republicans speak about. But he's also going to Oklahoma, he's going to Alabama next month, and he's going in districts, Mike, where he won by really big numbers. And now, Politico says he's also going to go to Iowa, he's going to go to Florida, Alaska and, again, to Texas. What impact will that be on Democrats? Is it helpful to have Trump in all those spaces?

NELLIS: Yes. I mean, I think it's helpful to have him out there no matter the circumstance. I don't care whether he's in the tundra of Alaska or if he's in Oklahoma or somewhere that he feels safe in Alabama. I mean, I'm happy to have him out there talking about how we're living this golden age of America that he says that we're in right now, which no American except a handful of incredibly wealthy people who are inside Donald Trump's family or his inner circle get to feel. Having him out there is great.

Now, the Republicans are going to try to hide him, but he's too much of a ball hog to actually allow Republicans to curate distance from his unpopular policies. We're starting to see some of these Republicans now who have been supporting this war in Iran for the better part of the last six to eight months going, oh, no, I think the war is terrible, and we've got to end it.

I think the American people are smart enough to know that these folks like Mike Rogers in Michigan and all the other candidates out there, that they're just going to be a rubber stamp for everything that Donald Trump wants.

His inability to allow the Republican Party to have an identity outside of him is what's going to drag them down because they can't get away from him on the economy, can't get away from him on the war, can't get away from him on the corruption. Very few of them are even willing to say that we should investigate his family for the very obvious examples of corruption. Don Jr. taking a bribe in the form of this wedding gift from a Russian oligarch. Jared Kushner making all these --

COATES: Allegedly.

NELLIS: Allegedly. Excuse me.

COATES: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

NELLIS: All right. I'll grant that. Allegedly. But something I'm concerned about, they won't even call for an investigation in that right now because they're too afraid.

The American people are keeping an eye on that stuff, and they're sick of this.

COATES: Well, Scott, let me talk about Mike Rogers because CNN's KFile laid out how he praised the Iran war but is now complaining about the impact it had on prices. He now says it needs to end quickly. He's not the only one creating that distance in that area because you have Thomas Massie making this assessment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R), KENTUCKY: They've got to put space between them and him. And this is the price they're paying. Look, I was the Republican who was speaking out for so long. And they were all, whatever Trump wants, they were all for it in their primaries. And now, they're about to take a shellacking here in the general election. So, they're running from him on this and other issues like the war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, Scott, Republicans had a lot of chances to speak out earlier if they felt this way, and they did not. Do you think voters will view their statements as of now as disingenuous or an evolution of thought?

JENNINGS: I live in Thomas Massie's district here in Kentucky. In fact, I attended a Republican dinner tonight where lots of Republican candidates were there. I heard a lot of positive words for the president. I didn't hear a single person mention Thomas Massie. That's because he lost his primary, he won't appear on the November ballot, and he won't be in office come January. So, that's number one.

Number two, look, Republican voters support the president, OK? I mean, Republicans elected the president to do some things.

[23:14:59]

Number one, close the border, which he did. Number two, cut taxes. Number three, shrink the government. And number four, make sure that enemies of the United States like Iran don't acquire nuclear weapons to threaten us with. I mean, he's doing the things that Republicans elected him to do.

Regarding Mike Rogers, I actually was in Michigan this week as well. I interviewed Mike Rogers. I think his view on the war is very simple. We've achieved our objective. It's time to declare victory. We have oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz that's approaching pre-war levels. We have defeated enemy that has no navy, no air force, no army, no defense industrial complex, and no leader that's ever been seen in public by any historic measurement. These people are defeated.

And I think Mike Rogers who comes, by the way, from a law enforcement and military background, he knows what a defeated enemy looks like when he sees one, and I think he sees one in Iran. And I think he's waiting for the president to announce we've beaten these people, which I think we clearly have.

COATES: He has announced it multiple times over the last several months. And still, there's an ongoing war. And I think many would take issue with the idea that the United States has defeated Iran in light of even the things that Scott is addressing. What is your final take on that?

NELLIS: Yes. I mean, we have not defeated Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is not open. If the Strait of Hormuz was open, we would be seeing gas prices and diesel prices come down, and that would be a relief to the average American. You're not seeing that right now.

JENNINGS: Is oil flowing or not? Millions of barrels of oil are flowing through the strait. I mean, it's just --

COATES: Scott, let him respond. You had a chance to make your case. You did. Mike, respond.

NELLIS: I mean, Scott, I know you're in a tough position, and you've got to sell this stuff, but, like, the Strait of Hormuz is not open --

JENNINGS: I know you're in a tough position, and you've got to lie about what's going on.

COATES: Why am I still hearing you, Scott? Mike, I can't -- Mike, I'm sorry. Restart. Scott, I can't hear him. Please stop. Mike, finish your point. Go ahead.

NELLIS: Yes. I mean, look, the point that I want to make is that, you know, Donald Trump and folks like Scott have been promising that an end to this war was coming at any moment. They've said we've defeated Iran militarily, and then Iran immediately goes out and attacks. You know, they continue to lie about the state of this war.

By the way, at the time that Donald Trump announced the press ban last week, which captured the media's attention for good reason, a Washington Post story came out about how they've been lying about the number of U.S. casualties we've experienced in this war, the number of U.S. servicemembers who have been wounded, so they're lying about that.

The American people are not buying into it anymore. And more importantly, their lives are significantly worse than they were six to eight months ago, and that's why the Republican Party is in trouble.

COATES: Well, guess what, voters? You've got 39 days to see which of them is right. Scott and Mike, thank you both.

Up next, several days of pageantry and praise for Xi Jinping is now over, but did Trump press him on anything? And what about the reports that China is helping Iran target Americans? We'll get right into it with the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It was supposed to be the ultimate diplomatic show, but it ended up being plagued by drama that happened off-camera. Yet for a few hours, the T.V. pool was operating earlier today, covering the last day of the Chinese leader's trip to Washington, D.C. after going without live pool coverage for the rest of his visit. Sources are telling CNN that Chinese and U.S. officials are not happy about the media disruption because this was a visit designed to be seen, like tea time at the White House today. That was seen. What wasn't? The red-carpet rollout, the state dinner, all the bells and whistles, the type of stuff Trump wanted on T.V. but wasn't because of a fight he started.

And one of the biggest headlines to come out of the visit, this Axios report that Trump asked Xi to stop supporting Iran. The other big takeaway, plans for Trump to meet with Xi again this year. Twice, actually.

I want to begin with the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith. Congressman, welcome back. What a week. I mean, this administration is treating this request to President Xi over the Iran war as a -- as a show of strength. But is Trump acknowledging the outcome of the conflict, then might depend on China?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA), RANKING MEMBER OF HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, look, I think it's more acknowledging weakness if we have to ask China for help in dealing with the war in Iran, and I think your previous panel, you had a pretty good conversation about how the war with Iran is not going in the direction that we want it to go. So, no, it's certainly not a show of strength to have to ask China to stop helping Iran.

COATES: Well, the administration is insisting that China has listened, that's the word they used, and is scaling back its support for Iran. So, based on your briefings, I'm wondering, are you seeing any evidence that China is backing off or are they still helping Iran behind the scenes?

SMITH: Well, first of all, the evidence is mixed. It's hard to know exactly what they're doing and not doing. But taking a step back from it, we've got sort of two twin problems that contradict each other in terms of how to deal with China.

First of all, beyond any doubt, China wants to weaken us. They want to be the more powerful nation in the world. They see us as a rival, and this happens economically, this happens in a variety of different ways. So, when Trump stupidly stumbled into this war in the Middle East that has bogged us down for seven months, clearly, there's an opportunity to weaken us, and they're going to look for subtle ways to do that, and that is part of the overall competition.

But the second reality here is China is not going anywhere. We're not going anywhere. So, I actually applaud these summits that are happening. We need to have conversations and dialogue with China. I mean, the war with Iran is disastrous. The war between Russia and Ukraine is disastrous. Do we really want a war with China? Don't we have to figure out some way to peacefully coexist?

[23:25:00]

And that starts with dialogue. You know, we both are doing things that the other side doesn't like, but I'm not looking for a China-bashing, endless conflict between the two most powerful nations in the world. I don't think that serves anybody's interests.

COATES: Perhaps that would explain some of the compliments the president provided and gave to President Xi while he was here. But, you know, "The Washington Post" reports the Pentagon quietly added, without explanation, dozens to a public database of U.S. troops wounded during the Iran war. Who is responsible for this accounting delay, and are you getting the real numbers in your classified briefings?

SMITH: No. Look, we struggle just as much as the media does to get accurate information out of this Pentagon. They have not been transparent on just about anything. It's the way Secretary Hegseth runs the Pentagon. It's the way Donald Trump runs his entire administration, on casualty numbers, on munitions, on what's actually going on with the war, on -- gosh, even going back to the girls' school that was bombed in the first couple of days of the war. You know, they still won't admit to responsibility for that.

But the way they have hidden information about how our troops are doing, you saw the story about the eight suicide attempts on U.S. carrier in the region, not reported, casualties not reported. You know, transparency is incredibly important so that the American people know what the true cost of this war is. It is worse. I think the Trump administration knows that, so they don't want people to know how badly it is going.

But the Trump administration also fundamentally doesn't believe in the rules of representative democracy. They don't believe that they have to be accountable to the press or the American people. We've seen that in a thousand different examples, and that is the most troubling thing of all.

COATES: We'll see if the courts agree with you. Congressman Adam Smith, thank you so much.

SMITH: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, the Supreme Court ruling that gives Trump a way to track down who is eligible to vote and who is not. The White House says it's a huge deal, but is it, really? The Nevada secretary of state, who just debunked all of the voter fraud claims in his state, live with me, next. And later, Crystal Mason's 10-year nightmare now over after finally beating back the illegal voting charges that were against her in Texas. Crystal will join me tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A major Supreme Court decision tonight has Republicans taking a victory lap after the court greenlit a centralized voter citizenship database that will help states search for ineligible voters. It's a move Republicans are calling a huge win for election security.

But let's do a reality check, shall we? Federal law bans major voter roll purges within 90 days of an election. And in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes the ruling will likely have very limited impact in the midterms.

With me now, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar joins us now. Secretary Aguilar, thank you for being here. You know that Republicans are framing this ruling as an instant transformation of voter rolls all across the country, but that's actually not the case. Can you level set what this means and what, if anything, changes for voters tomorrow because of this ruling?

FRANCISCO AGUILAR, NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE: Nothing is going to change for the 26th general election. We're going to continue to run elections as we always have. First of all, let me just say Nevada runs some of the safest, most secure, and accessible elections in the country. All the states in the United States are working really hard to prepare for November 3rd. The voter roll maintenance has been completed. We are in the blackout period. No voter is going to be removed because of this decision, and we can continue to ensure that people have access to the ballot box.

COATES: I want to talk about the accuracy of federal data that Nevada is being pressured to use. You know, just last month, the Department of Homeland Security flagged a list of 185 names on Nevada's voter rolls that DHS claimed were noncitizens. Now, state officials investigated this, and you found that every single person on that list is a lawful U.S. citizen. So, tell me, how do the feds get that wrong and does that raise serious questions about how reliable those federal databases really are?

AGUILAR: Right. When we first heard about the 16,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls, it was on a primetime speech by the president, but we knew that wasn't true. And we kept asking, what was their philosophy for developing that list? What information did they use? They hesitated to give us that information.

We finally had a call. We met with them. We explained what our concerns were. The following day, we received the list. When we saw the 185, we were shocked at the lack of information that this spreadsheet contained. It had four columns, and there was really only one major column that was critical, and that was what they called the voter case number, which was supposed to be the voter I.D. number, but nothing else.

We said, hey, can we have some additional information like name, address, so we can make sure we're really looking at the same voter as you are? And the response was no. And so, we were, like, OK, we're in a position here where we have to figure out what they're asking based on limited information. So, we did analysis the best we could, and we found that all 185 were eligible voters to participate in Nevada.

[23:35:00]

If they send us the information we requested, we can do an additional review. But until then, it's, you know, a third-grader has to show more work in a math problem than DHS showed in that worksheet and the claim they were making, which is really frustrating, and it's not fair to the American people.

COATES: Well, DHS is pushing back again. They call your claims of their list false, and they insist that those 185 names were just a carefully reviewed subset for you to check. In other words, it wasn't a final list. So, are you suggesting that they have not provided the more false list, and that if they do, you'll check that again?

AGUILAR: Absolutely. We kept asking, give us the voter's name, give us the address and what you have for that voter, and they said no. I can't just take a voter I.D. number and assume it's a specific voter that they're targeting because what Nevada did prior to the '24 election is we implemented a brand-new voter registration election management system, which brought us from a bottom-up state to a top- down, which meant instead of all 17 counties running their individual systems, we have one single system for the entire state of Nevada.

And when we did that conversion, we reissued voter IDs to everybody across the state of Nevada to ensure there weren't duplicates from one county to another. I believe the voter I.D. numbers they're using are from the old system and not the new system. So, I have to be very careful not to accuse a Nevada voter of being a non-citizen when they are, in fact, a citizen of the United States.

COATES: Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, thank you for joining.

AGUILAR: Thank you for having me. Honored to be here.

COATES: You know, the woman who was held up for a decade as the poster child of voter fraud has finally been vindicated. Crystal Mason maintained her 2016 vote in Texas was an honest mistake. Remember, at the time, she was on supervised release for serving time on a tax fraud case. Mason filed a provisional ballot, which was not permitted for people with convictions under Texas law, but she didn't know that, and she says the poll workers never told her that either.

But the Tarrant County prosecutor plowed ahead with the case, and Mason was convicted in 2018. Now, she appealed. In 2024, she was acquitted by an appeals court, essentially, only to have the Tarrant County D.A. appeal her victory. Mason was staring then at a five-year prison sentence. She has three kids, including a teenage daughter. And this case, as you know, threatened her family's stability and her own future. But yesterday, the state's highest criminal appeals court upheld Mason's acquittal, ending her decade-long saga.

And Crystal Mason joins me now. Crystal, welcome back. Last time we spoke, you were truly in the thick of all that was going on. I am really curious. How does this feel to have this acquittal upheld?

CRYSTAL MASON, ACQUITTAL UPHELD IN 2016 VOTING ERROR CASE: Well, first of all, I want to say thank you to God because this was a long journey. And when I got that phone call from my attorneys, I was so overwhelmed with joy. Almost 10 years now, I've been fighting for my name over a provisional ballot that never counted. COATES: You know, I spoke to you years ago about this. And just having it hanging over your head was taking such a toll on you personally, on your family. You are a mother. What has your family been through and what do they say now?

MASON: Well, people see the headline. They really don't see behind closed doors. It has been devastating. It has been sleepless nights, tears, fears for my family, for my children, and it has been overwhelming. You know, again, like you said, it's almost 10 years, and this battle is finally over.

COATES: Does it feel over to you? I mean, obviously, you hear, like everyone else does, 30 days until the midterms. Everyone is talking about voting. Does this make you want to vote? Does it make you want to stay home? What goes through your head when you have elections coming up now?

MASON: I just -- I literally just got back from doing a voter registration drive --

COATES: Did you?

MASON: -- at a senior's facility. Yes. And that's what I did. I realized that my first words were, I'm never voting again. Oh, my God. I can't. And that's exactly what they wanted me to do, and I refused. I changed my pain to a purpose.

[23:39:59]

I started an organization, Crystal Mason in the Fight Against Voter Suppression, and I tell my story. I share my tory to encourage people why it's so important to vote. Got to realize these people are elected officials. The judge, the D.A., the prosecutor, they're all elected officials.

COATES: When you're looking across this country and you're seeing what's happening, including people campaigning for office, right? I mean, I understand that the D.A. who brought the case against you is running for re-election, to your point, and I understand that his wife knocked on your door as part of a grassroots campaign. We don't know if she knew that it was you who lived there, but can you just explain what that experience was like?

MASON: So, I really, you just thought, you know, God is funny, you know? He's got a sense of humor. He has to have it. I was at home because my truck was in the shop. So, when I opened up the door, she said, hi, I am Phil Sorrells's wife, he's running for re-election, and I want to know if -- you know, she asked me to vote for him. She gave me literature and everything. I had to hold my breath, my tongue. The only thing I said was, OK, took the literature, and shut the door.

And I was like, oh my God, because, you know, again, you know who's -- it's a ban list. You know who's a Democrat or who's a Republican. So, I just felt like it was maybe you wanted to see my reaction, you wanted to see how I was going to handle it. I just -- it was just overwhelming, you know? Then it made me think, like, you know, why did she come to my house? Was she trying to intimidate me or was she saying that it's OK, you can vote as long as you vote for my husband? I don't know. So, it just left a lot of, you know -- yes, it took me everywhere.

COATES: Yes. And just to be clear, you don't know if she knew who you were in relation to her husband, right? Just --

MASON: I didn't -- I didn't know at all. I didn't feel like that.

COATES: You're right about God had a sense of humor perhaps.

MASON: Just knowing everything started -- yes.

COATES: Well, I want you to have the final word here, Crystal, because I'm really glad you came back to talk to us about this. I mean, November is coming. People are watching you. You've done so much, turning your pain into purpose. What do you want people to know?

MASON: I want everyone to know that this election is very important. If you're not registered, if you're unsure, there are websites, there are organizations, there's stuff on my page, on my website, that will tell you if you're eligible, if you're not. It's a lot in Texas that a lot of voters -- they're in suspense. They don't know if they're registered, if they're still.

So, we have a site that we're checking. I'm just encouraging everybody, if you're unsure, let's re-register you to make sure that you're registered for this election. Just remember that these are elected officials, and we definitely need to get out and vote.

So, I share my story to let people know that this could be you. Almost 10 years of my life, I fought for this. It's just -- again, I'm just I'm just grateful. I'm really just -- I'm trying not to cry, but I am grateful.

COATES: Crystal Mason, thank you. I'm happy for you and your family.

MASON: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, if Republicans are struggling to campaign in a red state, just imagine how hard it is in a place like California. But Steve Hilton remains undeterred, and he's live with me on his run for governor, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: OK, so, if Texas is the white whale for Democrats, then California might be the white whale for Republicans. The GOP had high hopes to claw back ground in the Golden State this election cycle. Governor Gavin Newsom hit his term limit, so he can't run again. He's unpopular among wide swaths of voters. And California's sky-high cost of living and taxes could be driving families out of the state.

But despite all that, Republicans face a climb as steep as the Sierra Nevada mountains. A new poll suggests Republican Steve Hilton is down more than 20 points to Democrat and former state A.G. Xavier Becerra. And Steve Hilton joins me now. Steve, welcome to the program. How do you plan on -- given those numbers, how do you plan on turning this race around?

STEVE HILTON, CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, BUSINESSMAN, FORMER T.V. HOST: There's no question, Laura, that this is an uphill battle. It always has been. It has been 20 years since a Republican won statewide in California.

But the numbers aren't quite as daunting as that poll suggests. If you look at other polls that have a different assumption about the turnout, the gap is half that. There was one the other week with an 8- point gap, another one last week with an 11-point gap. Look, that's still a gap, and there's a long way to go.

But the polls that I think are most interesting, that every single one you look at, there's a majority of Californians, to the point you just made about the cost of living and everything else, who want change, who say that the state is going in the wrong direction. After 16 years of one-party rule, they're looking for something different.

We've got a month. We've got a very big debate next week. CNN is hosting. And so, I think there is still time to make the case for change and a bit of balance in our politics in California.

COATES: One of the things that people have been talking about, you've made a big promise to bring down gas prices back to $3 a gallon.

[23:50:00]

And California has the highest prices in the country, I understand, more than $6 for regular, more than $8 for diesel. But how can you bring down the prices if the Iran war continues?

HILTON: Well, certainly, the Iran war has raised prices in California as it has everywhere else. But even with that, we're about $2 higher than the rest of the country. So, the steps in getting that down, number one, is stop the insane situation right now where even though we have abundant oil reserves in California as in Bakersfield today, the heart of our oil industry, we're now importing nearly 80 percent of what we use, shipping it halfway across the world from countries like Iraq, actually increasing carbon emissions.

So, we can change that policy, and that'll bring costs down. There are some regulations on refining that are very out of date. That can bring the costs down. But the big one is the hidden taxes on gas prices in California, up to $1.40 from policies, for example, that fund high- speed rail, which is really not something that we should continue with. So, a combination of reforms can get those prices down.

COATES: You know, you have supported Trump's war on Iran ever since it started. I want to remind you what you said back in July, almost four months into the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILTON: The president's strategy here, which is to try everything to get peaceful outcomes here and to have a negotiated settlement, but he's not going to be strung along forever. And he's putting the pressure up higher and higher and higher. And at some point, either the regime just collapses or they finally come to their senses and make a really credible deal that lasts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, the president has said that higher gas prices are -- quote -- "very small price to pay for a nuclear-free Iran." Do you agree with that sentiment today still?

HILTON: Well, I think that it's very important that we end it as quickly as possible. And clearly, that hasn't happened yet. I agree with, along with most people, that you don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. In terms of the practicalities of concluding this war as quickly as possible, I'm not engaged in that, have no influence on that, but certainly want it to come to an end so that we can get gas prices down.

But whatever happens with the Iran war, the gas price uplift in California compared to the rest of the country, we can bring that down here by voting for change in our elections this year. So, $2 of that extra price increase, nothing to do with Trump or the Iran war, that's in our control in California.

COATES: I am curious particularly about your pitch to eliminate the state income tax for people earning $150,000 or less and imposing a flat eight percent tax rate for everyone else. But wouldn't that mean that Silicon Valley billionaires would pay the same income tax as middle-income families? Would that be fair to you?

HILTON: Well, the most important thing is that we lift people out of income tax. You've got people earning 70 grand or so in California, paying 9.3 percent state income tax. That's higher than the top rate in most other states. In many counties in California, the official level for low income is a hundred thousand dollars.

So, it's a desperate situation for many people. That's why the priority is lifting up of everyone earning up to 150-grand out of state income tax. That's going to be paid for by, for example, cancelling high-speed rail.

As to the flat tax above that, look, the richest one percent in California already pay 50 percent of the income taxes. So, I think we already have a very progressive tax system. The problem is, it's driving jobs and opportunity away. We've got the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states, the highest poverty rate of any state tied with Louisiana. Our economy is not in good shape.

It's fine for the super-rich, but for regular working people, it's not working. We've got to attract jobs and investment and business back to California instead of driving it away with these sky-high taxes.

COATES: Steve Hilton, thank you so much for joining. I'm eager to tune in to the California governor debate next week. You can all watch it, Wednesday at 9 p.m. Eastern on CNN, or stream it live with the CNN All Access subscription. Ahead, a huge musical event that I'm thrilled to be a part of.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Hey, a quick perk I'm going to tell you about. Tomorrow, John Berman and I will be hosting CNN's special live coverage of the annual "Farm Aid Musical Festival." You'll see performances by Willie Nelson and family, Neil Young and "The Chrome Hearts," and a whole lot more. It starts tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern on CNN and streaming live on CNN All Access.

And remember, you can stream my show live or watch on-demand any time with an All Access subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.

Hey, thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

[00:00:00]