Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

GOP Senator Botches Attack on Jack Smith; Top A.I. Execs Sign Commitment to "Self-Police" After Trump Meeting; New Push to Change NY Rape Law After Cornell Gang Rape Allegations; Lindsay Clancy's Attorney Tries Out a Stunning New Defense Claim. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 29, 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]

PHILIP BUMP, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: You know what, we've got some crazy ideas, but I do love that show.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, we've got one more. Wow, Abby, I'm surprised tonight hasn't thrown you into labor. I mean, if that were a risk, I would probably have been in labor months. There you go.

BUMP: Thank you.

PHILLIP: All right, before you go, you can stream the show live or watch on demand anytime with an all-access subscription. Scan that Q.R. code at the bottom of your screen. Go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.

And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R), MISSOURI: I don't think you know that we have this stuff, so I'll give you a second to process it so you don't, you know, perjure yourself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Jack Smith, Caitlin Clark, and the Republican airball seen around the world. Senator Cory Booker was there in person, and he joins me here tonight. Plus, did the A.I. companies just get even more powerful inside their meeting with President Trump and the so-called deal they struck today? And later, Lindsay Clancy back in court as her attorney tries out a stunning new defense claim. That's tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, look, every lawyer wants that moment from "A Few Good Men," the cross-examination that backs the witness into a corner and gets the answer that blows the whole case wide open. You know what I'm talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM CRUISE, ACTOR: Did you order the code red?

JACK NICHOLSON, ACTOR: I did the job.

CRUISE: Did you order the code red?

NICHOLSON: You're God damn right I did!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But that's Hollywood. This is Washington, D.C. And here's what I know from my years as a federal prosecutor: Before you question a witness, you better make damn sure you got your facts straight, because if you are swinging for the moment that seals your case and you miss the basic premise, the only credibility you'll destroy is your own.

Enter Republican Senator Eric Schmitt, a lawyer and the former Missouri attorney general, who should know his way around questioning a witness. Today, that witness was former special counsel, Jack Smith. And here's when Schmitt went for the gotcha, only to score an own goal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHMITT: Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024?

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: I'm sorry. Could you say that again?

SCHMITT: Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024?

SMITH: What city would that be in?

SCHMITT: Atlanta.

SMITH: No.

SCHMITT: OK. So, your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024. Is that correct?

SMITH: I have no recollection of that.

SCHMITT: OK. Is it your testimony that you were not in Atlanta on February 3rd, 2024? Let me -- let me just give you a little context. The day before, Fani Willis came clean with her affair with the prosecutor, you know, the Atlanta prosecutor that was also trying to get Trump. The next day, were you in Atlanta?

SMITH: I do not believe so.

SCHMITT: What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior-Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair? I don`t think you know that we have this stuff, so I'll give you a second to process it so you don`t, you know, perjure yourself.

SMITH: You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again. I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing. It was Maryland playing Iowa. I think February of 2024. But, again, that's -- you can check that out if that is what we are talking about.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Could it then be that University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes? Could that be it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Oh yes, that was it. There is even video of Jack Smith at that game. A Hawkeyes game, not a Hawks game. In Maryland, not Atlanta. Senator Schmitt tonight is trying to laugh off the whole thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Will you admit that you just mixed up the basketball games?

SCHMITT: Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?

(LAUGHTER)

Listen, we had information that he was at a basketball game. There was only one NBA game that night at 7:30 tipoff, which is why I asked him if he was in Atlanta. He answered the question. So, that is what these hearings are for. You ask questions, you get answers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here is how Schmitt got to the question. A source tells us he reviewed text that put Smith at a basketball game in February of 2024, and he apparently only checked on NBA and men's college games. He left out women's basketball.

Let's put the basketball mix aside for a second, though, shall we, because we are 35 days away from the midterm. So, why are we even talking about Jack Smith?

[23:04:56]

Well, Republicans used this hearing to re-litigate the 2020 election, an election Donald Trump lost, and it put Smith and his investigations into Trump back under the microscope. It also lets Republicans focus on the fight from six years ago instead of the issues the voters say that they are struggling with in 2026. You know, that's the contrast Senator Cory Booker tried to make.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D), NEW JERSEY: There are families all over America who are struggling and suffering and saying maybe there's somebody in Congress that will stick up for me. I'm tired of the politics they're saying. I'm tired of the lies. What the Republicans in control of Congress do with their closing statement before an election? They carry out the big lie. They persecute prosecutors. They do Trump's bidding. They choose Trump over truth, corruption and crimes over the Constitution, and I've had enough of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And Democratic senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker, joins me now. Senator, thank you for being here. I mean, today was unbelievable to watch. You called the hearing gaslighting, utterly ridiculous, a farce. I mean, what did the American people get out of this?

BOOKER: I mean, that was a stunning thing to me, is we are 35 days from an election. This is their last judiciary hearing. And what are they trying to do? They're trying to do the old, big lie, really just trying to cater to Donald Trump over the truth, to his corruption over what the Constitution says.

So, they've dragged in the guy that did the investigation, that used mostly Republican witnesses to base his case which got indictments from a grand jury, and they try to railroad him.

And I wasn't going to have it. I was going to call it out for what it was and let them know that they are failing the American people by allowing Donald Trump and not holding him accountable, allowing him to raise their gas prices, raise their food prices, and take away their health insurance.

COATES: There was a moment -- speaking of potential witnesses, I mean, Jack Smith appeared to make an unexpected revelation about the late senator, Lindsey Graham. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Mr. Smith, do you really believe that Lindsey was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession?

SMITH: No. I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation and, in fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, he went on to say that the late senator had investigated Trump's election claims and had found them to be understandably false. I mean, were you surprised to hear that Senator Lindsey Graham may have been a -- would have liked him to be a witness in the case?

BOOKER: No, because what they based their case on was Republican testimony after Republican testimony from the people in Atlanta that wouldn't let him find the 11,000 votes he wanted to win, from Republican Congress people who are no longer there.

Remember, there were seven Republican senators that voted to convict him in his impeachment trial. He didn't need to get Democrats. This wasn't a partisan thing. The evidence led him to Republican after Republican and said, yes, because some of those Republicans on the day of, like the then speaker of the House, were calling Donald Trump, begging him to call off the mob that was storming the Capitol, beating police officers within an inch of their lives. In fact, Brian Sicknick, a hero from New Jersey, died after he was beaten savagely on that day.

So, this is the outrage. And I think this is the insult, is that we had this prosecutor who went and followed the evidence, got the convictions, and then as soon as Donald Trump becomes president, he decides to persecute the prosecutors, firing everybody that even touched that case from FBI agents and other career professionals.

And now, he's pushing the Republican Party in their final statement before an election to focus on how he feels, like he's the victim, this guy who has made over a billion dollars in office, that he's the victim, and not focusing on the problems of the American people for shame, and we should punish them at the polls for that.

COATES: There was a moment today that I just could not believe, and people keep talking about it because it was a failed gotcha moment, right?

BOOKER: Yes.

COATES: It was Senator Eric Schmitt. It was a botched effort to try to corner Jack Smith. And I'm wondering what was it like to be in that room, in that moment, when that just -- all the air went out of the room, when they realized the mistake?

BOOKER: I could see some of the faces behind senators looking smug and satisfied and ready, like they had some big gotcha. And they actually didn't only prepare in that hearing room. There were MAGA influencers online already tweeting out before he even got the charges out, celebrating this moment that he perjured himself.

And they were the one with eggs on their face because everything they said was a conspiracy theory and lie, and it was exposed in real time. It was watching, like slow motion, a guy utterly discredit himself and the charges he was trying to make to this career professional.

COATES: And yet, Senator Schmitt, I mean, he isn't necessarily acknowledging the mistake.

[23:09:59]

I mean, he says maybe he's a Caitlin Clark fan. We'll accept that. I mean, that's not going far enough. Do you think he actually needs to apologize?

BOOKER: Look, at this point, I'm tired of Donald Trump evidencing. I was taught a different type of honor, that you admit to your mistakes, you are humble, come forward, and are contrite. But not the world of Donald Trump. You deny, you denigrate, you discredit, you never take responsibility for mistakes that you made. That's what's being elevated. Enough is enough. We need to get this nation back to the business of the people, not this endless parade of lies, mistruths, and ego-driven antics. This has got to be an election about healthcare and affordable costs.

That's why I'm crisscrossing the country, helping every candidate I can, as well as in New Jersey. I hope people will help me and go to corybooker.com. It's the end of a quarter. That's the urgency right now, this election. Everybody should be focused on it.

And the best thing I find when I'm out in the field is when I encounter Republicans who come up to me and say, I voted for Donald Trump twice, enough is enough, my farm is in crisis, my family is struggling, I lost my healthcare, they deported my wife that was on a temporary protected status and is being sent back to a dangerous country.

There are so many people who feel betrayed by this man and what he has done. That's why I say this election is not left or right, it is right or wrong.

COATES: Yet there's a debate happening right now within the Democratic Party about how to handle the Trump administration if Democrats do retake the majority in Congress. Your fellow senator, Tammy Duckworth, offered this advice.

BOOKER: Let me hear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D), ILLINOIS: What I would encourage my colleagues to not do, especially those who have more fire in their belly in this area, is don't be impeaching anybody, don`t be -- let's just -- let's just get back to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Where do you stand on that?

BOOKER: Well, I want to first say the spirit of what she's talking about. I feel in my heart -- and this is what I mean by the spirit because we have a constitutional obligation to provide transparency, accountability, checks and balances, and if we uncover horrific crimes in this administration, we should follow them and hold people to account. But I think the spirit of what she's saying is so important, and it's what my sense of urgency is going into this next cycle, especially if we win the House and the Senate.

COATES: Well, in 35 days, we'll know what they prioritize, the people and the voters. Thank you so much, senator.

BOOKER: Thank you so much. I appreciate being on with you.

COATES: Thank you. With just 35 days until the midterms, Democrats are repeatedly seizing on the issue of corruption. As we just heard Senator Cory Booker spell out, one of the more recent examples, the controversial taxpayer-funded ads promoting the president. And tonight, we've learned those ads have cost at least 2.5 million bucks with the funding pulled from Customs and Border Protection.

With me now, Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright and former Republican lieutenant governor from California, Abel Maldonado. Good to have both of you here. I mean, two and a half million dollars is taxpayer funds, right? Given how critical border security is for the administration, I mean, how do they justify using millions that is meant for border control and security?

ABEL MALDONADO, FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: You know, Laura, you look at these and just at the forefront, you say, well, where's that money coming from? We know where it is coming from now. But, look, governors use money all the time to promote their states.

Obviously, President Trump is using this to promote what he has done. And does it look good? I want to say that it does not look good. However, there is going to be -- people are going to look into this and see where the money is coming from, see if it's legal or not legal. In the meantime, he's going to continue to do it.

COATES: You say that you know why he's doing it, to promote what he has done. It looks largely like soft aggrandizement.

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CEO OF BLUEPRINT STRATEGY, ADVISOR TO JIM CLYBURN: Well, Donald Trump is using these funds and this opportunity to promote Donald Trump. There's an old saying, show me your budget, I'll show you what you value. Using taxpayers' dollars to promote Donald Trump certainly does not fall in line with the priorities of the American people, and that's what Republicans are going to lose in 35 days.

The fact of the matter is these are the same people who have put in place the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, largest cut to SNAP in American history. You have 18.2 million Americans in places that Donald Trump won. You see their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles rise because they refuse to expand those ACA tax credits, along with this war of choice that has given us record-high diesel costs, fuel at the pump, utility prices, grocery price, food recalls, and you mean to prioritize a taxpayer-funded commercial to promote the president that has a 60 percent disapproval rating?

COATES: Well, let's talk about how Republicans are also spending the money. I mean, Trump aside in one area of this, and there are allegations of it being all hot check violations, as you know.

[23:14:55]

But a brand-new CNN analysis, Abel, found Republicans are said to spend a staggering $166 million in ads for Ken Paxton in Texas. I mean, a single Paxton ad aired during "Judge Judy," 258 times this month alone. I mean, is that -- talk about the priorities. They're obviously prioritizing Ken Paxton. We know the vulnerability of perhaps Republicans in Texas, although in the last 30 years, they have not been in a statewide election. But will this do the trick to save his candidacy? MALDONADO: I don't know, Laura, if it's going to do the trick. But I can tell you this. Texas is a red state. And I think Talarico is, you know, as much as he's trying to do at the end of the day, I don't forget who Beto O'Rourke was, who when he ran a great campaign with a lot of money, he ended up losing.

Look, $150,000 to support Ken Paxton is going in there. But let's not forget, Republicans spent $200,000 against Ken Paxton in a primary, and he won the primary. So, this man has won, what, three or four statewide elections? So, I think he's in great shape. If the Democrats want to focus on Texas and Ken Paxton, be my guest.

COATES: How about -- sorry. I didn't want to cut you off.

MALDONADO: No, Laura. Be my guest because, at the end of the day, we know where Texas -- look, 22 months ago, Texas voted for Donald J. Trump. They're not going to come back and vote for Talarico. I guarantee you that.

COATES: You guarantee it? I don`t know. That's hard to guarantee.

MALDONADO: Well, let me tell you this. Jasmine Crockett is not for Talarico. Jasmine Crockett hasn't come out and endorsed Talarico. What does that tell you?

SEAWRIGHT: Gov, with all due respect, you should know this as a former elected official, every election cycle presents different challenges and different opportunities.

There's a reason why they're spending almost $200 million in Texas. There's a reason why the president is spending his time going to traditional red Republican strongholds. There's a reason why places like Kansas, there's a reason why places like Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, traditional Republican territory ground is now uncertain ground for you.

You know why? Because the voters that voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election cycle have been given the middle finger and have been given -- the president has given them their butt to kiss, and that's why you all are going to lose in November.

MALDONADO: Thirty-five days is a long time in politics. It's an eternity in politics. The Democrats think that it's just all good and happy. Look there's no secret. Presidents have a hard time in midterms. That's not news. We know that. But don't underestimate.

SEAWRIGHT: But let me tell you, it was not --

MALDONADO: Are we going to go back to Chuckie Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries?

COATES: Hold on. Wait. I want --

SEAWRIGHT: Let me tell you -- let me tell you what's not going to change in 35 days. The fact that you have diesel prices at record high, you have voters suffering and hemorrhaging, the fact that people are paying more at the grocery store and utility prices in every single thing they do. You know why? Because Republicans have not prioritized working Americans in this country. And the constituencies that voted for you all in November of 2024 --

MALDONADO: I'm not going to argue with that, Laura. I think he makes a very good point. However, we just don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That's why we're there.

COATES: That's a hell of a pivot. Let's talk about something else. Antjuan, Abel, thank you both for coming.

Up next, the Fox is confident it can guard the hen house, and so is the president. The top A.I. players get in a room with Trump and walk out with a deal that doesn't involve Congress. Can that work? We'll ask Andrew Yang that question, next. And later, could a change to New York's law clear the way for charges in the alleged rape at Cornell? One lawmaker thinks so, and she'll explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Forget the Academy Awards. Forget the Superbowl. If you are a big shot in tech, the place to be today was none other than the White House. The president surrounded himself with some of the richest and most powerful CEOs in the entire world. I'm talking Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Google's Sundar Pichai, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, and Nvidia's Jensen Huang.

The meeting was meant to get tech leaders and the government on the same page over A.I. But despite all the calls for a slowdown and regulation, including from some of these very companies, the executives signed a commitment focusing on self-policing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police. It is very hard for somebody to come out and say, get in to these models. They're very complex. And again, I believe they're going to be used for the good. And when they're not, we are going to be able to nab them. But there is going to be a tremendous self-policing aspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, former Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang. Andrew, you know, all these executives, they've been expressing different approaches to A.I. Will they go along with the president's self-policing plan?

ANDREW YANG, CEO OF NOBLE MOBILE, FOUNDER OF FORWARD PARTY, FORMER 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is one of the worst outcomes I've feared, Laura, where we saw what the tech companies did on social media, they self-policed that, too, and what you wound up with was hundreds of thousands of depressed and anxious teenagers, particularly adolescent girls, and lawsuits showing that Meta knew that their products were destructive and harmful.

Now, we're going to see something similar with A.I., but it's going to be even worse because here, the impacts could be catastrophic, irreversible, including some of the fears that these self-same CEOs expressed that might be existential to all of humanity just a number of days ago.

COATES: You know, "The New York Times" is reporting, Andrew, that OpenAI employees, they warned executives before the Hugging Face incident that they weren't doing enough to secure their models and that the executives said they needed to move as quickly as possible. So even if these companies publicly say they're going to self- regulate, will the American public trust them?

[23:25:00]

YANG: Of course not. Eighty percent of Americans want some form of effective regulation. And OpenAI and Anthropic in particular have trillion-dollar IPOs on the docket. In Anthropic's case, it could be really any day now, in essence.

And so, if you weigh that set of incentives around the need for care and holding back these models from doing damage, you kind of know which is going to win out. It's one reason why Jacob Coxon and others from within Anthropic raised their hands and said, look, I don't think we're doing this right.

COATES: Well, you know, the president today said that he does not intend to work with China on A.I. Listen to his explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You know, somebody said, oh, let's do a joint venture. Let's work together with China. But if we do that, we're going to be giving a lot of secrets that we have that they just would want to have or anybody else. And, frankly, there is nobody in third place. I mean, it's all between us and China. A lot of people said, let's do it together with China, but then they're going to be able to immediately gain access to things that we know that they don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is that a real risk?

YANG: It's a risk if you're incredibly ham-fisted and dumb about it. But there are ways that you can monitor agreements and progress that don't divulge any of the frontier models, proprietary materials to China. And, by the way, China is probably accessing a lot of this stuff, anyway.

I'm going to express a joke, Laura. How far behind the U.S. is China in A.I.? Twelve hours because they wake up and see whatever we did the previous day. This rationale doesn't hold water. It doesn't make any sense.

Now, I know that China may or may not live up to some agreement or commitment, but there are monitoring entities and you have to at least try. The U.S. has a lead, yes, but we can do two things at once. We can outcompete China and make sure that these models don't wreak havoc in a way that we can't turn off or reverse.

COATES: Walk and chew gum at the same time, you say. Andrew Yang, thank you so much.

YANG: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, ATTORNEY FOR LINDSAY CLANCY: Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A stunning moment in Lindsay Clancy hearing as her attorney making a claim that the prosecution called laughable. So, what was Kevin Reddington actually doing? And later, New York's law around intoxication and consent under the microscope after the rape allegations at Cornell. Could it be about to change? One of the New York lawmakers working to make that happen will join me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: New York attorney general is reviewing the disturbing case of an alleged gang rape at Cornell University, and the governor wants an outside investigation into how the school handled the matter. But it's also renewing concerns about a so-called loophole in the state's current rape law. Now, right now, the law only defines incapacitated as someone who is unwillingly under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But critics say there's an obvious flaw there. It excludes people who may have gotten drunk on their own.

So, how does consent still hold up in those cases? Well, the question is at the heart of the alleged gang rape of Jane Doe at Cornell. Prosecutors say she was drinking before the alleged assault at a fraternity house in 2024. In a sworn statement at the time, Jane Doe said the encounter was consensual. But now, she says she was pressured to consume more drugs and alcohol, being quite incapable of consent.

Now, for years, lawmakers have been pushing to change the state's law to reflect that a person cannot consent if a reasonable person suspects their -- quote -- "words and acts" suggest a lack of consent. This change was actually first proposed in 2019. But despite bipartisan support, it has been stalled.

I want to bring one of the authors of this bill, New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. Thank you so much for being here, assemblywoman. How would this law help prosecute cases?

AMY PAULIN, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, NEW YORK STATE: The definition of incapacitation shouldn't be whether someone did or did not voluntarily drink. If they can't consent because they're drunk, whether they voluntarily did it or they involuntarily consumed alcohol shouldn't make a difference. It's not the difference in the majority of states in the United States, and it shouldn't be the difference in New York either.

COATES: It seems to be the difference, at least the county D.A. is saying, as to why he was now reopening the case, because he can only do so much under the current state law. Listen to how he explained it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW VAN HOUTEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK: Unfortunately, under New York State law, which I'm constrained by, the voluntary intoxication of someone is not a basis to claim or to prove that they are incapacitated to the point that they cannot consent to sexual contact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: If your bill were in place in 2024, would it have given prosecutors a path to keep investigating, let alone prosecute?

PAULIN: Perhaps. You know, we don't know the details intimately of what she said.

[23:35:00]

You know, I've heard different reports. But, clearly, it would give prosecutors across the state the ability to hold rapists accountable in a way that they're not accountable now.

COATES: The defense bar is pretty powerful, as you can imagine. There's a public defender who warned the bill could -- quote -- "be weaponized against a lot of innocent people when the so-called victim regrets having sex with the other person." How do you mitigate that?

PAULIN: You know, when someone is robbed or someone is shot, you don't say, oh, did you voluntarily do something to enable that behavior? This is the only crime, the only crime where you ask the question, and you, of course, still doubt the woman. I mean, we are in the -- back in the 19th century, as far as I'm concerned, by not allowing this law or allowing this bill to become law. It's about time.

You know, women should not be held responsible if they're incapable of consent. Whether or not they drank of their own free will or not, they are not capable of consent. They could be completely passed out. So, if you're passed out, do you have the ability to consent? Whether you voluntarily drank and then you passed out or you involuntarily drank and then you passed out, it's the same action at the end. So, it's about time. COATES: And to be clear, one of the words that the D.A. used was, it must be akin to being unconscious. I see the distinction you're making. And for everyone out there, you know, I've been a sex prosecutor. Men are also raped. I know we're talking about women, but men are also victims of sexual assault. I don't want to forget that in the conversation. This law does not apply specifically when a woman is incapacitated or otherwise. Just to be clear.

And I wonder from your perspective, why is this so difficult to pass? What do you think the hurdles have been? It was first introduced years ago. It had bipartisan support. What do you think has been the fatal flaw to getting it passed?

PAULIN: Having been the author of many bills that particularly are women-centered, you know, let's say human trafficking, I have a bill that relates to the Harvey Weinstein case, for example, you know, the defense bar has always the same answer. It's going to victimize the accused, and they're very, very powerful among many of my colleagues. That's really the holdup here. They're really the problem for us being the same as so many states, you know, in the rest of the country.

COATES: You're right, many states do not have this so-called loophole at all. Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, thank you so much.

There's a new twist in the Lindsay Clancy trial tonight. Her defense attorney now claims that prosecutors never proved Clancy even killed her three children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REDDINGTON: Where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this? This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHANAN BUCKINGHAM, PROSECUTOR: So, the first point that there isn't enough evidence to prove that she did it, I would suggest, is a laughable argument. And based on what your honor sat through several weeks of the trial, that the Commonwealth met its burden as it applies to that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, remember, during the trial, the defense never disputed Clancy killed her three children. A judge declared a mistrial after all, but one juror thought she was not guilty by reason of not being criminally responsible. Now, the lone juror who says Clancy was guilty is speaking out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL DESRONVIL, LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL HOLDOUT JUROR: I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that's at hand, the ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the one that can't fight the battles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh. Thank you for being here. What did you think about Reddington making these claims that there was an insufficient amount of evidence to prove that Clancy even killed her children?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, as a trial lawyer, I knew something that most people did not.

[23:40:00]

He was just making a legal argument. He's trying to get this judge to throw the case out. So, he's making a record. He's making a legal argument. That doesn't mean he's abandoning this defense argument that she was not in control of her actions and didn't suffer from mental defect or disease. He'll be arguing that if this case gets retried, which I suspect it will be.

COATES: Remember, it's always the prosecution's burden to prove. Even if he were to make some statement in court, his arguments are not the evidence and the burden foundation. But it was striking to hear him now say this. The prosecution called it laughable. But he was trying to revisit an argument he made earlier as well in the sense of trying to preserve his appellate cases later.

But Mark, the judge did not make any rulings today. No new trial date was set. Is the case headed for a second trial or do you think there's going to be some discussion that would be fruitful for a plea before that November hearing?

EIGLARSH: All right, so, first of all, I do not think this judge is going to grant any of these motions. I think he has to make them, but I don't think that they have much merit. This same argument of finding his client not guilty was essentially made three prior times other than this time.

At the conclusion of the state's case, at the conclusion of the defense case, after the rebuttal case, now, the judge, all of a sudden, is going to go, you know what? My bad. It shouldn't have gone to a jury. There's not enough evidence here. So, that's not going to happen.

Do I think the prosecutors are going to bring this case again? Yes. Do I think if it was a high-profile case or it wasn't a high-profile case, they wouldn't bring it? Yes, because 11 people ruled against them.

But because prosecutors are politicians, as you know, and because he deeply believes in this case, I think he's going to say, you know what? We'll change our theory around a little bit, and maybe we'll get the verdict that we want. COATES: Well, some prosecutors are politicians, others are career

prosecutors. I have to tell you that in terms of my case in particular.

But this idea that there are still pending motions, including the double jeopardy claim, that he believes that because there was no so- called manifest necessity to call a mistrial, that they should have had double jeopardy attached, I think that's going to likely be a losing argument. Well, they had the attorney in the Karen Read trial who was raising that very claim. They still have this outstanding issue when it comes to the further questioning that they want done for the holdout juror. With that one in particular, where do you think the court is going to go?

EIGLARSH: First of all, the double jeopardy issue, nothing is going to be granted there. The judge can't pull the juror in and say, what are you thinking? Why aren't you going with the others? Do you have a reasonable doubt? Explain yourself. That's a horrible precedent to set. It should never happen.

The other thing also is a horrible precedent. Look, it's not going to change the outcome. Even if you get this guy's cell phone records, even if you somehow find that he held back information hypothetically, and I'm not sure that he did, to get on the jury, it won't change the outcome of this particular case, and it will set a horrible precedent for future trials.

COATES: And a chilling effect, likely, if we see this unfold even further. Reddington has been accused of fueling an internet mob against this lone juror, and he addressed this in court today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REDDINGTON: Can I be heard?

UNKNOWN: Sure.

REDDINGTON: Thank you very much. I am so tired of hearing persecution, attacking, I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Cruz, not the D.A. but the politician calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, he claims this is all about defending his client. I think he was the one who fronted the request. He even talked about wanting the president to pardon her, even though this is a state crime and the president can only pardon federal matters. He fronted that issue. What did you make of his statement in court?

EIGLARSH: Well, look, he's doing everything he can to zealously defend his client. I respect that. But I think he went over the line when he made assumption that merely because a couple of jurors said he's not following the law, that that meant he was somehow a stealth juror.

Look, I didn't love what he came up with. I was hoping he'd go along with the other 11 because I believed my feelings were that the government didn't make their case. That said, I zealously defend his right to stand his ground, and I think he has an obligation not to go along with the other 11 if he truly has an abiding feeling that they didn't make their case. So, what he's doing, he deserves in the court of public opinion the scorn that he's getting, but stay with it, Reddington.

[23:45:01]

That's his job. He's a zealous defense lawyer. That's what he's supposed to do.

COATES: Well, we'll see what happens from now to November. Mark Eiglarsh, thank you for stopping by.

EIGLARSH: Thank you. I appreciate you having me.

COATES: Up next --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD ACHILLES, SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, FORMER IDAHO STATE REPRESENTATIVE: If you're an elected official, chances are you promised no new wars. Next thing you know, quagmire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's the Senate campaign ad getting a lot of buzz, and the candidate behind it is no Democrat or Republican, he's an independent, and he thinks he can pull off an upset in one of the reddest states in the country. Todd Achilles joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Is 2026 the year of the independent candidate? A handful of independents in ruby red states are running to unseat Republican senators. And in three of these races, in Nebraska and South Dakota and Idaho, Democrats aren't running a candidate at all, pretty much been clearing the way for these independents.

[23:50:04]

So, in a climate that seems more polarized than ever, is rejecting a party label altogether the key to ousting an incumbent? Well, my next guest thinks so, and he is out with a new ad that's making waves, a little training video for members of Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACHILLES: Let's get started.

UNKNOWN: Hello, senator. Would you like to start a war with me?

UNKNOWN: No, thank you. I promise not to.

UNKNOWN: Come on. Everybody is doing it.

UNKNOWN: OK.

ACHILLES: Freeze. Can you guess what this elected official did wrong? That's right. Everything. Just because all your friends won a war doesn't mean you should, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Very creative. That candidate, Todd Achilles, joins me now after years registered as a Republican. He served in the Idaho State Legislature as a Democrat. He's now running for Senate as an independent. He's also a U.S. Army veteran. Todd, thank you for joining us. Let's talk about that ad because it's gaining a lot of traction online. Why do you think it resonated so much?

ACHILLES: Well, first of all, Laura, thank you for having me on this evening. You know, I think it's an appeal to the Gen Xers out there who've had to sit through corporate videos. But, you know, there's some clarity and simplicity of this message, and I think that just aligns with what, you know, where voters are right now.

COATES: Well, you know, this is a state that Trump won by 37 points just two years ago. And the last time Idaho did not elect a Republican senator was in 1974. So, given the idea of wanting to resonate and expand the tent, so to speak, why do you believe voters will ditch the GOP for an independent this year?

ACHILLES: Well, it's also a state where 65 percent of Idahoans identify as independent or lean independent. We passed Medicaid expansion in Idaho. It was 61 percent of the vote, the highest of any red state in the country. And in our polling, when you talk to Idahoans, 75 percent want a politician that work with both sides of the aisle.

Well, I think what you're seeing right now, and particularly in Idaho, folks are just fed up with the political system and economic system that's just not working for them anymore.

COATES: You've been a member of both the other parties and not been independent for your entire life. What drew you to now go that direction? Was it that frustration or was it in response to where the people are now?

ACHILLES: You know, I think it goes back to my roots as an army officer, my oath to the Constitution. You know, I was a tank commander. Four guys in my tank crew. My loader was from Maryland, my driver was from South Carolina, my gunner was from Louisiana, and me from Oregon. I have no idea what their politics were because we all had to share a mission to get done. I think that's what Americans and Idahoans want to see. They want to see us just get back to doing the hard work that needs to get done.

COATES: Well, you focused on the war in part of that video. Obviously, the idea of sort of following one's friends when it comes to the war and campaign promises. And we learned that Secretary Pete Hegseth plans to cut the military's top ranks and reduce positions for generals and admirals by 20 percent. The Pentagon says that it's to streamline the force and also to reduce bloat. Now, we are in an active war. We know there have been issues in terms of recruitment and at times retention. How do you view Hegseth's efforts to reshape the department in this way?

ACHILLES: Well, Hegseth is the least prepared, least qualified, and most inept secretary of defense in the history of the role. I have zero confidence in his ability to transform the military. And you look at who he has already fired already. They were the ones who had the experience in the field and who were working on the transformation.

I mean, we're witnessing the most radical transformation in how war is conducted, and Hegseth is out there doing P.T. for the cameras and doing prayer meetings with Christian nationalists. I mean, he's putting our military at risk. And, you know, I think Thomas Massie was on to something with what he introduced in the House a couple of weeks ago.

COATES: Would you support Massie's efforts to impeach or any other calls for Hegseth to be impeached?

ACHILLES: Listen, as someone who is going to be a senator and a juror on an impeachment trial, it's completely inappropriate for me to weigh in to what the case may look like or the trial may look like, but Hegseth's record speaks for itself, and it's really dangerous for the country.

COATES: I understand that you say that you will not caucus with either the Democrats or the Republicans if you are elected. How exactly will you go about getting on influential committees and navigating party politics?

ACHILLES: Yes. You know, it's a great question, Laura. I get this from a lot of people. I've committed to caucus as an independent in a closely divided Senate. I can do more good for Idaho more good for the country.

[23:55:01]

I think I can help get Congress back on track. In terms of committees, you know, if you look at Senate rules 24 and 25, committee votes are actually happening on the Senate floor. They don't -- they aren't through the caucuses. So, I'm still guaranteed committee position per Senate rules.

COATES: Are there any issues that you would break with that mentality and caucus with either Republicans or Democrats on this specific issue?

ACHILLES: Absolutely, because no one party has a lock on good ideas. You know, I served that way in the Idaho legislature. I was one of the most bipartisan in the building. Listen, there are good things coming from the Republican side and there are good things coming from the Democratic side and there are bad things coming from both of them.

I think what we need more of our folks, our senators calling those balls and strikes and focusing on what's important for the country and what's important for your state rather than what furthers the party.

COATES: Todd Achilles, thank you for joining.

ACHILLES: Thank you. I appreciate it.

COATES: Remember, you can stream my show live or watch on-demand any time with an "All Access" subscription. Just scan the Q.R. code at your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.

Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)