Travel is all about choosing your own adventure. With your Chase Sapphire Reserve card, sometimes that means a ski trip at a luxury lodge in the Swiss Alps with a few of your closest friends. And other times, it means a resort on a private beach with no one else in sight. Wherever you decide to go, find the detail that moves you with unique benefits at hand selected hotels from Sapphire Reserve. Chase, make more of what's yours. Learn more at chase.com/safirereserve. - Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank and name member FTSC, subject to credit approval. This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. During Cybersecurity Awareness Month, Lifelock wants to give you helpful tips to protect your identity. Using multi-factor authentication can be a line of defense to help protect your personal information, like getting a text with a security code. But Lifelock offers comprehensive protection against identity theft. Protect your identity today with a 30-day free trial at lifelock.com/podcast. (upbeat music) - All right, tonight check your mute, or don't. What the rigamarot over the debate is revealing about both candidates. Also tonight, Jack Smith throws a punch in one Trump case and might be pulling another in a different case. I'll explain in a moment. And voter fraud election rates? The group who says it's happening to them in Texas. Tonight, I'm Laura Coats Live. (upbeat music) So if anyone tells you that baseball is America's favorite pastime, don't believe them. To paraphrase Deadpool, you have of course saw the movie. They're not lying, they're making an educated wish. Turns out, arguing actually is the real favorite for Americans and you know who was in full uniform? Team Harris and Team Trump. They are arguing about the specifics of how they're gonna argue. I mean, how they're gonna debate? Yeah, that sounds much more professional, doesn't it? How they're going to debate? And get this, they are debating about a microphone. Tap, tap, specifically, whether to mute them when they're not speaking. - We agreed to the same rules. I don't know, doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine. - Worked out fine? Well, that is true. I mean, Joe Biden didn't fat drop out. But the time before last, eh. - You didn't want me to bend. - All right, gentlemen. - No, it was heavily in front of you. - You would have been much later Joe. - Mr. President. - Mr. President. - Mr. President. - You're talking about two million people. - You're not president. - You're not president. - Well, spare your ears, the super cut. But seeing that clip reinforces why the Harris campaign is insisting on the mics being open. They want Trump to say every single thing that comes to his mind. In other words, their senior advisor, Ian Sam's, quote, "Because that's what we're going to get if he becomes president," end quote. And, you know, if history is any guide, it may allow Harris to do this. - He said, "Because the president wanted people to remain calm." - Well, let's go. - No, but Susan, this is important. And I want to add, Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking. - I have. - I'm speaking. Let's talk about PAC in the court, then. Let's talk about the PAC. - Please. - Yeah, I'm about to $400,000 a year. - You said he didn't appeal to Trump tax cuts. - Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking. - Well, I'm speaking. - It'd be important if you don't mind letting me finish. We can then have a conversation, okay? - Please. - Okay. - Okay, so where are we? Well, the Trump team is now using the word "if" when discussing the debate. Talking about the September 10th showdown, then it may not even actually happen. And that's the only one on the books, mind you. And the Harris campaign is resorting to adding schoolyard sound effects to videos to taunt the former president. - One activator. - Well, wait, but because they already know everything. There's no drops, you know, not doing the debate. - Okay. Okay. Chicken sounds. I can't, I really can't make this out. But with me now, Alex Thompson, CNN political analyst, and Axios National political correspondent, Rachel Palermo, former deputy communications director, and counsel to Vice President Harris, and true Michael Singleton, CNN political commentator, and Republican strategist. Okay, I'm just gonna say it. I have not heard the boc-boc chicken thing in so long, 'cause I was probably in elementary school. Don't anyone guess when that was? But you gotta be kidding. That's where we are right now. I gotta ask you, why do you think it might benefit the Harris team for him to not have his microphone muted? - Well, I think you showed it right there, is that when he is not muted, he sometimes has trouble controlling himself. The ironic thing about all of this, though, is that the decision to have him have a muted microphone, that was Joe Biden's campaign's decision earlier this year, they were the ones who set the rule for the June debate. This is also another instance that Kamala Harris has strategic differences with Joe Biden's team, and also it's partly because of her different strengths and weaknesses, right? Like, if she's gonna go on the debate stage, she wants to make sure everyone can hear it. She also wants to make sure that she can unwrap Tim, as you saw with the Mike Pence debate. And so it is interesting. You've seen all these other subtle chefs, the fact that she's emphasizing freedom over the democracy in January 6th rhetoric, the fact that, you know, she is really tacking to the center on things like immigration. There are, this is just the latest instance of her making her own imprint on this campaign. - This is also baiting, right? I mean, you can't do a bok bok chicken sound unless you're trying to tell someone, like, here, ducky, ducky, and trying to give them enough rope to hang themselves with. I mean, this is baiting at its finest. - I mean, it is, and hopefully the former president doesn't fall for it, like, Republicans agree to every single thing that President Biden asked for. I didn't think they should have agreed to everything that they did, but looked at it and it's worked out. And former president Trump said, like, I thought they should have had an audience there. I thought that was something that plays into his strengths. They agreed to it anyway. And it worked out in his favor. I don't think the rule should be changed. I get Alex's point, Trump interrupting her, vice president interrupting Trump. But I think the American people lower benefit when they're able to hear cogent remarks from each candidate on how they would tackle some of the most critical issues of the country. And that's what I think these debates should be about. - Less of the partisan stuff and more about, I guess, substantive answers to very complicated problems. - How beautifully substantive, and maybe naive, to think that everyone wants to have, I mean, I wonder, Rachel, what the American public has an appetite for. I mean, I mean, Trump Michael is a hell of a strategist, but I do wonder if the American appetite is more for that substantive, granular detail or more for, you know, the back and forth, I'm making fist muscles in my hands without any physical altercation, of course. I mean verbally, verbally about this. What is, do you think is the more rational approach if you're the strategist here to think about what you want from the Harris team? - I think that for this debate, what's really important is the American people deserve to see Donald Trump and vice president Harris on a stage together talking about their visions for this country. I think there's been a lot of hype about it, and I think we're making fun of this joke, of the video that's been baiting Trump, but he's been running scared. He's been going back and forth for a month saying, "I'll debate, now I won't debate." Then he insults the network. Then now he says that he disagrees with this campaign about whether or not the mic should be muted or unmuted. And so I think that it's important that he needs to be put into a corner here to actually debate, because people need to see the contrast between Harris and between Trump here. - Yeah, I don't, how about the woman aspect of it? I'm gonna go ahead and turn my mic. - I don't think he's running scary. Donald Trump always does this. Am I gonna debate? Am I not gonna debate? I don't like this particular network. I like this network over that network. I mean, that's just sort of a normal thing - He does this for Michael. - I mean, I don't know. I mean, if I had that question, maybe I'd be a multi-millionaire by now. - I don't know, but it was a part of his personality. - Oh wait, he was a millionaire. Who wants to be a millionaire? - Right. - Go ahead. - If I may, there's one quote from Donald Trump in 2015 that always stands out to me. That was made on this network, which is that he says, "I am a winer, and I whine, and I whine, and I whine until I win." And Donald Trump, the whole point of this is he's trying to play the refs. He's trying to work the refs. He's trying to gain leverage, and so he complains. - But I also will say here to Alex's point earlier about the fact that Kamala Harris is a different candidate than Joe Biden, there's something about Kamala Harris that's getting under Donald Trump's skin. She's a powerful black woman. She's a career prosecutor. She, everyone has talked about how she gathers the evidence. She's going to build the case and prosecuted against him on that debate stage. And so I think the fact that she's a different candidate here is getting under his skin. - But when she was a candidate previously, running for president, she looked back at to 2019 when she had him on with Tulsi Gabbard, who was then running against her. Remember that was that bigger stage and it all, this is the pre-COVID debate. Remember, watch this moment. - She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. (audience applauds) She blocked evidence. She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California. - I did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of a state of 40 million people, which became a national model for the work that needs to be done. And I am proud of that work. - Some praised that answer, others panned that answer, but at the end of the day, with little time for course correction between now and the election, and I want what 72 days, Rachel, every single moment, every answer becomes that much more impactful, which is maybe why there's only one debate, but if there's only one, think of how important that answer is now. - Right, and the Vice President has said that after this debate, she's open to other debates, and so it might not be the only one, the only time where people see them on a stage together. But these moments-- - Oh, two but hasn't scheduled one. - Correct. - Right? But these moments are incredibly important. And I think Donald Trump hasn't laid out concrete policies here. He's being graded on a complete curve as he has throughout any campaign, whether it's this one, 2020 or 2016, and people really need to be able to hold him accountable, 'cause what they've been seeing from him on the trail is him slinging insults at people without actually saying anything substantive. - Let's talk about that. You call it a different scale. I call it a total double standard. I mean, there's gonna be, obviously, when one has been a part of an incumbent administration as Harris has been, and of course Trump is a former president, both have records to run on and administrations to talk about, but how people are going to judge Harris versus Trump is based on personality. On the one hand, you expect Harris to give, you know, substantive answers, to have to dot the I's, cross the T's, talk about her record, her with Biden as well. With Trump, you expect a visual reaction and a reactive tone. Is that fair for the electorate to have that imbalance? - Well, some of this is because Trump is so well-known, at this point. I would say like 99 or maybe 98% of Americans already have an opinion about Donald Trump. And so when he says these things, some people dismiss them and some people hate him even more. The fact that this highlights actually why this debate is high risk, high reward for Kamala Harris. It's very clear that she could end up coming across as, I'm the candidate of the future. Let's turn the page on this guy. Let's turn the page on the chaos, everything else. There's also a case in which people who don't know her that well, see her and are unimpressed. And then actually we're like, well, my life was okay in 2019, pre-COVID, by the way. And are just like, like, we'll go to the guy that we know. And that's why this debate is maybe in some ways, not as a huge deal for Donald Trump because people have a set opinion about him, but it is a bigger deal for Kamala Harris, a great opportunity, but also a great risk. - It's the same for the interviews, 'cause obviously the debate is one thing. You're gonna have that toe-to-toe climate. But then you talk about an interview. And this has become such an important conversation. I don't know that the voters are as in tune with wondering whether they'll have an interview as the media is about this, but say they are and say that Quentin Tarantino thinks so too. Listen to this. - This is about (beep) winning. What most people don't give the Democrats enough credit for, all right, but we give the Republicans credit for is like, no, sometimes it's just about (beep) winning. And it doesn't matter how we look at this moment, it's about (beep) winning. I'm gonna vote for her (beep) in any way, no matter what she says in a stupid (beep) interview. - Exactly. - So don't (beep) it up. - Man. - The funny thing is, it wasn't actually, but that was actually his voice with the beat. - Whoa, that's right. - That was actually his voice talking about the beat. That's your record, seriously. When you think about the high risk, high reward aspect of it, near a strategy, I know you're a Republican, but the idea of having her do an interview, should she do it, should she wait this long, and does it matter who she interviews with? - I mean, it definitely matters. I would not have waited this long. The vice president has pivoted on quite a few issues, consequential issues. I think sitting down on a journalist, particularly one that could be a little bit of an attack and this took against her, I would argue would have helped prepare her against someone like A Donald Trump, who's probably gonna hit her really hard on immigration, he's probably gonna hit her hard on the economy, he's probably gonna hit her hard on the issues with Iran and Israel in the Middle East. And so being able to sit down for 45 minutes, 30 minutes with a journalist has asking her those tough questions, what is your plan to tackle a cause? Why haven't you guys done anything on immigration? How do you placate to some of your progressive base while also coming to Israel's aid, would allow the vice president to sort of pivot, to dance around some issues if she has to, maybe get some of her answers and talking points right before this upcoming debate? It's just sort of like a practice in real time, if you will, which she could have had, what, 28 days, I would argue if she did an interview a week to get prepared for this upcoming debate. So I would have utilized that as like, your in the boxing match ring practice before the big showdown. And for whatever odd reason, her campaign has decided not to do that. So the stakes are so high, if she fails in this first interview whenever it comes, everyone's gonna pay attention to it. - Yeah, Rachel, you've done congressional investigations and interviews. There is something about what you can prep for behind the scenes and then what happens when a camera's in front of you and you're performing for the electorate. Not a lobotomy that happens, but something akin to it can often take place. Can you prep yourself to have cogent questions from Trump? - Well, what I will say is in terms of this interview, in particular, the vice president said she's going to do and by the end of the month, we're getting close to the end of the month, so I'm sure in the coming days-- - She'll schedule one by the end of the month. - I'm sure in the coming days, we'll hear when that interview will be, but her campaign said today, she's done 80 interviews this year alone. When I worked for her, she did hundreds of interviews, everywhere she traveled from the White House. It was something that's really important to her. So I don't think it's necessary to be something that prepares her for the debate stage. She's doing her own debate prep, she's very prepared, she has her process, and what I think is really important here is that over the last month, she's been hitting the trail, she galvanized the entire Democratic Party around her candidacy, she picked a vice presidential running mate, she crushed the Democratic National Convention, and the polls are moving in the right direction for her. - And yet, despite 30-plus days of incredible coverage, this race is still tied. That should not be a good sign for Democrats. I would be worried, get your candidate out there and allow her to sit down with journalists to ask those antagonistic questions, to prove to the people who aren't quite sure about her candidacy that yes, she can lead the country for four years. - Something tells me that a former Attorney General has had her share of antagonistic moments, but way taken, thank you so much, everyone. Look, Jack Smith enters the conversation once more, the new push he's making in one Trump case, and has retreat of sorts in another, next. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - Travel is all about choosing your own adventure. With your Chase Sapphire Reserve card, sometimes that means a ski trip at a luxury lodge in the Swiss Alps, with a few of your closest friends. And other times, it means a resort on a private beach with no one else in sight. Wherever you decide to go, find the detail that moves you with unique benefits at hand-selected hotels from Sapphire Reserve. Chase, make more of what's yours. - Learn more at chase.com/stafffirereserve. - Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank and a member of FTSE, subject to credit approval. - This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. During Cybersecurity Awareness Month, Lifelock wants to give you helpful tips to protect your identity. Using multi-factor authentication can be a line of defense to help protect your personal information, like getting a text with a security code. But Lifelock offers comprehensive protection against identity theft. Protect your identity today with a 30-day free trial at lifelock.com/podcast. - Remember that time a former president had more than four trials pending? There was the state trial in Georgia over election interference, another one in New York that was the Hushmani trial. There was the federal trial in DC about the attack at the Capitol. And of course, the classified Doc's case in Florida. Remember, only one criminal case went forward and we all know, of course, how that turned out. 34 felony convictions. But there's still a sentencing that will happen soon, right? Well, the original sentencing date for the 34 convictions was actually July 11th. Now he's not even supposed to be settled until next month, September. But Trump's lawyers have already asked for a delay. Now, the rest of the cases, none are gonna go in the 72 days before the election between the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity. The possibility that Fani Willis will not actually oversee the Georgia case and Judge Aileen Cannon, her choice to dismiss the classified Docs, it might be that none of the cases go at all. Well, now Jack Smith, he is trying to change that. He appealed Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss his case and what many originally believed to be one of the most open and shut cases against Trump. Either Trump knew he had the classified documents or he didn't. Turns out, not only hasn't the rubber actually met the road, the car hasn't left the garage because Smith is still trying to convince an appellate court that his appointment was legal and he has the right to prosecute. Writing quote, precedent and history confirm those authorities as to the long tradition of Special Counsel appointments by attorneys general and Congress's endorsement of that practice through appropriations and other legislation. This court's contrary view conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions. This court should reverse. With me now, Devlin Barrett, National Security Reporter at The Washington Post and Kim Whaley, former assistant US attorney and author of the new book Pardon Power, How the Pardon System Works and Why. Devlin, I'll begin with you here because this appellate court has reverse pass rulings by Judge Cannon. By the way, in this very case, Kim, how likely is the might rule in Smith's favor this time around? - So I'm no fortune teller, but I do think the odds are good for Smith here. I do think she's going up against a long history of court accepting Special Counsel's as legitimate and to say they're now suddenly not, I think is gonna be a hard thing to convince an appeals court. - Why choose not to ask her to be removed? That was part of the, he could have asked for that. He didn't. - Well, he could have done that at several stages going for, since this started, right? With the special master ruling, which the 11th Circuit slapped down, I think this is such a fringe argument. I think it's highly likely the 11th Circuit will reverse her and now that we're so close to the election, he probably is not worried about timing like he was before and really-- - Why is that? Why is that? - Because it's not gonna have any impact on the election one way or the other. Whether he's, it won't go to trial, of course, and this could stretch post-immunity ruling months, if not years, to sort out in all of these cases, which parts are legitimately going to be before jury and not. And ultimately, the Supreme Court gave itself, as I think Justice Sotomayor said, pre-clearance power to decide as the ultimate prosecutor, what kind of evidence is gonna go before any of these juries? And that could take months, if not years. So I think he's just sitting back and saying, "Whoa, we have to take a brand new look at all of this." But this decision can't stand. It's on so many levels, it's really off the rails, this special counsel on constitutionality decision. - It's not just what affects this particular case, but you were a former counsel in the Whitewater probe, you've written about this as well. And the idea, this could have far-reaching implications for other special counsels or those who are in a temporary position who need to have confirmation from a Senate and they're waiting for that to actually happen. Could this have that implication? - So she throws one line, it's a 60, sorry, she has a very long ruling. And she throws one line, yeah, Jack Smith's ruling, Jack Smith's appeal is 60 pages. He could have done it in three words, which is she is wrong on, she is wrong. But he chose to do it in 60 pages. She throws one sentence in saying, this shouldn't really apply to anyone else. But if you follow her logic, it could very well apply to anyone else. And I think it's a little glib to just assume there aren't significant implications of what she's saying here that unless you're confirmed by the Senate, you can indict people. I mean, think about the consequences, the potential consequences of that. That could have very far-reaching implications, not just for the Justice Department, which obviously they care about a lot, but also for the Defense Department and other agencies who have acting officials making important decisions. So you have to be able to run the government. And typically, the courts are pretty respectful of executive power, and this is a form of executive power. - This is just one of the cases that he's focused on. Yeah, the Florida case that you also have what's going on in the immunity, decision and election interference case in Washington, DC, he could have had a kind of mini trial, so to speak, to try to flesh out the parameters of the immunity issue. He could have gone and said, I want to figure out what's going to fit and what's going to not, and have this all happening relatively quickly. It seems that the judge was amenable, at least to have an encounter. Why does he not want to do that now, Kim? - Well, I think the filing is in a couple days, so we're not entirely sure what he's going to ask for, but it sounds like from reporting that he's not going to ask for a mini evidentiary hearing. I don't know how to get around that, ultimately, because the court's decision was so vague, what's unofficial, what's unofficial power. And the official power has to be manifestly and palpably not outside the scope of the president's power. And then if they satisfy that hurdle, then the question is, can you overcome the presumption by showing somehow that using this evidence would interfere with the president's ability to do his job, which I think- - Trembling laughing. - One of the disgusting justices said, will this make the president anxious if this could produce a criminal indictment? Oh, of course it will. Anything that could produce a criminal indictment is going to make presidents anxious. I mean, this is really crystal ball stuff, but I think it's the flip side. To have a mini evidentiary hearing close to the election, that's going to be a sideshow, that's going to get a lot of political, could get a lot of political heat because the same evidence that would go before the jury would presumably go public in that context. And they also don't want to probably show their hand on the merits. And the last thing I would say, he could be deciding to issue a superseding indictment. You know, there are some major charges, including incitement of an insurrection that weren't in that indictment. It was a clean short one, probably, you know, in one and done, get in there, get out. Now that, now you have the time, I don't know, I don't know what he's going to do. - Well, I got to make a t-shirt that said, this is crystal ball stuff. That's pretty much that. - That sums it up. Devlin Barrett, Kim Whaley, thank you both so much. - Up next, the Latino civil rights group is calling out the Texas attorney general, accusing Ken Paxton of carrying out illegal searches against several Latino Democrats. They say it voter intimidation. One of those Democrats joins me next. Homes, raided, phones seized. Allegations of voter suppression. That's what's going on in Texas, as we speak. A Latino civil rights group calling for a federal investigation after its volunteer said they were targeted by Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton. That's the rights organization, LULAC, says officers broke down a door. They say an 80 year old's medicine was taken. They say an 87 year old's home was raided at six o'clock in the morning. She's quoted the New York Times as saying, "They searched everywhere. "My underwear, my night gown, everything." They went through everything. And a Democrat running for state house representative says her home was also raided. Cecilia Castellano says, quote, "This is all political." Here is the state director of LULAC, speaking out today. - We're asking the Department of Justice to step in. Because justice and equality, that pathway to justice and equality in our community is at the ballot box. So if they think that they're gonna stop our community from coming out, they've got another thing coming. - Now, no charges have been filed, but the Republican AG had previously said his office click and searches after a local prosecutor referred, quote, "Alligations of election fraud "and vote harvesting," unquote, during the 2022 election to his office. And we've reached out to Paxton's office for comment, but have yet to hear back. Now, I wanna bring in Cecilia Castellano along with tech, the state senator and Democrat Roland Gutierrez. Thank you both so much for being here. When I first read about this account, it was just shocking to say the least. Cecilia, can you tell us what happened when officers arrived at your home? - Yes, ma'am. It was about six in the morning on August 20th. You know, as a strong Latina of faith and owner of a construction company, this I could have never been prepared for what I experienced. Now, although I didn't experience in depth, my actual home being raided, but office of the attorney general did come to my home that morning at 6 a.m., ringing my doorbell, knocking on my door. When I peeked out, there was flashlights flashing into my home. And they asked me if I was Cecilia Castellano and I said, "Yes, I am." And they told me that they needed to talk to me and if I could open my door, I did. I said, "Well, are you guys like the real "like attorney general? "Because I'm not sure why y'all are here." And they said, "Ma'am, can we come in?" I said, "Well, can you please hold on "so I could get my husband?" When I went to go get my husband, they were already standing by my dinner table and it was kind of disturbing to me because my son's door is just a few feet away where he was sleeping. My son did hear everything. And what gets me mad as a mother is that, number one, this came in on a school day. And number two, okay, I understand that they came to do their job to take my phone. But I believe that it could have been done in a different manner if they were so concerned about what is on my phone. However, when I asked them what, you know, if I could see the search warrant, what is it saying, "Why are you here?" They had no knowledge. They said they had nothing except to come and take my phone. - They had no paperwork for Cecilia? - I'm sorry? - They had no paperwork to show you or anything like that? - They provided a search warrant, a one-page search warrant, but there was no specifics on it. As far as why did they want my phone? And so that's what disturbed me. I do, they did take my phone, which I use for business and personal. And I do have a campaign phone, which I do not carry with me. So it's not located here at my home. And so there was no specification. It just stated the phone that was located at my home address. And so I gave it to them. They thanked me for not giving them a hard time. And I said, "Well, I haven't let that hide." I mean, I'm not sure again why you're here. And they said, "Miscastiano, I'm really sorry that I've had to meet you under these circumstances. You don't look like the type of person that should be going through this." And I hope to meet you again in a different circumstance. They were here for about maybe 45 minutes and they gave me a sheet of paper of my phone that they took, the identification of the phone. And they left. And thereafter, my husband and I sat down and talked and I was in shot. I'm still shot. - Yeah. - Um, I'm more mad because my son was a few feet away. I'm mad because my son calls me at work asking me, "Mama, is everything okay?" Mama, what happened? And I couldn't talk much while I was at work. And a matter of fact, since that day, as I walk into my home, I feel no peace in my home. I can look towards my dinner table and see those men standing there. My son comes and lays with me every night and hugs me tight. That's how our nights have been before he goes to sleep. He's 14 years old. I mean, seriously, what 14 year old does that? And today, as we were getting ready for the press conference, he made sure that dad was gonna be there and that dad was gonna be able to be there to protect Mom. And I told him yesterday after church, I said, "Sum, sometimes when we're led to do something "for the right reasons and to fight for the right things, "we gotta go through the valley. "We gotta go through the storm." But this is why people, like those before us, whether it's Martin Luther King, or whether it's any other activists that have gone before us and have died for us, we have the rights we have today. But today, and passed on August 20th, was the day that they violated my home. And they broke and took away my rights, my rights, my freedom, and my own home. - Oh, my goodness. Senator Dukachias, I'm gonna bring you in, just hearing Cecilia describe this. And as a mother, just hearing what it must have been like to try to explain this to her son, to relive this moment here today. What are these allegations by the attorney general? Where are they coming from? This was not the only person whose home was entered in this way, or things even taken. What is the basis? - No, it doesn't appear that there is any, Laura. I mean, the fact is that this guy, this attorney general who has been indicted, as you know, in the state of Texas, and on seemingly some kind of probation for securities fraud, this is the umpteenth time that he's done this. Every election cycle, he picks a race or two that is contentious, like Cecilia's, and goes out and makes these allegations. And here, you have these allegations of vote harvesting, if you will. Three, from an affidavit of an election two years ago, I still have you, the pieces of the affidavit that I've seen have no real specificity, which as you know, and a criminal court doesn't really hold up. This man has gotten what he's tried to do, which is basically have a narrative for an election so that they can try and beat Cecilia in November. This is unfortunately what's happening. It would be comical, if it weren't so tragic, because you had an 87-year-old great grandmother, who seemingly, the cops came into her house for a couple of hours at a time. She was in her bathrobe. They didn't allow her to change clothes. You had another 82-year-old woman, an 84-year-old woman. This is what's happening in my district, and this is the Republican narrative that they're trying to frame throughout the country. Sadly, it's not a narrative of positivity, of how they're going to change things for the good in America, but rather it's a narrative that is simply stated to try and scare people and keep them away from voting in November. And that's in essence what they've done in the Latino community in South Texas here. It's voter suppression, it's voter intimidation. And the net effect is that less people will be voting because of it. - This was so important to hear what your experience has been. Cecilia Casiano, Senator Roland Gautiero, thank you so much, both of you, for sharing what has happened. Truly unbelievable. - Thank you, thank you, Lauren. - Thank you. Ahead, General H.R. McMaster stayed silent for years about his time as Trump's National Security Advisor. That is until now. His strong words against his former boss and the response from another National Security Council official, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinhman is next. - This week on The Assignment, with me, Audie Cornish. How the UFC has become a key part of a broader Trump campaign strategy to turn out disaffected young men looking for a political home. The kind of voters who have been peeling off from the Democratic Party the last few years. We talk about why that is. What, if anything, Democrats can do about it. Listen to the assignment with me, Audie Cornish, streaming now on your favorite podcast app. - Problem is, when you fire somebody, they always end up writing a book about you, you know? I've had more books written about me. I fire a lot of people when they don't do a good job. I get a book written about me by all these losers. - Well, Trump said it himself earlier today. The list of his former White House staffers that have turned their experiences into best-selling tell-alls. I mean, it's quite long. Well, now you can add one more. Trump's former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, is coming out with a new book titled "At War with Ourselves, My Tour of Duty and the Trump White House." Now, in his sometimes blistering account of the Trump White House, McMaster described how easily Trump could be manipulated by flattery, calling meetings in the Oval Office, exercises in competitive sycophancy. Yikes. While McMaster is unlikely to be and former president's good grace is anytime soon, he did have some positive words as well, writing this somewhat backhanded compliment, quote, "Despite what could sometimes be described as chaos "within the White House, "Trump administered long overdue correctives "to a number of unwise policies." McMaster was on CNN earlier tonight. - The president is quite often very offensive, brash, says things that are outlandish. I've relayed a lot of those in the book, but you know what, he's an extremely disruptive person. I saw it as my job, you know, not to try to constrain him, but to help him disrupt what needed to be disrupted. - Would you work in the Trump White House again? - No, I think, Anderson, I will work in any administration where I feel like I can make a difference, but I'm kind of used up with Donald Trump. - Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinman joins us now. He was former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. He also testified against Trump during his first impeachment, and just endorsed Vice President Harris for president earlier tonight. Lieutenant Colonel, thank you so much for joining us this evening. Let me begin where McMaster just ended with Anderson. I mean, in the book, he mentions, what did he say, outlandish things that may have been said by Trump? But here's an example. Why don't we just bomb the drugs in Mexico? Or why don't we take out the whole North Korean army during one of their parades? By the way, McMaster is so optimistic that Trump could actually evolve. Can you possibly understand that evolution that McMaster speaks about? - Laura, thanks for having me on. I think maybe I'll take liberty and start where you had that clip of Donald Trump saying he fires people. Well, I'd like to point out the fact that the American people fired Donald Trump and were not going back. But the fact is I agree with much of what HR McMaster said. I would almost couch it a little bit different. I would say that Trump, if he was successful, it was in spite of himself. It's because at one point in time in his administration, he had competent folks in his inner circle. HR McMaster, James Mattis, various John Bolton after HR, a number of folks that actually were steady hands practiced national security experts that made some recommendations, couched him in a way that was reasonable to Donald Trump and Donald Trump signed off on him. He did that with the national security strategy with the Russia strategy, which I helped author. So that doesn't exist anymore. The people that would be in a second Trump administration would be psychofence, would be folks that were entirely loyal and would be engaging in flattery and a game of one-upsmanship. So we really can't compare the previous Trump administration, especially in the early years, with what a second Trump administration would be, would be one in which he's catering to Putin and inviting him to attack NATO members. - Well, talk to me about the timing of this book because as you described, I mean, we often would refer to it as the quote unquote "yes men" and have opined about what it might look like if there are not the so-called adults in the room. If he is driven by flattery, if he's driven by, as you put it, the way to couch language and the way that he would sign off on, what do you make of McMaster's timing in publishing this book now? I mean, we are 72 or so days away from a presidential election. Obviously, it's not been in office for several years. Do you take issue with the now? - Look, I'll take anybody that wants to join the big tent and the big tent of defeating Donald Trump, preventing him from coming into power. I think there are a number of folks that would welcome their voices. John Kelly, Jim Mattis, that would come out, they saw firsthand the disaster that was Donald Trump, the threats to new, you know, hurricanes. We don't have to speculate about how dangerous the second Trump administration is. It'd be a one, a rife with project 2025 ideas, eliminating civil servants. It's one in which he's happy to put veterans and fallen soldiers as props like he did today, going out to Arlington National Cemetery, desecrating that site, damn him. And basically demeaning the sacrifice of those soldiers that died in Afghanistan on the way out, a decision that he was involved in, that he drove. This is the kind of second Trump administration, extremely dangerous one. - Lieutenant Colonel, I am curious. And one more point, you mentioned the desecration at Arlington National Cemetery. Obviously, today is the anniversary of a deadly Afghanistan bombing that killed 13 Americans and wounded many others. And Trump did campaign in part in talking about this issue and also his criticism of the Biden-Harris administration for the withdrawal. But what is it specifically that you took issue with? Was it his presence? Was it the idea of making a political statement with respect to it or something more? - I take issue with so much of what Donald Trump does. The fact is he called in front of John Kelly, who has made clear statements supporting and making sure that the American public knew what Donald Trump was referring to. He called fallen soldiers, suckers and losers. He's consistently, he demeaned the Medal of Honor just recently. It is an endless parade of attacks on military and military service, mainly because he just simply doesn't understand selfless service and sacrifice and the army values, loyalty, duty, respect, selfless honor, service, honor, integrity, personal courage. These are foreign concepts to him. So he doesn't know how to behave when he goes to the cemetery, Arlington Cemetery, and with a dopey grin, giving a thumbs up in front of a gravestones, or the fact that he's using laying a reef as a prop to demonstrate that he's a friend of the military. We know better. We know better because we've heard him say this. We've heard him say suckers and losers. We've heard him demeaned the Medal of Honor. The veterans and veteran families, there are a lot of them, about 28 million. We are, by and large, we are furious with Donald Trump, and we are going to be siding with Harrison Wals, a competent team to take us into prosperous future. - Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinman, we will see how the rest of the electorate feels. Thank you for joining us this evening. - Thank you. - I have the CEO of one of the world's most popular messaging apps, Telegram, Arrested in France. Prosecutors allege his platform is complicit in helping drug traffickers and money launderers. Others say he's being politically targeted. Let's guess what's at stake, next. The Arrested Telegram CEO, Pavel Durov, in France over the weekend has thrust the popular messaging service back into the spotlight, and it's renewing the ongoing debate over free speech on social media. French authorities say that his platform, which is known for its unfiltered content, was complicit in aiding fraudsters, money launderers, drug traffickers, and people spreading child sexual exploitation content. As of tonight, Durov has not been charged. Sarah Fisher joins us now. She is senior media reporter for Axios, and a CNN media analyst. So tell me, Sarah, why is he being targeted, and why him over other social media CEOs? - Oh, it's a good question. So for one, he's a French citizen, and so when he landed on French grounds from his private jet, I think the French authorities have more authority to go after him for not upholding what they say are their laws versus somebody who is not a French citizen. Two, they're arguing that this is part of a criminal investigation, something that was already ongoing, and that he is being charged, or he's being questioned in relation to charges around the app not being sort of complicit with the French governments investigations. So if the French government wasn't investigating other apps, they wouldn't necessarily be bringing in their CEOs for questioning, but you might ask Laura, why aren't they questioning and investigating other apps? Variety of reasons, but I think what it mostly comes down to is the fact that Telegram is really committed to free speech over privacy, and so they are less likely to monitor things, they're less likely to pull stuff down, and that's why it has become a hotbed for a lot of terrorist organizations, criminals, et cetera. At the same time, Laura, and this is what the CEO would argue, even though it does host some of that stuff, it is so widely available to so many different viewpoints. You think about it, it's the app that people use in war zones. You know, it's used by Ukrainians, it's used by Russians, and so it's this really interesting case study of the tension between free speech and privacy online. - Again, I wonder if people will look at this and say, this must be the end of social media and free speech, as opposed to perhaps the end of impunity with not being able to be accountable for what you have on your actual platforms. - Yeah, I think the end of free speech is probably taking it a little too far, but what you touch on is really important, because I think a lot of tech executives have always believed and thought and operated, as though they are not personally liable for the things that happen on their platforms, and here in the United States, I should mention we have a law that shields tech companies explicitly for things that happen on its platform. - Section 230, what are you talking about? - Exactly, but there's two things to note there, Laura. One is when you're talking about encrypted versus non-encrypted material. So encrypted apps mean that it's very truly impossible for anyone to have a backdoor into those communications, including the government. Telegram's not encrypted. You can have some encrypted chats, but it's not an encrypted app. And the reason that matters is, the French government is essentially saying, you're complicit, because this is widely known and out there on your platform. And so I think that's gonna have a huge impact on this case. - That's really fascinating. Well, if Paul was going on here, again, he has not yet been charged, if he will at all, Sarah Fisher, thank you so much. And hey, thank you all for watching Anderson Cooper 360 starts right now. - TCM's new limited series is called Making Change. I'm your host, Ben Mankowitz. I'll be discussing some of the most significant political films of all time, with a number of special guests, Steven Spielberg, Caitlyn Collins, Stacy Abrams, Robert Gates, Sally Field, just to name a few. - There's politics in everything. There's politics in every genre. Without the arts, you can't have a sophisticated culture. - Join us for Making Change Fridays, beginning at 8 p.m. on Turner Classic Movies.
