Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Limit Mail-in Voting

0:00Every day, animals across the country face abuse and neglect. and every day the ASPCA shows up to rescue animals in crisis but they can't do it alone visit ASPCA.org slash need become a donor today to provide the care and shelter these animals urgently need and for a limited time the ASPCA will send you a free gift as a special thank you visit ASPCA.org slash need progressives accident response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't.

0:44So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's accident response. Learn more at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates Limited Availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions. Tonight, nor rain, nor sleep, nor Trump will prevent a mail-in ballot from getting to you. We've got the breaking news in the Supreme Court's final decision. Plus, the AI warnings turn into a horror show. The calls are coming from inside the House. So why does the president keep hanging out?

1:20And later, an offer for asylum? A GoFundMe? Why the backlash over the Lindsey Clancy juror has crossed the line? Tonight on Laura Coates Live. We'll begin with the breaking news just 50 days from the November elections. The Supreme Court handing Trump one of his biggest defeats yet, a 7-2 decision blocking his unprecedented plan to restrict mail-in voting. This means that mail-in ballots will not be impacted for this election. Remember, the president wanted the Postal Service to create rules that essentially let them decide who gets a ballot by mail and who doesn't. That decision would have been based on states submitting lists of eligible voters.

2:06Trump said it was needed to combat fraud. Democrat-led states said it was a power grab and that it was unconstitutional because states run elections, not the federal government. Now, the justices did not explain their reasoning. We do know Justices Alito and Thomas were the ones or the two who dissented. The others voted to block Trump with Justice Kavanaugh writing in part, quote, quote, applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.

2:45Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin. He is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and taught constitutional law for more than two decades. Congressman, thank you for being here this evening. I got to get your reaction to this ruling tonight. Does it put to rest the administration's efforts to try to restrict mail-in voting, at least this election cycle? Yes, I think it will put to rest at least that particular ploy against the election, because a decisive majority on the court repudiated the idea that the president or the post office had any legitimate role in election administration.

3:23I mean, it's so outlandish and far flung that it's nice to see when the Supreme Court agrees with all the other courts that have come to that immediate conclusion, much less did they find that the balance of equities weighed on the side of the government. On the contrary, it clearly weighed on the side of the voters in the states because the election is now just eight weeks away. So I think we can put that one to bed. But of course, Donald Trump never sleeps in terms of trying to undermine and attack an election. And so everybody is now asking, well, what's next? My concern is what damage has been done to foster confusion among people are concerned.

4:08I mean, you're talking about weeks away, the midterm elections. And some of your colleagues have suggested the goal was to muddy the waters, to sort of, you know, stir that pot in many ways. Do you worry that some damage has been done just by the attempts and people possibly being confused as to what they can and cannot do now? I certainly think that's what the last couple of weeks were like. But there's been such an emphatic refutation of Donald Trump and the whole post office gambit that the word can go out, should go out and will go out across the country that mail in balloting is fine. A third of Americans vote that way.

4:50Donald Trump votes that way. Most of his cabinet votes that way. And I think the word will very quickly spread in the country that mail-in balloting is safe and it's fine. And to the extent that it's just made people more vigilant, well, then eternal vigilance is going to be the price of democratic freedom here. Did this turn, though, on the timing with respect to the midterm elections or the substance of the argument? Because Justice Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that Trump might be able to succeed on a case such as this, but concern about the proximity to elections. What do you think? Well, it's way too late, as even Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged in his concurrence, to begin monkeying around with the basic electoral system.

5:39And so this is a big victory for the states because now each state can proceed with the election that's been designed by its own legislature and by its governor and by its secretary of state and board of elections. And that is how electoral federalism is supposed to work. The Congress can can kind of supplant the legislatures as to the time, place and manner of elections if we act in time to make that sensible. But of course, we haven't tried to alter it in any way. And so Donald Trump and the post office were flying solo and way outside the Constitution here. So let us hope that the executive branch of government will now just acknowledge that the midterm elections are unfolding as we speak.

6:25There are ready. There's mail-in balloting in some states. Everything is ready to get going and they should stop messing around with it and stop making other threats against the people's right to vote and to elect our own Congress. I mean, so far this year, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump on mail-in voting and tariffs and birthright citizenship, firing Lisa Cook from the Fed, just to name a few. I mean, Democrats often complain, as do, frankly, many people, that this Supreme Court is beholden to the president, Donald Trump. Do you believe that's still the case, was the case, or are you optimistic about their objectivity overall?

7:03Well, you know, when they do the right thing and clearly follow the Constitution, then all of us are rightfully happy. I mean, we shouldn't have to be so relieved. I think it's after a series of decisions like like the presidential immunity decision where the Supreme Court, which claims to be textualist and claims to be originalist, totally ignored the text of the Constitution and totally ignored the history of the Constitution and invented out of whole cloth a right of a president not to be prosecuted for felony crimes committed in office under the central auspices of his job. Well, you know, where did that doctrine come from?

7:47It's like the stork brought it. But here they did do the obvious thing. They did exactly what the district court did, what several judges on the First Circuit Court of Appeals did and what everybody can see, which is that the president has no role in the administration of elections. But, you know, another example of that would be the birthright citizenship case. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. It's as clear as day.

8:22And yet we still had mega justices on the court trying to undermine and overthrow that principle along with the president. So, look, you know, there are certain things the court has done I strongly disagree with, like overturning a woman's right to choose an abortion and, you know, a number of things they've done in the electoral field. But they got this one right. I don't think they really had any choice because it was so plain that the president was trying to intervene in a province where he had no powers at all. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you. You bet. Now, I want to get to my opening statement tonight.

9:07If the people building the most advanced race car in the world were telling you the brakes might not work, would you want to be inside? Let's up the ante, shall we? if you were driving that car in a race you believed you couldn't afford to lose, would you then floor it? Well, that's the artificial intelligence dilemma in a nutshell. The biggest names in the industry are saying, let's pump the brakes. Everyone from Anthropic CEO Dario Amadei to open AI chief Sam Altman, even Elon Musk, who isn't exactly buddy-buddy with his AI competitors. Those calls to slow down come just days after current and former Anthropic researchers sounded the alarm about AI potentially wiping out humanity within a decade.

9:55And tonight, Anthropic's CEO is speaking directly to CNN about why he's worried. I continue to be worried about economic disruption, looking at what the models can do, that they can solve these unsolved math problems. No one could look at that and say this isn't a potential concern. Nightmare scenario for 6 to 12 months would be that you have a swarm of these agents that form some kind of botnet collective and could take down large segments of the Internet. And then as the capability increases, it gets worse from there. And then perhaps you get into some of the more extreme scenarios. Those weren't the extreme scenarios.

10:38Well, in non-technical terms, he's worried about rogue AI taking over the Internet. Imagine if everything we use that requires a connection just stopped working. But not everyone thinks that fear is based in reality, like President Trump. He went on a multi-post rant calling the whole thing a hoax. He says AI doesn't need guardrails, only a high IQ president. He even called NVIDIA's CEO while he was speaking at a tech summit, who put him on speakerphone. They're just playing a lot of people that don't want to see it happen, and that could be political people, it could also be China. And we're not going to let that happen.

11:22It's a hoax. The robots will not be taken over. The AI will not be taken over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax. Look, I can tell you the fear is no hoax. People are scared. They're scared about losing their jobs. They're scared about what AI could do in all areas of life. And you can see it with the backlash over data centers. Seven in 10 Americans say they don't want to be anywhere near one. So the anxiety is real. And the race with China only raises the stakes. But even with all the calls to apply the brakes, there is a question without an easy answer. Who actually gets to design the brakes?

12:05Vice President Vance says he is skeptical over the motivation of the AI CEOs, suggesting their calls for regulation could actually benefit them more than anyone else. I have to say just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them. It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse. My next guest has been sounding the alarm on AI long before it dominated the headlines. Former Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang, joins me now.

12:43He's also the CEO of Noble Mobile. Andrew, good to see you. Look, I mean, Anthropics envoy says that the implementation of AI is going to move at the speed of trust. But right now, I mean, speed and trust look like they're working against one another. Do you see one winning out over the other? Well, I think the warnings are sincere. The fear is real. Because I've been hearing the same thing for months, Laura. There are researchers who are saying, look, I'm creeped out. I'm scared. We're going pell-mell. because of the competitive dynamic you described in the open, you have trillion dollar IPOs that are on the calendar.

13:24And so no one wants to raise their hand and be the person saying, let's hit the brakes until Jacob Coxon raised his hand and said, look, we really need to hit the brakes. And I'm thrilled that this is now on the table. The question to me is, where is the leadership from D.C.? Congress does not need President Trump to sign off on a regulatory approach. They can just craft legislation or policy right now because the American people are asking for it. I mean, they can just craft it. They have to agree. You know, that's a Herculean effort at some points in time, Andrew, but I hear your larger point.

13:59I'm going to ask members of Congress about that very notion, but tell me why you think there are so many of the people who are building the system suddenly saying slow down all at the same time. I mean, Are they seeing something with their own models or are they reacting to the public's anxiety? Is there a coordinated PR campaign? What? You have seen bots break out of their containment environment and then hack other organizations. You're seeing foreign states now trying to use Claude to harm American interests. And these are the things that have come to light. One of the darkest aspects of this, Laura, is that the AI companies say, look, we actually found out about this after the fact.

14:41You know, there could be other things going on right now that they don't know about. So I think as the models are actually hitting the real world, the freak out is coming from inside these companies because you can see them getting to a point where you really cannot control them. Tell me about the push for regulation because the administration is not buying it. Vice President Van thinks it will lock out smaller competitors. He made a comparison to sort of the weirdness and the Trojan horse of them wanting to be regulated. You have the former Trump AI czar, David Sack, saying if these companies are actually scared of their own tech, they should just slow down themselves.

15:19So why do you think that they are trying to ask for regulation? Is it a ploy for market control? I think each of them can see the cliff approaching and that they can see the car hurtling off the cliff. And they're actually asking folks, look, maybe put up one of those guardrails that'll keep us from going off the cliff because they know that the organization's incentives, again, are to go full steam ahead. So they're raising their hand. By the way, Dario Amadei also raised his hand a number of months ago and said, tax us. And that's an obvious one. Congress should tax them. How the heck are you not taxing the bots that are going to displace millions of American workers who, by the way, if they show up to work, actually do have to pay tax?

16:04They're not raising their hand to say find us and hold us liable, though. That's an interesting part. I know I'm the prosecutor, but I think to myself, well, regulation would require some consequence if things do not go appropriately. But we'll leave that for a second. Wall Street and the tech sector are riding a big AI wave right now, Andrew. I mean, do you worry at all about the consequences if the AI stocks propping up the economy do get hit by any regulation or slowdown? Look, I think it's necessary for American companies to strike a balance, say we need to break new ground and compete against China, which is why their prices are getting bid up.

16:40But we also need to keep Skynet from casting us into the Stone Age or developing super viruses or spoofing us into unwarranted military conflict. You know, and one of the frustrations I have that I think a lot of Americans share is that it gets presented as black or white, choose one or the other. It's like, look, you know, that this is the most powerful technology of our lifetimes. And you face more regulations to opening a hot dog stand in New York than you do in deploying a model to millions. It doesn't make any sense. Indeed, it does not. We'll see. Andrew Yang, thank you so much. And I have a question about what Congress is going to do about AI, if anything.

17:19I've got just the right people to ask. Former Congressman Joe Crowley, Congressman Kevin Kiley, and Congressman Anna Paulina Luna, all with me for a special conversation next.

17:41was a little too good at their job. Then sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive. You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states. Kate holds the key to every brand asset your business has ever made. She's the only person who knows the difference between teal, turquoise, and the correct company blue. But she's going on vacation. Luckily, before the company falls into design disarray, you realize you can put Kate into Canva.

18:19Save every color font and logo to a brand kit everyone can access. And Kate can vacation happily in the knowledge that no one will ever use Comic Sans. What will you Canva today? You know, with so many questions about safety, the AI landscape feels completely unpredictable. I mean, all of it begs the question, what's Congress going to do about it? Well, to help us find out, I'm joined by a group of bipartisan current and former lawmakers, former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley, independent congressman from California who caucuses with Republicans, Kevin Kiley, and Republican congresswoman from Florida, Anna Paulina Luna.

18:57Glad to have all of you guys here today. I'm excited to hear your takes on this. Congresswoman Luna, I'll begin with you because President Trump, he is calling concerns over AI a hoax, his words. and says the only guardrails that AI needs is actually him. You don't see it as a hoax at all. But is the president wrong here about this? Is he naive or strategic? What I would say is when I've talked with him and I have discussed this with him directly, I think he's addressing right now what China is doing in regards to external forces, whether that's actually using some of these social media platforms to inundate.

19:32But I think that the concerns that exist with the American people are valid and that we should be addressing them. What I will say, though, is that what I want to avoid is a knee-jerk reaction because there's national security implications to all this. Also, too, we want to make sure that we're not working on behalf of some of these tech companies that are quickly dominating and developing monopolies. But at the same time, understanding that there does need to be a kill switch. And so, for us and for the legislation that I'm currently working on, I'm not in favor of a moratorium. I think that the four biggest companies that we currently have right now leading the entire world on AI have come together and agreed that they're going to put their own safety measures in effect.

20:08But I do think that it's important for Congress to have the discussion and look at what we can do from a national security perspective to actually ensure that the American people are being taken care of. Are you confident that the Fox can guard its own hen house? I mean, if they're able to put their own regulations and offer all the suggestions, I mean, call me a skeptic, but if you tell me that you're at the forefront of this amazing technology, but you want me to regulate you, and you can decide how I regulate it, I wonder if it's valid, if it's actually going to be a regulation that you wanted or is needed.

20:39Yeah, I mean, this is not an issue that's about any one company or any one industry. This is a national issue. It's an international issue. It is about the future of humanity. And frankly, Congress has not been nearly in tune enough with what's going on. I actually first introduced a resolution in 2018 that was adopted unanimously by the California legislature calling for the safe and beneficial development of AI. And when I got to Congress in In 2023, I introduced the SAFE AI Act. We're seeing AI impacting every facet of people's lives, and it's probably only going to, you know, become more so as time goes on.

21:14And so we need to make sure that the future of this technology is determined not just by those who are in Silicon Valley working in a couple leading frontier labs, but that all Americans have a say. You know, I hear when I hear those dates, 2018, 2023, I think to myself of all the probably leaps and bounds as well that have taken place in AI technology that Congress and the bureaucratic red tape are not even close to catching up to. I mean, what confidence can the American people have that Congress is the appropriate body to regulate in a timely fashion something like AI when social media is so lacking and all other regulatory agencies for that particular world?

21:50Well, I think it hits the nail on the head. You had an opportunity during the social media boom to have the Congress step in and bring some modicum of regulation. and we see the results of that. We see children being bullied, people committing suicide because of isolation that we now have. We see the growth of AI and cheating in schools and things of this nature that we've dumbed down society in so many respects. We have an opportunity here now to work in a bipartisan way, and I think it really needs to be done in a bipartisan way to build some guardrails. I work with an entity known as the Future of Life Institution.

22:27Max Hegmark was the developer of it. It's been around for over a dozen years. And they've been working on this, trying to bring attention to this to the Congress. You know, what I would note, it's remarkable. These folks from the tech industry, they didn't just come out and learn about this today and just talk about it. They've known about this for a long, long time and have kept it back. Why it's happening now, I can't say why, but we should listen and heed what they have to say. Well, what is happening is President Trump is set to meet with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, at the White House just next week.

23:02And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that AI regulation better be front and center in that discussion. Listen. There should be a concerted effort by this government to get off of the lies, get off of social media, quit worrying about ballrooms and ridiculous arches and come up with a plan to enlist the Chinese. The Chinese have their own issues. They need control in order to stay in power. So they may have a different view than we do about regulation, but they can't let this thing go on without having it reined in. Well, they certainly have a different view as to whether the United States can regulate and rein them in.

23:43Do you think that'd be a productive conversation with China for them to be told to rein it in? I think right now with President Trump's meeting that's scheduled in the coming weeks with Xi, I think that he's going to have a very powerful tool that will be passed out of the House later on this week, and that will be the ability to potentially leverage tariffs. Now, I know people don't like the tariff word, but if we're talking about something that's of this magnitude, and China has come out today just to say to Amthropic that they're not going to go along with any form of regulation, I think that President Trump is as much as people might not necessarily like what he's saying on True Social is definitely tracking this.

24:20What I would also say though specifically on this front is that with AI specifically, when you think about the implications that this has as not just a tool, it's not just like going to Google, but the ability of it to potentially be a super weapon, we want to make sure that we're dominating that. And I do have massive concern when I hear some of these tech CEOs that are wealthier than a lot of people calling for a form of a global governance that we then answer to as a republic or a democracy. And so my concern is that we need to make sure that the AI that is developed that will protect us is being developed and educated on our own principles and our belief system.

25:00And I think a part of that is ensuring that these tech companies are making sure that these AI systems don't have a bias, that they're truthful and honest. And I think that that's also to another part of this discussion. Well, how would they determine they don't have, I mean, the bias aspect? I hear your point about the regulations, and there's a big discussion about what it would entail, but determining the bias, determining what a superweapon would look like, superintelligence would look like. I mean, President Trump, you say, is tracking it. He's dismissing a lot of this hysteria around it as a hoax.

25:30It doesn't necessarily bowdle over people to think that he'll have that sort of, you know, gravitas-based discussion with China, who already has very little incentive to bend the knee. Yeah, we absolutely need to have a dialogue with China on this, but we also need to recognize that they're not that far behind us in terms of their open models, maybe six months behind our frontier models. And so meaning what, though? What does that mean? That they're going to catch up and surpass or that they that's the idea is that if you had and we had, you know, now we have this agreement among some of the leaders of the leading labs in the United States that, OK, that we need to pace the frontier, as Dario Amadei put it.

26:03But there's this prisoner dilemma because if you do that in the United States and China doesn't do it, then they may pull ahead. And so I think that there's a couple of things that we need to do. We need to, of course, talk to them about whether some sort of international agreement can be reached there. But here's the other point. Can there one? You think there will be one? That's my question. I think that given the stakes, you know, that we have to at least try. But here's the thing is that beyond just saying, OK, we're going to try to slow down AI development. The question then becomes, let's assume we slow it down.

26:30Well, what are we going to do with that time? What we need to be doing with that time is solving the fundamental problem here is the issue of AI alignment, assuring that as models become more powerful, they remain aligned with human interests and values and within human control. And this is an area where we can collaborate with China and the international community and bring together the smartest people in the entire world to share their experiences and to work together towards solving this problem, which if we solve it, by the way, AI can have absolutely incredible benefits for humanity, curing diseases, providing abundant energy.

27:01And so those are the stakes right here. I hear the stakes. Is Congress equipped to regulate it to ensure that the pros outweigh the cons? I think they're equipped. It's whether or not they're willing to actually do so. I think Kevin is right. You can have your cake and eat it too here if you do it correctly. You know, we had a nuclear arms race. And ultimately, we came to an agreement that we could destroy each other. And by the way, we got it first. They ultimately got it. We may get it first. They're ultimately going to get it too. So and vice versa. So I think there's no sure idea who's going to be first, who comes to the chicken or the egg.

27:32I think it's something that we should be talking to him about to avoid that. I don't like this notion of idea that we're always heading towards a conflict with China. We can find ways to mutually discuss these issues and try to find real solutions for a worldwide crisis, an existential threat to human survival potentially. And that's what we should be talking to each other about. We'll see if the president will have that conversation next week. Thank you, everyone. Congresswoman, please stick around. Up next, Democrats demanding answers after ProPublica reports that Donald Trump Jr. let a Russian businessman with ties to Vladimir Putin pay for his wedding after party.

28:06What's going on here? And later, Macklemore dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour over his views on Gaza and Israel. Why he says one of the NFL's biggest names is to blame.

28:22Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

28:50Donald Trump Jr. may have gotten a little help from a friend to pay for his wedding afterparty. And that friend is a Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin. ProPublica reports oligarch Omar Kremlev helped finance a lavish celebration on a private island in the Bahamas back in May. Among the lavish details, oceanfront villas, a five-tier funfetti cake airlifted from Florida, and firework shows launched from a barge. And ProPublica reports Kremlev paid for all of it. Just one month before the wedding, Kremlev received an award from Putin. He and Trump Jr. met a year ago during an event hosted by a boxing organization Kremlev runs.

29:31But Trump initially denied knowing who Kremlev was. After ProPublica's story broke, Don Jr. and his wife Bettina called Umar a, quote, dear friend and his gift, quote, very generous. And they added there was no conspiracy and no mystery. But Democrats, they're not buying it. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, is demanding an investigation saying, quote, Umar Krevlev spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the president's son. What did he get in return? We need answers. Let's ask a Republican on the Oversight Committee. She's back with us. Florida Congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna.

30:10And I thank you so much for being with us again on this, because I wonder if these ties concern you. I mean, Trump Jr. is an independently wealthy man,$300 million apparently he's worth. Does he really need help paying for this party? Well, I did follow Bettina's posting, his wife. And as you know, they got married several months back. And what I would say is, according to her posting, she obviously saw that he was, A, a friend prior. There's no business entities or ties between Jr. and this individual. And in addition to that, with Bettina specifically, she said that this was actually already pre-planned and that their wedding had overlapped with it.

30:45So I don't think that they— Overlapped with what? The payment of the wedding party? No, no, no, with the actual celebration, so that they had had that as a pre-planned event to do with friends. So that was the posting that was officially on her Instagram today. Does that comfort you if it would—I mean, there's the optics, right? I mean, obviously, hey, I'm all for weddings. Love them. But the optics of being the president's son and somebody so tied to Putin financing in this big way, that doesn't give you pause as to what would be the requested thank you? I think that if the optics weren't so coincidentally timed with attacks on Jared Kushner, specifically following the Ukraine-Russia peace deal and the negotiations that President Trump is currently engaged with Zelensky and Putin on, I think that maybe it might appear as if it was an actual genuine concern.

31:31But what's the connection you're raising? I don't I want to be so so two days before this article broke there were attacks on Jared Kushner specifically trying to state that he was somehow in the pocket of Russia and not negotiating on the behalf of the best behalf of the Ukrainians which I would argue is quite the opposite I think that this administration has done a good job in opening these negotiations also understanding that President Trump just made a statement telling Zelensky that he needs to stop bombing the oil refineries because that's impacting diesel prices. But the fact is that this marriage occurred months ago.

32:02And so what gives me pause and reservation about the people that are just now raising this is if this was a genuine concern, why not raise it immediately after it happened? Why wait until two days after there was, I think, targeted criticism and attack of Kushner specifically pertaining to Ukraine and Russia peace negotiations? Well, that's Kushner. I'm talking about Don Jr., obviously. And I see that there, well, yes, well, Don Jr. is the son of the president. and Kushner are obviously a very important member of the family and son-in-law. But are you suggesting that the issue is the timing of the release of information as opposed to the actual substantive information itself?

32:36Because say the information had been released six months ago, nine months ago, before the wedding, would that have been problematic even in spite of what you said? Well, at the end of the day, John Jr. is not in public office. I don't think based on their statements that he engaged in some form of quid pro quo. There's no business dealings. And as Bettina had stated on her Instagram, this was already pre-coordinated before the wedding took place, from my understanding. So what I would say. A lot of people look at this, though. I don't want to cut you off. But the natural reaction is, well, there have been president's children before who have not been in office, who have been villainized and accused of being in someone's pocket and capitalizing on their father's role as the president.

33:21and Hunter Biden being one prime example of how he was accused, why would this be optically different for you? According to public records out there, Don Jr.'s net worth potentially may be$300 million. I don't think that he would need to take a gift like this unless it was actually from a friend and also two previously coordinated, and they have said that this was something that this individual was doing as a wedding gift towards them. But how do you know that? Well, that's based on their statements, right? What I would say is based and I'm not trying to bring up the Hunter Biden stuff, but I assume that's what's in reference to.

33:54There were conversations that took place. And unfortunately, the Hunter Biden laptop did have a lot of correspondence between the Communist Chinese Party and Hunter Biden specifically pertaining to business dealings. So what I would say is that there's a very fine line, right? Like we don't want people in government influence peddling. But the big difference between this and that was that in the instance of Hunter Biden, there was evidence to make that connection in this. You have a wedding. You have someone that really doesn't. But your point, Congresswoman, was that somebody who is not in public office should not have the personal connections and finances be questioned.

34:30But you've just made the point that you believe that it does relate to one but not the other. There was evidence of Hunter Biden's influence peddling because of his laptop. on. This is, I'm talking about Don Jr., and I know that you're very clear on the distinction of it, but my question to you is the, if you have an issue with somebody who is associated with the president receiving or having connections with someone who is a foreign entity that could ultimately influence the presidential administration or try to use that person's role to get opportunities, then why is it not consistent? It'd be the same thing, would it not?

35:06I mean, you have to agree. I think with this particular situation is that this individual was a friend, that Junior is independently wealthy. Clearly, there is no influence being made financially because he could easily pay for something like that, but also, too, in the sense that there was pre-coordination of it. And so, and based on what Bettina has said directly, that this was not like some major controversy that people were taking it out of context. And I would likely assume that she wouldn't have posted that unless they had an actual, you know, receipt correspondence of coronation, something that was pre-organized with their friends and family.

35:37But what I would go a step further and say that there's a big difference between someone knowingly using their father's position and there being evidence of that, of which came out in the Hunter Biden, which then resulted in the investigations into the laptop and those emails. And all I will say is that specifically pertaining to this, I think that Junior and Bettina, this happened months ago. Why wait so long if you really, you know, saw that this was potentially an ethical concern. Obviously, they've addressed it, but also too, moving forward, what I'm trying to say is that I think it's very interesting timing because you have this come two days after criticisms of Kushner, who is also very closely related and associated with the president, who is part of brokering a massive peace deal pertaining to Russia, Ukraine.

36:19And there's a$2 trillion trade implication to that for the United States. I think that there's massive guarantees for Ukraine and Russia. And I think that that likely might also be a topic of discussion with G when he comes next week. And so I just think that the timing is very coincidental that all of a sudden this is coming out and it's specifically pertaining to a Russian oligarch. If we would have had associated with that, you know, with any other nation, I just don't think it would hit the same. So it sounds like it's worth investigating both. Well, I don't think that there's any criminal activity or evidence.

36:50Instagram posts said that it predated. No, there's no evidence. They had a wedding. You can investigate that to confirm. I mean, I don't want to give you tasks, Congresswoman, but I think that if there is an obstacle issue such as this, wouldn't it behoove members of Congress to confirm? We opened up the investigation into Hunter Biden because of the evidence in the laptop that specifically pertained to influence peddling. There is no evidence specifically right now of influence peddling. And unless there's a laptop that comes out specifically with criminal evidence, I don't think that opening up an investigation into Don Jr.'s wedding party is something that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.

37:28Well, as a prosecutor, I know that if you don't have an investigation, you likely will never find the results that would clear or imply someone's wrong. But thank you, Congresswoman Ana Palina. Thank you. I'm not in Congress. She is. Still ahead, Macklemore gets the boot from Ed Sheeran's tour after stadium owners accused him of crossing the line and his views on Israel. How will the entertainment world respond? We'll talk about it next.

37:57Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. What will you Canva today? What will you brainstorm, collaborate on, present today? What will you resize, post, edit, imagine? What will you research, test, switch, and finally have the courage to pitch?

38:38You got this. What will you visualize, design, brand, animate, create, generate? What will you translate, pour your heart into, or have a laugh doing? Whatever you want to make, it's possible. So what will you canva today? A concert controversy is erupting with an unlikely face in the middle of it. Ed Sheeran. The popular singer is in the middle of a cross-country stadium tour, and rapper Macklemore was one of the opening acts. But Macklemore says he's now been dropped because he said this. I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart.

39:25Free Palestine. I want those words to be loud and clear. So the people from Gaza all the way to the occupied West Bank know that we have not forgotten them. Outrage over those comments slowly snowballed over the last week and peaked today. Macklemore says New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft forced Sheeran to drop him, saying, quote, Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum. If Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues. Kraft confirmed he banned Macklemore from Gillette Stadium outside Boston over his free Palestine comments.

40:10Kraft says Macklemore had a, quote, history of anti-Semitic rhetoric and added, quote, too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering, but only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate, unquote. I want to bring in the executive editor of Deadline Hollywood, Dominic Patton. Good to see you, Dominic. I want to know from your opinion, is he being rightfully canceled or is this stifling free speech? I think it's a combination, Laura. Look, I think part of the reality of this is we live in times where these are nuanced and complex issues.

40:49And I think that the use of the terms like genocide and apartheid are thrown around very loosely. At the same time, I also happen to recognize that this is someone who has been long an advocate of the state of things in the Middle East and has been very articulate about it. On the other hand, this is America and this is capitalism. And if the owners of your stadiums don't want you to show up, it's kind of like someone standing on your property. You get to ask them to leave. Whether or not you agree with that, is that stifling free speech or is that just simply saying it's not good business for us?

41:22I think the most interesting voice in this is the one we have not yet heard, which is Ed Sheeran, who has been distinctly nonpolitical throughout his career. Unlike, say, Macklemore or bands like Massive Attack or Kneecap or others who have spoken out about the situation in Gaza and other situations and have received criticism for inappropriate or perhaps over the line remarks of their own. Sheeran has always stayed away from politics. Now he's been dragged right into the middle of it. He has been quiet and he has not released a statement. But the idea that the stadium tours themselves, they bring in enormous revenues.

41:57I mean, you know this. I have to wonder how this is going to impact future artists when they want to speak out about something that's close to their hearts. Their fan base has come to watch them perform, likely knowing the range of their views and choosing still to see them because they might either agree or compartmentalize or disagree and enjoy their music anyway. They want to speak out, but yet now they know that there is a price to be paid and it comes with where they can perform. How will that set with the entertainment world? Well, I would say let's hark back to I think you and I both remember about 20 years ago when the band formerly known as the Dixie Chicks did just that about the Iraq war and then President Bush.

42:41And they took what can only be turned politely as a shellacking for their political point of view. But I would say I think there's one particular difference here. Macklemore was the opening act on Ed Sheeran's tour. And while people came to see him, the vast majority of the fans who were showing up in those stadiums came to see Ed Sheeran. And so I think on that level, I think that the argument has to go more about are you looking in the sense of if you're traveling with your buddy, do you owe your buddy a responsibility to not get him in trouble? But again, I think in these times right now in America, this notion of free speech and what people are willing to have a conversation about has become so brittle and so divisive that even when someone like Bob Kraft, who put out a pretty reasonable statement saying that he also acknowledges the suffering that Palestinians, children in particular, have suffered, that there's been too many deaths.

43:33When someone brings out a statement like that, but yet puts themselves in a position of what is essentially entrenchment on all counts, the notion of dialogue just falls apart. And that, and anti-Semitism, is a great crime and great vice on all levels. But free speech is also something which we're having to now confront and realize what are the limits in which we are going to allow people to speak and what can they speak about. Well, that'll be an ongoing conversation in this country and beyond. Obviously, money speaks volumes. Dominic Patton, thank you so much. I have a word or two to say about the lone holdout in the Lindsey Clancy jury and the manner in which he's being vilified.

44:15My objection to the backlash is next.

44:21Tonight, I object. I object to the villainization of the Lindsey Clancy juror holdout. I mean, are people serious? There are those who have decided that the true criminal is a juror who chose not to change their mind. People are trying to dig up as much dirt as they can to vilify the juror like they are public enemy number one. You've got Governor Ron DeSantis actually offering the person a silo. A GoFundMe page has raised thousands of dollars because people predict the backlash this juror experiences will require legal fees and lost income. Why? Because despite the fact that demonizing this juror will not reverse the mistrial or force the prosecution to offer a plea, let alone dismiss the case, some people are asking, how dare this person not go along to get along?

45:15Well, I say, how dare you ask for peer pressure to replace unanimity? I mean, is that what you want? Jurors who make their decision based on fear of backlash or being disliked by the other jurors? It doesn't matter whether that juror was in favor of conviction or acquittal. That juror had just as much right as every other juror in that room to weigh the credibility of witnesses, to evaluate the evidence, and to come to their own conclusion as to whether the prosecution met their burden of proof. Respecting the jury system does not mean you always agree with the jurors. This judge, in this case, interviewed the juror and concluded that juror was following his jury instructions and could ultimately be fair and impartial.

46:08Look, prosecutors, we win, we lose some, But when they lose, can you imagine the prosecution persecuting the jurors who refuse to convict? You'd have a real problem with that, wouldn't you? You should. We all should. A lot of people don't want jury duty. But now I want you to imagine having to serve on a jury where you are pressured to go along with the majority, even if you believe they have it wrong. What if, based on the evidence, every single bone in your body wants to acquit, but you agree to convict? Because if you don't, you will be Salem's next witch on trial. Is that the juror you want deciding your case?

47:01Not me. I object. Thank you all for watching. Alex Michelson is next.

47:12Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy coverage subject to policy terms and conditions the secret society of semi-homemade listen up sam's club has pre-made dishes for a thanksgiving feast that's ready in two hours all while tasting suspiciously homemade come join us sam's club individual oven times may vary