White House Airs Government-Funded Ad Praising Trump

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.

0:33Tonight, round two of President Trump's press fight. The White House bars, CNN, and MSNOW reporters from an event this evening. Where will this go next? Plus, Trump hands plenty of praise to China's leader and plenty of ammunition to Democrats running against Republicans. And James Tallarico issues a political challenge to one Ken Paxton in the most favorable Republican arena he could think of. Tonight on Laura Coates Live.

1:05So if you wanted to know if today's ruling would put to bed Trump's push to limit press access at the White House, you're getting an answer tonight. The president was hosting Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a state dinner. But reporters for CNN and MSNOW were denied access to cover the guest arrivals, which makes for some pretty serious whiplash because just a few hours before, Trump was accusing both outlets of exact opposite, claiming they, quote, refused to cover Xi at the White House this very morning. But that didn't really happen. First of all, CNN and MSNOW journalists were literally trying to get into the White House earlier today.

1:42Some were still being barred entry until about noon, despite a judge's order at 1 a.m. overnight, temporarily restoring their access. And secondly, the rest of the networks that make up the TV pool are standing with CNN and not providing their video feeds for presidential events. And it all means viewers while they're hearing things like this. Normally, Jackie, we'd be watching a pretty elegant affair on the South Lawn, and we don't get access to that now. We won't see it live because the five network pool that would normally transmit those images is not operating. There's so many images that he would want out for America to see that he's not saying.

2:24Now, the judge's order got CNN's hard passes back, but the poll still has no guarantee that CNN will be able to participate in poll duties. So it's not exactly clear how long events like today's will go without the usual TV coverage. But you know who was there this morning? Chinese state media. And at one point, Trump reportedly said China had the friendliest press core because they ask Xi if they can ask a question. Now, sure, it may be perhaps a joke. Unless, of course, he really does want to emulate Xi or wants it to become policy. But if we know one thing, it's that the president's words have been used to justify or defend or explain his actions, whether you like it or not.

3:07And in a courtroom, it matters whether those words were the catalyst or reverse engineered as mere pretext. And the timeline, so important. You know the national security argument the administration is now leaning on to defend the press ban? Well, Judge Tim Kelly wrote this in his ruling. Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. And he's right. The president's initial post did not mention anything at all about national security.

3:46only reporting he didn't like. And this isn't the first time that Trump's comments have now become part of a legal matter. Who can forget this? The infamous Trump post to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, the one that was supposed to be a private message, which demanded Bondi prosecute James Comey and Adam Schiff and Letitia James. Well, both Comey and James pointed to that post in court, arguing their prosecutions were vindictive, his words used in the context of litigation. They also are undermining, I would think, the DOJ's ability to successfully defend their arguments. So if the administration chooses to keep fighting this case, you could expect the president's statements to keep on coming up.

4:27Because a lawyer representing CNN, MSNOW and Politico say Trump is giving him more evidence. He is our lead witness in terms of showing this antipathy towards independent journalism and towards content. And that joke, it's not very funny. He's basically saying he likes an authoritarian government where there's no freedom of the press. And that is just more evidence for us that this is all about trying to control independent journalism. Here to help us look where this legal battle might go next is Chief Supervising Attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Connor Fitzpatrick.

5:06Connor, good to see you. Look, journalists were eventually allowed back in after Judge Kelly's ruling, but the White House blocks CNN and MSNOW reporters from covering state dinner arrivals. Does it seem like the White House is trying to get cute with restrictions that don't violate the judge's order but might go to the heart of the matter? I think being cute with the order is being charitable. What we saw this morning, it was a nearly 10 hour delay between when Judge Kelly issued his temporary restraining order and when the hard passes were actually issued to these journalists and they were allowed to go back on the White House on the White House grounds.

5:43Court orders are not optional. It is not up to the White House whether they want to abide by a court order. This is a federal court order that they had to comply with. And I think you're absolutely right. It seems like they are playing games and trying to walk right up to the line of contempt while seeing how little they can do to comply with this order. I mean, the judge's order is actually for 14 days. It's part of the temporary restraining order process. It's not intended to be a full blown evidentiary trial and beyond. It's not yet there. But during that order and in that order, he leaned heavily on the due process argument about notice, opportunity to be heard, the property interest of the actual hard pass.

6:21How much more complicated does the legal fight get once it goes from this TRO stage to a more permanent litigation? It shouldn't get that much more complicated at all. And the reason for that is the law doesn't change. The First Amendment does not change. The Fifth Amendment does not change. And the fact is that President Trump issued these Trump issued these truth social posts on Friday afternoon over the weekend saying exactly why he was banning CNN and these other outlets from the White House grounds. He didn't like their coverage. And the idea that they're going to submit these letters at the 11th hour in response to litigation to make it all OK is contrary to law.

7:01The Supreme Court was very clear on this just a few years ago in the Kennedy versus Bremerton case when they held that justifications for infringing on First Amendment rights must be genuine, not made up in response to litigation. But it seems like this national security excuse is exactly that. It's interesting because what's that phrase? When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time that's often left out with them the first time. Right. That's what he said. He did not articulate national security at all. He talked about the idea of essentially viewpoint, right? The context and the actual content of the report.

7:36But Judge Kelly noted as much the skepticism that the original statements were undermining the national security argument. But they are hoping, I would assume, that that national security deference that Trump has seemingly become accustomed to, he thinks it's a carte blanche. There's no exception, though, that says just if you say those words that you can undermine the Constitution. That's exactly right. Right. And there there is consistent Supreme Court precedent on the on the issue that the First Amendment does not go away just when someone says national security. We know that from the Pentagon Papers case.

8:11We know it from cases like United States versus rebel, where the Supreme Court has made clear time and time again that national security is not a magic incantation to make the right to free speech and a free press go away. Indeed. We'll see what happens 14 days from now and every day in between. Connor Fitzpatrick, thank you so much. With me now, creator of Blow the Stack on Substack, Charles Blow, CNN's local commentator, Brad Todd, and CNN analyst, Zolan Cano-Youngs. I'm glad to have all of you guys here on this. And I love the name of the Substack, by the way. I keep saying it's all gets more creative as we think about it.

8:45But let me start with you, Charles, on that. What exactly does this president get from this fight with the media? Because one thing that he is known for and praised for among a lot of his base members has been that he can, you know, fight with the press. That he gets to spar and he believes to show his force and authority. No, I do believe this is just part of the character. Man, he really does hate the fact that people are not praising him. And but but the problem is that he confuses. Decent, good coverage of bad ideas and bad policies as being unfair to him. But if you look at the policies that I looked at part of the media research center that he often quotes, you know, so 92 percent of my coverage is bad.

9:34Well, it's not that's not exactly what that that shows. But I looked at what they looked at. tariff policies. Well, you can't. What is somebody supposed to do when they're writing about tariff policies if we see the impacts are happening on American people? And the American people don't even like it. They talked about Doge and how much bad coverage you got off of that. Look at what Doge did. They lied about how much they were going to save. They took credit for other people's cuts that were not even their own. They lied about that. They cut so much that particularly black women saw disproportionate releases from federal government workforce.

10:14There are now hundreds of thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of deaths in Africa alone, most of them women and children. How are you supposed to write about that? How do I put a positive spin on that? That is not the reporter's job. The reporter's job is to go out and figure out these are the facts of the case. So what that report relied on is what they call evaluative statements, right? So it's not even all the news. It's not even like they said, we're going to look at every bit of news that was produced that had Donald Trump as a subject. That's not what they did. They said, let's find 2 ,000 evaluative statements, and we're going to look at those only.

10:48And of those, how did they evaluate what the president had done? That is what they measured. Well, Brett, I mean, the voters know we're 40 days from an election. There are a number of concerns that are going to be very high on lists. I suspect at the very bottom, if it even made the cut, would be these evaluative statements. Why do you think Trump believes this is additive or helpful in the overall strategy of trying to secure Republican majorities? I think it got bad advice. I think it was a bad decision. I think he's going to lose in court, too. I think Cheryl B. Knight in the 1977 case is going to be pretty clear.

11:26You know, to the extent his base wants him to fight with the press, that requires the press to be in the room for him to fight with them. And so I do think his base likes that. I think that that is the thing that having this court fight with the press doesn't solve anything. And he's going to lose. And the other thing about Trump's brand is it's a winner brand. A lot of people support Trump because they think he's a winner. He's not going to win this case in court. And they know that. The White House Council has to know that. They wouldn't have advised it if they'd gone on that basis. And so I think it's going to cost them in the end.

12:01And I think it's also a side issue, as you point out. It's a process issue. When the voters tend to vote on substance, things that are affecting them in their lives, not things that are happening to the president in his life. I don't think this was part of the calculation for the midterms or there was any grand strategy here. The president did this because the president thought he could do this, right? He was very explicit and candid when he first announced this ban. You know, he said to the pool that was in the Oval Office, I want better coverage, right? I'm paraphrasing, but he even said at one point, maybe we will let him back in if they fix what he has described as fake news, which tends to just be fair and critical coverage, right?

12:43I also think it's important to note that this is a piece of a broader kind of a piece of a broader effort we've seen from this president and his administration when it comes to cracking down on those that question his power. I know a lot of the attention is on this right now, but it's important to note we've already seen AP get restricted in terms of going to parts of the White House. Members of Stars and Stripe be fired from the Pentagon because of coverage that the administration didn't like, not to mention the president also urged the FCC to restrict licenses, restrict visas from people that display views that they deem to not be aligned with the administration.

13:20All of which puts into a different context the joke today about President Xi Jinping and China having the friendliest press corps. I know we are so accustomed to, oh, that's a joke, and someone's saying don't take him seriously, literally, or whatever the phrase is. But when you articulate it in that very fashion, it puts a whole different perspective on whether it's a joke with an intention to actually share one's true views or not. But I want to turn for a second to this White House. They're airing a new government-funded, that's an important phrase, a government-funded TV ad that they say is a PSA to remind Americans to love their country.

13:57Watch. Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America. America will never be a communist country.

14:13So first of all, I wonder if Kanye has said that he can play that music in the background. That's a whole different conversation, different day. However, let me turn to you, Brad. The idea that that's kind of a campaign ad, and I'm taking out the word kind of and saying that's a campaign ad. It looks a lot like it, doesn't it? Should taxpayers be the ones to try to have to fund this and the why? Well, I make campaign ads, and that does look like a campaign ad. I've never liked these things. I've never liked when politicians use government money for PSAs, whether they're pushing an accomplishment they just did or they're asking people to join in a program.

14:44I've really never been. I've never been a fan of them. And, you know, public funding of campaigns is something Democrats push. Republicans tend to oppose public funding using taxpayer money for the gut for campaigns. And the taxpayers are against it. By 80-20 margins, taxpayers don't want to see government money go to campaigns. Democrats tried to jam a bill through the Congress three years ago to make it the law of the land. So I'm against it. That's a whole other thing. I'm against it. No, it's not. It's taxpayer money. They were literally trying campaign reform to get wealthy, billionaire money out of politics.

15:18Did it have taxpayer money? But that is— Yes or no? But you're trying to confuse the issue here. I want to hear you. Go ahead. The point was literally, yes, to use taxpayer money to make sure that rich people did not overwhelm the system. Did it have taxpayer money paid for campaigns? What's that? Did it have taxpayer money paid for political campaigns? Absolutely. But in the context of campaign reform, you're not going to just shake your arms like I'm going to stop talking. This doesn't do anything. I know. You don't stop talking ever. Hold on. I'm not going to stop talking at this point. I want to hear you to say and make the point that you want to make.

15:52Exactly. So that is in the context of campaign reform. What we were trying to do is get dark money, wealthy people out of the system. And if we could agree to say that we will match funds from the public using, yes, tax dollars, then we would get the rich money, the dark money out of politics. That's a whole different scenario than what is happening here, where this looks like exactly what happened at that ridiculous midterm RNC. You cannot take those words. I want to hear it after. He should have started a whole other line of call. No, well, gentlemen, gentlemen, this is the 11 p.m. I'll let both of you speak.

16:34I want to hear what you have to say, and I'll give you a chance to respond. Let's do it. But you wanted to finish the point about the midterm convention, and then you'll go. Right. Well, I'm just saying, how do you separate what that ad was saying from what exactly the language that was used in that midterm convention, which means that it was definitely a political ad coming from the White House, whole different thing than campaign, political campaign. I told you it looked like a political ad. I acknowledge that. I'm violently agreeing with you. Violently and peacefully, it's fine. The point is, you did say you would like to put government money back in campaigns.

17:10Now, you have a reason for it. The First Amendment is still going to let anybody who's rich advertise and speak, as they should in this free country we still have. Government money for campaign ads is something the public opposes. For your reasons, for Donald Trump's reasons, for anybody's reasons. It's an 80-20 issue. And Democrats in the United States Congress tried to make it the law of the land. I'm glad it didn't pass then. I wish they weren't doing it now. The name of the new show, Violent Agreement. Stand by, gentlemen. Still ahead, Trump gives Republicans one more thing to complain about, his lavish praise of President Xi Jinping.

17:44And later, Trump's pretend I'm on the ballot tour gets two new stops. It has some Republicans, shall I say, a little worried.

17:55Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. My guest is Lil Jon. He's a rapper, DJ, and producer known for hits like Get Low and Turn Down For What. In February 2026, his 27-year-old son Nathan went missing near Nathan's home in Georgia. Three days later, his body was found in a pond nearby. Lil Jon has a memoir that just came out called I Only Shout So You Can Hear Me. It takes time to heal. And I kept myself busy that I didn't let myself mourn. I needed to laugh again. I needed to be silly and interact with people and feel other people's energy and make people happy too.

18:40We have to share so other people can see that they can get through it too. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. You may have noticed gambling doesn't require a casino anymore. You can just open up your phone. It's designed to keep us coming back or maybe never even leaving in the first place. We're going to talk to Dr. Timothy Fong, co-director of UCLA's Gambling Studies program. You're going to learn what your brain is really chasing when you place a bet.

19:17And also importantly, how to keep the game from playing you. Gambling addiction, gambling disorder is the hidden addiction. You can't smell it. You can't taste it. You can't see it. You can't have a urine drug test. Who are we talking about here, Professor? Who's the most likely demographic to be affected by this? Literally any single human on Earth. Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now wherever you get your podcasts. Right now, the state dinner between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping is wrapping up at the White House. And on the menu, sesame-crusted sea bass for dinner with conversation about the future of AI on the side.

19:53And the biggest tech titans in the world were invited to this dinner, including the leaders of NVIDIA and OpenEye and Google and Microsoft. But Trump's tone has clearly shifted on the U.S.-China relationship. You know, when President Obama hosted Xi for a state dinner a decade ago, Trump said it was, quote, so wrong. And he blasted the pomp and circumstance that accompanied that visit. Fulincano Youngs is back with me and joining us now as well, Josh Rogan, lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence and the author of Chaos Under Heaven, Trump, Xi, and the... ...a perfect edition of this conversation.

20:35I'll begin with you, though, because you were in the room tonight. Trump said that he and Xi have, quote, never gotten along better, but both sides have real issues trying to hammer out policy related to AI. So is this summit going to move the needle or is this sort of just described as a potential point of dialogue? If the summit is moving the needle, there's absolutely little sign of it. And officials from either side haven't shown us anything to really think that. Right. There are significant issues and points of concern hanging over this summit. It is it is it is an important one. Right. right?

21:16Concerns over AI, despite the fact that the president just a couple of days ago dismissed those concerns, not to mention Taiwan, as well as a shaky trade truce. They did announce an extension by two months, but that's still up in the air. What China's policies mean for the agriculture community in the United States, there are significant concerns at play. But today, instead of really hearing any detailed explanation of a collaborative solution moving forward, You saw a president that appeared, at least in public, we don't know what happened in private, to be more focused on the lavish display, the pomp and circumstance.

21:52It almost seemed like he was leaning into his what he deems to be a growing personal relationship to strengthen ties here. While she, on the other hand, was more pointed at times. Right. He did have that comment about wanting more human control for AI. That's more than we've heard from President Trump at this point. What do you think? Yeah, I've interviewed President Trump about his relationship with Xi Jinping. President Trump thinks they're friends. He thinks they really, really like each other. And he thinks that that friendship can get all sorts of things for Trump and for the United States.

22:23He thinks that President Xi is not going to attack Taiwan because he wouldn't do that to his friend Donald Trump. That's how Trump really thinks about it. Trump is also not a China hawk. You know, in his first term, he had a lot of China hawks around, Pompeo and Pence and these kinds of guys. not so much anymore. And what Trump believes, again, I've talked to him about this a lot, is that the U.S. and China should have sort of an agreement to sort of divvy up the world, spheres of influence, and then just sort of get along as much as possible. That's what Xi Jinping believes. Now, the problem, of course, is that on the Chinese side, they're doing a lot of things that threaten our national security, our public health, our prosperity.

23:06Then why the place? Well, because Trump is not a China hawk. He doesn't really care about that kind of stuff. It's about business. It's about, you know, investment. It's about sort of, you know, keeping the relationship in check so that he can pursue his other adventures like in Iran, etc. And you could say that plays into Xi Jinping's hands. Because if you think about the things that are really threatening us, well, China's expanding militarily. They're interfering in democracies. they're stealing our intellectual property there's a long list of things they're providing intelligence to the Iranians to kill Americans in the Middle East it's really hard to address those things when the main goal of your policy is just to keep everything really copacetic I want to hear both your opinions on the fiery speech of President Benjamin Netanyahu where he went after Mayor Zoran Mamdani listen to this shame on you Shame on you for distorting the facts.

24:05Shame on you for inverting victim and aggressor. Shame on you for spitting in the face of truth. Mr. Mamdani, since you were elected mayor of this city, many Jews no longer feel safe in New York. They talk to me. They tell me. This isn't the city we remember. You know, first of all, many delegates did walk out, And Mamdani did respond to that attack, saying Netanyahu's statements are, quote, meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians, unquote. Zolan, how is the speech going to be received? Well, I think what the reporting shows is that this speech, the fact that you saw so many people exiting as well, the fact that so many people have already in the lead up to this speech at the U.N.

24:57General Assembly, criticize Israel and criticize its handling of the war in Gaza and what have you, it shows just how isolated Israel is, right, in the global stage right now, probably with the exception of the U.S., actually, which seems to be one of the few that are supporting them. And even the U.S. in recent months, when you look at Vice President J.D. Vance, when he was at the lectern, he had that quote about how Israel should stop criticizing the U.S. because they're so isolated. So even the U.S. and the Trump administration has had some criticism from that recently. Yeah, he says, Benjamin Netanyahu says that New York Jews tell him that New York's not safe.

25:32I know a lot of Jews in New York, I talked to them, I'm related to some of them. They have lots of different views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all over the map, and many of them are horrified by what Israel is. Many of them support Israel. So he doesn't speak for New York Jews, and nobody really does. And I think what you're seeing here is that he's reacting personally to mom donnie's attacks uh and failing to realize that actually israel's support amongst uh young people not just in new york but in on the left and the right in america is going down but he doesn't uh want to deal with that he can't help but fighting the personal battle gentlemen thank you both so much up next the midterm panic continues as republicans find out where trump plans to campaign next just wait till you see where he's going plus james tallarico makes a brand new debate offer to Ken Paxton that, frankly, may be heartbroken to turn down.

26:26So what's he going to do? We'll talk about it next.

26:33Ken Paxton has been dodging debates all year, and it's why today I'm challenging Ken Paxton to a debate on Fox News. Let's go to Ken Paxton's safe space. Let's do Brett Baer on Fox News. I'll go into the lion's den because I know what I believe. I am proud of my record, and I'm not afraid of hard questions. I think that's the equivalent of meet me in the parking lot, right? Democrat James Tallarico stepping on the gas in his race for Senate in Texas. You heard the man. He's willing to go on Fox News to debate Ken Paxton. And as of this hour, no word of Paxton will take him up on that offer. But the challenge comes as poll after poll suggests that the race is a real toss up.

27:25And the New York Times is giving us some insight into just why that may be. They actually held a focus group with some Texas Republican voters and asked them this question. When you hear the name Ken Paxton, what comes to mind? The answers, bad, amoral, two words, morally corrupt, disgusting, womanizer, crook. Perhaps there were some good words in there. They didn't highlight those. But Charles Blow and Brad Todd are back with me now. Brad, I mean, if you were advising Ken Paxton, what's the case to be made for accepting or rejecting that Fox News debate offer? And by the way, I don't know that Fox News has agreed to it, but Rico wants it.

28:02Moments of strength are really important in a campaign. And I would not blow this off if I was Ken Paxton. I think that he has to prove that he is the stronger candidate in the race and he is the most confident candidate in the race. And so if I were him, I would one-up him and say, no, in fact, I don't want to debate you there. I'll debate you in Texas at anywhere you want. Let's debate five times. Let's debate every week between now and the election. Why not Fox, though? So I think, well, I think it's a trick. This is a Tallarico trick. It's a gimmick. But I think he should say, no, I don't want to be in any ideological safe space.

28:34I want to be with a wide open spectrum of people in Texas. And so I would go, let's go to Midland one day. Let's go to Dallas one day. Let's go to Houston one day. Let's just get a flatbed trailer and debate out in the parking lot somewhere and let constituents come. But Ken Paxton's in trouble. He's going to win. But he shouldn't be in this much trouble in the end of September. And it's costing Republicans in other races. He's a weak fundraiser. He was a tougher general election lift than John Cornyn would have been and he'd been the nominee. But he's draining money that should be going to races in states that are harder than Texas.

29:10Let me talk about that because we found out tonight, by the way, Charles, that Trump is making good on his promise to go out and campaign ahead of the midterms. But just look at some of the places. You know, you've got Mobile, Alabama. You've got Durant, Oklahoma as well. Durant is one of the reddest districts in the country. And Trump, by the way, carried it with 77 percent of the vote in 2024. Given what we talked about in Texas, for example, does this make sense to you, his plan? Well, they're desperate. So they're going into red places that you should never have to go into. And also on Paxton, he can't debate because President Trump has already set the bar in the basement.

29:52He's basically said he's not good at talking on TV. He says he has ugly suits and he's ugly. So what's he going to do? Show up and confirm what the president has said about him already? He can't do it at that point because the bar is literally in the basement. But the president now has to go out and Republicans now have to spend tons of money in Texas to try to make up for the fact that they had a candidate who had a real measurable scandal and they kept trying to manufacture scandals around Tallarico by saying, oh, he doesn't eat meat and this is Texas and he's not man enough. They tried to sissify him, right?

30:34constantly. With every, you know, I saw Ted Cruz on TV talking about if they had a thousand words to describe masculine, none of them would be Tallarico. They tried to demasculate I will finish. They tried to emasculate him and it didn't work because what they were basically saying to all the women of Texas is that if you're a gentleman, you're not a man. And that just didn't work. And now they realize that now they have to go and spend a bunch of money to make up for the fact that their strategy didn't work. It does strike me when in a place like Texas, where it's been almost 30 years since you've had, you know, the true prospect of maybe a toss up flip, that that would be the tactic, at least in part, to go against Tariqa.

31:23I mean, Ken Paxton, certainly scandal-plagued, certainly justifiable criticism, but he's also been successful at running and winning in Texas. Why do you think it is he is in such trouble? Is it because of the scandals, or is it because of the campaigning of Tal Rico and the shift in how voters in Texas think? No, I think it's because we had a competitive Republican primary that divided the party right down the middle, and the scandal certainly played a role in that. But James Tallarico is exactly the wrong candidate for Texas, for Democrats. Partly, I mean, the beef thing was one thing, but it's a long, long list.

31:58If Texans Democrats were serious about winning this race, they would have found a Hispanic sheriff who is a devout Catholic, is pro-life, pro-gun and pro-border security, but pro-labor, pro-health care, pro-public schools. That's the kind of Democrat that can win in Texas. You can't win in Texas with an Austin Unitarian. And that's essentially what James Tallarico is trying to project himself as. He's just too far left of the people of Texas. It's not going to work, even against Kim Paxson, which is saying something. It's fascinating, but the polls are saying that it's a toss-up. It's going to be close.

32:31The polls are saying it's a toss-up. And I went back and I tried to look to see if Beto O 'Rourke was ever leading. He led in one poll very early in the race. That is not the case with Tallarico. You know, depending on which poll you get, whichever week, he's up in some of those polls. That is, you know, Texas has been the white whale of the Democratic Party for decades. They kept, we kept aiming, aiming, aiming, aiming. He has a real shot. Now, I know that you say you're confident that Paxton's going to win, but I can't call it because the polls are all over the place and some of them put him ahead.

33:09We'll see what happens in about 40 days from now. I wonder if everyone will be so short-footed. Charles Blow, Brad Todd, thank you both for coming. Thank you. Up next, Trump says he and she are aligned on AI. Their alignment? Not changing a damn thing. My next guest is one of the leading AI experts who briefed Congress about the risks, and he'll join me live to respond to the president next.

33:35AI may have a PR problem. Its biggest boosters say the fears are overblown. I said there's zero chance that is end of humanity by 2030. 2030 is around the corner. Of course, there's going to be risk, but there's a lot of people working on really, really genuinely good. Let's build a safe. But Americans aren't exactly buying it. A new CNN poll shows that 82 % are very concerned about how fast AI is moving. Today, President Trump said he wants to leave AI exactly where it is as he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. According to a Chinese foreign ministry statement, Xi told the president, each side should play to its strengths rather than guard against each other and jointly guard against the misuse and malicious use of AI.

34:28With me now, Professor Max Tegmark of AI Research at MIT and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. Now, he has been one of the world's leading voices calling for urgent global oversight on this very technology. Professor, thank you for being here. I want to pick your brain if I can because President Trump says, leave AI as is, while President Xi wants to make sure AI is always under human control. So tell me about this split screen between the two leaders on AI, which sounds like the better plan or one that will actually happen? Well, I think that President Trump obviously wants to be humans in charge of the machines going into the future also.

35:12But it takes a bit of time for a lot of folks to just realize that the idea that we could actually lose control of AI is no longer something that sounds like science fiction in the future. It's something that's actually in the past now. We've had these crazy incidents, Most recently today, the Australians are getting upset that an American bot went and hacked them. And we had 1 ,200 bots that went rogue this summer, set up a secret message board, and spent weeks doing weird things, and then went on a cybercrime spree without humans even knowing about it. And 1 ,200 of them, none of them snitched on the humans.

35:55So control laws is real. It's here. and that's why it's so important to remember that, you know, this stuff that's happened now would have sounded like total science fiction four years ago when we didn't even have talking AI, like ChatGPT. So the things we need to worry about that could happen in four years will sound like science fiction to us today. I mean, even a year ago, four months ago, people might have thought this was hyperbolic or, you know, straight out of Hollywood in their scripts, And yet you've got the NVIDIA CEO, Jensen Huang, who recently said, look, software breaks out of sandboxes all the time.

36:34That was, again, in a new interview with my colleague Anderson Cooper, though, he offered up this solution. Listen. Sandboxes can be built to be secure. We should containerize these agents. We should monitor these agents. We should containerize it. We should monitor it. We should develop that. But if we do those things, it is my belief that the incidents would not have happened. OK, so let's use the word he used containerize. OK, do you buy that? Is that possible to do so when you've got A.I. that is rapidly outsmarting its creators? Can you so-called containerize it? well these companies claimed that they were containerizing them keeping them locked away from the internet and that they were monitoring them and this happened anyway and it's only going to get worse of course as these ai systems get ever smarter which is exactly what what these companies are trying to do they're trying to have machines improve themselves until they get so-called super intelligence vastly smarter than than any of us i think it's obvious that this is a national security threat and the companies are only going to be sufficiently careful with this once the government tells them they can't sell their products until they're safety tested.

37:56You know, we do that with all the other companies. You can't sell baby food or airplanes. Any number of products, right, that don't have oversight. That's a good point to look at. And that's interesting because we've seen multiple tech CEOs who've been going on quite the massive PR press tour lately. And I do wonder, given their request for regulation and that many people are skeptical about when anyone says, please, please regulate me. I'd like you to regulate me. But is it a quiet admission on their part that they're aware that there are some problems that they don't quite know how to solve yet, or they are concerned about the safety of even their competitors and their ability to solve those problems?

38:42They are absolutely concerned. The concern they have is real. But self-regulation is a joke. That's what got us into this mess with these rogue bot swarms. So the only way we fix this is if we have binding safety standards that the government, that companies have to meet. That's why our medicines are safe, because the companies can't sell them until they've gone through a clinical trial. And what I'm encouraged about is something really new here, which is it's not just those CEOs that are reacting, but there's this incredible bipartisan awakening. You know, just last week, I was introducing Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon back to back.

39:22And they were basically both saying the same thing. Got to keep humans in charge of this. Got to keep those companies accountable. And we had the head of the AFL-CIO speaking. We had the heads of leading faith groups. I've never been in a meeting with so much bipartisan consensus. And this gives me hope that we're going to start steering this powerful technology in a better direction. Well, here's to the glass half full. Professor Max Tegmar, thank you so much. Thank you. Sorry.

40:01I just wish I didn't say this. Another day of gripping testimony from the ex-mistress of Caleb Flynn as she reveals that she once texted that she wanted his wife dead. Lots to unpack with this testimony and we'll do it next.

40:20The murder trial of former American Idol contestant and youth pastor Caleb Flynn took a dramatic turn. Flynn is accused of killing his wife and his alleged mistress, Aaliyah Botner, returned to the stand today. And she read more than more of the 100 ,000 messages between the two of them. And one had an explosive twist. Sorry.

40:47I just wish I didn't say this.

40:53What was the message said?

40:59I didn't mean it. It says I want to kill her, Caleb. Who said that? Me. Next message. I said it so bad. Next message. He said that makes two of us. Ashley Flynn was killed earlier this year, on the very day that Aaliyah Botner says that Caleb vowed to file for divorce. Prosecutors accuse Caleb of killing his wife, but he denies doing it. I want to bring in former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, I mean, do Botner's messages change anything about how the prosecution will approach this case? They're not co-defendants. He's the defendant, the lone defendant. She is the alleged former mistress reading through their messages.

41:48But does this change their approach? Should it? no uh laura they brought out the worst they took the sting out of it by bringing out the worst text during direct examination so it wouldn't be a surprise on cross when she was wishing that her boyfriend's wife would be killed and that is wishful thinking it's not a crime though and that's where people like why don't they put handcuffs on her well because there's no proof that she was an accomplice. She didn't take any action. She didn't even encourage him to kill her. She's engaging in this fantasy, this wishful thinking, and that's not a crime.

42:25And you can tell because the prosecution didn't even offer her a deal. There was no immunity here. They're not focusing on her. They know she's a key witness here because she can authenticate all those 100 ,000 plus text messages. Plus, she provides the modem that's so crucial to prove this case and evidence of premeditation. It also said, you know, she did tell Caleb he shouldn't kill his wife and he should get a divorce. Instead, I should mention that. But the jury is going to look at what she said and the context overall. And Dave, during Cross, Botner actually walked back her messages saying she wanted to kill Ashley.

43:00And listen to what she had to say about Caleb's threats against his own wife. you made a comment during direct examination that when you had said that you wanted to kill Ashley that you didn't mean it and at the time you didn't believe that Caleb meant it either when he said it I did not believe he meant it no and why did you believe he meant it I don't think he could ever be capable of doing something like that. That's helpful for the defense, don't you think? Yeah, but there's so much evidence here. I mean, they got 100 ,000 text messages where he's saying that he wants to kill his wife. That is like, and they call her by such a disgusting name, I'm not going to say it here, that the jury's going to hate him and not necessarily like her.

43:54But she did write, and you pointed this out, I'm not asking you to take her life, obviously, because that's not what you should do. And then once she found out that his wife was killed, she said, what just happened? Were you involved in this? And so she wasn't, even though she's morally reprehensible, but a criminal? Maybe when it comes to destroying evidence, she did that with her phone and her computer and lying to investigators. But that's different than her. On that point, let me talk about that because the defense questioned her about the phone and laptop she lost during a trip to Florida.

44:26She also told the defense that she had built up resentment and jealousy against Ashley because Caleb hadn't left her yet. Again, these are comments she's made. She is not the defendant. But there is also no murder weapon here. Is the defense setting up possibly implanting this seed of doubt that somebody else was involved, even if there has not been the allegation or indictment? Yeah, they said some intruder who came in and it was a home invasion robbery where nothing was taken. Nothing except for the gun that was owned by Caleb Flynn that was stolen from the console of his truck. Oh, what an unlucky guy he is.

45:04That the murder weapon, it looks like it disappeared and was stolen from his car, else he would have protected his family. The guy is dead to rights. I got so much evidence about him, so many text messages, so much motive. Done. We'll see what happens. Dave Ehrenberg, thank you so much. Remember, you can watch the show and stream my show live or watch on demand anytime with an all access subscription. Just scan that QR code on your screen or go to CNN dot com slash watch to learn more. And thank you so much for watching. Here comes the story is with Alex Michelson. Next.