i want to go to steve vladic and laura coates. i want to start with you, steve, because you been watching every single thing coming down on this, and you write that it does not end all race-based affirmative action. i am curious though, because we have just heard from someone in the court who said that roberts made it very clear that roberts said that you could not go around and get students in by another way, and is this to say that you could not use it for scholarships or other things? >> yeah, and i think that what is really tricky here, and this is where there is a lot of confusion in the headlines coming out from other media outlets, race as a policy, race-based preference as a policy, that is dead. i mean, that is clearly fored by by -- forbidden except in the military academies as chief roberts puts in a footnote, but if for example, a student writes about how race shaped their experience in a diversity statement or race application, it is not beyond the ability of the university to consider. so what this is opening door to

as we are waiting for this to get under way is joining us right now, is cnn chief legal analyst laura coates, and cnn analyst elie honig, and legal analys ana ana analyst jeffrey, and what do you think about that elie honig? >> well, it is not if you want to open up a lawn business, but the legal question is what are the legal extent of the president through the department of education can and cannot do, and the challengers say that you went beyond what congress allows you to do, and there is a fairly broad law called the heroes act called in times of national emergency, the student debt can be modified, and the administration says we are within the scope of the law, and the question is did the executive branch go beyond what the scope of congress said they could do. >> i am curious about the case going forward when it is coming to the free speech versus the lgbtq rights. the person who is suing is basically hasn't started her business yet. she has not faced any hardship, and she has not suffered any losses, and how can someone like that bring a case before you even start your business? >> i

our chief legal analyst laura coates is joining us. laura, can you explain what this case is all about and why it is so impactful? >> this is a very important decision, because it is talking about and we are waiting to see what the ultimate conclusion is, sara, but this case is about prioritizing who can be deport and who is not. i.c.e. is charged with the expectation that they will carry out enforcement orders of who is to be deported, but the question is if they are doing the prioritize all of people in this country unlawfully or do they have to abide by a certain criteria, and should they be focusing on somebody who is a convicted criminal in some respects or engaged in unlawful behavior and enough to just have that, and we have the news and the actual holding, and we will go back the figure out what the court has said and go back to it. >> we will go to jessica schneider coming straight from the decision, and has more information. and jess, tell us what you see and hear. >> this is a broad win for the biden administration, and the g

cases have come down, and we do not know what the decisions are just yet, but we are going to laura coates for this, and this, laura, i think it is safe to say is the biggest case facing the court that could have the widest reaching implications. >> that is extraordinarily true. we are aware of what the consequences could be, and we know that we do not truly live in a society where race is never a consideration or factor or thought of, and the courts have had to wrestle with this idea. remember infamously sandra day o'connor as a justice spoke about a time line when we would reach a point in time that we would no longer consider race. and you had justice roberts talk about the way to stop discriminating on the way of race is to do just that. and you heard the conversations in the voting rights space of not removing the umbrella in a storm, because you are not getting wet. so we have seen the racial dine mi -- dynamics play in this court, and with ketanji jackson would recuse herself in this case, because of her ties to harvard and not as a student, but the board-type relationship, and so t

laura coates is taking a closer look at the judge's power in this case.f discussion about the judge. how much can her decisions make or break what's happening in the months ahead? >> you might remember this judge because this is somebody who assigned that special master to look at the documents initially, got smacked down by the 11th circuit as well. so a little bit of information about it. she has a very big influence. one of the biggest ways she will is in terms of scheduling. a trial date will need to be set, of course, in this case you also have a motion scheduled. which means the things that you write to the court to decide what evidence is going to come in, what kind of arguments you want to have before the jury gets in and also consideration of timing of other trump cases. we already know that he is now a twice indicted former president, including one of a state trial proce proceeding as well. also, she'll have a very big role in the jury selection. we're talking about the court of public opinion so far, but remember, you have to actually impanel a

laura coates is in washington. why don't you tell me what this case broadly speaking is all part >> lfrt proand how they are going to be per facilitated service dog and the gerrymanders vrnl and what the legislature wants to do with reand it was not too far ago, and said his enwe kis and twe puck umgt and the inability for a court or other entity to look at what is being done and valid if it is ep lar le and more grefrp and it gives person the one vote standard and can there be another and can kit push the north snoecht that not long enough the kours said that there there no and under the voting rights act to 1965 to have the access to the polls, and one per voting to tand you want to have some level of court. you for some level of's pengt spengt of snimt and what the ak xhouchlt and what we are combing through it to give the full thed and who are preparing 496 days away from the 2024 presidential election, and the manner which we have election, and how they are carried out, and who can serve as a check and balance

sara murray, laura coates and shelby talcott are here. you were there with the rooster yesterday morning. i'm sure they're greeting you again this morning. talk about what happened and what you saw in the courtroom because no cameras so we can't see his demeanor. >> reporter: that's right. about 50 minutes inside the courtroom. i had a clear view of donald trump and he sat beneath a light that lit him up, his hair was quite bright, wearing a brighter navy suit but he was slumped over. when the judge took the bench he was lagging to stand whenever you're supposed to rise when the judge says all rise and most of the proceeding he sat with his arms crossed, sat back with a feeling of indignation or some sort of frustration with the proceeding occasionally whispering to his attorney. he did not speak once in this proceeding. unusual for a federal court arraignment like this. the judge asked him no direct questions, referred to him as the former president throughout the proceeding and his lawyer spoke on his behalf and said to the court that h

joining our conversation right now, kaitlan, stick with us, cnn chief legal analyst laura coates along with michael sherwin, the former acting u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. laura, let me ask you, the attorneys in the case now have five days, five days to notify judge cannon on the status of the security clearances for the lawyers and their ability to look at the classified material. how slowly do you think this is going to go after the five days? could this bog down the process? and doesn't this kind of just underline the fact that this is classified material, that he had it? >> it absolutely underscores that point. and the idea of trying to get the attorneys representing -- and having them available to view the security clearances is part of the rocket docket, right? the idea of having the attorneys treat this client and the judge treat the client in the same way other people, not to slow roll and take your time and figure out do i want this person or that. the whole goal here is to expedite this entire thing, the actual justice system. the idea of security clearances, t

our senior legal analyst laura coates here with how this all works. you know this better than anyone because you were a federal prosecutor. walk us through this. >> this is such a day. i want everyone to understand the gravity of what we're talking about. first of all, they're getting ready to arrive at the courthouse, and when he does, you're talking about we're not going to see a whole lot of images here. the reason of course is because you can't have cameras in there, you can't have your cell phones in there. you're not able to have anything besides the transcriptioner and the people doing the sketches, et cetera. we're going to be right here at the federal courthouse right in miami, everyone. what's going to happen next, you're going to be processed, they're going to be placed under arrest. don't picture a perp walk or anything like that. that's not going to happen here. he's a former president of the united states. they do want to give some level of respect, but also he's just like everyone else now who goes into a federal courtroom with actual f

joining us now to discuss is laura coates. let's start on affirmative action, if we can.f this and the oral arguments, are they going to outlaw affirmative action? >> the expectation for really decades now has been the climb back will continue over a long period of time. sandra day o'connor famously said 20 years ago, 25 years from now we will not have a need for race based considerations. we're not there yet. but the court is on the concept of shouldn't race be a suspect classification, meaning we never want it to be considered. you want to stop discrimination on the basis of race by not doing so. it is quite effective according to the statistics and university settings about trying to diversify the population. you cannot have a set number of people. the idea that being a plus factor is part of it as well. the real consideration is there's a whole host of quote, unquote plus factors used, whether you're a legacy student, a musician, a student athlete, a veteran or a member of the military can be a consideration. so, the question is how narrow will the court's holding be?

back with me, laura coates, bradley moss and reena shaw.i want to talk to you about the complications with the documents at issue here. normally, the doj in the government, they don't like to take these cases to court. they are very, very sensitive. so, do you think that they still may want to, at some point, get to a plea here to avoid having to show off classified documents or get in fights with agencies about what they can show and what they can't? >> i'm sure the justice department will happily have a discussion about a plea deal with mr. trump. as your former guest said, i have no reasonably mr. trump is any way interested in a plea deal. what will be interesting to see, as they go through the classified discovery, and we get a sense of where the trial would go and how they would present this evidence and how they would handle presented to the jury, if there would be issues of providing substitutions or summaries instead of the actual documents, how much jack smith coordinated in advance with the other elements of the government, parti

let's bring in noocp legal defense fun sherrilyn ifill and cnn's laura coates. laura, can you explain what you bleem will be the immediate impact of this ruling? >> confusion and uncertainty. admissions offices are going to try to figure out how to reconcile two concepts, that you can have an applicant discussing race as pbut can't consider it s part of a consideration for admission. i will say a lot of the discussions we'll be hearing today seem to fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action actually works. it's not as if they begin with race and then decide whether you can get in. you're otherwise qualified, otherwise meritoriously considered for the position in the school, you have met all these other criteria, and then there's other holistic considerations, like whether somebody was a veteran or a legacy student or a violinist, an athlete. what this supreme court decision has now done is suggest that race cannot be used in that consideration. i don't want people to think that the people were not otherwise qualified and race somehow made them qualified.

laura coates, lawyer present here, speaking about corcoran based on what you see in this document, is corcoran testifying against the president? >> yeah. he did already to a grand jury. the idea -- first of all, those statements were the equivalent of you got a nice place here, hate to see it burn down. that was the equivalent of what you heard him saying. the suggestions were not subtle. this complaint includes statements about trump wanting to see photographs of the boxes. there is actual documentation that he was aware about the breadth of it. the statements that were made -- remember, it was extraordinary for a judge to say that an attorney could testify and speak about the communications with his client. why, though? because the judge in that case, in that instance said we're not going to honor it if it's a crime fraud exception. what does that mean? you cannot say that i don't get to tell you anything because you're a lawyer and you're my client if it's furtherance of a crime. to bring the point home, look through, page eight, everyone can follow along, the types of agency docum

cnn's chief legal analyst laura coates is with us to discuss this.eral reasons. they acknowledge one of them included his response when mr. trump was asked about the hollywood -- access hollywood tape. here is a little clip from his response. take a listen. >> they could grab women by the pleep bleep. >> if you look over the last million years, i guess that is been largely true. not always, but largely true. unfortunately or fortunately. it is locker room talk. >> so does that mean that you didn't really mean it. >> no, it is locker room talk. i don't know. it is the way people talk. >> so why would they want that excerpt? the manhattan criminal court? >> well it seems to unlikely as to what one has to do with the other. but the hollywood access came out around the time of the 2016 election and many people in his campaign believed that it would have an impact, a negative impact behind the scenes and it is an aedge wi -- it was allege the impact might be and how to get ahead of it and undermine it and so the subject matter of that entire discussion, t

laura coates, errol lewis is back with us. that he's cooperating, those are really important questions that he wouldn't answer to the committee that cooperation would suggest he is now answering to jack smith. >> exactly right. if you are granted immunity can you speak quite freely. they must be worried about what he is or is not saying. this is something donald trump has always tried to rely on you're my guy, you're on my team. attorney/client privilege. we're all in this together. that's not necessarily the case. attorneys are officers of the court. >> he's key for a specific reason in terms of suggesting fake electors. >> that's right. the fake elector scheme i think got a breath of new life when it was struck down just the other day. even as a theory i think prosecutors may have a different approach to this. they may have some clarity, enough clarity that they may decide to go further with the investigation and even start considering charges in connection with it. >> laura, can i ask susie wiles may not be a household name

back with me here, laura coates, andrew mccabe and paula reid, as well. you've been talking to your sources. what are you hearing? >> we're not hearing anything from the special counsel. it's unclear if we'll hear from him tomorrow. and speaking with a course from the trump legal team, the legal team was surprised that the special counsel made this choice. you knew that anything you tell him is going to wind up on truth social. but without a plan to share the facts of their own. it was surprising they hadn't teed up, to unseal, they had gone to a judge to get the permission, they hadn't tried to put together a press release or anything. this is interesting. we're giving 24 hours to flood the zone with our version of facts. that's a choice by the special counsel. i'm told that after we get through the process, the presentment on tuesday, they intend to file a motion to dismiss. they are going to lean into the arguments about prosecutial misconduct. they may make arguments that the investigation was conducted in washington, d.c., even though the case will b

he is interviewed by a cnn legal analyst laura coates. find a full schedule on your program guide or what online anytime at bookv.g. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio app," and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 eastern, important congressional hearings and other events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch "washington today." listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio app." c-span. powered by cable. watch video on-demand anytime online, at c-span.org, and find our timeline tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to interesting ghlights of our key coverage. use "points of interest" anytime online at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> this syndrome is extremely rare.

. >> stick with us, guys, because laura coates is able to jump on, and joining us now. rspective on the reporting that we have and the breaking news of hunter biden striking this plea deal. >> well, we all might need a neck brace from all of the breaking news that we have about the law and those in legal jeopardy and the investigation, and we have been waiting a long time to hear the results of, and this is two weeks after the formal indictment of a former president, and now a acting president having one of his children admitting to committing a crime. but they cast a very wide net as related to hunter biden and these may relate to taxes for a period of two years following 2016, but the net was cast very wide to incorporate his financial dealings, his business practice to understand for at least over a decade, and remember, it was in part hunter biden who was a topic of conversation around the first impeachment of then president trump about burisma, and everybody can remember that moment of time, and the energy tycoon in china later on, and so all of this was swirling ar

>> van jones, ashley allison, alyssa farah griffin, david urban, and laura coates, and john miller, cnn chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst. laura, today's arraignment, did it go as you expected? and i'm wondering what you made of the judge's decision to try to limit the president's communications with certain witnesses. >> it did go as expected in terms of the brevity of it and not having any evidentiary motions resolved obviously, motions to sever to not have a joint trial, that never was going to happen today. what was surprising, though, was the fact that the codefendant who we've known about since at least last week from the indictment did not have local counsel present. actually, how is it possible? well, there's two explanations, one, lack of planning or preparation, and two, lack of inventory of willing attorneys to do so. as a prosecutor certainly i support the department of justice, but you also have to ecen s ecr ec reconcile every defendant needs to have counselch. >> and they're paying for counsel for mr. nauta. >> they are paying for counsel, but you have to hav

right now, as a tentative court date is now on the books, laura coates is of course back with us to helps throughll of this. so, laura, let's start with all the possibility, here trump admitted in this interview with fox to obstruction. can prosecutors use what he said there as part of this case? >> whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law, prosecutors are likely salivating at this moment in, time thinking gosh, how many more conversations would you like to have, because we are cataloging every single thing or, saying including the statement he made to -- just last ni >> why not just hand them over then? >> because had, boxes i want to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out, i don't want to hand over yet. and, i was very busy, -- >> very busy, he suggested, but the question of course he asked after, that wanting to give them back, is answer actually contemplated that he was in fact in possession, knew that he had the, documents and was aware that they are wanted to give them back. he failed to actually return them. that is instantly admitting you knew y

scott jennings, van jones, laura coats and john miller, kaitlan collins in miami and kaitlan, it's aouple of hours into the day. so you, obviously, have new reporting already. what do you know at this moment? >> reporter: we know that we are not going to see any new faces with the former president as he arrives to the courthouse in miami this afternoon. he was on the phone all day yesterday and has been making calls for the last week trying to add a new florida-based attorney to his team. of course, given? where he is facing these federal charges that you laid out there. but we are told no one new has been added as of this moment. they have been trying to do so. they were hoping to do so by today. it wasn't seen as a hard deadline. the two attorneys you will see with former president trump today when he comes to court are todd blanch and chris -- todd has been on the legal team since april. chris kise was brought on last fall but was quickly sidelined with that matter. the dynamic has changed. two of the top attorneys resigned abruptly last week when they heard trump was looking to b

laura coates, i want to go to you first.ow ominous of a sign is what paula was just describing, this increased activity? how ominous is that for the former president? >> well, it depends on what the ultimate focus is. it seems as though he's certainly isn't focused, because, of course, january 6 was the culmination of a series of events. it really circled around the former president. but as we've seen so far, it is a much more complex case than, say, the classified documents, the idea of, do you have possession of documents, did you willfully retain them, did somebody want them back and you refuse? there's much more of a through line. when you're talking about the culmination to january 6, including the fake electors skin, including the ability to attempt to try to strong-arm the former vice president, mike pence, it's a much larger web. and so the immunity actually suggests that there was a dead end of sorts for the investigators, where they could not get the information that they require from a different source. that's nor

>> i want to bring back laura coats, carrie cordero and andrew mccabe.specifics of what we believe is in this sealed indictment and go to an interview that kaitlan collins did with jim trusty, one of donald trump's lawyers. >> and does it say how many charges there are against your client? >> again, it is not perfectly near an indictment, but as language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. not 100 percent clear that all of those are separate charges, but they break out from an espionage charge, which is ludicrous, under the facts that the case. i can certainly explain it. and several obstruction based charges and phosphate charges, which are actually again a crazy stretch, just from the facts as we know it. there's a lot to pick at from the defense side, but that appears to be the chargers and it appears to be something that will get off the ground on tuesday. >> and, laura, i know that you're particularly interested in the false statement charges. >> i am because i want the public to understand that for statements could mean that you ar

laura coates, i want to start with you.you are sitting here sort of consuming all of this, i want to know what's going through your mind, given your legal background? >> well let's take a step back on the extraordinary nature of the fact that we have a former president being charged. but i'm not gonna get hung up on the fact that it's a former president. what i'm focused on is the conduct. that somebody previously had the authority to retain classified documents, as a person who had that legal 40, and doubled down and retained them according to what is presumed to be the willful retention of. them. there will be a lot of focus going forward on, what does that say about our country, other democracies of course have held their leaders to account. but what does it say about america to have this moment? what would it say about our country, if we allowed laws to go unchecked? if we had a notion that people were above the law, if they no longer wear the head chief officer in the country? and so, i'm focusing on that realm. but al

let's start with paula reed and laura coates. paula, i begin with you. let's get to the audio tape. what do we hear donald trump saying? >> this was back in the summer of 2021, at his new jersey grshg. in the room, is two of his aides, who are recording anything he said. he had his staff record him. the other people in the room, are two people working on an auto biography of former chief of staff mark meadows. the former president was agitated about comments by mark milley. i'll let him take it from here. you can hear what he had to say about that. >> hthese are bad, sick people. >> that was your coupe against you. >> it started -- >> when millie is talk about -- they were trying to do that before you were sworn in. >> well, with milley, he said, i wanted to attack. in a big pile of papers, this just came up. look. this was him. they presented me this. this is off the record. they presented me this. this was him. this was the defense department and him. this wasn't done by me. all sorts of stuff. pages long. >> isn't that amazing? this wins my case, you know? that's highly confident

he's any by cnn legal analyst laura coates here watch booktv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule under program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> all right. welcome everyone. welcome to two nights virtual actual series featuring the trail manager for the star-spangled banner national historic trail ranger kate marks hardy. we are excited to have cake tonight and spatial exciter with the topic women of the chesapeake during the workday control because guess what, we're kicking off women's history month. this is the month of march so what a a great way to kick off tonight. my name is jeffrey buchheit and of the privilege of being the executive director for the pride of baltimore, nonprofit that supports the pride of baltimore. were excited for forth foe speak in our series ranger kate marks hardy file manager for the star-spangled banner national historic trail. during the the war of 1812 n living in the chesapeake bay region were under great political economic and emotional upheaval. these women from various occupations, classes, races and ages played an impo

he is interviewed by cnn chief legal analyst laura coates. "after words" is a

here's john miller and laura coates. great to have both of you here tonight. ere's a narrative you hear. there's two different justice systems in this country. let's put a rest to that, laura. ea let's start that some republicans saying this is joe biden's doing. some are saying joe biden has indicted trump. >> today, we witnessed the most evil and heinous abuse of power in our country. sad to watch a corrupt sitting president, had his top political opponent arrested on fake and fabricated charges. >> joe biden wants to give donald trump a death sentence for documents. >> a sitting president of the united states is trying to throw his opponent into jail. >> this unprecedented indictment, the biden administration is crossing the rubicon into desperatism. he has a habit of targeting anyone. >> can you help clear this up? is there any evidence that president biden was involved in this? >> no. he's the person who appointed the attorney general of the united states. of course, attorney general merrick garland. it's a special counsel statute that gives the power to j

laura coates, you're here with us on set. first, i want to ask what the president said at the end. asked if it's a rogue court o. he said it's not a normal court. >> the court traditionally had been viewed as apolitical, now under the microscope for several issues, including based on precedent. every time you hear a nominee in the confirmation process, they will tell you how much they honor precedent and they seem to indicate to the powers that be they have no interest in touching them. then as recently as roe v. ersu wade, and the dobbs decision, and this is a case that reaffirmed the notion you could use race as part of a holistic factor. now years later, it's being gutted, turned down and rejected again. so the president is rightly addressing -- should this supreme court be under the type of microscope that the talking points suggest it should be, or is this an indication that the justices are not being suede by the political objectives that you on which see. the supreme court in this very lengthy opinion, though, does not do itself many favorites in distancing completely from d

laura coates and defense attorney shan wu.ying out four possible avenues of defense for trump. it's a good template for us. number one is, the trump team could say he had every right as president to take these documents when he left. what are the strengths and weaknesses of said argument? >> the biggest weakness is, he's no longer the president. the idea of this case hinging on the unlawful retention, the removal but the retention of documents and obstruction following that, as well. the records, as we said, you're not able to keep the documents. these belong to the american people. >> i'm now told your microphone is not working. we're going to get that. we'll get that fixed right now. >> you want to hear me talk? >> yes. >> now that i'm audible, which is a weakness not to be heard. the biggest issue here, is you cannot retain documents. that's the crux of the argument. if you once had the document, if you no longer have that authority, as in the clock strikes midnight or 12:00 p.m., you no longer have that power. that's the c

let's expand the conversation with cnn's senior affairs correspondent paula reid and legal analyst laura coates. you were part of the team that broke the story that jack smith had this tape in his possession. do we know yet if they have the actual document that trump was apparently referring to? >> we don't know if they ever found this particular document. we know that the trump team was subpoenaed for anything related to mark milley. they were not able to locate this so wasn't handed over from the trump team. what we do know is they're aware of the document. they have spoken to mark milley and at least one other person who was in the room for this meeting who could talk about what exactly they saw. there are other ways that they can trying to piece together for themselves and potentially eventually for a jury exactly what was going on here. >> laura, from a former federal prosecutor's perspective, how strong is the tape if trump is saying there was a bunch of newspapers i was waving. >> well, the transcript. now to hear the audio of this is very hard to sort of disassociate the idea of it bein

as we are waiting for this to get under way is joining us right now, is cnn chief legal analyst laura coates

. >> laura coates, such important context, and thank you for laying that all out for us clearly. thank you. >>> thank you, john. >>> kristen holmes is going to be joining us now in washington, d.c., and she has been following this case, and obviously, talking with those surrounding donald trump, and have you heard anything from them since we have found out that they are, their lawyers are meeting with the doj? >> well, sara, we haven't had an official comment from the trump campaign, however, i did speak with two advisers on the background information on what exactly they are asking for, and you have heard evan asking for this being prosecutorial misconduct, and so, when i asked what this overreach was, they believe they have some evidence here, and the other thing that i am told by another adviser they are planning to argue is the best thing is to close this case before the election, and essentially alleging that this is going to lead to election interference, and this is what we have heard from former president trump, and a preview of what he could say if he loses the primary a

i want to bring in paula reid and also laura coates.en about the grand jury meeting in d.c. over these documents. what to do with he know about the other stther separate grandn florida? >> at least one witness will go before the grand jury. and up until now the investigation is in washington, d.c. but even at the beginning of the investigation, there were questions about whether d.c. was the proper -- what is called venue, a proper place to bring will case if they were going to charge the former president or anyone else because most of the alleged conduct happened down in florida. you could argue that these records were supposed to be with the archives, with the government here in d.c., that some were taken from the white house. but at this point it is unclear why they are starting to hear from witnesses towdown in flori. so that means they could charge other people. but if the former president is charged here in d.c., his legal team will challenge the venue and then the special counsel will have to convince a court that the fact that a

understand what this means for students and for colleges and for the country is our chief legal analyst laura coates. let's start with college admissions. how will this change college admissions. >> remember in a series of cases we already knew there could not be quotas. there could not be the so- called plus factor that you would assign to race in the overall application and admission process. the real question for the court is whether race could be considered part of a holistic review of an application akin to what you do for say a -- or maybe an athlete or a legacy student or a donors child or perhaps a veteran. any number of factors. with the court decided today is that you cannot use race as a part of even a holistic process. they believe in the majority of the 14th amendment which says we do not want to look at race at all as either a detriment or an advantage. should be a colorblind society as it relates to race and we can all quibble about whether that in fact is a genuine argument or disingenuous but the majority holding found just that and as a result they are saying you cannot use race as

understand what this means for students, for colleges, for the country, our chief legal analyst laura coats. laura, great to see. so, how will this. let's start with collagen missions, how will this change college admissions? >> well, remember. in a series of cases, we already knew that could be not be quotas, there could not be the so-called plus factor that you would assign to race in the overall application of admission process. the real quest for the court now is whether race could be considered part of a holistic review of an application. akin to what you do for say, a shell list, or maybe an athlete. or a legacy student, or a donors child, or perhaps a veteran, any number of factors. what the court decided today, was that no, you cannot use race as a part of even a holistic process. they believe in the majority of the 14th amendment says, we do not want to look at race at all, as either a detriment or an advantage, to be kind of a color blind society as it relates to rates. now, we can all quibble about whether that in fact is a genuine argument or disingenuous. but the majority holdi

he is interviewed by laura coates. watch "after words" every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. meet and greets, speeches, and more, to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, ur unfiltered view of politics. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal, important congressional hearings and other events throughout the day and , weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. text, "washington today" for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker, "play c-span radio". c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to d

he's any by cnn legal analyst laura coates here watch booktv

. >>> let's go to cnn's supreme court reporter and chief legal analyst laura coates. let's start on the student loan debt question. walk us through what the court decided today. >> the supreme court blocked the student loan forgiveness program. it was meant to provide relief to millions of borrowers up to $20,000. it was a campaign promise from biden. he wanted to give sort of breathing room after covid to sort of stave off delinquencies and debts. but it was immediately challenged, and basically the states challenging this said, look, president biden does not have this kind of authority. if you're going to act in a way that is going to erase billions of dollars of debt, you've got to do it through congress, and the majority today agreed that congress had to act. here is what chief justice john roberts said. he said, "the secretary asserts that the heroes act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. it does not." he said the question here is not whether something should be done, it is who should the authority to do it. a real blow to

. >> and in the meantime, joining u us is cnn legal analyst laura coates, and also cnn political analystll us what you have seen? >> well, it is a big initiative here, because we have heard of this about voting, and the need of the diversity in the military and military preparedness, and the dei initiative in the corporate space, and this is focus on the educational space. this is where it stands today. you cannot have quotas to set aside a certain number of seats for a race or a plus system where you have additional points for someone's race, but we acknowledge that race and diversity has a place in the society and a stronghold in many respect, and so the question for this court is, do we truly live in a color blind society, do we operate as such in the admissions process. and even though a student could not for example if it were to go to say you cannot consider race at all in admissions, what does that practically mean, everyone? you can't have a box of race. but what about a student who writes a essay about the lived experience as racial minority, and what about the holistic factors

here with me in studio is jeff zeleny, abbi phillip, and cnn's laura coates. you were there. we still don't have cameras in the courtroom in the federal courts, but we have you. >> the weight of history was so evident in the room. i should remind everyone that for four years, we haven't been watching any kind of dissent on the bench because of covid. they only started up this session. so they come in, chief justice roberts says he's going to announce his opinion. we all know where john roberts has been on racial affirmative action. he's been so against it for so many years. he said, indeed, 6-3, they are overturning all this precedent that has allowed colleges and universities to take race of applicants into consideration for at least one factor of many. he reads it pretty steadily. his wife had slipped into the courtroom just as he was ascend ing the bench. everyone is just watching this tableau up there. and clarence thomas, who rarely speaks during oral arguments, or only recently has been doing that, he starts to talk in his deep voice as part of the majority to say why h

we start with evan perez and also laura coates. hunter biden will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and he truck a deal with the gun charge. walk us through. >> bottom line is that his lawyers tell us that prosecutors are going to recommend that he serve no time, no jail time for pleading guilty to those two misdemeanor counts for failing to file taxes on time in 2017 and 2018. the gun charge is still outstanding. the plan is according to what was filed in court is for hunter biden to enter a program, and if he abides by all of the conditionspunged in about 24 months or so. all of this is subject to approval from a judge of course which is going to happen in the next couple of weeks or so. the bottom line though for all of the other claims, those were part of this investigation. and in the end, prosecutors decided that these were the crimes that they believe that they could try to pursue and they ended up with this plea agreement with hunter biden. >> laura, if hunter biden is not getting any skral tjail time, w would his probat

laura coates, how strong is this tape as a piece of evidence in this criminal case against the former president? >> it's so strong. particularly if it's able to come in to the actual evidentiary base for the trial. it likely will because it's an actual statement by the defendant in his criminal action. it's not privy to the same types of exclusionary rules. it's somebody making a kind of admission. a jury said, hold on a second, the context tells us exactly what was likely to have been in this particular field on this desk, in these documents. the bulk of the indictment is wrongfully detaining and willfully detaining sensitive information. the subject matter concerned here, certainly it's there. >> certainly is. stand by. kaitlin colt lins is with us as well. trump is on the campaign trail in new hampshire today. this is how he responded to the release of this tape. listen and watch. >> -- voice was fine, what did i say wrong in those recordings? i didn't even see the recording. all i know is i did nothing wrong. we had a lot of papers, a lot of papers stacked up. in fact, you could h

. >> and now here to talk about the defense team strategy is laura coates, and also prosecutor nick ackerman, walt nauta flew to florida with donald trump, and ate with donald trump, and he seems to be wrapping him in a bear hug, and physical and metaphorical bear hug and why? >> because jack smith wrapped them both into one indictment. they are now considered co-defendants, and i would expect them to commntinue to communicate and why should they distance themselves. as co-defendants they will have counsel who will work together and decide what defenses should be, and how to present at trial, and he is going to have a separate attorney, but under a similar defense team, and the reason it is significant is because people talk about the expectation to flip this particular person. i hear about this notion of flipping someone as if you try to get the biggest fish in the pond, but it is essential to think about this indictment, and it says trump employee two, and employee walt nauta and the fact that they are conspirators and having them allegedly on the same indictment does not preclude them fro

let's start with cnn senior legal affairs correspondent paula reid and former federal prosecutor laura coats, ladies, great to see you. all, i will begin with you. let's get straight to that exclusive audio tape. what do we hear donald trump saying? >> all right, so remember this back in the summer of 2021 as new jersey golf club. and in the room alone with him are to have states who he knows are recording everything he says. because during that time he was in the habit of having his staff report him anytime he talked to journalists, members of the media, or anyone working on a book. the other people in the room or two people working on an audio biography of former white house chief of staff mark meadows. at the time it appears the former president's quite agitated about comments made by general mark milley regarding trump's feelings and his desire to attack iran. i am gonna let him take it from here, you can hear him in his own words and what he had to say about that. >> he's a bad sick people. >> that was your coup, you know? against you. >> it started right -- >> when really is talking ab

here with me at the table to share their insights and reporting, kerry cordero and laura coates. once again, joan, you are just arriving here from up the street at the court. what was it like? >> it was amazing. you really saw all the tensions in america playing out in that courtroom based on what they ruled and the voices that we heard. first we hear from justice neil gorsuch talking about the free speech rights of this woman who does not want to do a wedding website for same-sex couples. he cast it all in the notion of speech rights for this woman. and when justice sotomayor spoke herself in dissent, she pulled back and said this is not about just speech, this is about discrimination against gays and lesbians, and she likened it to discrimination against african americans ballpack in the '60s, discrimination across the board and talked about what she said and the other one i'll mention when the chief gets into it with justice kagan is the identity of america and the identity of rights. justice sotomayor said at one point look at how much this court has changed. so much has chan

he is interviewed by cnn chief legal analyst laura coates. "after words" is a weekly interview program with relevant masto interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. laura: attorney general ellison, i amo ad you are here. this book is truly phenomenal. i can say that from somebody who is covering this story, covering the strategy -- tragedy. we knew about the nine minutes and 29 seconds, that this book tells us the rest of the story of the tragic murder of george floyd. i went to lunch -- launch right into what it was like for you to even contemplate writing this book knowing how professionally, personally invested it really you are and to the entire globe at this point. att. gen. ellison: honestly, i felt it was important to document what happened. sadly these tragic incidents continue to happen. we have had a number of officer involved deaths since george floyd was killed, and if we are going to make progress, we have got to not just as good legislation, prosecute cases that deserve to be prosecuted, but we have also got to

. >> let's change in our chief legal analyst laura coats, elie honig and john miller. >> you may haven john in the inception level before we introduced him jumping in on the rooster and the team thing. that was him. >> that was john. the one and only. >> he observes them. >> he knows who he is. >> so shall we start? >> we shall. >> where do you want to begin? >> i think we are at a very pivotal moment here because it's, you know, it's an indictment, but it's the second indictment and there is a third indictment that's supposed to be coming out of georgia possibly if the grand jury so votes. but this is a pivotal moment because right now there is a player in here which is judge cannon, who can exert a lot of control over this or a little control that can really influence it. if judge cannon decides to fast track this case, decisions on motions and so on, this is the kind of thing that can be defining in the series of cases. and that is interesting because of judge cannon's past with this case. if -- and this has to happen at some point, which is the judge in florida has to pick up the

us >> with us now, cnn's laura coats and van jones. and with me here, kenji -- he is the chief justice earl warned professor of constitutional law at nyu law school. justice warren wrote the unanimous opinion in brown versus board of education. then i just want to start with you, obviously, an historic day. what's your reaction to the >> i was born in 1968, the year they kill dr. king, the year they killed bobby kennedy. -- apparently, i'm the first person in my family that was born with all my rights, the first person in my family -- trying to get the kids together on the campus is enough, it's too much, the supreme court seems like it's living on a different planet from the communities i work in. these kids are doing all they can to try to figure out a way to get ahead and door after door gets closed on them. the supreme court seems to be acting more like a super legislature that is shutting the door now on women's rights, the rights of people with color, probably tomorrow on lesbian and gay rights. something is really wrong here. if

with us now, we have cnn national correspondent kristen holmes and cnn chief legal analyst, laura coates. kristen, to you first. this is huge money he's raking in here. >> it is, and when you look at it, most of it is coming from digital fund-raising which is usually those small dollar donors. as we have been reporting, he's seen some major defections in those high-dollar donors in this campaign cycle, but they said they were going to get that money from small dollar donors and that's what he does. this is significant for a number of reasons. they did get a huge boost after that manhattan arraignment, and after the manhattan indictment. when i was talking to someone about this potential federal indictment, i actually had someone say to me on the campaign, well, i hope it comes before the fourth quarter meaning that they were hoping that they could get that fund-raising boost again if there was a federal indictment, and now we see they actually have, and i'm told they were a little bit concerned about it, that there had been a lag in those fund-raising numbers and they weren't sure, is th