A conversation with Laura Coates covering ALL the hottest topics from politics today

Who speaks in this episode?

• Laura Coats (Guest)
• Nikima Levy Warren (Guest)

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Laura Coats, CNN, Department of Justice, George Washington University School of Law
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Face Act, Laura Coats
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Face Act, Laura Coats, Nikima Levy Warren
4. 20:00 – 23:08: Laura Coats, CNN, Department of Justice

Notable quotes from "A conversation with Laura Coates covering ALL the hottest topics from politics today"

• I'm doing the interviewing this time around because she's usually interviewing me. She's a chief legal analyst for CNN. she obviously is a St. Paul native, a 2005 graduate from.

  about Laura Coats · at 0:00

• I had an interesting interview with one of the organizers, Nikima Levy Warren, who was inside of that church. I interviewed her a couple days ago and I asked her the question of why she wanted.

  about Nikima Levy Warren · at 11:09

• Sounds as if you are trying to impact my ability or influence my ability to be in a space of worship and the face act along with the clinic's aspect of it was designed in part to if not prevent that to minimize and stop it alto together.

  about Face Act · at 12:22

• Being here for me. I'm always here for you. Thank you so much. And I look forward to watching you tonight on CNN. Go ahead and do your thing.

  about CNN · at 22:23

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Laura Coats — Person · Main guest · 6 mentions · first at 0:03
  Interviewed as a legal analyst to assess potential legal exposure for Don Lemon and to explain standards around protest rights, the FACE Act, use-of-force reasonableness, and the Insurrection Act.
• Nikima Levy Warren — Person · Referenced interviewee / organizer · 1 mention · first at 11:10
  Cited as an organizer who was inside the church; her stated motivations are discussed as potentially relevant to investigators assessing intent and possible FACE Act implications.

Companies & orgs

• CNN — Company · Business focus · 3 mentions · first at 0:03
  CNN is the network where Laura Coats serves as a chief legal analyst and hosts her own show.
• Department of Justice — Company · Referenced expert · 3 mentions · first at 0:19
  The DOJ is mentioned in the context of potential legal exposure for Don Lemon and its role in enforcing laws like the FACE Act.
  He is. That's what she articulated. Now I'll tell you why that's exactly something that the investigators in a civil rights division or in the investigators of a prosecutor's…
• University of Minnesota Law School — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at 0:09
  Laura Coats is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, which is part of her professional background.
  Interviewing me. She's a chief legal analyst for CNN. she obviously is a St. Paul native, a 2005 graduate from the University of Minnesota Law School, a 2001 graduate of Princeton University.
• George Washington University School of Law — Company · Referenced expert · 1 mention · first at 0:31
  Laura Coats served as an adjunct professor at George Washington University School of Law, adding to her professional credentials.
  Served as an assistant US attorney for the District of Columbia and as an adjunct professor at George Washington University School of Law. She is the wonderful host, of her own…

Concepts & topics

• Face Act — Concept · Core topic · 4 mentions · first at 7:19
  The FACE Act is central to the discussion about legal protections for houses of worship and reproductive health clinics.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 I'm doing the interviewing this time around because she's usually interviewing me. She's a a chief legal analyst for CNN. Um, she obviously is a St. Paul native, a 2005 graduate from the University of Minnesota Law School, a 2001 graduate of Princeton University. She worked as a trial lawyer for the US Department of Justice, served during both the Bush and the Obama administrations, specializing in enforcement of voting rights. She also served as an assistant US attorney for the District of Columbia and as an adjunct professor at George Washington University School of Law. She is the wonderful host, you know, of her own show, Laura Coats. And she for CNN and she is right here with yours truly right now. I'm doing the interview tonight, Laura. How are you doing? How's everything?

0:46 Oh, I am so excited for this moment. You doing the hard lift, hopefully the heavy lifting right now. But you know what? I'm excited to join you. I love the show. I love the conversation. So, I am thrilled to talk to you. Thank you so much, Lauren. I really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule. Thank you so much. So, let's get right to it. Uh, we saw what happened at the church in St. Paul, the disruption, as some people will call it. Uh, Don Lemon has found himself in a little bit of hot water or a lot depending on who you listen to. He insists he was there as a journalist, but the DOJ officials have publicly suggested potential legal exposure. What do you make of all of that? You know, I have to tell you, when I went home after George Floyd, when I've been home after the enunciation school shooting, when I've been home after what happened with Renee Good, it is disorienting, I think

1:34 I have to say, when you see the presence of ICE and law enforcement to the degree it is on these streets and the anger and visceral reaction not only to the shooting and killing of Renee Good, but also to what many people on the ground believe to be this complete disingenuous narrative that suggests that the entire purpose of ICE being on the ground is in line with the righteous tactics that are being described. And so I have to tell you I saw the palpable anger and I was not surprised that that anger has transformed and also um translated into protests around the city that I personally witnessed as largely peaceable and also witnessed as many incidents when people were taunting the officers, conflating local law enforcement with ICE agents, conflating um National Guard being on the ready with stormtroopers discussing the the pure anger about an overwhelming presence that had led to lawsuits by the

2:44 attorney general in Minnesota because of a concern that it had overwhelmed the population. But I have to say everything I witnessed, including the taunting and the throwing things at ICE agents, even in front of federal buildings, those all happened on public streets in in the public square, so to speak. I was out there as a journalist covering it. I was among protesters who were there. I was covering it for CNN, of course, and you were confined in different areas, even pushed back by law enforcement at the federal level to those public streets.

3:17 So, I was surprised when I saw it enter through the same lens you all did into a church and a house of worship, not because of the premise, but because of the location. And I think that location makes a world of difference to how prosecutors look at the ability to protest. And I'll just say quickly, Stephen a

3:39 okay, you know, um it's one thing to be in the public street where the government can put on time, place, and manner restrictions and they can do all sorts of things to give as long as it's not um you know content specific that I'm applying my rules to you. It's neutral. But then private entities like a business for example or um private places they do have some control in fact the utmost control over how people can enter and remain. And so it does change the equation when you're inside of a private space.

4:13 And that that being said because listen somewhere along the way Don Lemon and I and listen I I I I don't have any kind of relationship with the man but I don't want the man thrown in jail Laura. I don't want to see him thrown behind, but I don't want him getting in that kind of trouble, you know, and and he he is an independent journalist, and it makes sense because obviously he spent 17 years at CNN being a journalist. So, we got to give him that. The flip side to it, however, is that he was inside a church and you see the video where he's talking about them and he's going off about ICE and he's saying a lot of things about folks and he comes across more of an activist than a journalist and people are wondering whether or not he's going to catch major heat because that's the argument that the DOJ is going to try to make. Is that a legitimate argument the DOJ can pull off against them in your estimation based on

5:07 what you've seen? Well, you know, first of all, I I inadvertently wore black and white stripes as if I'm a jailbird right now for this interview. So, I want to just say that WAS THAT WAS TOTALLY INADVERTENT.

5:16 You don't look like a jailbird. You don't look like a jailbird coach. Trust me on that. You're done.

5:21 I just want to be clear as I'm looking at myself. I'm saying did I just in did I incite the questioning based on my appearance and wardrobe? IT COULD BE. HAVING SAID THAT, you know what? the stripes look good. But I will say um here's an interesting tension and I'm gonna unpack it in two ways.

5:39 Number one, we know that arguments that suggest that you being a journalist is fatally undermined by your readiness and willingness to offer opinion would have a detrimental precedent across the board. because we know that the evolution in many instances of journalism where you're providing information um is can can be construed as or is actually directed as at some entities as opinion journalism opinionated topic. So I think to suggest that one is no longer a journalist or has the the the protection of being a part of the free press because they offer an opinion would be detrimental I think to many entities number one. But number two, there is this tension about the presence of the press documenting events in real time where the obligation of journalists to cover a story doesn't necessarily stop at the closed door. And I give you examples of this. when you have a camera, for example, say inside

6:43 of the Capitol on January 6th, or you have a uh a a camera that's documenting protests along the streets, and while you are within that space, you are documenting around you as a responsible journalist. by myself was pepper whatever the pepper bomb or tear gas whatever was deployed while on the scene was impacted and um and and experienced it because I was covering the protest not a part of the protest there's a tension there between the the allowance of it but I will say the reason why this presents a particular issue is because of the space and this is where the face act comes in as without going into the details of of individual people who may or may not be identified or targeted by law enforcement according to statements by Secretary Gnome and the like. The FACE act is where everyone's going with this. And that's a you know fancy acronym, but here's what it means. It means that you're not allowed to

7:40 threaten or intimidate or use force or other means to try to impact or obstruct somebody's ability to either enter a reproductive health clinic, which is where it really started, or a house of worship. And the reason for that is because you want to have especially with house of worship, you've got the the discussion of the first amendment, an exercise of one's first amendment rights and any tactic that's used to try to suppress or intimidate that to have a chilling effect on it can be problematic for the first amendment. But then you got that tension of the free press within that same amendment space. So why I look at this as a very unique dilemma for not only one who' be looking to investigate but also as a guidance for press going forward and you know a lot of people think they're pressed because they have a camera in their hand because I'm documenting aren't I a journalist too

8:34 there are p there are prescribed guidelines and regulations but I wonder for the people out there do you want the press to follow into a space where news is happening or stop at the door and in order to not risk being identif

8:54 that's a legitimate question because that's you know I mean I think that if Don Lemon is smart he listened to you and what you just said and say hey that's the news was happening inside not at the door that's why I was inside I mean that's a good argument that's something that definitely should be exercised no doubt about that I want to know what you can tell us about what legal theories actually apply here trespass disorderly conduct the face act, the KKK act, all right, etc. And how do courts balance protest rights with religious freedom and the right to worship without disruption?

9:24 Think about it in this way. Your rights end where mine begin. And that's in the public space, let alone the private space. You've ever gone to the movie theater, you've gone to a restaurant, and they'll tell you no shirts, no shoes, no admission, right? Or you can revoke your license of a ticket if you're throwing popcorn at the screen or recording inside the movie theater. I'm telling you not from personal experience but what I have heard about you know these sorts of things number one so you can think about that a private entity tells you you don't got to go home but you cannot be here and you if you're in my home you're in my space it's my rules so with that in mind you got to think about these two competing interests one is everyone's right to be in the quintessential public spaces I can be on this sidewalk I can be screaming up to the high heavens my policy differences the things I think you're doing wrong. I

10:13 have a right to petition the government to red address my grievances. Even if that means that my petition, so to speak, is me holding up a sign in front of the street in front of the quintessential public forum, the White House, right? That sidewalk. But then there's the private spaces where I am allowed to have some sanctuary. I'm allowed to have some distance between everyone's welcome to no one can come unless I say so. And so the face act is about that secondary part. It's about saying that we hold, you know, quite in a a precious way, we hold it very important to be able to exercise our freedom of worship and beyond, our freedom to access reproductive health clinics, although that's interesting given the the course of events in terms of uh abortion rights to this country.

11:01 But we still hold the ability to access people with whom we are going to exercise our rights to be private and you can't come in and trample on those. I had an interesting interview with one of the organizers, Nikima Levy Warren, who was um inside of that church. I interviewed her a couple days ago and I asked her the question of why she wanted to go inside as opposed to being outside. She relayed to me, and I'll paraphrase her commentary. She relayed to me on air that it was a duty she felt as being a Christian to identify a kind of hypocrisy with being a member of ICE and also being somebody who had a um ministerial role inside of the church.

11:39 And when I questioned her about that pastor was being accused of yeah I questioned her of that of being accused of and of course the DHS does not want to confirm or deny the presence of that person as a member of that church because they don't want to dox somebody and they have some privacy interest there. But the idea here of saying I had a right to go in and and tell people how I felt and warn people about the fact that one among you is a hypocrite or one among you I don't believe is acting in line with the professed religious beliefs that he says he is. That's what she articulated. Now I'll tell you why that's exactly something that the investigators in a civil rights division or in the investigators of a prosecutor's office are going to hone in on precisely. Why is this reason even a and that is it sounds as if you are trying to impact my ability or influence my ability to be in a space of worship and the face act

12:34 along with the clinic's aspect of it was designed in part to if not prevent that to minimize and stop it alto together. So I think you have this investigation that's pending on all these people that will go beyond just what is you know said on social media but also interviewing the members of the actual house of worship um going broadly from what we saw as clips to what actually was the full landscape of it and I understand from her statements to me that they actually attended the service and then spoke up at what they thought was an appropriate time to condemn. Um and I do wonder what the impact of having been attendance will impact.

13:15 Quick answer to this question. Is the man in trouble? Um, you you know what I think when there has been a threat made by the DHS and the attorney general of the United States that you're on notice. I think that you are right to be concerned. Now, whether that will pan out in terms of their burden of proof and a grand jury agreeing with them, I I have no prediction. But you don't want to be, as the former president of the United States, I can't believe I'm quoting Ronald Reagan here, but said if you're explaining, you're losing. That's the same in the law. You don't want to be in the position to try to explain what you have done because then you find yourself in a courtroom.

13:59 To remind us why we even having this discussion, why even the stuff happened in in in in St. Paul, it's because of the shooting, the death of Renee Good. And obviously, federal officials say the ICE officer who shot her suffered internal bleeding. I I didn't see that. I mean, I'm like I saw it. I'm like, what the hell are they talking about? But either way you slice it, videos dispute video disputes have fueled public distrust, of course,

14:25 from a use of force legal standpoint, Laura Coats, what facts matter most? Imminent threat, positioning, timing of shots, etc. And what's the cleanest standard for judging reasonleness when the video is unclear or incomplete?

14:40 The phrase kill or be killed. If you feel as though you have to act or you yourself will be killed or have serious bodily harm, officers because the Supreme Court's deference have said that we're going to judge that belief whether it's reasonable according to what another officer who is reasonably in a similar situation might view it. That's important here because they're not judging from what you and I watching this as quote unquote layman would be, but what other officers might believe because they are the ones who we expect to make split-second decisions and have experience in these very difficult circumstances. But here's why it's difficult to understand the absence of an investigation of the officer who shot and killed Renee Good because it's not a hypothetical officer that was on the scene as well. There were other officers on the scene and they did not from any vantage point that I have seen draw let

15:34 alone fire their weapons even though they too would have had a duty to protect another person who was in imminent harm or lethal harm. So that reasonleness standard I think in many ways strengthens a need to investigate whether or not that officer was reasonable to believe kill or be killed. And by the way, Stephen A, that's for every single shot that was fired, not just the first one. It's every single shot. And finally, when you cannot know the intent in someone's mind, because he's not going to say what he was believing and thinking, you have to look at what they do after as well as part of consciousness of guilt. Did the per did the officer who fired the weapon believing he was in lethal harm's way or that the community would be harmed with this person going? What did the officer do after to ensure that the threat that he believed was neutralized? Did he follow the car? Did he attempt to render

16:31 aid? Did he attempt to understand whether the person had a weapon on them? Was that vehicle going to be used to harm somebody else according to him? Did other officers do that? or was it a matter of shooting out of reasonleness or anger? That's all part of what should be an investigation. Insurrection act. I wanted to get to this because I've seen you covered, you know, you you you've covered talk of invoking the insurrection act in response to unrest. What are the legal thresholds a president has to meet according to your knowledge? And what would be the bright line/ red flags per se that signal it's being used as a political tool rather than a lawful last resort public safety measure?

17:13 When you think of the insurrection act, you want to think about an overwhelming emergency where the local law enforcement cannot control it. It has become so problematic as to overwhelm the presence of law enforcement or be so overwhelming in number, force or threat or scope such that the local law enforcement cannot reasonably be expected to control it. I mean you think back for um in the civil rights era. It was invoked at that point in time, not at the request of a governor when you had people trying to ensure that segregation would continue and that they were not going to abide by the federal law to actually integrate. Well, at that point, the presidents of the United States would say had said in more than one instance, I'm going to go in. I'm going to invoke the insurrection because I have an emergency where there are people in this country whose rights can no longer be protected or insured and

18:07 secured by local law enforcement because they weren't helping to do so. That's one instance. The other in sense which is far more which is far more helpful and a far far more uh pal palable palatable excuse me to the governor is when the governor requested and that happened following the Rodney King verdict when you had the riots in Los Angeles that completely overwhelmed the city damages to the millions of dollars businesses burned down an overwhelming presence of people who were um overwhelming local law enforcement in that instance they said please I need the help and it was invoked Again, the the common thread from both those instances is local law enforcement either couldn't or wouldn't help preserve the rights of people in the area and secure the public good and calm. was happening in Minnesota. Um the lawsuit by Keith Ellis and the attorney general and the and the governor and the

19:00 mayors there have talked about that their law law enforcement is not overrun by the people of the community but they are outnumbered by the ICE agents to the tune of thousands about 600 Minneapolis police officers on the roster not just in actual work compared to about 3,000 ICE agents who are on the scene which means of course that you have protesters who are responding to ICE agents, local law enforcement need to secure the areas and secure at that point the protection of even the presence of federal law enforcement and then still do their jobs. So this is by the standard that we've seen across our country alone. It has not risen to the level that local law enforcement is overwhelmed by the actual conduct of the people. But they argue overwhelmed by the conduct of law enforcement who they want to stay in their federal immigration lane. This is really the the argument that people are raising with respect to Trump dangling

20:02 the insurrection act because there always runs a risk where states rights and the ability of local law enforcement to control their community will be trampled even by if you wanted to be gracious the most well-intentioned federal officer officers and if you wanted to be um what some believe realistically cynical those who do not serve the public concerned at all? Last question here. Concerned at all about the subpoenas that have been handed down uh to the mayor, to the governor? Uh um what can you speak to the level of concern, if any, if the if any should exist at all as it pertains to that subject matter?

20:43 Well, if the intent of issuing the subpoenas is to chill the political speech that an elected official is entitled to have on behalf of their constituents, then we should all be concerned. If the goal is to, which it has been so far as the stated subpoena, to request documents, information not from the person but from the offices about any coordination of um information that they say was conspiratorial in nature to stop federal law enforcement, then state officials ought to be concerned if they have engaged in that sort of conspiracy. However, what we have seen to date so far, and I'm not privy to all of the information that obviously the Department of Justice would have, but what is reported and what my own reporting has uncovered is that the statements that have been made are protected political first amendment activity speech where you can disagree with the president's directives. You can

21:42 disagree with what even your own fellow mayors or fellow members of Congress are saying. What you can't do is engage in an activity to obstruct or intimidate and prevent law enforcement activity. But simply speaking about what you believe to be right is part of why we elect our officials to advocate on behalf of what we're saying. Because if you were to follow that to a logical conclusion, can you imagine the day that someone says, "Well, a fellow u member of your own party has spoken out against your policies. They don't like it." Does that mean that you've conspired to obstruct their agenda or are you speaking out about it? That's the tension.

22:18 Laura Coach, I know you got a show to do. You got to get on out of here. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being here for me. You know, I'm always here for you. Thank you so much. And and I look forward to watching you tonight on CNN. Go ahead and do your thing.

22:30 Love you. Thank you so much. All righty. The one and only Laura Coats. She's doing a fantastic job and she knows her stuff. Make no mistake about that. She is the one and only Laura Coats. got her own show here on SiriusXM Polus Radio by the way. Not to mention the fact that she's on CNN every night, every week night 11:00 Laura Coat show. She's doing her thing. No doubt about it. Very, very proud of her. TripleA, I'm sorry, 866 967-6887 is the number. The code is 86696 pus. You're listening live straight shooter with Stephen A. Back with your calls and more in a minute.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "A conversation with Laura Coates covering ALL the hottest topics from politics today"?

Laura Coats (Guest), Nikima Levy Warren (Guest).

What is discussed in "A conversation with Laura Coates covering ALL the hottest topics from politics today"?

In order: 0:00 Laura Coats, CNN, Department of Justice, George Washington University School of Law; 5:00 Face Act, Laura Coats; 10:00 Face Act, Laura Coats, Nikima Levy Warren; 20:00 Laura Coats, CNN, Department of Justice.

What is mentioned in this Stephen A. Smith episode?

7 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Laura Coats, Face Act, CNN, Department of Justice, Nikima Levy Warren, University of Minnesota Law School. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "A conversation with Laura Coates covering ALL the hottest topics from politics today"?

The episode runs 23 min; the transcript is about 4,182 words in 34 timestamped sections.

More from Stephen A. Smith

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on Stephen A. Smith