Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump Celebrates Supreme Court Win As A "Big Gone"; Supreme Court Limits Ability Of Judges To Stop Trump; House Members Briefed On U.S. Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites; Jury In Sean "Diddy" Combs Trial Set To Begin Deliberations Next Week; Shooting Suspect Appears In Court As Victims And Their Dog Lie State At Minnesota State Capitol; CA Residents Fed Up With Beeping Waymo Driverless Taxis. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Now, the rabbis fear now that there's a ceasefire in place, is that the U.S. and Israel have left this job half done, that the regime change, it needs to be from the people but they might need some help from outside or the Iranian Army -- Erin.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Nick, thank you very much and thanks so much to all of you for being with us. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:34]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, Supreme Court conservatives give presidents more unchallenged power and President Trump says he will use it.
Also, breaking news, new satellite photos showing one of Iran's nuclear sites hit in the U.S. strikes and what the action scene outside it could mean.
Plus, why Waymo self-driving taxis are annoying people in one California community and how they are now trying to slow their roll.
Good evening, thanks for joining us.
Whether or not the six-member majority on the Supreme Court intended to close out the term today by giving the President significantly more power across a potentially vast swath of American life they just did, and no one was quicker to recognize it than President Trump himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people. We have so many of them. I have a whole list --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: In fact, the ruling only involved a case about the President's executive order ending birthright citizenship, and it did not address the merits. What it did do, however, could indeed affect virtually any action that this or any future President may take on everything you just heard the President say and more. That's because the court made it so that any judicial relief from any such executive orders is limited to the individuals and the organizations in each case.
So, in other words, lower court rulings can't go beyond their respective jurisdictions. They can't apply nationally. We'll talk about the implications of that with our legal and constitutional experts in a moment.
As for birthright citizenship, specifically, there's enormous impact on that alone. Today's decision clears the way for it to be ended in the 28 states, not challenging what the President did, meaning potentially different citizenship rules in those states than in the other 22.
Until that is, presumably, the Supreme Court rules on the merits -- a case the President believes he can win because he says the 14th Amendment guarantee that anyone born here as a citizen is not universal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I say, if you look at the end of the Civil War, the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day was it 1869 or whatever, but you take that exact day. That's when the case was filed and the case ended shortly thereafter. This has to do with the babies of slaves, very, very obviously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, you also said the amendment and these are his words, "wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation."
Now, to be clear, Section I of the 14th Amendment reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Now, in the more than a century and a quarter since, the plain language of that clause was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v Wong, Kim Ark. Courts have held those words in a phrase to be self-evident, and nothing the court did today changes that. What it did do, though, was change the power balance between the President and anyone challenging his or her actions.
And though presidents in both parties have certainly chafed at the constraints of district judges having the power until now to block some of their policies, few presidents have been as ambitious as this one about taking executive action or inviting legal challenges, something Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to underscore from the bench today, she referred to the other big win court conservatives gave him, quoting her now, "The other shoe has dropped on executive immunity."
In her dissent, she writes: The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution. The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully."
So, we'll have more in a moment on the legal implications. But first, Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us.
Obviously Kristen, a big win for the President.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, a huge win. And one thing just to keep in mind here is that President Trump came into office with the hopes of expanding executive power. Now, I don't believe that even he or his team realized how much they would expand it, because their idea of expanding it at the time was putting the executive -- putting the presidency over things like the Justice Department, which have traditionally operated independently of the Executive Branch.
We've seen him consolidate power that way in this sense now, he has consolidated power and made the Executive Branch even more powerful again than I think even he imagined. And you heard him there listing off some of the things -- executive orders that he has signed that have been hung up in litigation, that they plan on moving forward with. But in addition to that, we know that his team is already looking at ways to continue this, particularly with this ruling, things that they thought might get stuck in litigation, things they thought would probably get held up and immediately paused.
Now, they don't have to worry about that. So, this is going to open up a whole another door, a whole other avenue for President Trump and his administration. when it comes to enforcing and pushing through his agenda.
[20:05:41]
COOPER: And Kristen, CNN has recently reported that the President taking issue with Justice Amy Coney Barrett behind closed doors. She wrote the majority opinion in the case, saying the President went out of his way to commend her on it.
HOLMES: Oh, absolutely. I mean, he heaped praise on Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Just to be clear, I was the one who reported that a month or two ago, and I had spoken to people who had had direct conversations with President Trump, said he was frustrated that he didn't understand why, that she was ruling the way that she was, even though I would say 99 percent of the time she does rule with the other conservative Supreme Court justices. He went completely all in on Amy Coney Barrett.
He said that she was brilliant, her decision writing was brilliant. Today, she was brilliant and he was specifically asked about things that his conservative allies have said publicly about her negative comments about her rulings, and he said he didn't know anything about that, that he has the greatest amount of respect for her, and he always has. Again, this comes after I talked to a number of people who spoke to him directly, and that was not what he was saying behind closed doors.
But the other part that I thought was interesting. He also thanked Justice Roberts, somebody that we know that he has had a lot of problems with, he has said behind closed doors that he doesn't even believe that he's a true conservative. And one line he said specifically was that, everyone should be proud, the Supreme Court, they should all be proud of themselves and the country should be proud of them and clearly, he is singing a different tune about the Supreme Court now that they have ruled in his favor and in such a major way -- Anderson.
COOPER: Kristen, thanks very much.
Joining us now is former federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, former federal prosecutor and Supreme Court biographer, Jeffrey Toobin and Civil Rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill, founding director of the 14th Amendment center for law and democracy at Howard University. Jeff, how big of a win is this for President Trump?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's definitely a big a big win for him. I think it's not quite as big a win as he's making it out to be. You know, the idea that a President is now free to do anything he wants is not the case. I mean, these cases -- these actions by the President will still be challenged in the district courts, and they will get a ruling and those rulings will be appealed and they have the opportunity for circuit courts and then the Supreme Courts to stop what the President is doing.
So it is not like this is a complete carte blanche, but it is true that the immediate injunctions that we've seen on a lot of what the President has done and remember, this was also done by conservative district court judges to President Biden, especially on issues relating to student loans. But those will stop. But it is not true that the President, you know, is completely free from judicial scrutiny at this point. But it is -- he has a much freer hand today than he did previously.
COOPER: Judge, how do you think this affects, I mean, again, the injunction against nationwide injunctions, how does that impact federal courts?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Well, the federal trial courts will not be able to issue a decision that binds the entire country, but they still will be able to issue a decision that binds the parties in front of them. Now, you might think that's only individuals, but it's not true. It's also state attorneys general. So a lot of states will have their attorneys general bring lawsuits and if they win, then at least it covers the whole state.
So, we're going to have a real problem here. We're going to have 22 states where there's one law and 28 states where there's a different law, and that's not a good thing. So, one of the conservative justices actually noted that Justice Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said, I recognize the importance of uniformity. And so, what he tried to argue is the cases will get to the Supreme Court readily. I'm not so sure it's that readily because if an individual wins the case at the trial court, the U.S. government isn't going to appeal. They don't want it to get to the Supreme Court because they know that birthright citizenship can't be banned.
COOPER: And Sherrilyn, the court notably did not weigh in on whether President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship was constitutional. What do you expect is going to happen in the interim when the Trump administration moves to enforce it?
SHERRILYN IFILL, HOWARD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well, that's the point. Having lifted the nationwide injunction, as we've seen in many other cases, the Trump Justice Department and Homeland Security Department moves very quickly in whatever spaces the Supreme Court allows them.
We saw this with, you know, the President's DOJ defying orders of courts and flying migrants to third party countries. So now, if you're an individual who believes that they may fall under this category that Trump created out of whole cloth, that he says is carved out of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, if you're not covered by one of the two class actions that have been filed, you are scrambling to find a lawyer to try to litigate the case yourself. We don't know how many people these could be, but you're also looking out the window and you're worried about your child.
[20:10:46]
These could be toddlers who've been born in the last few years, or who've been born in the last month or so. And so, you're looking out your window wondering whether those masked ICE agents that we have seen running after grown people, chasing people through fields, rolling people on the ground and beating them, whether they are outside waiting to execute this executive order against young people who do not have a parent who is a permanent legal resident or a citizen of the United States.
This is the space the court has given. And I don't give the court any credit for not mentioning birthright citizenship because it was their way of not addressing the consequences of the decision that they chose to make today, and that, to me, is cowardly. Justice Barrett talks about, you know, what Justice Jackson was saying in her dissent, as though Justice Jackson was being hysterical. That was almost the tone of Justice Barrett. But I honestly think she's gaslighting.
And gaslighting is pretending that this is just a decision about nationwide injunctions and about the 1789 Judiciary Act and about the power of federal district court judges, and not about real people, and not about a President who has shown himself to be as hostile as he can be to migrants in this country.
COOPER: Jeff, when do you think the issue of birthright citizenship would be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court?
TOOBIN: Well, very, very soon, early next term. The Solicitor General in the Trump administration acknowledged that they are going to bring a case even if they win below, they are going to agree to have a case that tests the legitimacy of birthright citizenship before, you know, sooner rather than later.
And I do believe that, you know, the words of the 14th Amendment really do mean what they say. You know, this is a court that talks about the text and textualism. Well, the text of the 14th Amendment speaks of people born. You don't have to be a lawyer to know what the word "born" means. If you're born in the united states, you're a citizen. And I think that's what the court is going to hold.
So I actually think that issue is going to be resolved fairly promptly. It's all the other issues where the President and his allies are going to keep pushing for expanded Presidential power, and that's going to move a lot more slowly.
COOPER: Judge, I mean, do you see it as the Supreme Court limiting the power -- the checks and balance power of the Judicial Branch today?
SCHEINDLIN: It does limit it somewhat because of the timing. Eventually the Supreme Court will speak and that becomes the law of the land that all the lower courts have to follow. So, that's what Kavanaugh was writing. Once it gets there, if the court then says this, this executive order on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, then that binds the country.
So, there's still checks and balances, but its delayed. And I'm not as confident as Jeff is that it's going to get there so fast. I think that again, when Kavanaugh was writing, he talked about months, if not years. So, we'll see how fast it gets there. But the real problem is it allows the executive to issue unconstitutional orders and nobody can stop him. Nobody can stop him. In that interim period until the Supreme Court speaks. And that's a scary thing. And both of the dissents, Sotomayor and Jackson really recognized that. Here's the executive can do anything unconstitutional, can't be stopped until it gets to the Supreme Court.
COOPER: And, Sherrilyn, obviously, this President relies heavily on executive orders. Other presidents have, but him in particular, what do you think this decision does to the power of the presidency going forward?
IFILL Well, I think this is precisely what the judge just said, which is that in the interim, the President gets to do whatever he wants. And if you are someone who is going to be deported, that matters a great deal. This court could have very easily said something about the unconstitutionality of the E.O. without declaring it unconstitutional, but what Jeff just said, what the plain language is, and that this, you know, the President's likelihood of success on the merits is low. But they chose not to say that. And that gives him license to barrel forward. You had him at the top of the hour talking about this, as though this were an unmitigated success.
You'll remember in the overturning of the Humphrey's Executor case, the Supreme Court was willing to talk about the Federal Reserve and to say the President couldn't fire the head of the Federal Reserve, even though that issue wasn't before the court, because they wanted to make sure that they calmed down the markets. But here they chose to say nothing about this very important issue, whether a President by E.O. can declare himself above a provision of the Constitution.
[20:15:32]
This is a really shameful decision. It will not go quickly, especially because we first have to resolve the issues of class certification. Now they are -- we've got class actions that have been filed. Those issues have to be litigated. You're allowed to appeal from a class certification decision. So, that has to go up to the court of appeals. Then it has to go through the process of a trial. I mean, we've got a lot of ground to cover before this issue makes its way back to the Supreme Court and this was discussed at oral argument. I was there in the room. The Supreme Court is well aware of that.
COOPER: Jeff --
TOOBIN: Another point that's worth making about this issue of, will the Supreme Court can just settle all these questions. The Supreme Court decides maybe 75 cases a year on all the cases they decide, you know, there are at least 75 cases before the district courts now, just about whether the President has exceeded his power.
There is no way they are all going to wind up being decided by the Supreme Court. So, just on the basis of the volume of cases and the fact that the Supreme Court does not resolve all of these cases, that is going to be a tremendous gift to presidents starting most prominently --
SCHEINDLIN: Can I respond briefly to that? Its 75 merits cases, but the shadow docket, the cases are getting there fast and furious.
IFILL Exactly.
SCHEINDLIN: So, I actually think -- thanks, Sherrilyn, I actually think a lot of these issues will get there not on the merits, but on whether they should be preliminarily enjoined and the Supreme Court will speak.
COOPER: All right, Judge, thank you very much, Sherrilyn Ifill, Jeff Toobin as well.
Coming up next, some executive branch perspective on today's ruling. We're joined by former Obama chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel.
And later, new photos of earthmoving equipment at the Fordow nuclear site in Iran and what that might mean. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:43]
COOPER: We talked about this at the top, Donald Trump is not the first president to have to deal with lower court judges imposing nationwide injunctions on their orders. According to the Congressional Research Service, President Biden faced 28 injunctions, President Obama 19, President George W. Bush 12.
President Trump, though, faced 86 during his first term. In a statement today, the White House says the President in this term has been hit with 40 so far, attributing 35 to what it called far left jurisdictions. The number, though, is more likely due to the sheer volume of executive actions this President has taken.
I want to get some perspective now from Rahm Emanuel, CNN senior political and global affairs commentator, former Obama White House chief of staff and former ambassador to Japan.
So, ambassador, up until this morning, the courts have been seen as really the only check on the President's agenda. Republicans in Congress have certainly fallen in line with him. Do you expect hell now be emboldened to further push the boundaries of executive power?
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, he was emboldened before, and I think that the only conclusion you can have now is that he will be emboldened on, you know, espresso -- be actually energized by this process and this decision.
You got to look at it from this -- they've basically given him a green light. Congress has basically decided there's no oversight responsibility. The Republicans are acting like trained seals in Congress -- one side note, I remember when we had congressional oversight over firing the travel office inside the White House. The President takes a plane from a foreign government. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Third, the head of the Budget Office this week said, when it comes to congressional appropriations, it can be a suggestion or a recommendation from Congress. They're going to do what they're going to want to do, and they'll not fund other things that they don't want to do.
So, when you look in the kind of 180 degrees perspective, this is a White House that not only has pushed the boundaries, now has established them and shrugged at any restraint. And also, you got to look at -- the media used to play a role and the fact the media today, Anderson, it doesn't play the role it used to play.
You can see the corporate side of media basically currying favor with the President, letting off journalists, et cetera. And so when you look at every piece of a speed bump to executive authority, it has been removed and smoothed out.
And so, he started emboldened and he's now energized with that emboldment, and so, that combination is a bad cocktail.
COOPER: And where do you think he goes from here? I mean, he mentioned, you know, refugee resettlements except for Afrikaners. It seems like there aren't no refugee resettlements -- I guess that would be one area. Sanctuary cities he mentioned, I mean, is everything now on the table?
EMANUEL: I think you should assume that. But let me say go a place I think is, what are the political ramifications of this? And I think, one, is you can see Democrats are energized. I believe Independent voters, if you look at the polling, are actually anxious. They do not want an untethered President. They want a checkmate, which is why I always advocate, if you were looking at it from a Democratic message, going into the midterm is you have a rubber stamp Congress for this President, we need a check.
You need to actually use this to energize -- Democrats are fully energized. They're ready to counter. It's you -- we have to win the minds and hearts of the swing Independent voters in swing districts and they do not want an unchecked President.
You can look at all the data. Independents are not just decisions by decision. They are uncomfortable with what's happening here by the President. The way he's doing it. It may energize his base, but is actually alienating Independent voters. And for a midterm election like this, Democrats need to win him two to one and this is exactly in that decision. It may be in the court, but in the court of public opinion, he will lose if the Democrats play it right.
[20:25:27]
COOPER: I mean, even for supporters of the President, they would have to think about -- I mean, this applies not just to this President, but any future President. So, if it's an extremely liberal President, will supporters of the President now be pleased with this several years from now or whenever, if that that occurs? I mean, this will be for all future presidents.
EMANUEL: This will be for future presidents, future White Houses, the anxiety over decisions when there's an injunction like that, the kind of speed bumps. The court has basically taken at the local circuit level and appellate level out of the business, and left it only to the Supreme Court and White Houses will -- once you basically see that ground for power, power vacuums get filled and the White House, a Democratic President with that staff will fill that and use that to their advantage.
Now, I personally this is my opinion, this court has been incredibly in the name of wearing black robes and judicious, incredibly political and partisan. So, it will be interesting if they, to quote Justice Roberts, if they just call balls and strikes, I have my doubts about that. That said, I know what I would do as both a president or as chief-of-staff. You have authority, move it and fill it. Take that power, run with it.
COOPER: Rahm Emanuel, really appreciate your time. Thanks so much.
Coming up next, new activity at one of the nuclear sites American bombers hit. We'll be joined by a congressman briefed on the latest intelligence today after the break.
Also, closing arguments in the Sean "Diddy" Combs case. Did the prosecution meet their burden of proof?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:31:46]
COOPER: We have new satellite imagery to show you from Iran. Now these are images of the Fordow nuclear facility today, days after it was heavily bombed by the United States. Some appear to show excavators at tunnel entrances and other machinery.
As we're waiting on more assessments the damage done to the facilities, President Trump today said he would absolutely consider bombing Iranian nuclear sites again if he thought it necessary. He made those comments as members of Congress received a classified briefing about the U.S. strikes on Iran.
CNN spoke to several members after the briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R), TEXAS: It's been severely damaged. Yes, it's the enrichment capability -- capabilities that were taken out.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you concerned about where that uranium might be?
MCCAUL: My understanding is most of it is still there.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: I would say it's a substantial setback and that was a first-hand authoritative and reliable account. That differs greatly from the low confidence preliminary assessment that was leaked.
REP. BILL FOSTER (D), ILLINOIS: I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the high inventory of high enriched uranium. Very over optimistic a portrayal of what was and was not accomplished by this mission.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: I'm almost sorry I went to this briefing because almost everything that was there is in the public domain.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
COOPER: A Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, U.S. Marine veteran Jake Auchincloss joins me now. Congressman, obviously there's all you can't say about a classified briefing, but where did it lead you on assessing what Iran's nuclear capabilities are now?
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Anderson, good evening. Thanks for having me on.
There's two dimensions that matter here. There is the capabilities and there's the intention. Both before and after that briefing, I believe that Iran's capabilities are significantly degraded. Not just their capability to enrich uranium, but also their capability to weaponize that uranium and perhaps most importantly, their aerial defense capabilities. Because for so long as they are naked in front of Israel and American air power, they can't do anything. I mean, they can't clear that rubble away. They can't try to reconstruct metallization plants without Israel or the United States just mowing the lawn again. The more uncertain question is about their intention.
And here is where coercive diplomacy is going to be critical. Now that we have them in their weakest position in three decades, bring them to the negotiating table with one open hand and one closed fist and get to a deal that ensures a long term status of no nuclear weapon program and no funding of proxy terror forces.
COOPER: How serious do you think the administration is about negotiations? The president made public comments the other day sort of seeming to express some ambivalence whether an agreement was necessary or not. I don't know if that was trying to not for some sort of strategic reason, he might say that, but I'm wondering what you make of that.
AUCHINCLOSS: I think in foreign policy, we've all learned to put the president on mute and watch the actions rather than read the tweets.
[20:35:00]
And I think the administration does want to have negotiations with Iran. I think the administration also wants to see negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia to expand the Abraham Accords and get to a resolution with the conflict in Gaza as well. And those two issues are linked.
COOPER: What do you think needs to happen now in order to get negotiations? I mean, it does seem like there has to be some sort of framework, some sort of agreement so that inspectors can look --
AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.
COOPER: -- at these sites so that we have a sense. I mean, do you have a -- are you confident that all that enriched uranium is buried underground as the White House seems to be indicating or believe?
AUCHINCLOSS: I'm not sure the White House believes that all that enriched uranium is buried underground. I think it's pretty well understood that some of that enriched uranium could be moved. But remember, 60 percent doesn't mean weapons grade. 90 percent also doesn't mean that's weaponizable.
And there's still a long way to go for Iran to get to that capability. As I said, much of that infrastructure has been destroyed. I think with these negotiations, you've got to start by actually looking at it from Iran's perspective. It's one of the first things you learn in military officer training is flip the map around.
On October 7th, 2023, Iran had scuttled an expansion of the Abraham Accords. It had Israel surrounded by six terror armies, and it was exporting oil to China, bypassing the sanctions. Iran felt pretty strong and bullish. Fast forward to today. Israel has gutted four out of those six terror armies. The other two were boxed in. Israel and Saudi Arabia are talking again. And Iran's military has been embarrassed on the world stage. And as I said, its aerial defenses have been wiped out, leaving it incredibly vulnerable.
So we have to understand that perspective from Iran's point of view, from the Ayatollah's point of view. They are weak right now. Now is the time to engage in coercive diplomacy and get a longer and stronger version of the JCPOA, where you have, as you said, on-the-ground inspections, but also, and this is critical, also a deal that they will not be funding any of these terror forces in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, because if they do, we will sanction their oil exports or we will actually strike their oil fields.
COOPER: Congressman Auchincloss, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.
COOPER: Coming up, closing arguments in the Sean "Diddy" trial, how even after calling no witnesses, the defendants still tried to poke holes in the prosecution's case.
And later, the extreme steps being taken by some folks fed up with the noise of those driverless rideshare vehicles.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:42:06]
COOPER: The jury in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial is set to begin deliberations on Monday. Now, the defense wrapped up their closing arguments today after resting their case this week without calling any witnesses. And the prosecution got the last word today with their rebuttal. That's after they spent more than four hours yesterday delivering their closing arguments.
Joining me now is CNN Anchor and Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates, who was in court today and CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson. Four hours for a closing argument, is that a good idea?
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Well, have you watched a four-hour movie recently? No, there's a reason you have not because your attention span does not want you to do so. But remember, this is a seven-week trial. The stakes are very high.
Life in prison is a possibility if there's a conviction. They want to bring the points (ph) home. What's interesting though is that two different closings were literally night and day. The prosecution was, this man would not take no for an answer. Women were subjugated and victimized and exploited and people knew in the inner circle to enable it.
Meanwhile, the defense said it's a tale of two different trials. There's what the evidence and witnesses say and what the prosecution would like you to believe. And as far as victims go, they said Cassie's no victim. In fact, she came out winning because she's got $20 million as a result of what has happened in the civil suit.
And so the jurors, I think, are going to have to wrestle with what the approach has been for the different parties and reconcile it in a few days.
COOPER: Joey, I mean, what'd you make of the defense's closing arguments? Because they painted Cassie Ventura and Combs' other ex- girlfriends, as to Laura's point, as willing participants, looking for a financial gain, and they tried to dispute a lot of the key testimony that we heard during the trial.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, they needed to do that, right? I mean, ultimately, you have to dispute that if you have any hope of getting him acquitted. And I think what was important, Anderson, is that they own the issue of the domestic violence. They didn't run from that, but I think the suggestion was that this is not RICO.
And, in fact, you heard them say that the prosecution's case is a big exaggeration, and I think they said it for two reasons. Number one, I think with respect to the RICO, you have a person of one. We're looking at Diddy, and another picture of Diddy, and Diddy.
In RICO cases, there's a number of people who are co-conspirators, who are engaging criminal activities. And here, and generally in trials, they're rats. They come up, they testify, my boss made me do A, B, C, D, and E. They didn't do that. In fact, they said that they were somewhat loyal to him, and that was complicated.
And then the second reason you look at their saying it's an exaggeration is because the prosecution changed the goalposts. Initially, they talked about a narrative of this organization that existed for years because of his sexual exploitation.
And then the prosecution said, but if you find only one time he coerced either Cassie Ventura, who he's with for 11 years, or one time he converged Jane, who he's with for three years, then it's sexual exploitation, it's sex trafficking. And I think that's why they were saying it was a real exaggeration. What the jury says, though, is what matters.
COOPER: Laura, I mean, do you think they proved a vast conspiracy or a RICO case?
[20:45:04]
COATES: Here's where there was room for them to improve. And the jurors will ultimately decide. But you didn't hear from those who they said were actual co-conspirators. There were two names that came up consistently.
KK, Kristina Khorram, who is denied any criminal wrongdoing and has not been charged. D-Rock, similarly in the same vein, who was a security guard. The first week they were jurors trying to write out the names Khorram and D-Rock.
By week six, they were like, OK, KK and D-Rock, oh, I know who they are, because I've heard their names so many times. And they never heard from them at trial. They were not called.
The way in which the prosecution tried to deal with that today was to say, well, listen, they were equally available for the defense and the prosecution, intimating you could have called them in the defense. But that, of course, belies the fact that it's not the defendant's job to prove his innocence.
COOPER: Right.
COATES: It's the government's job to prove their guilt.
COOPER: Do we know why they weren't called?
COATES: We don't know why they weren't called. But I would suspect that you would never call somebody who could undermine your case fatally or somebody with whom you had to give immunity for them to testify. And you may foresee in the future not wanting to give them that hearing.
COOPER: But that's the government's argument that if, well, if they could have undermined the government's case fatally, then why didn't the defense call them?
COATES: That's their argument. And the defense tried to make that -- tried to make the point of saying, no, no, no, it's your burden of proof the entire time. But also the same way as Joey was talking about how the prosecution is saying, listen, only got to find one instance of sex trafficking, only one instance of the idea of these two racketeering charges and racketeering criminal activity.
The defense needs to only find one, only find one juror who would say you haven't proven your case. And to that end, they made statements that I think for a modern generation might find very surprising and insulting. They said Cassie is no victim.
They seem to imply that she was not only proactive, but a participant. And also it was taken by some in the observation (ph) as victim shaming. But they have to appeal to the widest cross section possible. And there are people who exist and are on jurors who say, you know what? I think there is personal accountability and not where you'd like me to direct it. They have to appeal to that whether they feel it or not.
COOPER: Joey, how do you think it's going to go? Do you know?
JACKSON: You know, it's always tough. It's a jury question. Obviously, they have the case, but I think the defense was trying to hammer home the point that this was about a lifestyle that was unconventional. You may not believe in it, right, but they were swingers, and that's not a crime.
And the fact is, is when you have long term relationships like that, the issue with respect to whether or not they engage in that activity as girlfriend, boyfriend, it was all about love and maybe complication, but certainly not about coercion and about trafficking. And with respect to the broader issue of RICO, yes, they spent a lot of time on this racketeering and this arson and these guns and these drugs and the kidnapping and all the rest of it. But was it part of a larger enterprise?
So that's, Anderson, what the jury is going to consider. And then in my view, I think if there's a conviction, there'll be an appeal on the issue as to whether a case like this involving a party of one can indeed be RICO and a case involving long term girlfriends where there may have been one occasion over 10, 15 years that there was this coercion, is that sex trafficking as the legislature intended it to be.
COOPER: Joey, do you think it's a lawyer's earlier point about the two potential witnesses who weren't called by the prosecution or by the defense? Why do you think prosecutors didn't bring them?
JACKSON: Listen, I think Laura's absolutely right. The reality is, is that the defense can really, you know, you can sleep all day at a trial if you wanted to. You don't. You better not. But there's no burden, right? That's an exaggeration on my part.
But the problem and the issue is you, prosecutor, you have the duty. You have the responsibility. You have the obligation to advance your narrative. You advance the narrative that there was all of these people in the organization who were co-conspirators.
Why didn't you bring them before the jury? And yes, we could bring them, but that's not our job. It's yours. And if you thought they would have compelling and damning evidence, you would have done so. You didn't. And that's --
COOPER: Yes.
JACKSON: -- a glaring omission on your part, which speaks to not guilty. That's the defense's argument.
COOPER: Joey Jackson, Laura Coates, thanks very much. We'll see what happens on Monday.
Don't miss Laura Coates live at 11:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
There's more breaking news tonight. Authorities in Louisiana have captured one of the last two remaining fugitives who escaped from that New Orleans jail more than a month ago. Officials say Antoine Massey was found at a rental property just a few miles from the jail.
Police say he's one of 10 inmates who escaped on May 16th by ripping out a toilet to make a hole in a cell wall and then use bedding to scale a barbed wire fence. Now, only one escapee, Derrick Groves, remains at large.
Meantime, in Minnesota's capital, a solemn moment. Former President Biden paying tribute to the state's former House speaker and husband as they lay in state beneath the rotunda of the state Capitol. President Biden joined a long line of mourners stretching down the statehouse grounds throughout the day as visitors, some physically shaken, paused to honor Melissa and Mark Hortman and their dog, their golden retriever, Gilbert, who also died after being shot earlier this month.
[20:50:08]
Just a few short miles away from the Capitol, Vance Boelter, the alleged killer, faced a federal judge. Boelter, who was arrested June 15th following the largest manhunt in Minnesota state history, faces state federal charges, including murder, firearms offenses and stalking. And if found guilty, could face a death penalty.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:55:05]
COOPER: It's AI versus humans in a Santa Monica neighborhoods, some within the community say they are fed up with the noise made by Waymo driverless taxis. Now, maybe you've seen them on the road or held one for a ride. They're now in at least five metro areas across the country with more locations expected. And while they're popular with riders, others say the beeping sound they make when they're back up is annoying.
Here's CNN's Nick Watt.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just want the Waymo's to stop beeping at night. Hold on. Sorry. So we have to -- oh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Careful. Careful.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a person inside of it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no human inside of it. OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excellent. OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're on, we're on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're never interfering with a human driver.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just with the robot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, we've explain that to the police as well.
WATT(voice-over): Santa Monica residents faces hidden from security cameras, disabling self-driving Waymo robot taxis. They call it stacking.
WATT: Man versus machine?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man versus machine, yes.
WATT (voice-over): It's getting near midnight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll try lasering the next one.
WATT (voice-over): They object to the robots flashing lights, backup beeps and the general hubbub. Keeping humans awake at nights and disturbing their days.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please step back.
WATT (voice-over): Stacker One, the O.G., asked us not to use his real name.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I, for one, would walk down the center of the alley.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got to stop. Stop honking. It's the middle of the night.
WATT: Waymo tried to get a restraining order against you to stop you doing this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: True.
WATT (voice-over): As we wrapped up talking to Stacker One --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nick, she's citing them.
WATT (voice-over): -- robot gridlock.
WATT: Citing them for what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Parking tickets.
WATT (voice-over): If there was a human behind the wheel, she couldn't.
WATT: Parked in the alley without a driver, that's the issue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.
WATT (voice-over): Under current California law, a robot can get a parking ticket, but not a traffic ticket. Lawmakers still working on that.
GRAYSON SMALL, RESIDENT: I think the solution is to treat these cars like they're cars. And so you can watch it even now. It didn't stop at all at the stop sign. It's rolling. It's rolled all the way. It stopped right at the edge.
WATT (voice-over): This is a very visible example of a massive issue. We haven't figured out how we live alongside and legislate AI.
PROFESSOR HAMID EKBIA, DIR. AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS POLICY INSTITUTE, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: The public should be involved in conversations before the fact, before these technologies are let loose. You know, all AI technology should go through this process.
WATT (voice-over): Professor Ekbia heads the Autonomous Systems Policy Institute.
WATT: It's physical. We can see it. We can hear it. We can stand in front of it. But that's not going to be the case.
EKBIA: No, no. Trust me, no. So we better do something before it's too late.
NANCY TAYLOR, RESIDENT: It's like a light show, Las Vegas. So you have to have blackout curtains.
WATT: Did the city or Waymo or anybody speak to the humans who live around here?
TAYLOR: No. And I asked if I could come to their city council meeting to ask questions.
WATT: Right.
TAYLOR: And they said, oh, they have a waiver. There's not going to be a city council meeting.
WATT (voice-over): Waymo wouldn't talk to us on camera. We strive to be good neighbors, a spokesperson told me via email. They're working with the city as we explore and implement mitigations that address neighbors' concerns.
They have limited the human workers noise, planted some bamboo, hoping to muffle, stop using one of the lots most nights and limited the robot speed in the alleys. But they're still beeping.
TAYLOR: You know, they've not done enough. In fact, last night it was worse.
WATT (voice-over): Santa Monica officials say this isn't loud enough to violate the city's basic noise ordinance.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I told them that this is a violation of the Santa Monica noise ordinance prohibiting business support operations of any decibel level between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. And there's no mention of an exception that says if you get a robot to yell for you, you're allowed to do that at night.
WATT: What do you think the rest of us can learn from your experience as to how we should all progress through this age of AI, as humans and robots are going to be coexisting?
SMALL: Doing things that we've never been able to do in the past is great. But if it comes at the expense of humanity and human happiness and joy and being able to live life and not being inconvenienced constantly, what's the point?
(END VIDEO TAPE)
COOPER: Nick, why do the Waymo's beep when they back up if a car with a driver doesn't beep? I mean, trucks do, I guess, but drivers -- cars don't. WATT (on-camera): Yes. So it's the federal law, like the trucks, Anderson. But, you know, as one underslept and exasperated local told me, listen, this isn't some middle aged guy with a stiff neck, you know, leaning over to try and see what's behind him. This is a robot.
It can see just as well when it's going forwards as it can when it's backing up. And also, you know, these robo taxis are programmed not to run someone over. So, you know, he's saying, why do we make them do this? It's crazy. But, you know, a lot of these laws we're going to have to change.
You know, for example, a lot of states have a law that the driver of every vehicle has to have a hand on the wheel at all time. I mean --
COOPER: Right.
WATT (on-camera): -- an algorithm doesn't have a hand. So we need to rethink this. But, you know, listen, they do a lot of good. People love these Waymos. You're not going to get creeped out or assaulted by a driver. You know, there are upsides.
COOPER: Yes.
WATT (on-camera): But for the people who live around here, the downside is they can't sleep. Anderson?
COOPER: Yes. Nick Watt, we appreciate it. Thanks very much. Let's see what happens.
The news continues. The Source starts now.
