Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Appeals Court Temporarily Reinstates Trump's Tariffs; Ultra- Rich Pony Up Millions For Proximity To Trump; Ex-Assistant Says She Saw Combs Attack Ventura; Hamas Issues Counterproposal To Latest U.S. Ceasefire Plan; Law Enforcement Alarmed Over Rise Of Violence Linked To Crypto. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 29, 2025 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Oh, gosh. Elliot Williams, you can see yourself out. Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead." Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Good to see you, Kasie, thanks so much. We'll see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow.

HUNT: Thank you. Have a good one.

[17:00:23]

TAPPER: There's a brand new ruling on Trump's tariffs. The Lead starts right now.

Breaking news, Trump's trade war is back on for now after two prior courts briefly shut it down since I last saw you yesterday. The issue is on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court as the Trump White House attacks the judges who ruled against the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: How will this end? Plus pomp, circumstance and defiance at Harvard University's commencement ceremony today as speakers note this unprecedented time for the embattled Ivy League school brought on by its fight with the Trump administration. Still playing out in court while students crossed the stage in Cambridge today. And physically violent crypto crimes. Stunning video of a victim running for his life trying to escape criminals who kidnapped him.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. Since I last saw you, President Donald Trump's tariffs have been through the wringer in the U.S. Court system. A U.S. appeals court just now temporarily reinstated those tariffs after last night a court ruled that the president does not have the authority to use emergency powers to enact his tariffs. So the appeals court ruling allows Trump to keep on tariffing for now, though this fight will inevitably wind up in a final boss battle at the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this afternoon, the Trump administration also appealed a separate ruling where a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction protecting two family owned toy companies, Learning Resources and Hand2mind. The judge saying they would be irreparably harmed by Trump's tariffs.

We heard about that harm directly from the CEO of Learning Resources just a couple weeks ago on this show as part of our Business Leaders series where we talk to small business owners about the impact of Trump's tariffs. And another small business owner who joined The Lead this month was actually behind the lawsuit in the first court ruling to pause Trump's global tariffs last night. That business is VOS Selections and they will join us ahead in just a few minutes.

Let's go to CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House right now.

Kaitlan, it would seem that the Trump administration would want to get this tariff question before the U.S. Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Are they making an effort to do that?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, they said that if they didn't get this temporary relief that they got today, that they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court and ask for some emergency action as soon as tomorrow here.

And White House officials were kind of waiting and wondering when that appeals court was going to weigh in, as it did this afternoon, essentially wondering why it took as long as it did, Jake, because the argument they've been making is that this ruling that came down last night is going to hurt national security. That as part of the justification that the president has been making for the emergency action that he took here and saying that this is a national emergency and that's why he acted without Congress and did so unilaterally for these tariffs.

Now, that's the argument they're making, Jake. What it certainly has caused is a lot of confusion about what is happening with the tariffs now and what their plan is going forward. Because this is just a temporary relief. It's not actually ruling on the merits of what's at the heart of this issue here. And we just saw two of the president's top trade advisers here on the North Lawn throughout the course of this afternoon, Jake, Peter Navarro and Kevin Hassett. We spoke to both of them.

Peter Navarro at one point was telling me that essentially if they are prepared to, if they lose, he said that they are prepared to go another way. Basically, they're developing backup options here, Jake.

TAPPER: And Kaitlan, obviously the administration sought to bypass the legislative branch when enacting these tariffs. And they don't really have many kind words to say about the judicial branch that's instituting these halts.

COLLINS: Yes, Jake. And part of that they've been going off on what they describe as rogue judges. That is often a phrase that you hear from officials here at the White House. The judges, of course, that three -- those three federal judges who made that ruling last night, it includes, yes, an Obama appointee, but also a Reagan appointee and even a Trump appointee who made this decision.

And of course, they asked questions why essentially the judges weren't letting this move forward or putting a stay in place pending an appeal that they knew was coming out of this White House, but that has often been a tactic of this White House is to criticize the judges who are ruling here and not in their favor when that happens, Jake.

It ultimately remains to be seen in how this plays out. They have been saying that they believe if this goes to the Supreme Court that they will prevail here and that they believe their plan is going to ultimately work. Of course, Jake, that really remains to be seen.

TAPPER: All right, Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much. Kaitlan's going to be back, of course, tonight with brand new reporting on her show "The Source with Kaitlan Collins." You can look for that tonight at 9:00 Eastern only here on CNN.

[17:05:07]

Let's bring in CNN's Phil Mattingly right now.

Phil, a lot of back and forth with the tariffs being struck down now reinstated temporarily while we wait for this to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. What sort of impact does all of this chaos have on markets and businesses?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the best window into the current reality was actually a text I got last night from a business owner that I've been talking to throughout the course of the last couple of months trying to get a read on. And the text was simply, so what the hell happens now?

And I think, Jake, we've spoken so much about the kind of pervasive sense of uncertainty that has really dominated, yes, Wall street, yes, the bond market, yes, kind of foreign capitals around the world, but also small business owners and consumers over the course of the last several months. And the last 21, 22 hours, this kind of topsy-turvy, the cornerstone of President Trump's tariff regime is cut down. Then it's defeated again in court on a more micro basis, just applying to two businesses.

Then all of a sudden it's back in play. How long this is going to take? How long this administrative stay lasts? Where the appeals process goes forward? How does it actually get to the Supreme Court?

If it does, when does it how long will those arguments take? Every business owner in America who imports anything is watching this play out and trying to figure out, OK, what does this mean for what I have to pay? Last night there was some question, well, OK, if these are struck down, am I refunded for everything I've paid up to this point? There's no real clarity right now on that front. And certainly over the course of the last several hours with that freeze being put into place, that's certainly didn't help issues at all. I think the reality right now when you talk to business owners is they understand at this point in time it's a wait and see moment. And they've also been very keenly eyeing what Kaitlan was referring to the top Trump advisers saying unequivocally. Even if this gets struck down, they think they can win on the merits, if it gets struck down, they have alternative options and they will pursue those options no matter what.

TAPPER: Yes. So let's talk about that because look, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to -- the majority seem to believe in a strong executive branch. It's one of the reasons that those justices are on the court. But let's hypothetically assume that the U.S. Supreme Court rules Trump does not have the authority to enact tariffs. What specific tariffs might be impacted immediately?

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's important to note that the sweeping kind of tariff regime has multiple elements. Now, the core of it, and I think the most expansive version of it is -- was pursued via the emergency authority. That was not just those reciprocal tariffs. But I want to run through what that actually applies to. So let's start with the reciprocal tariffs.

That chart, the famous chart the president held up, that applies to 60 plus countries, those are currently on pause for 90 days until July 9th, that's one element of it. That same announcement included the 10 percent universal tariffs on all U.S. imports that kind of floor the administration has pointed to. But before that, back in February, remember, on the emergency basis, was utilized for fentanyl tariffs that apply to China, Canada and Mexico, 30 percent for China, 25 percent on imports from Canada and Mexico outside of the USMCA.

What does that all mean? Well, Jake, right now the current effective U.S. tariff rate is about 27 percent. That's stratospheric based on the last century plus. If you remove all of those, if they end up losing this in court, that would take the effective U.S. tariffs rate down to 6 percent. It's a pretty dramatic shift here.

But again, want to note, no matter what happens on the legal side of things, administration officials saying we have other options. We will deploy those other options if we lose. But they think they can win, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Phil Mattingly, thanks so much.

Here to discuss are the people behind the lawsuit that caused the U.S. Court of International Trade to pause Trump's global tariffs. Late last night, Victor Schwartz, owner of VOS Elections, that's a small New York based wine company that he runs with his daughter, and Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Interim Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center.

Victor and Jeffrey, so you are both on the show on May 2nd. It's good to have you back. Victor, you had a big victory last night with the court ruling in your favor striking down Trump's tariffs. Now a federal appeals court just temporarily reinstated them. Tell us what you're feeling. VICTOR SCHWARTZ, OWNER, VOS SELECTIONS: We knew this from the beginning. This is part of the process. There was going to be something in appeal or this or that. So, I mean, I had a lot of great feelings last night about the win, but I knew it was going to last permanently. It was part of the process.

It was step one. And it was a great step one, a unanimous decision. I couldn't have asked for more.

TAPPER: Are you confident, Jeffrey, that your challenge will survive the U.S. Supreme Court, where they do believe a majority of the justices seem to believe in a strong executive branch?

JEFFREY SCHWAB, SENIOR COUNSEL & INTERIM DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER: Yes, we're very confident in our case, in part because the Trump administration is asserting a vast unilateral authority that is not supported in the law. And the Supreme Court has, including its conservative justices, have recently been skeptical of large delegations of authority by Congress to the president. And so that is, in part, our argument.

[17:10:13]

TAPPER: Victor, the uncertainty around Trump's tariff policy is part of what's made it so hard for businesses to figure out how to operate. The tariff pause and unpause before there's a final resolution for the Supreme Court could create some uncertainty of its own. Are you worried about that?

SCHWARTZ: We've been living in an environment of incredible uncertainty anyway. So, you know, it's been a little bit stable. It's been a 10 percent, and that's what we've been working off of. I just think every day we wake up and deal with the circumstances that we have, try not to freak out. A lot of my colleagues do freak out, send me e-mails and texts.

What should we do? Is it the end of the world? And, you know, with this administration, every day can be different. I mean, look, just a few days ago, he was saying there would be 50 percent tariffs. I wasn't freaking out. It's just -- he's just the way he operates. I don't know.

TAPPER: So, Jeffrey, the Trump administration today said it's going to comply with the courts whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides, but they're looking at other legal avenues to clear their implementation of tariffs. We've seen some speculation, some reporting by CNBC and Axios. What do you think this Plan B might look like?

SCHWAB: I don't know. But there are other statutes that do give the president authority to impose tariffs, unlike IEEPA (ph), which is what the president asserts he has authority to issue the tariffs that he has, and those statutes have more limited -- limitations and procedural processes that they have to follow. So, if he wants to do that, then hopefully he'll follow that process as the statute sets up.

TAPPER: Victor, what do you think will happen to your business if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rules that Trump can keep going on with his tariffs? What will be the practical result for your -- for your business?

SCHWARTZ: Contraction. I mean, I think that's been the situation for many people in my industry. We're going to have to find the money, the cash flow for the -- for those -- to pay those tariffs, which means no risk taking, much smaller inventory levels and squeezing every penny we can out of -- out of, you know, out of our business to pay the tariffs. You know, we got to pay those up front. So, it's kind of a bit of paying the mafia before you open the doors for your business.

It's pretty ugly. We'll make it through. We'll push.

TAPPER: Victor, as we've -- Victor, as we've noted, we've been talking to businesses practically every day since Trump initially implemented the tariffs on April 2, so called Liberation Day, aside from the uncertainty, talk about what it's been like day to day. Have you had to raise prices?

SCHWARTZ: Well, of course, you know, and we have to do this a month and a half in advance. We have to post our prices. So -- but we can't just go across the board and do a blanket price increase. So we do it, you know, as gently and as necessary. Our prices haven't gone up more than maybe 5 percent. And between the tariff of 10 percent and the decline of the dollar, you know, most of what we're buying overseas is in Euros and the dollars sank.

It's been very impactful, very impactful. So, yes, across the board, price up increases, no, but certainly we have had price increases. And every month you're going to see more of it. I mean, June is going to be a much worse month for consumers all over this country.

TAPPER: Victor Schwartz, Jeffrey Schwab, thanks to both you. Appreciate it.

This is a major legal battle and will ultimately impact every American consumer. Coming up, I'm going to speak with an attorney general from a state that led one of these lawsuits that resulted in this back and forth.

But first, on to another legal battle. The Trump administration versus Harvard University. What happened in court today during commencement ceremonies at the school?

[17:14:09]

And new scenes of chaos in Gaza after crews ran out of food at a distribution site. New details about a possible ceasefire plan that could end all this and lead to the release of more hostages still held by Hamas.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our law and justice lead begins with acts of defiance, small and not so small during today's commencement ceremony at Harvard University. Officials quickly removed two pro-Palestinian banners briefly hung from buildings that faced Harvard Yard, where the event was held. The ceremony began with a minute long standing ovation for the president of Harvard, Alan Garber, who's been fighting attempts to bring the university into line with the Trump administration's priorities. And then there were speeches.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ABRAHAM VERGHESE, COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER: I don't have to tell you that this is also an unprecedented moment for Harvard University. Honestly, in coming to your campus, I feel very much like a medieval messenger who had to sneak through the encircling forces and slip into your besieged community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Also today, the Trump administration suffered a new legal setback in its battle with Harvard. CNN's Paula Reid has that part of the story.

So, Paula, this has to do with student visas for international students.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right, Jake. Here, the Trump administration was attempting to revoke Harvard student visa program. Now, if you are a student coming from another country, you could only be enrolled in a school that has a valid student visa program.

The school has argued that this is a violation of their free speech and other constitutionally protected rights. So today the judge said that she will continue to block this effort by the administration, giving the university a temporary win against this onslaught, this effort by the administration to undercut the university's influence and finances.

[17:20:03]

Now, this hearing almost didn't go forward today. We weren't sure what was going to happen because late last night the Justice Department sent this letter to the university formally putting them on notice that they wanted to revoke this program. And that actually kicks off a 30-day window for the university to respond. And it's that kind of procedural stuff that in federal court can derail or delay a hearing.

But Jake, the judge today, she was having none of it. She said she did not want to leave this issue open. She said, quote, "I want to maintain the status quo." And she's asking the two sides to work on a more permanent solution to block this while the larger question about whether this is constitutional is litigated. She says, quote, "It doesn't need to be draconian, but I want to make sure it's worded in such a way that nothing changes."

So, again, this will remain on pause while this litigation continues.

TAPPER: Paula, what's likely to come next? REID: So it's going to be interesting to see what the two sides can work out, Jake, because you're asking the Trump Justice Department and Harvard University to come up with some language that they can agree on in terms of how they can block this policy while they continue to fight one another in court.

You saw today the White House suggested this is just another example in their eyes of judges overstepping their authority. We know that is a question, the power of judges to block policies that come from the administration. That is something before the Supreme Court right now.

But look, Jake, most legal experts agree that the administration is on pretty shaky legal ground here. So in terms of the long game here, it is unclear if the administration will ultimately prevail on this effort. But as you know, this is just one of the many battles they are picking with Harvard from everything from funding to DEI.

TAPPER: All right, Paul Reid, thanks so much.

Also in our politics lead, the smoke filled back rooms of Washington, D.C. where the ultra-wealthy gather to plan ways to flex their power and change policy. Not exactly a new thing. But in the new era of Trump 2.0, the smoke is starting to clear and the billionaires are becoming frankly, more brazen about their influence. The Trump family has openly monetize the office of the president in a way that could be reshaping America's government with its crypto ventures.

Evan Osnos from the New Yorker joins me now. He's the author of the upcoming book "The Haves and the Have-Yachts, Dispatches on the Ultra Rich." I can't wait to read it. What a great title.

Evan, in this recent article, you paint a picture for us about the landscape for the ultra-wealthy who want to influence politics here in Washington. As of late, you write, quote, "More recently, one-on-one conversations with the president have become available for $5 million.

The return on investment is uncertain. A government affairs executive told me, quote, "What if he's in a bad mood? You have no clue where the money is eventually going," unquote. Another lobbying veteran described the Frank exchange as, quote, "outer borough Mafia shit, unquote."

Why do you think the Trump circle feels so empowered to do this out in the open?

EVAN OSNOS, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: It's a great question, Jake. I think in some ways, you know, this is the lessons of the first term. After all, Donald Trump came into second term with a level of presidential immunity delivered to him by the Supreme Court. And as his sons have said recently on some of their crypto venture trips abroad, very bluntly, they said, look, we tried in the first term, I'm paraphrasing here, to play by the rules of the game that people wanted of us, and we still got criticized, still got prosecuted.

So, as they said recently, we're going to play the game. And I think what you're seeing now is a much more overt, much more brazen effort to surround themselves with people who practice what can only be described as an unusually open marriage of politics and profit.

TAPPER: Trump and Republicans have been very critical of the Biden family. They've accused them of trying to profit off of Biden's presidency through Hunter Biden and Jimmy Biden's various ventures. How do you see this comparing?

OSNOS: Well, they've been doing that a long time. As you remember, nearly a year ago, actually, House Republicans, three committees in the House released a nearly 300 page report on what they described as financial misdeeds. And they hoped it would furnish an impeachment inquiry, supported impeachment inquiry. That inquiry ultimately, of course, did not succeed. And it was criticized by members of both parties for failing to dig up hard evidence.

Look, I think it's understandable. There is right now a growing sense of public displeasure with this very open form of the role of money in politics. It's always been a fact, Jake, as you know, that there's been money in Washington. But the -- in some ways, the arrival of Elon Musk and now his departure is a reflection of a growing sense of displeasure that people have.

It was people finally, it tripped a wire with them, in a sense. This feeling that this was not actually what people were voting for in '24. And they're not exactly sure why the world's richest man was suddenly occupying an office in the White House complex and in fact running a government department.

[17:25:24]

And I think even in the heyday of what was known as The Gilded Age 100 years ago when you had the Carnegie's and the Rockefellers, they wanted to have their influence in politics, but none of them had an office in the White House complex. And it seems that people are beginning to notice the change.

TAPPER: You talk to some experts about what we're seeing from our government, if this is still democracy, if we're watching an oligarchy unfold, or some of the discussion topics that you had, you also used the term crony capitalism. Can you explain this spectrum and where we're at in this Trump term through that prism?

OSNOS: There's a very interesting discussion going on among scholars who specialize in this question of politics, money and government. What they will tell you is the United States has always had to some degree a balance between democracy and oligarchy. After all, it was a country formed with the right to vote confined only to white men with property. But for about 250 years it's been what's known as a civil oligarchy, meaning that the rule of law ultimately prevailed. Yes, there were exceptions.

The risk is that a civil oligarchy in countries that have been down this road can turn into what's known as a sultanistic oligarchy. The best example of this perhaps being Ferdinand Marcos's Philippines in the 70s and 80s when you saw this collapse of the boundary between private assets, private business and public assets, public interest. And at the time that was actually -- it was the Marcos government that

produced, that gave rise to the scholar's term crony capitalism. And as one scholar said to me recently, what I've seen recently with this crypto auction and things like that, we're beginning to think that applies to the United States too. And that's a source of real concern.

TAPPER: And Evan, we've seen which of America's ultra-rich have specifically cozied up to Trump. But there are also some in that class who are pushing back at this concept of buying access to power. What have you found when you talk to some of those individuals?

OSNOS: Yes, it's very interesting. There is a community of people in this country who have prospered. They've done very well in business. They've succeeded and they are looking at the path that this is going and saying this is unsustainable. You now have people in this country, polls show it very clearly, Americans aspire to succeed.

They aspire to get rich. But the number of Americans who now say that they want to become a billionaire, about 60 percent is equal to the number who say that billionaires are making the country less fair. That is a problem. And so there is a group of people known as the Patriotic Millionaires is one organization that's trying to draw attention to the problem of crony capitalism to the excess role of influence of money in government. And they're saying this is not good for business and it's not good for the country.

So they are in a sense standing up against they're willing to pay more taxes. In some cases they're standing up against their own interests, but they say it's good for the country.

TAPPER: Evan Osnos of The New Yorker, thanks so much. "The Have and the Have-Yachts" is on sale next week and we'll have you back to talk about it. Great to see you, Evan. Thanks for coming on.

We're also closely following developments in the Sean Diddy Combs trial. What a former assistant for the music mogul said on the stand today. Two CNN correspondents were in the court for her gripping testimony.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, difficult testimony today in the Sean Combs' racketeering and sex trafficking trial, the prosecution's key witness, a former personal assistant for Combs, who testified under the pseudonym Mia to protect her identity. She gave a detailed account of abuse she witnessed between Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, at one point telling the jury, quote, I saw him pick her up and thought, is he going to kill her? Mia was also one of Combs' alleged victims. Combs has denied all charges.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister and CNN's Kara Scannell were both in court today. Elizabeth, Mia spent most of the day detailing the physical abuse she says she witnessed against Ventura and experienced firsthand by Combs. Walk us through that testimony.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Jake, so Mia, she testified to a series of violent episodes that she claims that she endured by the hands of Combs. First of all, I want to tell you that she said that during her employment for Combs that she essentially was forced to live with him and that she had to ask permission to leave and she couldn't lock the door to the bedroom that she was staying in.

Now, in terms of these violence -- physical violence, she said that Combs once threw her against a wall, that he would throw objects at her. She said that one time he threw a bowl of spaghetti at her and then afterwards that H.R. called her in and said that she was going to be suspended without pay because that's what Combs wanted. Another time she said that he threw a computer at him. The reason why? Because the WiFi wasn't working and he was upset at her that she couldn't figure it out.

Now, also, she corroborated much of what Cassie Ventura testified to. You remember all of that physical violence that Cassie testified to. And Mia spoke about one situation that Cassie also spoke about where she said that Combs threw Cassie against a bed frame. She had a bloody gash above her eyebrow. Mia said that she was gushing blood.

[17:35:09]

And today Mia said that afterwards Combs had her get in touch with a doctor to say Cassie was drunk and she fell and hit her head.

TAPPER: Kara, shortly before court ended for the day, Mia was asked if she was sexually assaulted by Combs. What did Mia have to say?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Mia testified about a number of times that she said she was sexually assaulted by Combs, saying that it happened sporadically over time and she never knew when it was coming. But the first time, she said, was months into working there. And she said that she was at Combs' 40th birthday party, that they were at the Penthouse Suite at the Plaza Hotel in New York, and they were doing two shots in the kitchen of vodka.

She said she felt different after those two shots than she had before. She said Combs leaned into her, kissed her, and put his hand up her skirt. Another time, she said she woke up in her bed, which was in Combs' home, to find the weight of a human on her. She realized it was Combs, and she said that he then raped her. Another time that she recalled, she said that Combs had, I'm sorry, that -- that Combs had approached her when she was in the bedroom, when she was doing work in his closet for him, and that he then was naked and that he leaned into her and forced her to have oral sex with him.

Now, during the entire time that she was testifying, her -- she had such difficulty getting out the words. She was sort of struggling to utter them. She was speaking so softly that you could hear a pin drop in the courtroom as everyone was trying to hear her in her body language throughout the day, but especially at this moment, is that she was facing down, her head down, her eyes cast down, really just trying to get each and every word out, but sometimes it was like a whisper in there, barely able to hear her. Jake?

TAPPER: Elizabeth, did Mia explain why she did not report any of this alleged abuse to the police?

WAGMEISTER: So, Mia explained why she never told anyone about this. Number one, she said that she believed, based on her experiences, that Combs was actually above the law. She spoke about a few different instances where she had run-ins with the cops with Combs. One of them, she said that the cops were pretty aggressively pulling them over, and when they saw that Combs was there, that they seemed to get excited.

On another instance, she said that she was pulled over for speeding without a license, and that when Combs got on the phone, that they let her off. So, first of all, she thought that if she went to the police, nothing would happen, but she also said that she thought that she would go to the grave with this. She never expected to tell anyone because it's so shameful and the most traumatizing thing that she's ever dealt with in her life.

I want to read you a direct quote from her testimony. She said, quote, I was going to die with this. I didn't want anyone to know ever. She went on to say that H.R. was only around when Puff wanted H.R. to punish you. The H.R. was not there to protect you but also who was going to believe me. This was way before Me Too. So, that was her explanation as to why she never said anything, and probably an indication that she's getting ahead of maybe cross-examination.

TAPPER: And Kara, explain how exactly the court is protecting the identity of Mia, which is a pseudonym. I mean, anyone in court saw her, and for those who were not in court, help us get a sense of Mia's demeanor today.

SCANNELL: Yes, so the judge has said that she can testify under this pseudonym because she was sexually assaulted. That was at the request of the prosecution. And so, in court, like you said, everyone who is there can see her, but the sketch artists who are in court are not permitted to sketch her face, so they're just sketching an outline of her. And that we are unable to see her name.

There are e-mails or text messages that are displayed. Her name is redacted from them. That is all known to the jury, though. The jury is able to know her actual name and her identity, so they can put these pieces together. But it is prohibited from the rest of the media from knowing who she is, you know, and as I said, Jake, her demeanor was very halting.

She was stammering at times to speak. She's going to be on cross- examination tomorrow, and that's likely to take the whole day, the defense said.

TAPPER: All right, Kara Scannell, Elizabeth Wagmeister, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

[17:39:29]

Some breaking news just in. The terrorist group Hamas has just issued a counterproposal to the ceasefire plan presented by the United States to Israel and Hamas. We're going to go live to the region next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We have some breaking news, in our World Lead, Hamas just issued -- just issued a counterproposal to the 60-day ceasefire accepted earlier today by the government of Israel. This one was pitched by the United States Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Take a listen to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt this afternoon before the news broke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Israel signed off on this proposal before it was sent to Hamas. I can also confirm that those discussions are continuing, and we hope that a ceasefire in Gaza will take place so we can return all of the hostages home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's get right to CNN's Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv. Jeremy, what had Israel agreed to, and what are the counterpoints offered by Hamas?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the latest U.S. proposal, which Israel has agreed to, would see the release of 10 living hostages, 18 deceased hostages, as well in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners during a 60-day truce between Israel and Hamas.

During those 60 days, there would be negotiations to end the war in Gaza altogether, which would be presided over by the U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. That -- those negotiations are the subject of some contention here, and part of what Hamas is focusing on in its counterproposal, they say that they want assurances from the United States, from the mediators, that after this 60-day ceasefire expires, if there hasn't yet been a deal to end the war between these two sides, that the fighting will not resume, that the negotiations will continue in order to reach an end of the war.

[17:45:24]

That is language that Israel has resisted, as the Israeli prime minister wants to keep the option open of resuming the fighting in Gaza if a deal is not reached to end the war. Hamas also wants to see humanitarian aid going into Gaza, going through U.N. channels and not through this new U.S. and Israeli-backed distribution mechanism, and they also want to see Israel pull back to its military positions on March 2nd, before Israel ended that ceasefire and resumed its attacks in Gaza.

TAPPER: Jeremy, there were more scenes of chaos in Gaza today at the aid site run by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. In the footage, you can see U.S. security contractors holding back lines of frustrated Gazans after they were told there was no more food. What can you tell us about this group?

DIAMOND: Well, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation started its operations earlier this week. It is part of this new mechanism created by the United States and Israel because Israel says Hamas is stealing some of this aid and profiting off of it. It says that this is a way of preventing that from happening.

We should note, though, that Israel hasn't provided public evidence for those claims, and U.N. -- the U.N. and other humanitarian groups have said they've seen no evidence of that happening at scale. Nonetheless, this GHF is now underway, operational. We saw earlier this week thousands of Palestinians desperate for food overrunning that site. We haven't seen quite that level of chaos since then.

But according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 11 people have been killed over the course of this week near those aid distribution sites as Israeli forces have opened fire in the area. Today, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distributed 17,000 boxes of food, nearly 1 million meals at three different distribution sites.

But in the northern part of the Gaza Strip, there are no GHF sites, and very little aid is getting there. The hunger crisis is very much still gripping the Strip. Jake?

TAPPER: All right, Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much.

Some brand-new details just in on a crypto-kidnapping in New York. Sources told CNN, a detective on the security detail for Mayor Eric Adams now seems tied to this bizarre case. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:49]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, today, a judge in New York denied bail to a crypto investor accused of kidnapping and torturing a man for his Bitcoin password. Surveillance video obtained first by CNN shows the moment an Italian man frantically escapes a Manhattan home after being locked up there for weeks. This case is the latest in a slew of crypto-related crimes.

CNN's Josh Campbell has new details now just in on the New York case, and this disturbing trend leaving law enforcement around the world on high alert.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A daring escape captured on this video obtained exclusively by CNN. The alleged victim, an unidentified Italian cryptocurrency trader, who prosecutors say was held hostage for several weeks in Manhattan. Two men are now charged with kidnapping and assault, among other counts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who helped you?

CAMPBELL (voice-over): In Paris, four mass men, attempting to kidnap the daughter and grandson of a French cryptocurrency executive. Coming after two other kidnappings in France that involved hand and finger mutilations as part of demands for ransom. And last year, a judge in Florida sentenced a man to 47 years in prison for stealing more than $3.5 million in virtual currency after he and co-conspirators targeted victims in violent home invasions.

ARI REDBORD, GLOBAL HEAD OF POLICY, TRM LABS: They're just criminal gangs who are looking to go where the money is to steal large amounts.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): Law enforcement is now ramping up efforts to combat these emerging threats, called wrench attacks, that target victims with physical violence or threats and coerce them to reveal crypto passwords.

REDBORD: Bad actors can move funds faster and in larger amounts than ever before. And that's why they're moving quickly in these types of cases to try to get that -- those passwords and move the funds.

ADAM HEALY, CEO, STATION70: This is only getting worse.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): While criminals face the risk of being caught, they potentially stand to reap millions. And experts say physical threats of violence require much less sophistication.

HEALY: Being able to break a human is actually not as hard as oftentimes as breaking a safe or breaking some smart contract or breaking some encryption.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): This month, federal prosecutors announced charges against 12 people for stealing more than $263 million in virtual currency by hacking into cryptocurrency databases and defrauding victims through bogus schemes. According to the indictment, the men used the money for nightclub services, exotic cars, jewelry, luxury goods, and renting private jets and mansions.

The FBI has seen an explosion in cyber-related complaints from victims, pointing to a new record for losses reported in 2024. The reported losses from cryptocurrency fraud alone, more than $9 billion. Security experts say the actual number of violent threats related to cryptocurrency is likely severely underreported. And in an age where companies have spent billions to lock down their computer networks from intrusion, now the physical safety of cryptocurrency users can't be ignored.

HEALY: You can have executive protection, your board can get engaged, but at the end of the day, you're your own first responder. You need to have situational awareness. You need to be aware of your surroundings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMPBELL (on camera): Now, Jake, a critical new update that we just got in on that horrific New York case we talked about there. Multiple law enforcement sources tell our colleague John Miller that an NYPD detective who was assigned to the security detail of Mayor Eric Adams was working off-duty in private security and allegedly delivered the victim to his tormentor. It remains a question for investigators whether that detective actually knew what was about to happen, but that remains under investigation.

[17:55:11]

It's worth pointing out, I've talked to people in the cryptocurrency industry who say that the odds of a violent incident happening are so low, just when you think about the millions and millions of people around the world that actually own cryptocurrency. But they say personal safety is paramount. In many ways, Jake, this is the evolution of crime. Three decades ago, bank robberies were at an all- time high because that's where the money is. Today, it's these crypto markets that are becoming so lucrative for a whole new generation of thieves.

TAPPER: All right, Josh Campbell, thanks so much.

Another big story, the off-and-on status of Trump's trade war back on after a new court ruling just hours ago. An attorney general from a state who led one of the lawsuits that resulted in all this back-and- forth is going to join me next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:03]

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, a back and forth legal battle means President Trump's tariffs are back.