Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Deliberations To Resume Tomorrow Morning After Jury Reaches Partial Verdict In Sean "Diddy" Combs Trial; Senate Passes Trump Bill, House Set To Vote On Final Passage; Trump Visits Controversial Detention Center In Florida. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired July 01, 2025 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That too could carry a 15-year minimum if the jury finds that forcible sex trafficking was part of it and a life max.
And let me say, it's not surprising, by the way, that there's a potential hang or there's some issue on the RICO conspiracy because that's the most complicated charge. You have to show there's an ongoing criminal organization or enterprise here and you have to show that they agreed with Sean Combs to commit two or more underlying crimes. It's the most complicated charge. It's not surprising. That's the one that's given the jury the most trouble.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Yes, for sure.
All right, Elie, thank you. I'm sure you're going to stick around with us. "The Lead" with Jake Tapper starts right now.
[17:00:38]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And we are following breaking news out of New York where the jury says it has reached a partial verdict in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Jurors are in agreement on four of the five charges. And the others they say, quote, "We have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides."
Both the defense and the prosecution tell the judge they want the jury to go back and keep deliberating on that charge. Today's partial verdict comes after seven weeks of this trial, 34 witnesses, all of them called by the prosecution. The defense decided to not call any witnesses and to not have Sean "Diddy" Combs testify in his own defense. Let's go outside the courthouse to CNN's Chief Legal Anchor and Analyst Laura Coates, also CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister.
Laura, bring us up to speed. Is the judge going to ask the jury to continue to deliberate on count one? And correct me if I'm wrong, but what we know is that of the four charges that they have reached verdicts on, those are on two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. The one that they have -- that they're deadlocked on at least as of now, is the racketeering conspiracy charge. Did I get that right?
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, you did. And of course, the RICO or racketeering conspiracy charge, the most serious coming with a potential life sentence. If they're hung on this count, the judge has several options here. One is to have them go back and continue to deliberate on that count alone and hear the remaining four counts verdicts or to have them go back and continue.
Here is what the judge is weighing. They're weighing whether or not there has been a complete and comprehensive deliberation by these 12 jurors. Are they at a true impasse? Are they truly deadlocked? Are there questions that they'd like answered or clarification they may need to reach a verdict on that particular count?
And that's important, of course, because you have to have a unanimous verdict when it comes to these counts, and they're looking for that on both sides. If you're the defense, you want them to continue, which they've asked them to do, because you want the finality and you know fully well that double jeopardy it attached at the beginning of this trial, meaning the prosecution cannot try Sean "Diddy" Combs again for the same charges here. However, if there's a hung jury, they have the option, they could go back and retry on that count. And with a life sentence looming over Sean Denny Combs, they want finality to be able to then go and appeal if necessary, or rejoice as they would like.
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now, Laura, we are just getting in some brand new information from our team --
COATES: Tell us.
WAGMEISTER: -- inside court house. The judge's back on the bench, Jake. So within moments, hopefully we are still live with you, we should find out what the judge's instruction is to this jury. Do they go back and do they work hard to reach a verdict on count one? Do they decide that it's going to be hung and deadlocked on that one count?
Now, you just heard all of the reasons that Laura spelled out as to why they -- both sides do not want that to happen. So both sides in agreement here. They want the jury to go back to continue deliberating on count one, that racketeering count, the most serious charge, carries a potential life sentence. So this is very serious and we should have information just in moments, Jake.
TAPPER: And Laura, I know the racketeering charge that they're deadlocked on as of now has life imprisonment as a punishment. But in terms of the other four counts that they have reached a verdict on, and it's possible they reached no -- not guilty verdicts on all four of them. But if he is found guilty of these other four, what kind of time are we potentially talking about? If he is found guilty of two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, what kind of counts -- what kind of time are we talking about potentially?
COATES: The remaining four counts are by no means a slap on the wrist in terms of what the penalty could be, you're talking 15 years. If it's a sex trafficking 10 years possible, if it's also a prostitution case. These are very serious. This is a man who's over the age of 50 years old. These could also run consecutively, meaning that they are going to be added to one another, not run concurrently, where if you serve time for one, it would essentially do the other, that's a possibility here.
But a very important point you just raised here, Jake, and that is this, these other charges, there is some element of them in the overall RICO case. Remember that verdict form, they had to find guilty or not for RICO and then they had to, if they found guilty for RICO, go through the list of so called predicate crimes, which includes sex trafficking, includes a prostitution related crime. And so, they had to say whether or not they proved it or did not prove it. So likely this jury knows full well what they thought and they have a verdict on those things. So now what the RICO is telling you is if they're hung on that, what could that mean for the deliberations on those two other major charges?
[17:05:35]
TAPPER: Yes, and Elizabeth Wagmeister, just trying to read the tea leaves here, so the jury says, quote, "We have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides when it comes to the racketeering conspiracy charge." So that means there are jurors in that jury who think he is guilty of racketeering conspiracy. And there are also jurors in that jury who thinks he is not guilty of racketeering. I'm just a humble caveman here, but it seems to me like it is very unlikely that there would be jurors who think he is guilty of racketeering conspiracy on that jury and -- that also didn't think he was guilty of some of these other crimes.
WAGMEISTER: That's absolutely right, Jake. And that is why this is such a major development and very soon into the deliberations. Remember, this is just day two, the jury has been in there for about 12, 13 hours total. So to reach a unanimous verdict on four of those charges is quite something this soon.
Now, many legal experts, I know, Laura, has been saying this all along, believe that those final two charges, counts four and five, transportation to engage in prostitution, that those are really considered a lot or most of a lot compared to the other charges. Why? Because it's much easier to prove than something like racketeering or sex trafficking, where there is more gray area. Of course, with sex trafficking, the issue of consent comes into play.
And from my coverage of many of these high profile sex crimes cases, it's always incredibly challenging and confusing for a jury to understand the issue of consent. If you were a girlfriend of 11 years, is it possible that you were coerced or forced or threatened into a sex act? But you compare that to the final two counts, transportation to engage in prostitution.
And the prosecutors, they showed flight records, they showed hotel records where they also had bank records that Sean Combs was paying for these male escorts, these male entertainers to take a flight from point A to point B across state lines, which prosecutors said was for the purpose of sex. Now, his defense said it was not for the purpose of sex, but those two charges seem to be the most easily proven, at least comparatively to these other ones.
COATES: Jake, if I can just say on the RICO --
TAPPER: Yes.
COATES: -- charge, one of the things that was so important here, RICO requires an enterprise, meaning a group of people who are associated in some way that are engaging in these racketeering activities over a pattern within 10 years. But the enterprise component of it, I think is going to be the hang up here. Remember, they did not call any of the alleged co-conspirators that included women by name of the Kristina Khorram, who has denied any wrongdoing, has not been charged with a criminal offense. They did not charge -- they did not call a security guard by the name of D-Roc, both of whom have been named. He also would deny any wrongdoing, has not been criminally charged.
It's important because one of the things the defense and of course the rebuttal addressed was that these witnesses were equally available to the defense and the prosecution, which every lawyer will tell you, well, they may have been available to them, but it's the prosecution's burden to follow. We have some breaking as well, the judge is saying that there's not much there. So both sides had to propose different instructions to this the jury.
The judge wants the input of both parties. Why? Because he has an eye on appellate processes and he's asking both them for their input. And what are they saying?
WAGMEISTER: So, here's what the judge just said seconds ago, Jake, he said, quote, "There is not much there. This is in response to the defense's proposed instruction. The judge said that by simply telling them to keep deliberating, that that would be nonresponsive to their note to their concern, saying that they have, quote, "unpersuadable opinions to count one."
Now, Marc Agnifilo, who is Sean Combs' defense attorney, these notes, by the way, coming from our team right inside of that courthouse behind us, Jake, Marc Agnifilo said he thinks that the jury has been productive. He thinks that they have been efficient so that they don't need much encouragement to continue deliberating.
The judge said that the government's proposal, on the other hand, is not really an Allen charge, but essentially reiterates the section of the jury instructions regarding the duty to continue to deliberate. So, what we're getting at here is no final instruction yet from the judge, but they are talking this out and sussing this out in that courtroom right behind us.
[17:10:00]
TAPPER: And we are going to hear, Laura, right, we are going to hear likely in the next hour what the verdict in these four charges is, correct? Or could it stretch pass that?
COATES: Well, they well could. There --
TAPPER: Yes.
COATES: We could. We could. The judge could ask them to deliberate fully on the rest or hear a bird on the four. We know that the family of Sean "Diddy" Combs has returned to the courthouse. His mother has been here, his daughters are here, his sons are here. They've been here for seven weeks as well.
There's actually been almost 20 seats of the courtroom every single day reserved just for the family and supporters of Sean "Diddy" Combs. They're all here with him. He, of course, remains here. He has been held in federal custody. When you see him, he has two marshals around him even to use the restroom or go anywhere else in the courtroom.
So in courthouse you see this happening. But everyone's very eager because remember, if you're the defense, you don't necessarily want the hung jury, you want an acquittal. A hung jury means you give the option of SDNY to rebring that particular charge. A complex one, that is true, but they have boasted what that 90 percent or 90 plus percent conviction rate in this district. And it's a gamble at any time and place to go back.
Remember, the weight of the federal government is quite high. It's one reason why I can criticize the justice system in America. But here we are, the most complex of the cases, most complex of the charges is the one where they are hung up on.
TAPPER: And is it possible that they would give the -- announce the verdict for the four charges that they have agreed upon and then go back to the jury room to figure out this count one that they're deadlocked on or no, that's just never how it works.
WAGMEISTER: Yes.
COATES: No, that is possible. They could do that, waiting for the judge to decide what would that would look like. And if that's the case you can imagine to have four of the five verdicts resolved and what that weight or albatross might feel like if it's lifted or put on the defendant's neck, really impactful. We also know the judge said that he intends to tell the jury that I ask that you keep deliberating and then he's going to recite some lines about their duty.
Here's part of what he says, it is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement. He goes on to talk about the verdict being unanimous and each must make their own decision. No juror should surrender. It's important, no juror should surrender his or her conscientious beliefs for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict. And that's important because the defense does not want anyone brow beaten if they were inclined to acquit, brow beaten for the sake of having a resolution.
You can imagine the Norman Rockwell painting of the juror infamously crossing her arms at the end of the table. They do not want that. They want a verdict that is on the up and up, that is unanimous and is the result not of pressure, but of the persuasion or failure to persuade from this prosecution. TAPPER: And, Elizabeth, paint a picture for us, if you will, of what it is like inside that courtroom right now. It's 5:12 p.m. the jurors have been assigned to this case for two months. They've been deliberating since, I guess, the defense rested and the prosecution rested last Friday, they've -- so they've been debating for days. They've heard 34 witnesses, all of them called by the -- by the prosecution. What's it like in there?
WAGMEISTER: So right now, we are hearing from our Kara Scannell inside that tensions are incredibly high. And I will tell you that Laura and I have been in that courtroom for many of the days of this trial. And tensions weren't always high. Jake, I've got to tell you, Sean Combs at times was in a good mood. He had high energy.
He was smiling, he was laughing. Of course, this is completely different. He knows that his life, his fate, is in the hands of 12 jurors, 12 strangers. Remember, this is one of the most famous, one of the most powerful men in the world. He is used to calling the shots.
He is used to doing what he wants to do. He is the boss. He is an entrepreneur. He is the head of all of his businesses. The prospect of him, which I'm sure has been weighing on him this entire time, but nothing like right now, when he could be about to get a verdict moments away.
He knows that he cannot call the shots in this moment. So that is really a stunning realization, a stunning reality for Sean Combs.
TAPPER: And, Laura, let me ask you, so there are people on both sides in that jury, quote, we have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides. Tell me what might cause somebody to be unconvinced? Theoretically, we don't know, we haven't talked to the jurors, but as somebody who followed the case from the very beginning, what might be some of the weaknesses in the prosecution's case that would -- that would cause there to be unpersuadable skeptics in that jury on count one, having to do with racketeering conspiracy, why might that case not have found complete agreement in that jury, that charge?
[17:15:00]
COATES: Well, the judge is weighing that now, as, of course, he's ordered them to continue to deliberate at this moment in time. But here's the thing, there was no testimony from an alleged coconspirator in this matter. And yes, you can charge a defendant with conspiracy and have a single defendant. You need not charge all of the co- conspirators. They need not be in one particular case together.
So you could do so. But that can give people pause. If you're telling me there's a conspiracy which is legally an agreement or a meeting of the minds, then where are the rest of the minds and where was the meeting, number one? Number two, they had to prove that the otherwise legitimate businesses that are known, well known around the world of Sean "Diddy" Combs, which is known as Combs Enterprise, that they were engaged in criminal activity. And sometimes it can be a very hard sell to jurors to believe that engaging in legitimate practices could turn or be converted into criminal activity. Finally, RICO is a charge that people normally associate with the mob, for example. In fact, it was almost created with an eye towards trying to figure out how do I create a jigsaw puzzle that's complete by having all of these different people who are associated in some way committing crimes. Aha, I've got RICO. And so if they are associating with the mob, the mob, this was not.
And then finally, I should say, the idea of why they were not called must be looming quite large. And remember, for every single predicate act, the kidnapping, the bribery, the arson, the drug distribution and the like, there are kind of mini trials that happen, Jake. They have to prove and that each of those things happen. If they don't, then you cannot establish one or more racketeering activities and you cannot establish a pattern. These are all the reasons why it's so complex to bring a case in general in RICO, and perhaps one like this.
TAPPER: And Elizabeth, obviously we don't want to disclose the names or identities of the juror -- the jury. We know that it's eight men and four women. But as somebody who's gone in there, we all, when we go to trials, when we cover trials, we try to read the facial expressions, read the body language of the jurors. Was there anything that you could discern it all in the times that you were inside that room or the times that other CNN reporters were inside the room?
WAGMEISTER: Look, Jake, right now the jury is entering the courtroom, they are coming from that deliberation room into the courtroom, likely to get that instruction from the judge. Now, I have to tell you, it's been very difficult to tell what they are thinking. Laura Coates always said that no one can guess. That it is a --
COATES: Fool's errand.
WAGMEISTER: -- fool's errand to try to guess what the jury is saying. But the times that they reacted, the most visible reactions I would say were when they were watching those freak-off videos, remember that we as members of the media and also members of the public were not able to see those sexually explicit videos, but members of the jury, they put their headphones on, they watched quite a bit of footage, that is when they had a reaction, which makes sense you would think that you would have a reaction to that.
Now, you did see during Cassie Ventura's testimony, I did note that there was one juror who seemed to be emotional. This is very difficult testimony to sit through. Even if ultimately these jurors decide that he's not guilty on some of these charges, that doesn't make it any easier to sit through.
So at times we saw some reactions, but I would not put my money right now on what the jury is thinking. Now, I want to go back to something that you said before, Jake, which is about reading the tea leaves. Of course, none of us, we don't know, you don't know what this jury has come back with on these four charges with this partial verdict that they've reached.
But you brought up an excellent point, Jake, where you said that if they cannot come to an agreeable conclusion on count one, that racketeering conspiracy, which underneath those predicate crimes, one of those is that sex trafficking charge. So does that mean that they don't believe the sex trafficking of Cassie or of Jane?
Well, not necessarily. It could just mean that they don't believe that there was a conspiracy, an agreement to conspire. So that's why it's really anyone's guess at this point.
TAPPER: Yes. I mean --
COATES: And anything with a time check for a second, it's -- sorry, it's 5:18 p.m. --
TAPPER: -- I was -- I was, I guess --
COATES: -- the judge we know -- go ahead, Jake.
TAPPER: No, go ahead, it's OK.
COATES: Excuse me. I was going to say at 5:18 p.m. the judge has just asked that juror -- the jurors to come in. He told them to leave the courtroom after giving them the instruction to continue deliberating and to send him a note if they're going to continue deliberating for the rest of the day. And of course, traditionally it's been ending at 5:00 p.m., so this might mean that they're indicating they will continue to deliberate, obviously past the 5:00 hour. Will they go later than this or will they return tomorrow? Anyone's guess.
TAPPER: And just to remind folks what we're talking about here in terms of the crimes that Sean "Diddy" Combs is alleged to have committed, of the 34 witnesses, two of them were Combs former girlfriends. You referred to one of them, Cassie Ventura. They testified that he forced them, forced them into having sex with male escorts while he watched. Cassie Ventura was on the witness stand for a long, long time recounting what she alleges was 10 years of physical violence, threats and blackmail to coerce her into participating in what these activities were called. Combs called them freak-offs.
[17:20:30]
They were drug fueled sexual encounters with male escorts that she alleges were nonconsensual. And Laura, it seems very interesting that the defense opted not only to not call Sean "Diddy" Combs as a witness, that's fairly common, I would think, especially if you have a witness who has a rather sizable ego and might not come across as all that sympathetic. But they didn't call any witnesses. They spent all their time trying to tear down the prosecution's witness --witnesses.
COATES: Yes.
TAPPER: Do you -- do you think that was a good strategy? I mean, obviously the proof will be in the pudding when we get the verdicts, but it seems like a rather risky strategy to me.
COATES: It indeed is always a gamble. We do know the jury has said that they are done for the day, they will come back tomorrow with four of the five verdicts already done, waiting for that last one to actually unfold. But here was the number one hurdle when it came to the sex trafficking cases and the force coercion or threat that were used allegedly to have them engage in these freak-offs, and that was there was a lot of text messages that came in and testimony from both Jane, the pseudonymous victim, and also Cassie Ventura, who described that they had relayed either their pleasure or proactive participation in these freak-offs, they say to placate and preserve the relationship. The prosecution argues as well, out of fear of reprisal or otherwise or financial leverage and money being taken away, that's a huge hurdle. But you also heard audio and voice notes and read text messages from Sean "Diddy" Combs.
In many ways, the modern court systems or the modern way of communications are a little bit ahead of what the courts do because in a way, you were able to hear the voice of Sean "Diddy" Combs through the trial during the prosecution's case in chief. And at times his statements were emotional, they were conveying his position. They belied what was being said by the witnesses themselves as well. And so I wonder if they considered that to be a appropriate substitute. But you're right, Jake, it's a gamble not to call a single witness, even when you know that it's not your burden to prove your innocence.
TAPPER: I just --
COATES: It's a huge risk.
TAPPER: I just want to make sure I understand what's going on exactly because I know we have a chyron down at the bottom of the screen saying, jurors send notes saying they're done for the day. But we've also reported that the judge says he's going to tell the jury to keep deliberating. So what exactly is going on right now? Is the jury done for the day or has the judge sent them back to keep deliberating?
COATES: Yes. Both happened. He sent them back to keep deliberating and told him, let me know if you're done for the day. They came back and said, we're done for the day, which means that tomorrow they'll continue deliberating. But you know, they only have one major count, it's a huge one to go.
Now, if they still do not have a resolution and unanimous decisions, then you have a different ball game for the judge determining whether or not to have them continue throughout the day or to call it a day and have the other four charges and verdicts be read. Now, we know one option here was always for the judge to read out those other four verdicts and allow them to test to keep deliberating one. He didn't choose that option. So you can imagine a very long sleepless night ahead for the defense and the prosecution.
WAGMEISTER: Who, by the way, to remind our viewers, the defendant, Sean Combs, he has been in custody throughout this entire trial. He has been in custody since before this trial, since the second that he was arrested here in New York City in September, he has been in jail at the MDC in Brooklyn. So this is a very long, sleepless night for Sean Combs, who five minutes ago thought, I may have a verdict, I may know my fate today. And now he has learned there is no verdict tonight. They will continue deliberating tomorrow. And you could imagine that is going to be a very, very tough night for him. And also remember the women who testified --
COATES: Yes.
WAGMEISTER: -- in this trial, Cassie Ventura and the two women who testified under pseudonyms, Mia and Jane, you can imagine they're on pins and needles wondering, did the jury believe me? Did they believe my story?
TAPPER: Yes. I mean, there is a verdict, there are four verdicts, it's just they're not letting us know what they are.
Laura and Elizabeth, stick around. I want to bring in some other legal experts to talk about what we're learning right now, Elie Honig and Misty Marris.
Elie, so after all this, the jury has finished deliberations for the day, they're going to come back tomorrow. What happens tomorrow? Will we have a verdict tomorrow?
[17:25:09]
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK. Jake, I've been in this exact situation in this exact courtroom where you have a partial verdict, you don't know what it is. A couple things that the prosecutors are looking at. Number one, they know the jury has verdicts, has not hung on counts two through five. Of course, they don't know what those verdicts are, but that's good news if you're a prosecutor, because the hung jury is always a nightmare for prosecutors, it's basically a win for the defense.
The other thing, if we look at the wording of the note that came out, it tells us that there are multiple jurors on either side, it uses the plural of count one, the racketeering count. Now, here's what's going to happen tomorrow, the jury will come back in, they will resume deliberations on count one on the racketeering count. And one of two things will happen from there, either A, they will come back and say, OK, Judge, now we've reached a verdict on count one. That happens sometimes, I wouldn't say often, but sometimes, in which case, we'll have verdicts on all five counts, jury will come out and tell us what the verdicts are on counts one through five.
The other option, which is slightly more common in my experience, is the jury will come back at some point tomorrow and say, judge, you know, we tried again, we listened to your instruction, we kept open minds, we debated it three more hours, four more hours, and we're still stuck. And at that point, what the judge is likely to do and has the power to do is say, fine, come in, I'm going to take your verdicts on counts two through five, and we're going to declare count one a hung jury, a mistrial. So that's what we're looking for tomorrow.
TAPPER: So, Misty, let me ask you this, because this is some more legal language that I'm not all that familiar with, the government, the prosecution asked for a modified Allen charge. The defense said it's too early for that. What does that mean? MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: So an Allen charge is what we call a dynamite charge. It's when the judge instructs the jury to go back into that jury room and not to give up on their convictions or change their mind because of coercion or pressure, but to listen to the people that are in the majority. So those that are in the minority, listen to those in the majority, keep an open mind and try and come to a consensus. So an Allen charge, it's statutory language, it's like a boilerplate charge. And what the judge actually -- what it sounds like the judge read was some modification of a formal Allen charge.
But the Allen charge, the reason they call it the dynamite charge is it's generally that last ditch effort to get the jury to come to a consensus. And there's analysis about it because you don't want an issue where the jury has felt pressure to change their mind. And that's why the language is really consistent here in the Second Circuit, there's specific language that the judge would read. And what we heard or what we as reported that the judge did is a modification of that charge.
TAPPER: All right, Misty and Elie, stick around. The breaking news, of course, the jury in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial has reached a verdict in four out of the five counts against the former music mogul. Stay with us. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:32:09]
TAPPER: And we're back with our breaking news. Live pictures now outside the New York courthouse where the judge in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial just instructed the jury to continue deliberating. Jurors saying that they agreed on four of the five charges. They remain deadlocked on one of them, and that's the racketeering charge. The jury has now gone home for the day.
Our legal experts are back with us. So, Elie, tell me if I'm off base here, but it seems to me if we know from what the jury says, quote, we have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides having to do with the racketeering charge, it is unfathomable to me that there would be people on that jury who think he is guilty of racketeering but do not think he's guilty of the other four charges having to do with sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, or transportation to engage in prostitution. In other words, if I am the defense attorneys, I am feeling not great right now.
HONIG: I -- I agree with you. You're doing logic here. Now, logic doesn't always apply to juries. We have to -- we have to note that. I mean, there have been verdicts that are utterly nonsensical. But if we are applying logical theories, what we know for sure, based on that note, is the jury is hung on count one for now.
They're -- they're at a deadlock for count one, and they use the plural. And that tells me there's at least multiple jurors out of 12 who think he is guilty of racketeering, multiple jurors out of 12 who think he's not guilty of racketeering. It is hard for me to fathom logically, Jake, and I think this is the same point you're making, that there are multiple jurors who basically say he is guilty of racketeering, but he's not guilty of all the other crimes, the other sex trafficking crimes and interstate prostitution crimes.
So, honestly, that would be the conversation I'd be having right now if I was in the prosecution room. I would take some heart in that. I would be encouraged by that as a prosecutor that -- that suggests we might have guilty verdicts on the other counts.
But, again, juries are 12 human beings. They are as unpredictable and sometimes illogical as anything we know.
TAPPER: Right. And -- and Misty, I mean, the -- the converse of -- of this dynamic that Elie and I are talking about is also true in the sense that it is not that difficult to imagine that there are people on the jury who think that Sean "Diddy" Combs is not guilty of racketeering, but also do think that he is guilty of the other four charges, right?
MARRIS: Right. So, first of all, I agree with Elie. It is always a gamble with a jury.
TAPPER: Right.
MARRIS: And sometimes things simply don't make sense.
TAPPER: We're -- we do not know. I -- I just to -- to give the big caveat that you two experienced attorneys, we don't -- this is not fact.
MARRIS: Right.
TAPPER: We're just trying to speculate based on the -- the facts at hand.
MARRIS: Right. And so here's what I would say, Jake, and -- and really with respect to the interstate prostitution, the two counts of the Mann Act, that was really low-hanging fruit for prosecutors. I would be surprised if that didn't result in a conviction.
[17:35:09]
The reason that I say that this is relevant to count one, RICO, is that while he's charged with those crimes, those are also predicate crimes for the RICO charge, meaning that if the jury agrees on the Mann Act, say hypothetically he's convicted, that could serve as the basis for those predicates, for that requirement on RICO.
So, in my mind, isn't that the jury is hung up on whether or not there was a conspiracy to participate in a criminal enterprise? Is that the threshold issue? It's not about the underlying predicate crimes and agreeing on that, which they do require unanimity, but is the issue that this criminal enterprise, which for me was difficult to really understand what it was throughout the trial. Usually, there's a goal of a criminal enterprise. It's to make money, drug trafficking, gun trafficking. Here, it was a little more abstract. It was the Combs enterprise for the purpose of basically doing anything Combs wanted to do. So, is that where the jury is having trouble coming to a consensus?
Given everything we know, I think that's maybe a feasible situation that's going on in that deliberation room.
TAPPER: Misty Marris, Elie Honig, thanks to both of you.
We need to get to the other big stories of the day. This is just one of many. Senate Republicans pushed through President Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and now it's back to the House for final sign-off. A new CNN analysis shows that the numbers of uninsured citizens will now soar because of this legislation. We're going to dive into this one next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:41:05]
TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, President Trump's mega domestic agenda bill is one step closer to becoming law today. The U.S. Senate very narrowly passed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Fifty senators, all Republicans, voted for it. Fifty senators voted against it, including every Democrat, 47, and three Senate Republicans.
Those three are Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina. This tie vote activated one of the few constitutionally assigned roles of the Vice President.
So, Ohio's own Vice President J.D. Vance presided over the Senate and delivered the tie-breaking vote in favor of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He also took to Twitter to extol its virtues, mainly, he said, for reducing illegal immigration. Downplaying, quote, everything else, including, quote, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions, unquote.
According to the Vice President, this, as the bill, will leave more than 15 million people in the U.S. without health insurance, according to CNN's analysis of previous congressional budget office numbers and the updated bill text. So, what happens now?
Since the Senate made changes to the House bill, it has to go back to the House for approval. That vote is expected tomorrow morning, but Senate Republicans acknowledge passing it could be complicated, and in the current 220 Republicans to 212 Democrats makeup of the House, Republicans cannot afford to lose more than three votes.
Some House Republicans say they can't get on board with the significant changes the Senate made to Medicaid. They warn it will harm low-income families and rural health care providers. President Trump, though, did not seem worried earlier today about this bill getting through the House and onto his Resolute Desk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a great bill. There is something for everyone. And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House. Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Discuss with our panel, T.W. Arrighi, Republican strategist. So, Trump today downplayed the concerns of Americans losing health insurance because of this bill. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've promised not to cut Medicaid, said this is all just targeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Are you saying that the estimated 11.8 million people who could lose their health coverage, that is all waste, fraud, and abuse?
TRUMP: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's going to be a very much smaller number than that. And that number will be waste, fraud, and abuse. And if you look, they took a much more liberal stance on the Medicaid situation than they could have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: There are concerns, as I don't need to tell you, T.W., that the Medicaid changes will hurt voters and could hurt the Republican Party come midterms. What do you think?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: There is no doubt that there is a threat of that. As I've said at the very most macro level, anytime you touch Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, it comes with a massive risk. Remember George W. Bush in 2005.
And I think today, with hindsight, we'd be like, man, I wish we passed that bill. It would have helped the Social Security Administration quite a lot.
TAPPER: The partial privatization, you're talking about.
ARRIGHI: Yes, correct.
TAPPER: Before George W. Bush expanded Medicare, though.
ARRIGHI: Sure, sure. And I think a lot of the Medicare expansions we're dealing with in this bill.
TAPPER: Sure.
ARRIGHI: And the two points that the Republicans have been trying to make, Thune, Johnson, and Trump are, this is more of a protection of it moving forward. By making sure that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants are kicked off it, to make sure that there's work requirements that Democrats and Republicans have pushed for decades. And so it will be a political cost to that, but I think Donald Trump believes it's time to move on it if we're ever going to get our debt in line.
TAPPER: Of course, it now needs to go through the House. We had on Congressman Don Bacon from Omaha, from your home state of Nebraska, on the show yesterday. And he did not seem convinced that the Senate changes to Medicaid were good ones, that his more moderate, for want of a better term, group of House Republicans would embrace. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[17:45:18]
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I think we'll have a hard time passing with some of the provisions that the Senate's put in there.
TAPPER: Would you vote no on this version?
BACON: Well, there's talk with a bunch of folks on the House side that we will modify this portion back to the House instead of back to the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What do you think's going to happen?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's a great question with Congressman Bacon. I mean, could he go the way of Thom Tillis in voting no and, you know, kind of not being beholden to his party? Or will he sort of do a solid for Speaker Johnson?
TAPPER: He's already said he's not running for reelections, though.
ZELENY: He's not.
TAPPER: Yes.
ZELENY: He said that yesterday in Omaha. My guess is he will not be the deciding vote. Sort of he'll go with others. But look, there's one number that is hanging over this entire debate. That's 215 to 214. That's what this passed the House by in May. So it is as narrow as it can possibly be. I've been talking with the Republican leadership folks in the House this afternoon.
They're worried about a couple of things. One, the storms that have been rolling through D.C. this afternoon is likely to keep some members from potentially flying in tomorrow morning. So that could hold up.
TAPPER: Yes, I was supposed to interview a congresswoman who's stuck in Pittsburgh right now, later on the show.
ZELENY: It's a real issue.
TAPPER: Yes.
ZELENY: Number two, though, the SNAP benefits. SNAP, of course, is the -- the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps. And some big changes were made on that that the House is not finding palatable, as well as Medicaid changes. So, yes, there is history that the Senate always jams the House.
So there's reason to believe that could happen again in a President's party. However, many House members are very resistant to some of these changes. So I don't know that we've seen the end of this yet, but the President obviously is pushing for it. He's not deep in the details. He wants it to be done. We will see.
But the Fourth of July is still a few days away, and I'm not sure the deadline will be made or not.
TAPPER: So they can only lose three Republicans.
ZELENY: Yes.
TAPPER: Tom Massie of Kentucky is already a no. We know that because of -- it doesn't do enough to cut the deficit. And then there are three House Republicans who are in districts that Kamala Harris won, including Don Bacon. So who knows?
ZELENY: There are many with rural hospitals and other things.
TAPPER: Yes.
ZELENY: So there are some other issues.
TAPPER: So, Ashley, I want to run this bite from our -- our -- our good friend Ryan Nobles. Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, she was iffy on the bill. She was very worried. She got a lot of exemptions and carve-outs for her Alaskan constituents. And our friend Ryan Nobles told her what a different Senate Republican had said about her switch to yes. And she did not seem pleased with the news. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN NOBLES, REPORTER: Senator Paul said that this was -- that your vote was a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Oh, my God.
NOBLES: That's what Senator Paul said.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator, we've got the --
NOBLES: I didn't say, ma'am, I'm just asking for your response.
MURKOWSKI: When -- when people suggest that federal dollars go to one of our 50 states in a, quote, bailout. I find that offensive. Do I like this bill? No. (END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Do I like this bill? No, but she voted. Yes.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. So then she should have voted. No. You like this bill? No.
TAPPER: So she got stuff for Alaska.
ALLISON: She got stuff from -- for Alaska. But I mean, at what cost? I -- I know she's annoyed by the question, but sometimes when you get agitated, it's because there's real truth in that statement. Lisa Murkowski is a disappointment in this moment.
But I also will go back to a couple of weeks when she also talked about how fearful she was of going against Donald Trump. And I think we saw that fear play out in her vote today.
TAPPER: Well, just kudos to Ryan Nobles. We are supposed to annoy them. But --
ALLISON: Yes.
TAPPER: -- but you got to see --
ALLISON: And her constituents should annoy her even more by potentially not reelecting her when she's up.
TAPPER: It's -- it's --
ZELENY: She's up until 2028. So she --
ALLISON: Well, that's why she gave.
ZELENY: And she did give Alaska something. But she did say it's not good enough for the rest of the nation. And we all know it.
ALLISON: So vote no. But it's also why they let you guys --
ARRIGHI: I -- I think the point --
ALLISON: -- because she is up.
ARRIGHI: But the point needs to also be made here that we are staring down the barrel of the largest tax increase decades. No tax on tips. No tax on Social Security. These are also huge things to get lost in the show.
ALLISON: And most billionaires has massive taxes.
ARRIGHI: Everyone gets massive taxes.
TAPPER: OK. Thanks to all.
ARRIGHI: And the debt ceiling.
TAPPER: And the debt ceiling, $5 trillion debt ceiling increase.
Continuing with our Politics Lead. Today, President Trump visited Florida's new detention center for captured undocumented migrants. It's located west of Miami in the Everglades. People who are fans of it are calling it Alligator Alcatraz. He was asked about the name just before he left on the trip, the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the alligator Alcatraz --
TRUMP: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- is the idea that if some illegal immigrant escapes, they just get eaten by alligator or a snake?
TRUMP: I guess that's the concept. This is not a nice business. I guess that's the concept. If you, you know, snakes are fast but alligators are big. We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, OK, if they escape prison, how to run away. Don't run in a straight line. Run like this. And you know what, your chances go up about 1 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[17:50:18]
TAPPER: Helpful tip. With us now former acting homeland, Janelle from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. Thanks so much for joining us. For undocumented individuals who are also violent criminals, gang members come to mind. Probably no one out there disputes locking them up with or without the alligators and snakes.
But how does the government. Has the Trump administration make sure that others, mom, students, workers with minor convictions undocumented but not dangerous that they don't end up in there?
KEN CUCCINELLI, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY DHS SECRETARY: Well. And they're, you know, 39th, 40ths of the illegal population. So facilities like this if they're used for criminal population are needed. And this administration has prioritized rounding up criminals and more recently Iranian sleeper cells and so forth, security threats.
And a facility like this can be useful for that. But what really matters in achieving the President's goals is building out the entire pipeline whether that's immigration judges to move cases faster and to reach conclusion faster to use the regulatory process, which DHS really hasn't done yet, to speed things along.
They're not building out the rest of the pipeline. So this continues the focus on high risk, high danger illegal aliens. But it doesn't, if they're going to use it exclusively for that community, it doesn't do anything obviously to move the 98 percent, 96 percent of the other illegal aliens who also need to be removed from the country. And that takes an awful lot of logistical support and coordination to do. TAPPER: Immigration officials have confirmed the death of a 75-year- old man who came to the U.S. from Cuba in 1966. According to "The Miami Herald," the man did time 40 years ago for a marijuana bust. His family told the paper that he turned his life around.
He was detained last month even though he had a heart condition. He died in ICE custody. "The Herald," "Miami Herald" reports that he's the fifth detained person to die in ICE custody in Florida this year. What are the best ways to prevent incidents like this from happening?
CUCCINELLI: Well I mean he is over 75. So there's a certain statistical aspect to this. Nobody wants people to die. But we're all going to. And, you know, we're literally talking about a population of 10 to 20 million illegal aliens. And you know as the process -- as they come into the process, they do get medical reviews if they're going to be detained long term.
And, you know, this person -- this person died while he was in detention. I, you know, I'm -- I'm sorry to hear that. But it's not like you can just decide that on the doorstep of somebody you're picking up. There has to be a process for that. There is a process for that. But that doesn't mean their -- ICE is going to be able to predict who's going to pass away in detention.
A better approach for ICE is to minimize the touch time for these folks. So from the point you pick them up to the point you deliver them home. You want to minimize those numbers of days. You want to minimize the transfers in achieving that. So that they go from what was their place of residence in the United States even though they are here illegally to their home as quickly as possible. And that pipeline needs to be built bigger.
Now the money in this big beautiful bill, there's a lot of immigration money in there that can help build those facilities out. But the one that is built there in Florida is exactly the kind we would have used when we had a rush at the border.
Well, Donald Trump doesn't have rushes at the border anymore because he's actually sealed it.
TAPPER: Right.
CUCCINELLI: Now they're used for people leaving. But the next Joe Biden who wants to open the borders could use them to bring people in.
TAPPER: So the Alligator Alcatraz facility has bunk beds inside chain link fences. We're showing the video right now. It is surrounded by a swamp that contains snakes and alligators. Are there any concerns that you have about how humane this treatment is?
CUCCINELLI: No I don't have those concerns. I mean this is a facility Florida has used for staging people during hurricanes already. This is not the first time it's been used for large scale habitation. And the idea here just like in a hurricane is that these people will not be here very long.
[17:54:55]
I will say one major advantage of this location in addition to its security is the fact that they have the airstrip there. So that it facilitates the logistics of moving people from other parts of the country and then home to their home country. And that's the key is moving them back out. It isn't so much the bringing them in it's getting them back out as quickly as possible.
TAPPER: Ken Cuccinelli thanks so much for talking to us today. Appreciate it.
We have this breaking news this hour. A jury reaching a partial verdict in the Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial. We're getting new details from the courthouse in New York. We'll go there next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:00:02]
TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And we are following a lot of breaking news today.
