Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Judge Denies Bail for Sean Diddy Combs; House GOP Leaders Trying to Secure Votes to Pass Bill; New York Times Reports, Pardoned Jan. 6 Rioter Given Justice Department Role. Attorneys For Sean Combs Speak After Judge Denied Bail. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 02, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

We are following breaking news this evening. Sean Diddy Combs, the music mogul, will remain behind bars until his sentencing. That ruling from the judge came just moments ago with the judge saying that he, quote, denied bail when it wasn't mandatory before the trial, and see no reason to reach the opposite conclusion, unquote.

Now, this after a jury earlier today found Combs not guilty on the three most serious charges against him, racketeering, and two different counts of sex trafficking. The jury did convict Combs on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

CNN's Laura Coates is outside the courthouse in New York. So many twists and turns in this case, Laura. Explain the judge's reasoning for keeping Sean Diddy Combs behind bars after a jury has basically acquitted him of the most violent charges here.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Wow, what a whirlwind, Jake, after seven weeks of trial, and the question now, based on those two guilty charges and convictions, what will the judge do? We thought there was a chance he might come out the front door. It's clear now that he will not, and that the judge has said, based on the defense attorney's own recitation and acceptance and acknowledgement of the violence towards Cassie Ventura and Jane, acceptance in the sense that they say that it happened, not that they approved of it, that they said that that weighed on his decision as to whether or not to release Sean Combs pending his ultimate sentencing. That could be as late as October.

Now, Agnifilo, who is the lead defense attorney in this case, went on to describe personality and character flaws of Sean Combs, but said, listen, he was a model inmate while he was in detention. He appeared every day in court. He faced the music. He was decent with the court and needed a chance. At one point, he was appealing to the judge by turning to the now convicted felon, Sean Diddy Combs, saying that his daughters, at least two of them, do not have a parent, alluding to the fact that their mother, Kim Porter, had passed away tragically several years ago. She also was the mother to several other children of Sean Combs as well. And then you had Maurene Comey, who is the lead prosecutor from the SDNY, who, of course, is being evaluated by the public right now in terms of whether they should have brought these charges or not. She has believed in them wholeheartedly and was an exemplary advocate in that courtroom. However, she fell far short of what the SDNY hoped to get, a conviction in this matter, and the jury told them emphatically through their verdict no on many of those counts.

But she said in that courtroom, advocating still that they wanted to pursue incarceration for Sean Diddy Combs and talked about him being a violent man with a violent temper to which prompted Mark Agnifilo talk about how Sean Combs entered an almost anger management and domestic violence related program, to which Jane herself helped him write the letter, that he was in the process of making himself a changed man and working on himself. And Agnifilo said, almost quipping at one point, well, I guess it's a good thing essentially that we have juries, not the prosecution in this matter.

They will have a remote sentencing hearing next week, or they will go over a possibly accelerated sentencing for Sean Diddy Combs. But as of right now, he's not walking out of that front door. He will be largely sentenced. What it will be, we do not know. It could be as late as October. And keep in mind, Jake, he's already presently in custody. So, any time that he has served in jail up until now would be credited and applied to any sentence he might ultimately get, which could be up to ten years for each charge that could run consecutively because each charge was different in time and different people, but it also could be as low as 21 months.

TAPPER: So, you are a former federal prosecutor. Our audience probably doesn't need that reminder, but just in case. Are you surprised by the judge's decision here?

COATES: Well, Sean Combs was. We're just learning from inside the courtroom that when the judge denied him bail, his mouth dropped. His eyes widened in disbelief.

Well, one of the things that surprised a lot of people about his decision to deny bail was two things. Number one, the jury essentially rejected the violent accusations against him in terms of what they ultimately concluded to the judge. Weighing that right now might be very shocking. The other part of this, of course, is that he'd asked the parties when there was a verdict and there was an immediate request by Mark Agnifilo to have Sean Diddy Combs immediately released with conditions that will be placed on him and then come back for sentencing.

[18:05:16]

The judge asked this question. He said, is there any precedent or any example of somebody being held in custody until their sentencing for these specific charges? Remember, they are prostitution related charges under the Mann Act, transportation to engage in prostitution, which, by the way, Jake, does not include force or fraud. It has to include essentially the person having a commercial act in what's going on. And so that it seemed as though would be an indication, the judge was inclined, and there was a pretrial officer who was inside the courtroom at one point who, in their job, of course, is to create and establish and follow through on conditions of release that might be set for somebody who would be released.

What could those include, Jake? They could include something like drug testing on a weekly or even daily basis. It could include no travel, it could include ankle bracelets. It could include a lot. But, you know, right now we've got our own Kara Scannell, who has been inside of the courtroom, Jake, watching every single thing unfold. And I am dying to know what happened in there. Kara, Sean Combs denied bail. He's not coming out of that front door. What happened?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, the judge got on the bench, denied bail right away, and I had a literal front row seat with a clear view of Combs. His eyes widened, his mouth opened. He looked at his attorney. He appeared to be in shock. I think they were in there thinking he was going to walk out that door today. But the judge said that there were no exceptional circumstances here, that all the reasons that Combs team had cited were personal reasons, to be there for his family, for his kids, and it didn't overcome the bar and the Congressional mandate in the law that says, for someone who is convicted of a crime under this statute, under this title, had a mandatory detention.

Now, his lawyer had argued that there was no other prostitution case. He even referenced Elliot Spencer, who was not charged with any wrongdoing, but that company that had the prostitutes was convicted of some crime. So, he was saying that in that instance where people had made money, those people were given bail, but the judge denied it after the prosecutors again argued, is what they said, that the only thing exceptional about combs was his wealth, his violence and his brazenness.

And while the judge did hang on that violence, he said that Combs' team admitted that Combs was violent throughout this trial in the closing arguments, even read back portions of this transcript to the parties, to Combs' lawyer. And he's saying that right now at this stage, not sentencing, but at this stage when it has to do with bail, the burden is on the defendant. And the defendant admitted he was violent. And so the judge couldn't get past that.

COATES: They went on to say, Agnifilo, he dated the violence and said, this hasn't happened since X date, and referenced Jane who testified in this trial as one of the main victims for whom the jury did not find sex trafficking to be persuasive for her, that she was one of the people who wrote a letter to help him get into a program to deal with his violence. And he was a man in progress. Describe that.

SCANNELL: Right, that is the point that the defense was trying to make. I mean, they said that on this fight, this June 2024 fight, they said that Jane instigated it. She had testified she did start the fight and that they were arguing that he was trying to get help, that they brought him to attend a program. They said at his sentencing, there will likely be someone from that program to talk about the man in progress, how he was trying to improve himself and that that is one of the reasons that they were arguing for this. But it was not enough to overcome what the judge said was their burden and his concern that there could be violence.

He said the most dangerous violence is the violence that happens behind closed doors. That's domestic violence. That's what Combs admitted to. And so for this reason today, he said he wasn't going to let him out.

COATES: Kara, I have to know what happened because we didn't -- we never heard from Combs testifying. They chose not to testify, a gamble that obviously paid off with the more serious charges, but he asked to speak to the judge in that courtroom. What happened? What did he say? Anything?

SCANNELL: No. So, he waved his hands as his lawyer was wrapping up. I mean, he had passed him, my count four post-it notes, trying to get his lawyer's attention. His lawyer looked at the notes, but whatever he wrote on them, we don't know. But then Combs started waving his hand and his lawyer said, your Honor, he wants to talk to you, but let me talk to him first. So, then Agnifilo went over to Combs. They talked, then Agnifilo resumed the conversation. So, he had made some decision that Combs was not going to address the judge today.

After though the hearing and then when the judge left the bench, Agnifilo did turn to Combs as family members. Again, all of his kids there, his mother, his sister, and he was telling them, he said that, you know, this is winning. Winning is winning. You live your life or you have a good life, he'll be back soon.

[18:10:03]

And Combs himself spoke to them. He said, I'll see you when I get out. We're going to make it through this. He blew a kiss to them and he said, love you all.

COATES: Unbelievable to hear how this all unfolds. We were just talking a few hours ago, Jake, about the possibility of him walking out of the front door and, of course, his family hearing and jubilation at some points in times, as Kara was describing so eloquently earlier today, what happened inside that courtroom when they were expressing an even woo-hooing and shouts, his own mother walking into a crowd of people who were congratulating her on her son's essential acquittal on some of these charges.

But this is a really significant moment because it is an indication, Jake, that this judge intends to likely incarcerate Sean Combs again, it could be applied for what he is already doing right now, but now we know it's a waiting game. How much time will he actually get and in what form?

TAPPER: All right. Laura Coates and Kara Scannell outside the courthouse in Manhattan, thanks so much.

Let's talk about this with Trial Attorney Misty Marris and criminal Defense Attorney Bill Brennan. Misty, to first you. Are you surprised at all that the judge denied bail?

MISTY MARRIS, TRIAL ATTORNEY: So, the defense had a good argument, and, Jake, I thought they might be successful, but the legal standard is that the burden is on the defense to show by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is a little less than reasonable doubt, a little more than a civil case, but it's a high standard, that there are exceptional circumstances as to why the default rule, which is that someone who's convicted spends the time in jail through sentencing should not be the case. So, that legal standard makes it really difficult for a defendant.

Another piece of this, when we heard the commentary from the judge, what might surprise defendants in federal court is that judges are allowed to take into consideration relevant conduct. So, even though there an acquittal, the judge can still consider some of the testimony, evidence, circumstances, and admissions by the defense. And so that's what we saw here, ultimately resulting in Combs behind bars until that sentencing hearing.

TAPPER: Bill Brennan, earlier today, the defense wrote the judge asking for Combs to be released on bond. They argued he's not a flight risk because Combs faces a lighter sentence, quote, expected guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. Mr. Combs has already been incarcerated for 10 months, unquote. Do you think Combs is going to spend any more significant time in prison?

BILL BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think the issue is significant, Jake. The guidelines are about as thick as the Manhattan phone book. There's an awful lot of voodoo that both sides can play with that. But if you were looking at a heartland, I think that 21 to 27 is where you probably start, the government will come in and say, we want to enhancements. They may say vulnerable victim, they may say amount of victims. They may say coercion. They may say duress. The defense will come in and say under the First Step Act passed during the first Trump administration, a lot of favorable amendments were enacted for defendants, including the enactment of what's called a true zero. And it seems that Mr. Combs has no record, I read. So, if he's a true zero, he'll get a couple points off for that.

So, where it lands is anybody's game, but I think that 21 to 27 is a fair, educated guess. I don't know how much time he has in, probably a year. I don't know when he went in. But like every day he's in, he gets credit.

TAPPER: Yes.

BRENNAN: So, it's not the end of the world that they didn't let him out in.

On Misty's point on that 1B1.3 relevant conduct, the Feds had all the face cards until last year. You could try a drug case with 20 counts, you could beat 19 of them and that -- or you could -- you can't imagine that this was a little bit -- you could beat 19 of them and you think you're going to sentencing on one count. They could bring in under this relevant conduct, all those charges you were acquitted on. Last year, the guidelines were amended to say when relevant conduct is attempted to be bought in by the government, they cannot bring in charges that he was acquitted on. So, on the RICO and the two big charges he was acquitted on, they can't bring that in. They can try to bring in other bad acts, but that's a huge benefit to Mr. Combs.

TAPPER: Bill, after the judge denied bail, the defense said that the defendant, Sean Diddy Combs, wanted to speak to the judge. Is that something you've seen before?

BRENNAN: All the time. And the defense lawyer made the right decision. This defense and, you know, it really was less is more, no witnesses. The government didn't prove its case. This defense has been hugely successful all along. And having Mr. Combs address the judge at this point would be insanity.

[18:15:00]

So, I think that was a prudent move.

You can certainly understand Mr. Combs' frustration, but it's not his job to address the court. That's what his lawyer does.

TAPPER: All right, thanks to both of you. We're continuing to follow the breaking news out of New York, a judge denying bail today for Sean Didi Combs while he awaits for his sentencing.

Plus, Republicans on Capitol Hill are stalling right now as they try to win over holdouts and pass President Trump's massive agenda bill. Can those holdouts be convinced? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the tax and policy bill, it's now stuck in the House on a procedural vote before the final vote. That's because efforts to take up the bill have been delayed by hard line Republican members who do not like some of the changes the U.S. Senate made to the bill that the House passed in May by only a one vote margin, 215-214. Some of them have been to the White House to discuss their concerns with President Trump.

Kentucky Republican Congressman Andy Barr joins us now. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. I know you're in favor of this legislation. I want you to take a listen to something your Republican colleague, Chip Roy of Texas, said earlier today.

[18:20:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): We sent them a product. We liked it in some respects, could be better than others. The Senate has now made some changes. Some are good, some are bad. Now, we got to look at the total product and decide what's bad, not take it or leave it, (INAUDIBLE) take it or leave it legislating. How about we sent it back to him and we say take it or leave it, right? So, the Senate doesn't get to be the final say on everything. We got to work this out. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What's your reaction?

REP. ANDY BARR (R-KY): Well, like Chip and I appreciate his advocacy for fiscal responsibility. I am too. And that's why I think we have to pass the one, big beautiful bill. I appreciate him standing up for the House. But at the end of the day, we have to pass this bill, Jake, because if we don't, it's a $4.5 trillion dollar tax increase on the American people. That would result in 6.1 million fewer jobs in this country, a decline in GDP growth of 4 percent, in other words, a recession. We will never balance the budget or get our fiscal house in order if we are in a recession.

What we need, if you really care about the debt and deficit situation, we need to grow this economy so fast that what we owe starts to shrink relative to the overall size of the economy. And that's what this one big, beautiful bill is. It's jet fuel or rocket fuel for the economy and its promises made, promises kept from a president who campaigned on making the Tax Cuts and Jobs act permanent, who campaigned on preventing the largest tax increase in American history, who campaigned on no tax for tips, no tax on overtime, no tax for Social Security benefits. These are promises the president is keeping and Congress needs to recognize that 77 million Americans voted for this agenda and we need to get it done to make sure we provide the economy the jet fuel that it needs to raise wages for the American people.

TAPPER: Where does the vote tally stand right now? I mean, the Republican leaders have basically stopped time on the floor of the House while you all try to get the requisite votes. I guess, assuming three people vote against it, you need 216 votes, something like that. Where are you right now? How many votes are you lacking?

BARR: Yes. We have a thin majority, for sure, and so we can't lose too many. What I was told just a few minutes ago by the majority leader is that we're making progress. We're getting some uncertain or questionable votes to a hard yes now. And then there's still a few members who are still talking to the White House.

So, we're not there yet, but we're making good progress. Obviously, leadership is holding this vote open. They think that they can continue to, to get the votes. And so we'll see what happens. But at the end of the day, there is one powerful force that can bring all these diverse Republicans together, and that's why he's such a powerful leader for our party and for our country, and that's President Donald Trump.

TAPPER: So, I think there's about $36 trillion of debt right now. Do I have that right?

BARR: You got it.

TAPPER: So, this bill will add to the debt, it will add to the debt less than it would perhaps, but then that doesn't take into account the tax cuts expiring. If this bill passes, what will the debt be in 20 years or in 10 years rather? Do you know? BARR: Well, you got to look at -- we didn't get into this problem overnight. I mean, we had $8 trillion of spending in four years under Joe Biden. There was bipartisan spending during a national emergency, COVID, and of course years before that deficit spending. So, we got to $36 trillion over time. It's not going to be overnight to solve it.

But I can tell you one thing, Jake, we will never balance the budget if we don't grow this economy. Yes, fiscal discipline is important. That's why I appreciate some of my colleagues in the Senate, and Chip Roy, for example, advocating for more spending restraint. I'm all for that. But we will never solve the debt and deficit problem if we don't grow the economy. And this legislation, I think, dynamically scored can absolutely not only not produce deficits, but actually generate revenue.

Consider the fact that one conservative estimate says that medium, real inflation adjusted incomes will rise $10,000 as a result of this bill, That means bigger paychecks, which means more revenue, not because of higher taxes, but because Americans are more prosperous, and so the tax base is larger. The CBO and some of these static scores of this bill that predict big deficits, they don't take that into account. And so they're really rooted in economic fantasy.

What we need to recognize is that this bill will generate the kind of robust economic growth, not only that, the American people need and deserve to get their household finances in order, in order for them to have the dream of home ownership or build a business, but also for the debt crisis.

[18:25:08]

We need growth so that what we owe starts to shrink relative to the overall size of the economy, which has to grow massively.

TAPPER: Right. But I guess you know the answer to the question, that in ten years there's going to be $20 trillion more in debt with this bill.

BARR: No, I disagree with that.

TAPPER: You disagree with that assessment, right, because you think that -- yes, the pro-growth.

BARR: Oh, it depends on a lot of policies between now and then. I mean, I certainly support a lot of additional reforms down the road that would rein in our spending programs and our spending addiction. And I support even more pro-growth policies that will produce even more robust economic growth. I think the tax cuts on top of better, more reciprocal trade deals that open up export markets on top of the deregulation project, on top of energy dominance. And, by the way, this bill has a lot of streamlining of permitting for more energy production in this bill.

With all of those policies together in addition to the tax cuts, you're talking about the kind of growth that we have to have in order to get our fiscal House in order. TAPPER: Right. But before COVID hit, I mean, Trump was racking up, you know, annual deficits of $779 billion a year, $984 billion a year. That's with the tax cuts in the first time.

BARR: Yes. And, of course, COVID was a big factor. And then we have all --

TAPPER: No, this is before COVID, before COVID, I mean.

BARR: Yes. So, look, the bottom line is we know we have to rein in spending. And, by the way, this bill despite the static score of a deficit-producing legislation, this is the largest spending cut bill in history. And in fact, some critics of this bill say, we spend -- we cut too much spending. So, which one is it?

The bottom line is if you dynamically score the bill, if you actually take into account the reality of the growth that this will produce, pulling forward all of that capital expenditures, the made in the America provision that says you can 100 percent expense investment in new manufacturing and new agriculture, or the bonus depreciation provision or a permanent increase in the tax cut for Main Street small businesses, that's going to pull forward massive amounts of investment.

And a realistic assessment of the economic effects of this bill is that it will massively produce to the tune of 14.5 percent increase in investment. Again, that means wage is increasing in real inflation adjusted terms by $10,000.

So, for all your viewers out there, Democrat, independent and Republican, could you use another $10,000 in your paycheck next year? That's what we're talking about. That's the power of these provisions. And so I just don't believe these, you know, economic scores that just dollar for dollar, say if you cut taxes $1, you'll get a dollar of reduction in revenue. That's not how it works in the real world. That's junk economics.

TAPPER: Republican Congressman Andy Barr of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, thanks so much. I appreciate your time, sir. Have a great 4th.

BARR: Thank you, you too.

TAPPER: How's this for twist and turns? A former FBI agent turned pardoned January 6th rioter is now reportedly an adviser at the Justice Department. Those details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, The New York Times is reporting that a former FBI agent turned January 6th rioter turned pardoned January 6th. Rioter is now an adviser for the Justice Department's so-called Weaponization Working Group. In addition to investigating officials who prosecuted President Trump, this group looks into quote, improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions, unquote, relating to the U.S. Capitol riot.

In 2023, federal prosecutors charged Jared L. Wise with civil disorder and with assaulting police, accusing him of calling police Nazis and encouraging other January 6th rioters who were attacking police to, quote, kill them. The New York Times Rights, quote, his selection meant that a man who had urged violence against police officers was now responsible for the department's official effort to exact revenge against those who had tried to hold the rioters accountable, unquote.

Wise was not convicted for his alleged actions on January 6th. He was pardoned while his federal trial was ongoing. CNN has reached out to the Justice Department and the FBI for comment.

Joining us now to discuss, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe. Andy, you can't even write this stuff. It's just shocking in so many ways. What's your reaction?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, initially, Jake, that's exactly what I thought. I thought like this is just unbelievable. But the more you think about it and you step back from it, this is the kind of thing we should expect from this Justice Department, from Pam Bondi and Donald Trump's Justice Department. The fact that they have a committee to investigate the work of loyal government servants at the Department of Justice and the FBI who did nothing other than their jobs in enforcing a law, particularly against those who had been alleged involved in an insurrection of the Capitol.

The fact that we now have an entire commission investigating those people for the purpose of exacting some sort of retribution, that tells you all you need to know about how far we are away from normal. And Jared Wise's appointment to that committee is just another piece of that.

TAPPER: Andy, where are the police and law enforcement unions on these things? I mean, these individuals who are pardoned, let's just focus on the ones who are convicted of crimes involving attacking law enforcement, police officers, with physical force.

[18:35:03]

I mean, we know that at least one officer died after the January 6th riots were over, and then several others took their own lives because of who knows what the trauma, post-traumatic stress, et cetera. Why do we not hear from the police unions and law enforcement unions when people like this calling, cops Nazis, telling others to kill them, are not only pardoned but put in the government?

MCCABE: Not only pardoned, put in the government, embraced by the Department of Justice. This is all part of this effort by DOJ and the White House to change the narrative around January 6th. And the people who get left in the dust and walked away from in that effort are exactly who you were just talking about, the law enforcement officers who lost their lives, either in the immediate aftermath of that day or in the months that followed.

There are four that I'm aware of, four or five who committed suicide in that time period, Officer Sicknick, who died the next day, their family members who are left grieving and now have to see those convicted of inflicting violence upon their family members and their family members, law enforcement colleagues walk away, not just walk away, have their convictions erased, receive clemency, and now are embraced by the very department that brought those prosecutions.

It's outrageous and those unions and police organizations that you mentioned, the fact that they're not standing up and screaming about this is really just kind of the final insult.

TAPPER: Former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe, thanks so much. I hope you have a good 4th.

One congresswoman is currently advocating for a process so members of Congress who might be struggling with their mental acuity can be identified. How are her fellow members of Congress taking it? How do you think? We will talk to her live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ (D-WA): When I go back home, what I hear from my neighbors is a conviction that Congress is this amorphous mass that hides behind their offices.

This is an amendment that seeks to provide more information to voters so that they can make an informed decision and have effective representation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Our Politics Lead, a proposed method to identify members of Congress who could be struggling with their mental acuity. That amendment was struck down last week by members of Congress. You just were listening to Washington Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. She was behind the amendment, voted down by the House Appropriations Committee. She joins us now.

So, Congresswoman, I just want to read out the entirety of this amendment you proposed. It's pretty simple, just one sentence. It would direct the Office of Congressional Conduct to develop a standard for what constitutes conduct that does not reflect creditably upon the House as it relates to a member of Congress' ability to perform the duties of office unimpeded by significant irreversible cognitive impairment.

And we have seen a lot of this in Congress in the last decades, but especially now, there are more members of Congress in their 70s and older than ever before what. Tell us more about this.

PEREZ: Yes, you know, I have rules up, down, and sideways about what kind of hat I can accept as a gift, but these bigger questions about whether or not an office is being run by the person who is elected or their staff has not been addressed in the way that it needs to be. And, you know, there are very few, you know, number of offices where this is called into question, but I would argue that the failure to address this and to reflect the experience of like everybody who owns a farm and has to have these discussions in advance about when -- you know who's driving the bus, when we need to have those in Congress.

TAPPER: Yes. You sped in your remarks specifically, this is not about age, and it's true. There have been recent examples of staff members raising alarms about mental health and lawmakers who on the younger side for Congress. But we did the math, the majority of members of your committee, the Appropriations Committee, are 60 or older, including both the chairman, Tom Cole, and the ranking Democrat, Rosa DeLauro. They're 76 and 82. Do you think that had anything to do with why your amendment was defeated?

PEREZ: No. I mean, some of our older members are the most impactful. It's about building a representative body of the full spectrum of age, but a confidence that it is the elected themselves driving the decisions and making those votes.

And, you know, there is a profound erosion in trust in government. And when I go back home, yes, like people are, people ask me about this all the time. And so the failure to address it, I think, is an indictment against all of us. But a refusal to have these -- they're hard conversations.

TAPPER: Very difficult. So, you probably know or maybe you don't, Alex Thompson and I wrote a book about President Biden and these issues during his presidency. And one of the things that was unescapable is that it's not just -- it wasn't just President Biden or Reagan before him or whatever, Washington has this tradition of this that doesn't happen on a farm. It doesn't happen in broadcasting. It doesn't happen in sports or business because there are other groups that will come in and say, it's time for you to retire.

But in politics, all you have to do is convince your voters and they're busy, they're living their lives, they can be snookered.

PEREZ: Yes, I think ensuring that there is clear information. And, look, I'm not changing the constitution. There are only three ways for a member of Congress to be removed from office. You can lose your election, you can die or you can have two thirds of the body vote to remove you. That doesn't change any of this.

What we want is a clear, impartial body of information with which the Ethics Committee could then review and make a determination.

[18:45:00]

TAPPER: But they don't even look into that right now.

PEREZ: It's not in the ethics code.

TAPPER: And last year, the woman who was chair of Appropriations, Kay Granger, she was the chair. She stepped down as chair. She stayed a member of congress. And then her family drove her to a home where, you know, God bless

her, she's dealing with dementia issues. And for months she was the congresswoman from her district. Nobody told members of Congress, nobody told her congressional district. We only know this because a journalist in the area looked into it.

PEREZ: Yeah. And there was -- there's no way for their staff to file a complaint if its not clear that there's a criteria with which to evaluate that. There's not an opportunity to say like, this matters to the to our democratic process to ensure that it is that member.

And it -- you know, it's not about a single member of Congress. It is about systemic transparency and accountability and the body respecting itself enough to say, we will -- we will hold ourselves to a standard that engenders confidence in the body itself.

TAPPER: But your amendment is not insulting at all. It's just saying, here's a process. If there's an issue, then the House Ethics Committee can be alerted to it. It seems to me this is me saying it, not you, but that your member, the fellow members of your House Appropriations Committee, shout, you know, voting that down by voice vote says that they're more interested in protecting their jobs than in making sure that the American people have credible representation.

PEREZ: Yeah. I mean, I think it's easy to say that it's always somebody else's job. But I think at the end of the day, like the question is, is the work being done? And it's easy to feel like somebody else should be doing it. But I think we need to ensure that our loyalty is clearly oriented towards our districts and not an individual member.

And I think, you know, I'm -- I mean, I got a lot of hard questions about my amendment, and some people did take it as a personal attack, but I think there's still a profound appetite in our country to ensure that these conversations are happening. There is a process that it is nonpartisan and transparent.

And so, I'm still having internal discussions and looking for folks to collaborate on this.

TAPPER: And just for the record, after the debate, you were the only Democratic elected official in the country that not only said President Biden should not be the candidate anymore, you said he shouldn't be the president anymore.

PEREZ: Yeah, I think -- I actually didn't talk about the campaign in particular, because I don't view my duty as being involved in campaigns. But saying what I heard at home was, is, is this person the one steering the ship? And it's about the office itself. It's about the loyalty to your district and a commitment to real, effective representation and clarity on who is calling the shots.

TAPPER: One of the gutsiest members of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, thank you so much for being here.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:43]

TAPPER: In our politics lead with no expression of apology or regret, CBS News parent company Paramount Global agreed late Tuesday to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's "60 Minutes" lawsuit, much less than President Trump was hoping for. But much more than most legal observers thought Paramount should have paid, given the frivolousness of the case, in their view. The money will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library.

This all stems from a "60 Minutes" interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris last October. President Trump then claimed, without any evidence, that one particular exchange with Harris was deliberately edited to make her look good, to benefit her and to hurt him. He had refused to sit for an interview.

Actually, we have to go to New York right now. I apologize to Brian. The lawyers are talking.

MARC AGNIFILO, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: It's a great victory. It's a great victory for Sean Combs. It's a great victory for the jury system.

You saw that the Southern district of New York prosecutors came at him with all that they had. They're not stopping. But one thing stands between all of us and a prison, and that is a jury of 12 citizens.

And we had a wonderful jury. They listened to every word, and they got the situation right, or certainly right enough. They acquitted him of the sex trafficking which he was absolutely innocent of. They acquitted him of the racketeering conspiracy that he was absolutely innocent of, and all of the components to it.

The kidnaping. he was innocent of that. The arson, he was innocent of that. The obstructing justice, he was innocent of that.

And that is no longer just me saying that, that is the verdict of our jury. So today is a great day. Today is a win. Today is a victory of all victories for Sean Combs -- for Sean Combs and our legal team.

And I want to say one thing. There are very few people around whom a legal team could coalesce and become one. And Sean Combs is that person and we are all blessed to be part of it, and I am now done speaking to you, and I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Geragos.

TENY ROSE GERAGOS, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: All right. I first want to thank my client, Sean Combs, for trusting us, myself and everybody here, this incredible dream team that he put together. Without him, we would not have been able to do this. He is incredible and I want to thank him.

I want to thank the jury for putting such great care into this case. They came early every single day. And I want to thank them. As I said in my opening, standing between all of us and the drastic

consequences of the criminal convictions of sex trafficking and RICO is a jury of our peers, and I thank them. I want to thank the judge.

And I want to thank, despite the terrible conditions at the MDC, I want to thank the good people who work there who ensured that we had sufficient amount of time to prepare for trial. It is extremely difficult to prepare for a federal case in the conditions at the MDC and they did everything they could to make that happen.

[18:55:05]

I want to thank them. I also have been saying this since the beginning of this case, Sean Combs has not sexually assaulted anybody. I've been saying this for months. We've said it with each lawsuit that came out and today, that was proven true.

The media got it wrong about Sean Combs every single day for nearly two years. I asked that for every time you guys see a civil lawsuit, criminal, criminal complaints, or criminal indictments, you actually take a look and analyze these and see whether or not these are actually going to stand up in a court of law because today they did not.

He has not sexually assaulted anybody, certainly hasn't sex trafficked anybody. And the jury found that today. Thank you.

REPORTER: Can you tell us what --

GERAGOS: I'm going to now -- I am now going to pass this over to Mr. Steele.

BRIAN STEEL, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: Good evening. Good evening.

I want to thank the ladies and gentlemen to my right and my left . There not a better group of honest and ethical, hardworking and zealous lawyers, and I especially wish to thank Marc and Teny for allowing me and everyone else to come together.

On behalf of my family, myself, I wish to thank you all for being here and writing truthfully about a man wrongly charged with most of the crimes and that we all must remember that allegations are nothing. And I'd like to thank, Sean, for letting me be here.

Thank you all. God bless you.

REPORTER: What does your client want to say when he reads the --

AGNIFILO: Nicole?

NICOLE WESTMORELAND, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: Thankfully, thankfully, in our country, we have a right to a jury trial. And thankfully, Mr. Combs took that right. He actually battled for his freedom, for his innocence. He did it. And a lot of times, you know, people are too afraid to do it. And he

did it. And we're so happy that he did. We're proud of him. We are completely honored that he put his faith and his trust in us to fight for him.

Today is a major win to show what the system can do. We appreciate and we're so thankful to the jury. Thank you to the court.

Thank you, New York. It's been a pleasure being here and fighting in your district. Thank you so much.

And listen, we appreciate the media. We do. There was a lot of reporting on the accusations. There was a lot of reporting on the indictment. Please report just as vigorously on the acquittal of these counts, please, because that's also the right thing to do. Thank you.

XAVIER DONALDSON, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: Oh, sure. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

So, first of all, I want to thank this wonderful team behind me. I am so happy that they allowed me to join it. I would like to say that I've done a lot of trials, but this is probably the most special one to me.

And most importantly, I want everyone to know the job is not done yet. We're not finished. The job is not done yet. And so, I want to again thank Marc, Teny and the rest of these wonderful lawyers behind us. They did a fantastic job.

And like those before me, I've said our system, the jury system, is important. We need good people to serve on juries. We need good people to come and say a person is not guilty. Take that courage to do that. It's okay.

We want you to serve on juries. This particular jury was a special jury. It was fantastic. It listened. It paid attention. It put the nonsense to the side, put the distractions to the side, and came to a lawfully good just conclusion.

Juries are important. Juries are important. But more important than that, I think, is people wanting to be on juries.

So, for all of you, all listening, for all of you out there in the public, please accept the call, become a juror and do the right thing. Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is --it is such a privilege to be a part of this legal team, this amazing legal team, and to represent Sean Combs. And this is a reminder to everyone, I hope, about the flaws in the criminal justice system and for everyone to take a second look when the government charges people with crimes, and especially when the Southern District of New York does here. And so, I hope everyone takes that seriously. And we take this as an enormous --

TAPPER: Those are the attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.