Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Alyse Adamson is Interviewed about the Combs Trial; Details of Trump's Spending Bill; Yael Ossowski is Interviewed about Crypto Violence; Fight over International Students. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired May 29, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:33:43]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish, and thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.

It is 33 minutes past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.

Stock futures predict strong gains at the opening bell after a federal court blocked most of the president's tariffs. So now the tariffs on China, Mexico, Canada and the 10 percent universal levy are all on pause. But the Trump administration says it is appealing the decision.

Today is graduation day at Harvard. At the same time, a few miles away, a judge will be hearing arguments and considering evidence in the fight between the school and the Trump administration over the future of international students there. Also, the State Department currently reviewing all Harvard affiliated visa holders.

And China firing back this morning at the Trump administration's plan to revoke the visas for hundreds of thousands of Chinese students specifically. Within the past hour, China's ministry of foreign affairs claimed this was a, quote, "politically motivated and discriminatory move."

And a celebrity stylist who worked with Sean "Diddy" Combs for about a decade will be back on the stand in the music mogul's trial this morning. Deonte Nash testified about several incidents in which he claims to have seen Combs assault former girlfriend Cassie Ventura.

[06:35:00]

And he explained one moment to the jurors about when Diddy came to his home looking for her, saying, quote, "Puff came in and he was like, where the f is she? He started looking all around my house. In the closets. He went in the oven. I don't know why he looked in the oven. And he asked me where she was."

All right, here with me to discuss all that, former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson.

Alyse, I'm sorry, I have you on the Diddy docket, but every day there's something, looking in the oven. So, here we go.

The stylist. Why is this figure in the employer's orbit significant?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Audie, there's a lot of significance to this stylist. And, honestly, when I saw him on the witness list, I didn't appreciate the significance until after this testimony.

So, first of all, again, he's offering some insight into how this Combs enterprise operated, which is key to that RICO charge. We've talked about this before. It can't just be Combs operating on his own. He needs to be operating with people furthering this corrupt enterprise.

CORNISH: Yes. And the stylist is there behind closed doors, sometimes silently, while people are still doing business, right?

ADAMSON: People are still doing business. And also the business of the sex trafficking, which is kind of at the heart of this case. And I also wanted to say significant to the sex trafficking charge was a lot of his testimony. He talked about blackmail. He talked about seeing Cassie be bloody. And most significantly, he talked about Cassie telling him she didn't want to participate in those freak offs. So, his testimony was exceptionally helpful for two charges, the RICO and the sex trafficking.

CORNISH: Wait, say that last part again, that he -- so he's the -- is he one of the first people to come up on the stand and say specifically she did not want to be a part of this?

ADAMSON: Yes, that's right. And so Cassie herself, when she testified, she made clear that she did not want to participate in these freak offs. But subsequently, some of the witnesses said it seemed like she was cooperative, or she was enjoying herself. Nash's testimony corroborated what Cassie had said, that at some point she just didn't want to do it anymore. Some of the testimony was heartbreaking, that she wanted to go to a party. She was still young, like a young kid, and Diddy said no, he wanted her at a hotel to participate in this freak off. And he asked, well, why are you doing it if -- something to the extent of, well, why are you doing it if you don't want to do it? She said, because he -- he wants me to. Almost like she has no choice.

That is completely in contradiction to the defense's opening, painting her as some strong woman making her own decisions. She seemed like a scared young person who was under the control of a very powerful man.

CORNISH: OK, the defense team at one point asked the judge to declare a mistrial. Is this a hail Mary? Is this just the thing you do? Help me understand a legal mindset?

ADAMSON: Yes, very dramatic moment in court, of course, when the defense jumps up and asks for a mistrial. It's actually very common, though. A lot of times the defense is trying to preserve an appellate issue. They also want to shoot their shot. You know, maybe a judge will buy their legal argument. It was all based on some fingerprint cards. We had in fire -- LAPD Fire investigator testifying, and they were talking about the investigation in that Molotov cocktail bombing.

CORNISH: Yes.

ADAMSON: And they were talking about how the fingerprint cards, where they were testing for prints, mysteriously had been destroyed. And the defense was saying, well, the line of questioning can leave a misimpression with the jury that Combs was the one that destroyed it. And they said it was so prejudicial, you got to throw out the whole case. And the judge -- what the judge is going to do is just instruct the jury to not listen to that testimony, strike that testimony as irrelevant.

CORNISH: Yes.

ADAMSON: And that is the proper cure. Ut --

CORNISH: You also signaled to jurors, we're worried about this, and we're worried that you heard it. So, yes.

ADAMSON: Sometimes -- sometimes that's the thinking. It's so -- it's so key that you said that because when deciding whether to make these objections, you do draw attention to testimony. When a judge then gives a limiting instruction and says, OK, you may have heard that they testified X, you need to disregard that. Do not use it in your deliberations. It's irrelevant. I mean, you're -- you're --

CORNISH: Yes, trying to unring the bell.

ADAMSON: Unring the bell.

CORNISH: One more thing. We have heard in the past his lawyer talking about the idea that Diddy would want to testify. It's one thing to say that ahead of your trial. It's another thing to sit through the trial, see how it's going and make that call.

What are going to be the signals to you that that might actually happen?

ADAMSON: I honestly don't know. And I'm saying this because he's in so much legal peril that putting him on the stand, in my opinion, would be probably a bad tactical decision because the -- the government has so much information that they can go and cross him on, if he doesn't come out credible --

CORNISH: You say cross-examine.

ADAMSON: Cross-examine him.

CORNISH: Like, there's a lot of questions that have been raised.

ADAMSON: Correct. So, if he were to go on the stand, what he's -- what he would be doing, Audie, is painting the picture that this was all voluntary. He's just into kink. It's consensual. So, he would get to tell his side of the story, which would be very helpful.

However, the government would then get to go and bring in all these documents, ask him all these questions. And if he comes off as unlikable or not a truth teller, that could potentially really sink him.

[06:40:02]

And the defense is doing the best job they possibly can. A lot of times when they put a defendant on the stand, it's either because the -- the -- the client insists upon it, or it is a hail Mary. They didn't get out from cross or through their case what they needed to, and so they have to put the defendant on the stand so they can go and piece together the story. But I --

CORNISH: I mean, I should say, we don't know that's going to happen, but I think now we know the scenarios where it could and -- yes.

ADAMSON: It would be -- if it did, I would be heading up to New York to watch it. I'll tell you that right now.

CORNISH: Yes. True. And we would have you on. So, thank you, Alyse Adamson, for -- former federal prosecutor.

And, of course, if you want to know more details, get the download at the end of each day, check out the CNN podcast hosted by Laura Coates, it's called "Trial by Jury." New episodes out almost every day.

OK, I want to move on to domestic politics because that legislation, the tax and spending bill that the president wants, well, he's got it for now, but what's inside it? How could it impact you?

Some voters in Nebraska confronted their congressman, Republican Mike Flood, and he admitted that he voted in favor of the bill without reading a provision that would make it harder for judges to hold parties in contempt for defying court orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): I do believe that the federal district courts, when issuing an injunction, should -- it should have legal effect. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, among other top concerns for voters, nearly $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, $267 billion slashed from the food stamp program. Those numbers according to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, done before some of the last minute changes to the bill.

So, bringing in CNN senior writer Tami Luhby.

And I know it's -- it is massive. I actually downloaded the pdf and tried to do some scanning. Took a minute. We're talking --

TAMI LUHBY, CNN SENIOR WRITER: A lot of pages.

CORNISH: There's a lot of pages. And I noticed a lot of fees. Like, there's a lot of little costs tucked in there. What did you notice? LUHBY: Well, my -- what I really was looking at were the safety net

changes. And there are a lot of provisions that are a lot of concern. There are certainly a lot of provisions of a lot -- of a lot of concern to a lot of people. The fees you mentioned would be levied on immigrants applying for asylum, applying for work authorization. But there would also be a lot of changes that would be made to people who rely on the nation's safety net program.

As you mentioned, nearly $1 trillion of cuts. This would be historic, experts tell me. And it could result -- just the Medicaid changes alone could result in nearly 8 million people losing their health insurance coverage over the next ten years. And that figure is actually expected to grow based on some last-minute changes in the bill.

The bill would introduce work requirements into Medicaid for the first time in its 60-year history, and it would also reduce a lot of federal support to states. And states really rely on that money to provide the benefits to people.

Now, the Republicans say that they are looking to protect the most vulnerable and that this -- these changes are designed to get able bodied adults who should work -- in their view, should work, you know, into the -- into the job market and off of federal assistance. But experts tell me that the changes would actually affect a lot of those very vulnerable people, including people with disabilities, children, senior citizens, parents.

CORNISH: Yes.

LUHBY: And, yes.

And it's not only people actually. One of the things that you saw several Republican senators come out against, you know, you've heard concerns from Maine senator, Senator Susan Collins, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, they immediately looked at what some of the Medicaid changes might be -- might mean for hospitals, particularly rural hospitals.

CORNISH: Tami, I want to ask you something else because there was actually -- we played a little clip from a town hall.

LUHBY: Yes.

CORNISH: And in Nebraska, I think in that same conversation, you had this voter basically explaining why he felt the need just to go to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON HATCHER, VOTER: Congress is doing a pretty fundamentally terrible thing for our country. Both, like, fiscally and, I would argue, morally. So, I think it's important for me to come out here and let him know that, you know, we see through it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CORNISH: I wanted to bring this to you because we've talked so much

about Medicaid, and I think maybe for a lot of people they feel like that is not related to their lives.

LUHBY: Correct.

CORNISH: But I hear a young person looking at the cost of this, looking at getting a sense of what's in it and being unhappy, will it affect people kind of in that middle class, and do you think people are starting to understand that?

[06:45:11]

LUHBY: Yes, I mean it certainly will. Even the Medicaid changes could affect people in the middle class because if hospitals, for instance, are struggling, guess who's going to end up paying the difference. It's going to be people with job-based insurance, like you and me and many other millions and millions of other Americans. So, the ripple effect could be quite wide.

But, you know, you also see some tax changes. That's one of the things that the Republicans are really focusing on that it would provide tax benefits to the middle class. But as the Democrats are saying, it would be generally a big giveaway to billionaires, you know, at -- at the cost -- at the expense of lower income Americans. And Penn Wharton budget model crunched some of the numbers, and it did find that lower income households would actually lose money overall. They would see their after tax money go down after you consider the tax changes and the cuts to the safety net and other programs, including student loans. There would be a lot of changes to the student loan program. They're looking to downsize the involvement of the federal government in student loans, which would obviously affect many, many Americans.

CORNISH: Yes.

LUHBY: So, with all of those changes, middle class families, according to Penn Wharton would come out slightly ahead. You know, a little over $800 per year. But when you look at the wealthiest Americans, they would see $12,000 in -- a $12,000 raise from the package.

CORNISH: Tami, thank you so much for digging into it with us. Appreciate your time.

LUHBY: Sure. Thank you.

CORNISH: After the break on CNN THIS MORNING, a man allegedly kidnaped and tortured all for his bitcoin password. What's behind the rise in violent crypto crime?

Plus, the Trump administration's new target, Chinese students. Can the Trump administration revoke their visas?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:51:30]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To be tortured for 17 days in terms of a chainsaw cutting your leg, and chain -- in terms of putting your feet in water and electrocuting them, in terms of making the person ingest narcotics, horrible crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: That's what police say happened to an Italian crypto trader who was allegedly kidnaped and held in an apartment for weeks. New video obtained by CNN shows the moment the victim was able to escape on Friday. Two men are now in custody, accused of using torture to try to get the man to give them his bitcoin password.

And this is just the latest in a string of crimes known as wrench attacks in the crypto industry. Joining me now to discuss is Yael Ossowski, fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

Good morning. Thanks for being with us.

YAEL OSSOWSKI, FELLOW, BITCOIN POLICY INSTITUTE: Thank you so much for having me.

CORNISH: So, this is a weird week to be talking about this because there was just this big crypto kind of event and you had the administration weighing in. And the backdrop are these attacks. Here's the cover of "The New York Post," "Been Around the Blockchain," talking about this instance.

The thing I don't understand is crypto is supposed to be about anonymity. So, what's going on?

OSSOWSKI: Yes, there's a couple of factors. I mean, first off, bitcoin is over $100,000. That means that people who've been talking about it for many years, who've been flaunting their wealth, they're now in the crosshairs. And while we think that bitcoin is anonymous, it's actually pseudo anonymous. And most people are required to buy their bitcoins, or acquire them from regulated exchanges where they're supposed to share their personal information, their ID, their address. And oftentimes you do have hacks and leaks of that information. Sometimes it's innocuous and other times it actually is criminal actors who are seeking that information in order to find out who those people are, what kind of wealth they have. And, of course, if you have that lack of security, if people are very public, then, of course, they're going to become what they call a victim of a $5 wrench attack, where people try to use brute force to get their passwords, their seed phrases, or whatever access to their digital assets that they can.

CORNISH: Right. So, this isn't like people are trying to hack you in some way. Although we should say the database you were talking about, I think it's called Know Your Customer, has -- there have been data leaks, right? And so the information of folks who have been in this world is out there.

OSSOWSKI: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, the United States government requires any exchange or brokerage that wants to sell bitcoin or do anything with digital assets. According to the Bank Secrecy Act, to collect all of that information and to have the information of every transaction, to have your ID, and these are stored in databases which are not often very secure and malicious actors or people who are bribed, who might be in customer service, as happened recently with a few crypto exchanges. Once that information is out there, then that means that it's being sold on the dark web and you could actually be a target, specifically if you have been flaunting your wealth, you've been talking about cryptocurrency for a long time, you're in the public eye, or if people assume that you have a lot of bitcoin and the other crypto offspring as well.

CORNISH: There's like this tier of people that you're talking about, right, who are vulnerable to attack. And then there's a tier of people above that who are, frankly, trying to gain access to the White House in a variety of ways. And we actually -- I think the U.S. has a crypto czar, if -- if I'm correct.

So much of what the White House and the administration is doing in this space is connected to businesses they're involved in.

[06:55:00]

How is this moment affecting the potential for security regulation for your industry?

OSSOWSKI: I think what -- what's really interesting about the moment is that you do have many different crypto companies, or you have crypto tokens that are -- are perhaps launched by firms, and then you really have the originator of it, which is bitcoin. And bitcoin is decentralized. There is no company. There is no firm. And there you don't have control by a certain company or shareholders. And really bitcoin has been the majority of the crypto ecosystem for a very long time, and it continues to be dominate.

CORNISH: And we should say, Yael, you are a fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. This is what I mean. I kind of feel like sometimes I can't have a conversation about cryptocurrency because everybody has a stake in it.

OSSOWSKI: I think it's less about a stake, and it is a lot about just the ideology of the various tokens and projects. For many people in the bitcoin community, they consider this a neutral money. They consider it as sort of the future of finance. Many of the other tokens are sort of created by companies. They don't have the same limits and rules. Obviously, there is always sniping between various tokens and projects. But so far I think the White House has been fairly open to all of -- kinds of tokens and projects and definitely the crypto industry in general, which is a very good sign. It's been very helpful.

But there's still a lot of stuff on the books that does restrict individuals abilities, because I think that's more important. It's not about the companies or how much money is pumped out, it's just how us, as users of these crypto protocols, how can we benefit, how can we continue to use them and make sure that we can actually get that innovation that's supposed to be promised to us? CORNISH: Well, Yael Ossowski, fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute,

thank you for your time.

OSSOWSKI: Thank you so much.

CORNISH: All right, today, lawyers for the White House and Harvard University will face off as the Trump administration continues to target the school. It's trying to revoke Harvard's student visa program. Now, President Trump says he wants to limit the number of international students there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent. We have people want to go to Harvard and other schools. They can't get in because we have foreign students there. But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Those comments as many Harvard students prepare to graduate today.

Group chat is back.

Didn't hear a conversation there about anti-Semitism. And it feels like the conversation around who should be at Harvard has some other connotation here that I don't fully understand.

JASMINE WRIGHT, POLITICS REPORTER, NOTUS: Yes. I mean I think that he's making that point basically that Harvard politically needs to get in line with his own agenda or face the consequences.

CORNISH: No, he said, our people.

WRIGHT: Yes.

CORNISH: There are people who could get in, but there are foreign students there.

WRIGHT: And also, like, lets cap it at 15 percent, not 31 percent. Clearly trying to take away Harvard's ability to admit who they want and from where they want I think most interestingly. But I -- but when you look at this, I think it's really a test case for institutions that go against Trump. Either you go -- either Trump tells you to do something and you submit and you capitulate, or you go against them and he kind of rains down repeated terror on you, trying to destroy your business. This is a quote that he said, but he basically said that Harvard right now is getting its ass kicked when it comes to what they're facing from the Trump administration.

And I doubt that this is the end. We've already heard them say it's going to go over to the University of California schools, colleges, on the basis of antisemitism. Let's see what else they kind of drift into. But I think it's becoming a larger conversation than anti-Semitism.

Obviously, that's what they're pinning it on, but now it's become a conversation about foreign nationals. It's become a conversation about from where can these people come and what ideology can they be.

CORNISH: It's like an integration adjacent conversation.

WRIGHT: Yes.

CORNISH: Yes.

MARGARET TALEV, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR, "AXIOS": And tariffs, leverage and all the other political things.

CORNISH: Sure. Just throw it in there. Throw it in there.

TALEV: There are actually a lot of protections built in -- into the law for institutions to operate, and there are limits to the levers the federal government can exert politically. But it takes a long time for these things to move through the courts, and that's the game.

CORNISH: Right. Right. And we just found out what the tariff court there can be limitations to that.

OK, 90 seconds, lightning round. What are you keeping an eye on?

Camila, I want to start with you.

CAMILA DECHALUS, CNN WHTIE HOUST REPORTER: Just as you mentioned, the standoff that's happening between Harvard and Trump has real implications. The fact that he is cutting federal funding for this university that funds a lot of research. I've talked to an educational policy expert, and they say that you might not feel the impact of these cuts right away, but you are going to feel it in years to come.

CORNISH: Right, later on when there's like a clinical trial where something's gone sideways or whatever.

Margaret.

TALEV: I'm watching Cory Booker. You -- you will recall that 25 hour speech that broke Strom Thurmond's previous record.

CORNISH: Is there another one of those coming.

TALEV: Oh, God. Probably.

CORNISH: There's a book.

TALEV: But there is a book announced yesterday. That book will be out in November. Some criticism even from the left towards Booker. Is he trying to cash in instead of, you know, fighting the fight.

[07:00:02]

But that's not what I'm watching. I -- I am watching signs about whether this is just a 2026 re-election book or whether this is planting some seeds for 2028.

CORNISH: You're just doing the, is he running?

Jasmine.

WRIGHT: I'm looking out for pardons.

CORNISH: More?

WRIGHT: Yesterday we saw Donald Trump going on a pardon spree. Who knows what comes next.

CORNISH: Yes.

TALEV: (INAUDIBLE) more.

WRIGHT: Notice broke that he was pardoning Larry Hoover, obviously the infamous former Chicago gang member. Our traffic soared through the roof. And so, people are really interested in how Trump is using his pardon power and who that's going to fall under.

CORNISH: Yes.

WRIGHT: So, who knows if there's not more.

CORNISH: You guys, group chat, thank you. Amazing having you here today.

Thank you for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish, and CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.