Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
New Evidence Against Trump Unsealed in Election Case; Melania Trump Breaks with Trump's Views on Abortion; Attorney: New Diddy Lawsuits will Expose "Powerful People"; Diddy Insiders Speak Out. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 02, 2024 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you going to defend me or --
BOMANI JONES, PODCAST HOST, WAVE SPORTS + ENTERTAINMENT: Don't let it go organically. It's not about you, it's about an industry.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Tell him -- tell him you think the same thing about sports games.
(LAUGHTER)
JONES: That's -- but that's exactly my point. Tell him you want to act like we're supposed to treat this like it is sports? Does that seem like a great idea?
JENNINGS: Tell him we don't need any more sports commentators. We can see the score for ourselves.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hey, guys --
JENNINGS: Get him.
SELLERS: -- thank you for joining the show tonight. I want to thank you all. We'll see you this time tomorrow on Abby Phillip state of the race. Thank you, "NewsNight."
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is what happens when you have so many minutes --
PHILLIP: Let me just say -- let me just say, what people don't need is spin from people who are paid to spin things that they just saw. Everyone, thank you very much.
SELLERS: Why are you trying to fire me?
PHILLIP: Thank you for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." Laura Coates is on right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, stunning new evidence in Jack Smith's January 6 case against Donald Trump, what he revealed, and what it could mean for Donald Trump in court and, of course, at the ballot box.
Plus, an attorney who says he represents dozens of new Diddy accusers. He claims there is an accomplice list that will -- quote -- "shock the public." Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, Special Counsel Jack Smith is laying it all out there. His plan for prosecuting Donald Trump in the 2020 election conspiracy case revealed in a newly unsealed 165-page court filing. Light reading for what? A Thursday, Wednesday night? What is it? In it, we get never- before-seen evidence. We get his argument for why Trump is not immune from prosecution. We get a roadmap for how Smith plans to present this case at a potential trial. Notice, plan and potential. It essentially amounts to his opening statement. But it's all on paper, of course.
He drops a familiar name in page after page, Mike Pence. A lot of the new evidence related to the former vice president, the man who had to be escorted to a secure location on January 6, that after a mob stormed the Capitol and called for his hanging. The filing explains how moments after what you're seeing happened, an aide rushed to Trump to tell him about the mob's threats against Pence. Well, Trump looked at the aide and apparently said only, so what?
And remember this tweet on January 6, the one from Trump's account, accusing Pence of lacking courage for not tipping the election? Well, Smith argues he can prove Trump was by himself and using his own phone when it went out. How? By calling as a witness the only other Trump advisor who had access to his account.
There's also this new detail: Smith cites an assistant who heard Trump tell family members on Marine One, no less, after the election -- quote -- "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell."
Now, a big chunk of this filing is Jack Smith's effort to address the issue that threatened to sink his entire case. Remember the Supreme Court and their ruling in July, one that granted Trump broad immunity for official acts? I know, that was like a thousand years ago at this point in time. But Smith, now, here, is arguing that Trump acted in his own private capacity as a candidate, not in his official role as president. Smith does that by claiming Trump used private actors and his own campaign infrastructure to overturn the election.
He also gets crafty with how he describes one Mike Pence whose evidence Smith definitely wants to introduce at a trial. Throughout the entire filing, Trump and Pence are described as running mates. He's trying to show their conversations were related to the campaign, hence running mates, and not official acts. He also argues that Pence's role during the January 6 certification was legislative. It wasn't part of his duties in the executive branch.
Will the Supreme Court buy it? I mean, we'll see if it ends up back there. I mean, take off the word "if" when it ends up back there. The chances case goes to trial before the election, though? Zilch. Zero. None. If Trump gets elected, the educated guess says it goes away. That doesn't mean this filing won't have big implications for the election. It's a final chance for voters to hear some of the evidence that is being alleged by Jack Smith before Election Day. It's also a chance for Trump to claim the deck is stacked against him. He's already doing that tonight, by the way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He's a deranged person. I call him deranged Jack Smith. He works for Kamala, and he works for Joe. This was a weaponization of government, and that's why it was released 30 days before the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, 34, but point taken.
[23:04:57]
Joining me now, senior legal affairs reporter for "Politico," Josh Gerstein, former federal prosecutor, Alyse Adamson, and CNN legal commentator and former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatore. Glad to have all of you here today. Who expected this to come? Maybe not anyone, but certainly Jack Smith did.
We'll start with you, Josh, because you call this filing a blueprint for Special Counsel Jack Smith in a jury presentation, if that would happen one day. What do you think is his goal in doing this, knowing the audience, it's not really a jury in this case, it's the judge, what is he trying to do?
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, he's trying to give her as much of the evidence as he can because, so far, what she has really had is only the indictment, which was just sort of bare bones outline of his case. And this really fills in a lot of the details. A lot of the juicy nuggets --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GERSTEIN: -- that you just relayed are him laying out the facts. There's one in there where they talk about a Trump campaign aide talking to somebody down in an arena where they were counting votes on election night and telling them to start a riot. Now, that allegation in sort of vague terms was in the indictment, but now we have a direct quote to back it up. So, it's that kind of particularity.
But I do think that the overall gist of this argument is not as much to lay out all of his evidence, but to try to meet this standard you're talking about that the Supreme Court has laid out for his case, which I think in some respects is a very difficult standard to suggest that none of this stuff --
COATES: Hmm.
GERSTEIN: -- that he wants to present as part of the case is covered by presidential immunity. It's sort of an uphill battle, maybe not in front of Judge Chutkan, but certainly in front of the Supreme Court if it goes back there, as you said. COATES: And Alyse, to that point, I mean, the parameters here, the Supreme Court essentially said if it's an official act, if it's while you were the president, not just while you were the president, but you were acting in a presidential fashion, uh, then it's immune. But acting as a private citizen, totally different. In other words, if you are an official office seeker versus office holder, there's a big distinction here.
They try to lay out in great detail some conversations that demonstrate -- I think in some way, well, they're trying to do intent. What do you think, uh, Jack Smith can do to try to demonstrate to the judge this is not a private act, I mean, not an official but a private one?
ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Laura, I think Jack Smith has done that in this motion, and that is, as you said, lay out what the former president's intent was during these conversations. And Jack Smith does this in meticulous detail. The filing starts with a very methodical presentation of the former president's efforts in each state to have the election results overturned.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ADAMSON: And it has fleshed out a lot of these gaps. He has had conversations. He had direct conversations with these officials, asking them to find more votes. We knew about that before, but now --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ADAMSON: -- we know of additional conversations. And so, he is acting as a candidate. There is only one benefit to him in doing that, and that is for him to remain in power. And also, Jack Smith makes a very important point in each one of those paragraphs. He said Trump was on notice.
COATES: Hmm.
ADAMSON: He was on notice that there was no fraud, and that's important because the former president has argued that he was just protecting the integrity of the election. And now Jack Smith said, no, how could you be protecting the integrity? That would be an official duty. No, no, you know there was no fraud. You were acting in your personal capacity as a candidate wanting to stay in office.
COATES: Tim, of course, he would say, no, the integrity of election was me overseeing the election period. It wasn't me as a candidate. It was me as the president of the United States.
But to Alyse's point -- I mean, the notice. They have in this document, in this pleading, they include Attorney General Bill Barr, who is basically saying -- look, he saw him on Fox News, saw him saying that there was widespread fraud, and came out to say, no, there actually was not, we looked into the matter and beyond, trying to show there is evidence that he was on notice, that it was not actually going to happen, it did not happen, it was not happening. How persuasive would that be to this judge, not to a jury, but to this judge?
TIM PARLATORE, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, I mean, I'm sure that to this judge, it'll be very persuasive. But you have to remember, this is just the prosecutor's brief.
COATES: Right.
PARLATORE: And it is cherrypicked of what he thinks is going to be the most favorable. Obviously, it's omitting anything that would be favorable to the defense. And there is going to be a response. As I heard, they just asked for an extension of the response. We are not going to see that response.
COATES: Let me guess. Is it past the election?
PARLATORE: It is --
COATES: It is so funny, how that happened, isn't it?
PARLATORE: It is.
(LAUGHTER)
PARLATORE: And the reality is when you get a 166-page, you know, filing, you need more than two weeks to -- to respond to it. And so, once you have the full story, maybe the judge looks at it a little bit differently. I do think that he has laid out a good case here on, you know, presidential versus candidate. And that was one of the things that when I was on the case, you know, we were always, you know, really trying to draw the distinction of what is done as a candidate, what is done as a president --
COATES: Yeah.
PARLATORE: -- because you want a president, if they do believe that there's fraud, to investigate it, to find out whether there's fraud, to make sure that the election is accurate.
[23:10:11]
But that is something that's done through DOJ --
COATES: Yeah.
PARLATORE: -- through law enforcement.
COATES: Well, you know, I want you both to comment, all of you, but there is this moment where I think, I'll read it to you, where Smith says -- quote -- "It's hard to imagine stronger evidence that conduct is private than when the president excludes his White House counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present."
This is when he's talking to Pence and pressuring him not to certify the election. I mean, the White House counsel's role is not to be private counsel, it's to think about the actual presidency, the office itself, not only for this president, but for the posterity. The fact that he wanted his private counsel and not White House counsel, that's pretty telling.
GERSTEIN: Yeah, but what was the reason for that? It may well have been because he was on the outs with his White House counsel, that they had clashed over a bunch of different issues. And what I see as I go through this motion is that Trump was getting advice and information from different sets of people. There were a lot of people telling him there were no real credible reports of fraud, and there were a handful of people who were telling him there might be fraud or they were hearing some evidence.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GERSTEIN: And the prosecution here says, well, we're going to declare all those people are co-conspirators. Rudy Giuliani, co-conspirator. So, his advice doesn't count.
COATES: I think that law firm was the office of yes men LLP, right? That's the one that was for some of them?
GERSTEIN: Right. So, that's one of the dilemmas here.
(LAUGHTER)
It's sort of like if you're sick, you just keep going to doctors till you find one who tells you you're not sick, you know.
COATES: Hmm.
GERSTEIN: I mean, it seems like that's what Trump was doing, but I think that that's going to be, if this does eventually go to trial, the thrust of his defense that he had credible people. The former mayor of New York City and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York giving him advice. Somebody who was an esteemed constitutional law professor, John Eastman, giving him advice. Sidney Powell. Maybe that one is a little tougher to swallow, giving some things that are in here where he calls her unhinged and some things even worse than that. So, maybe he had his doubts about her. So, it's a question of --
COATES: Maybe (ph).
GERSTEIN: -- are you entitled to believe anybody you want because you want to preserve some sort of a delusion that you have, that you've actually won the election?
COATES: What's your response?
ADAMSON: My response is there was no evidence. I mean, I hear those arguments, but I think the problem is that those people who were telling him what he wanted to hear could not produce any evidence to substantiate their claims. And if they could, even a tiny amount, then I think that would have led some credibility into what they were saying. But they were theories. And the brief shows that, at some point, that was even conceded. I think it was from -- who I believe to be Rudy Giuliani, says, well, we don't have the evidence, we just have theories. Theories is not enough. COATES: Hmm.
ADAMSON: And the folks who were telling them there was no fraud, those were fellow Republicans. They would have gladly changed those results if they could. And they said, show us something, show us something. There was nothing to show.
COATES: Well, Tim, you've been in his counsel, and the idea of him sort of not just form (ph) shopping in sense of a judge, but lawyer shopping to figure out, I need you to tell me what I want to hear, how persuasive -- again, these are allegations in a brief that's intended to go to a judge on the immunity issue, and it'll go back to the Supreme Court eventually. How persuasive is the argument that, look, I was just getting different advice from different people, I wasn't trying to break the law, I was just hearing from different people?
PARLATORE: In the context of a criminal trial, that's a great defense because ultimately, you have to prove to the jury -- the government has to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he absolutely knew that there was no fraud. And if he can show, hey, I was getting advice from all these different people, some say, you know, this, some say that, yeah, it is -- it is something that's a very good trial defense.
To say, you know, just because the prosecutor says you should have believed this person, not that person, doesn't mean that beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the only person that's right and that he did believe that person. So, I think it is -- in the context of a criminal trial, it is a good defense.
COATES: Well, we'll see. We've heard both arguments. You're going to likely hear at a trial. But right now, obviously, we're in the stages of trying to demonstrate to this judge whether the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity means this case goes away or they can delineate between official and private conduct. Thank you so much, everyone.
I want to bring in someone who served on the January 6 committee, CNN senior political commentator and former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. He has endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Congressman, thank you for joining us. I mean, we learned from this filing some significant things, other things we knew before, but now we've laid out in greater detail. Here, we know that the filing from the FBI has mapped out how Trump used his phone on January 6th. Was that surprising to you?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah. I mean, that was a huge surprise. There's a lot of information, obviously, that we weren't able to attain on the committee. We were able to tell a broad story backed with a lot of evidence, but we were time-limited. We knew that, you know, basically, the end of our committee was coming, particularly when the Republicans took control of the House.
[23:15:03]
We knew we kind of were passing the ball on to whoever basically decided to continue this investigation, and the DOJ did. But yeah, the fact that, you know, Donald -- I guess I'm not surprised, but it is surprising that he would be using his private phone that Jack Smith evidently has, this is able to in essence track the keystrokes of this, and then, you know, to find out conversations like the president saying, I don't care what happens to Mike Pence, we kind of knew that one on the committee, but then saying, well, let them riot or something along that line.
I mean, look, regardless of what the legal case is here, and listening to your prior panel remind me, if I'm ever going to commit a crime, to find somebody that tells me it's okay because that can be my legal defense, but regardless of what ends up happening at the court, this is something the American people have got to digest because listen, if Donald Trump wins, he has made it clear, he's going to drop this case.
And so, if you think this is worthy of a president of the United States, fine. That's the decision you get to make. If you think presidents shouldn't be above the law, then this is a very essential thing to read.
COATES: Well, congressman, I mean, Smith described the increasingly desperate plan by Trump and his co-conspirators, as alleged in the brief, of course, to overthrow the election, how they tried to manipulate the vice president in his legislative capacity, of course. What do you say to those who are still defending those actions in particular? And by the way, as recently as last night, we heard in the V.P. debate Senator J.D. Vance, his running mate, giving what Governor Walz described as a non-answer with respect to who won the election.
KINZINGER: Yeah, I mean, of course, it was a non-answer. He can't say that Donald Trump lost because Donald Trump will be really upset about that, even though I know J.D. Vance, in his heart, knows that he lost. So, yeah, I mean, this is a -- this is a huge deal.
And for those that are still going to look at voting for Donald Trump, I don't know if there's much more I can say to convince them, but I guess let's just role play for a second and say, imagine this is a Democrat doing exactly this, would you be okay with that? Would you think this is within the purview of a president of the United States? And if the answer is no, then you probably need to hold to the standards now that you believe are important.
And the increasing desperation of Donald Trump was very evident. We were able to present this on the committee. Just think about his meeting with the DOJ officials where he said, look, I'm not asking you to, you know, do anything really illegal. I just want you to say the election is corrupt, that's it. You know, put some balm on your conscience. You're just going to say it's corrupt, and then let me and the Republican congressmen do the rest. Let me exploit the doubt. Let the Republican congressmen convince people that there's fraud. You don't need to find fraud, just let me do it, but I need your stamp of approval.
There's going to be a lot of stuff like that under a second Trump administration if it would come to fruition. COATES: I mean, the innuendo being in the air, interestingly enough, and perhaps ironically, is exactly what the Trump camp is complaining about, that this being out in the universe before the election puts innuendo out there that they can't guard and defend against. But I wonder how the electorate will see it. They've got about 34 days to decide what you've just asked them to do. Adam Kinzinger, thank you so much.
KINZINGER: You bet.
COATES: We've got much more on how Jack Smith's new evidence could impact the presidential race ahead. Plus, Melania Trump suddenly entering the political campaign with new remarks that directly challenge her husband's views on abortion. And later, an attorney makes the claim that a forthcoming set of lawsuits against Diddy will expose -- quote -- "many powerful people." Well, that attorney joins me tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just add to that -- did he lose the 2020 election?
SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Tim, I'm focused on the future.
WALZ: That is a damning non-answer.
America, I think you've got a really clear choice of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Special Counsel Jack Smith's legal brief was unsealed just hours after Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, refused to acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020. You pretty much know this ad was going to write itself at that point, right? The Harris campaign then released that ad. They brought January 6 back into the spotlight, which is 33 days now until the election.
Joining me now to discuss, CNN contributor and "The New York Times" journalist, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, former Trump 2020 director of strategic communications, Marc Lotter, and former Obama White House senior director and co-host of the podcast "Trailblaze," Nayyera Haq. Glad to have all of you, guys, here.
Marc, listen, we knew that ad was coming. You had to know it was coming. He's also -- Trump is fuming, calling this particular release of this filing election interference. How worried should the campaign be about the details that are contained? They're allegations, but they're out there now.
MARC LOTTER, FORMER TRUMP 2020 DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I'm not worried at all. Every time -- every time the Democrats have resorted to Lawfare, it has backfired. Donald Trump has gone up in the polls, up in fundraising. This is, and I was listening to the previous panel, great. This is not about the court of law. They can't try him in a court of law before the election. That is the Department of Justice trying to prosecute and convict him in the court of public opinion.
COATES: They're also answering a judge's order, though, to actually brief the issue, and it's her choice to release it, but it is out there, Lulu.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: It is out there, and I respectfully disagree. This is the last opportunity for people to really consider what it will mean for Donald Trump to be reelected, and it does matter.
LOTTER: So, we can sacrifice the Constitution and the constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty. We're going to go -- Paula Reid was on earlier today on Jake Tapper saying this is an unprecedented move. It's because the Department of Justice and liberals have to get this out before the election.
NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR, PODCAST CO-HOST: But there's also the Comey memo, right? That was also unprecedented. Everyone loves to talk about October surprises and how they may or may not legally impact and politically impact people.
[23:24:56]
The reality is we've all been waiting a really long time to understand the details of what Jack Smith has put together, and that's separate from the entire January 6th investigation that we saw. Congress had their own access to information. And honestly, in an ideal circumstance, this actually trial would already have happened. People would be able to consider the full scope of what is being accused, whether it has been resolved, and all of that as part of this election. And this is -- this is justice working slowly.
COATES: I will say that, you know, this has not changed the presumption of innocence. It's a brief about the presumption of immunity, which is what the judge and the Supreme Court, and frankly, Trump's camp, has asked for. But I want to play what an undecided voter had to say after the vice-presidential debate on this issue of, well, January 6th and beyond. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Well, I'm going to be voting for Kamala Harris. You know, one of the stark sorts of aspects of that debate that really stuck with me was when they were talking about January 6 and how Mike Pence certified the election, and they were wondering if J.D. Vance would certify the election should Trump lose. And, you know, J.D. Vance didn't really give us a definitive answer, and I'm disappointed in that fact.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was enough to at least maybe change his mind. I wonder if he's alone in thinking that that was now paramount.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is now back in the public debate. We are a few scant weeks in front of this election. People are already voting. And it does matter to a certain segment of the population, and it should matter to a certain segment of the population because ultimately, the person who is going to be in that seat in this election and being the president of the United States is someone who is going to uphold the Constitution, has to uphold the rule of law. And we all, I think, know at this point what happened on January 6. And this is being actually put out there now for the people to understand and to digest and to make their decision.
LOTTER: Well, my question then is, how about January 6, 2025? Because Congressman Jamie Raskin --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: That's a very good question.
LOTTER: -- has already said, if Donald Trump wins, he will file articles to have him removed from office because he's going to want to overturn the election.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And Donald Trump -- and Donald Trump himself has also said --
LOTTER: And so, everyone is doing this.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But there's a big difference between everyone is doing this and what Donald Trump did on January 6 and leading up to that --
LOTTER: So, 2000, 2004, 2016, 2020, and now 2025.
HAQ: There is a -- so, the far more likely scenario, there's always an objection, almost a ritual objection to certifying the election if you're in the opposing party. Happens every time. That's very different than actually creating a movement --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Conspiring.
HAQ: -- to stop -- to stop that certification from happening. And Congress then ended up doing the right thing, which is passing legislation that -- making sure it doesn't have to happen in body and person. It can be a pro forma. You know, just a ratification or certification.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And neither Donald Trump nor J.D. Vance have said that they are willing to actually look and say that if there is -- to have a peaceful transfer of power. They have not been able to articulate that. They have not been able at any juncture to say, yes, if this election transpires, I will absolutely respect the results of the vote. HAQ: And here's what other Republicans are also telling us when they come on television and in public conversations, that in their determination, it has to be a free and fair and certified, then they will accede to it, right? It's no longer this idea that there is an independent view of how elections, it is a partisan view. And what undecided voter is essentially saying is, I really want people in power who will acknowledge reality. The reality is President Biden has been sitting in the White House, Donald Trump lost that election. That should not be something that we are still debating at this point.
COATES: Well, here we are. I'll say, I'm having a wimble to neck for a second as you swivel from both of these very astute women. There was a moment where we all know, it's not just the economy, stupid, or even January 6th, reproductive rights, very much on the ballot and very much what Democrats want to lead with any time there's a conversation in the debate and otherwise.
And there was some interesting reporting that happened today, from "The Guardian," actually. And the former first lady, Melania Trump, details her support of abortion rights in her new memoir. And she writes, I'm quoting here, "Restricting a woman's right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life."
Now, she has been absent from the campaign, Marc, largely. But now, she's revealing this. It does conflict with the perception of what the Trump campaign has articulated. What does this do to the campaign?
LOTTER: Well, I think the president has been very clear. He thinks it should be decided by the state legislatures and the people in those states will decide where they fall. He just said --
COATES: Doesn't she go further than that, though?
LOTTER: Well, but he has said -- he has said that he thought that Florida and some other states went too far with their six-week ban. He believes the seventh, eighth, ninth month abortions in California, otherwise allowing babies to die after they survive a botched abortion in Minnesota, is too far. And so, there's got to be some sort of middle ground.
[23:29:57]
Mrs. Trump is a woman of considerable thought and intelligence, and she's, I think, has the same right to speak her mind and let people know where she stands. Donald Trump has done the same for him.
HAQ: So, there's a difference between --
COATES: One second, Nayyera. There was a point, just to clarify, in the debate last night when Vance raised that same point about Minnesota laws allowing for a doctor to turn a blind eye towards a child that might survive a botched abortion. He unequivocally said that was not written into the law. LOTTER: Also, fact-checked, untrue, eight babies died, and then he changed the reporting procedure so the hospitals didn't have to report it anymore to the state.
COATES: Okay. He unequivocally said that was not the case. I'm not the governor. I won't speak for him. Nayyera?
HAQ: What I was going to say, I think there's a challenge when you talk about how abortion is playing out for women as opposed to politicians, mostly majority male and in states. For President Trump, it has changed over time. The broader perception is that there is no sincerely held belief about the value of women and doctors being able to determine women's reproductive healthcare, as opposed to Melania potentially trying to ease the minds of some swing voters in the white women's suburbs.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: That's exactly what I think is going on here. I mean, there is no world in which this book comes out right before the election, and Donald Trump didn't know what was in it. I believe that Melania is being used in this. It might be her sincerely held belief, I don't know what's in her heart, but certainly that this book is being released now and that is political.
And I think it helps Trump, it doesn't hurt him, even though her position is different than his. That is because I think women might be able to look at this and say, well, look, his wife says that she has this firmly held belief, how dogmatic can Donald Trump really be?
HAQ: And also, his wife is not the one who's making policy, right? That's -- even the argument of leaving it to the states ignores this idea of fundamental rights and what is considered privacy, which was originally at the heart of Roe v. Wade. And that's that idea of privacy and bringing that back is what I think many women, majority of actually the electorate, is still unaffiliated. So, it's not just Democratic women, right? There are women coming out of an entirely different generation who took for granted the rights that were granted to, you know, their mothers and their forebears before them.
COATES: Marc, strategic or sincere, from Melania Trump?
LOTTER: I would never question the sincerity about anything Mrs. Trump says. She's very deliberate in her remarks. She's very cautious when she weighs into these kinds of debates. And so, if she put it down in a book, I would take that to be what her sincerely held belief is.
COATES: The Trump campaign have known about in advance?
LOTTER: You know, I'm not sure how much they would have coordinated with her and her office on this. I'm sure they did know. But then you even heard J.D. Vance last night saying, we have to, as a party, re- earn the trust of the American women who have strong beliefs on this issue. And so, I think, obviously, both of these things, I think, can be true at the same time.
COATES: It was interesting that he actually conceded the point. They don't have the trust. But also, it wouldn't be the first time that Melania Trump's comments at the end of an election cycle would have been very persuasive. Remember, there was the -- that's just locker room talk comment that she came in and talked about and changed a lot of perceptions. So, I wonder if, you know, lightning has struck twice. Thank you, everyone.
Tonight, a new barrage of allegations against Diddy, this time coming from more than 100 accusers who are set to file new sexual assault lawsuits. And the attorney representing them says the names of Diddy's accomplices will -- quote -- "shock people." Well, that attorney, Tony Buzbee, joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, new and shocking allegations against music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs. A 120 accusers stand ready to sue him, alleging he drugged and sexually abused them against their will. Now, the accusers include women and men. Some say they were minors, possibly when it happened. It's important to note, these allegations and in this lawsuit, it's yet to be filed. The attorney representing the 120 people says it will be filed within 30 days.
In a statement, a lawyer for Diddy said -- quote -- "Mr. Combs emphatically and categorically denies as false and defamatory any claim that he sexually abused anyone, including minors. He looks forward to proving his innocence and vindicating himself in court if and when claims are filed and served, where the truth will be established based on evidence, not speculation."
Now, Diddy is already facing at least 12 civil lawsuits. He hasn't responded to all of them. He has denied many of the allegations in them. And he settled one from ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. That suit seemed to break the floodgates of legal peril for Diddy. Not only is he facing a growing number of civil claims, he's facing three federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. He has pleaded not guilty and is currently in jail awaiting trial.
Well, joining me now, Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing the 120 accusers who apparently intend to sue Diddy. Tony, welcome. I want to begin with a very basic question. I think the audience is wondering. Why haven't you filed this suit? And when will the public have the opportunity to actually see the charges that you are alleging against him?
TONY BUZBEE, LAWYER: I would expect that we will -- we will -- originally, we were going to file literally within the week. But when we announced that we were representing about 50 plaintiffs who were going to file suit and we're going to inform the public about those suits, we received about 3,000 calls in about 10 days which, as you can imagine, created an incredible administrative task to try to see through those and determine which of those were additional cases that would need to be filed. [23:40:07]
You should know that of the 120 cases that will file, they'll be filed individually. Each of them, of course, Sean Combs will be a defendant. But there will be other defendants in each case. Some of these will be filed in New York. Some will be filed in California. They will be filed not only against Mr. Combs, but perhaps against venues and other entities that we believe were involved.
You should know that of these 120 people, that they're from 25 different states. Twenty-five of them were minors at the time this alleged conduct occurred. And even since we had our press conference yesterday to announce the intention to file these cases, you know, as you might expect, we've received thousands of more calls.
So, the scope and breadth of this is incredible. It's unfathomable, really. You know, we're talking about conduct that occurred for more than 25 years. To your point about some of the previous lawsuits and why there are more lawsuits now, I think the deciding factor there, I think what really kind of broke this wall of silence was the indictment and arrest, and then the denial of bail of Mr. Combs. So --
COATES: Hmm.
BUZBEE: -- I think just here at the tip of the iceberg. The conduct that has been alleged, it's just -- I mean, things you may have never even heard before, the people involved, it's just -- it takes -- it takes a lot of work to try to run all these things down --
COATES: Sure.
BUZBEE: -- and corroborate them to make sure that we are going to do it in a methodical, by-the-numbers way. But I think people are going to be shocked when these cases start to be filed because as soon as they're ready, we're going to file them, and file them one after another until they're all filed. We're going to sue the individuals, people who -- let's think about the type of entities and people involved. Not only Mr. Combs's with the allegations --
COATES: Wait. Before you get there, Tony, let me jump in. Before you get there --
BUZBEE: Yeah.
COATES: -- and I am very curious as the way you described it, that 25 different states, you intend to file these differently and different lawsuits, not collectively. So, you're asserting that these will not be some collective multi sort of class action based, it will be individual suits. And as they become ready, you will file them or you're waiting for a particular date?
The reason I ask this is because, look, people are leaning in with every statement you make about the allegations. And naturally, his counsel vehemently denies, particularly the claim about minors. But it's hard to defend oneself against something that floats in the ether. Do you intend to file these as soon as each are ready or are you waiting for a date certain for all collectively?
BUZBEE: Well, my anticipation is -- my anticipation was within the next 30 days. But, obviously, I would like to file them as soon as we can. You know, it would be easy to follow them all right now just against Mr. Combs, but I want to make sure that every individual, every entity that had an involvement is included in each case. That's what we're really doing here. I mean, obviously, the people --
COATES: You've mentioned that a number of times. Sorry, Tony. You've mentioned that a couple of times. I'm really interested in the idea of you've called them complicit cowards. I'm sorry to talk over you with a little bit of a delay in my ear. But you talked about complicit cowards and that you want to make sure that there's other entities or anyone else who might be named. And you suggested the lawsuits will expose what you call very powerful people. Who are these people? What types of entities? Are you revealing that information now?
BUZBEE: No, I'm not going to tell you that now. Obviously, as you can imagine, I've been asked that many, many times.
COATES: But not by me.
BUZBEE: But the types of people --
COATES: Now, I'm asking, who you think -- who is it going to be?
(LAUGHTER)
BUZBEE: I will say you've asked it better than anyone else, but the answer is going to be the same. We're talking about people that owned private residences, people that own studios. We're talking about people that were in the room. We're talking about people that participated. We're talking about people that encouraged the conduct. We're talking about people that knew about it and tried to cover.
I bet you there's, and I think it's pretty clear, there are a lot of people right now who are very nervous, who are scrubbing their social media, who are searching their memories and deleting data in their phones. I mean, this is the nature --
COATES: Recognizable people you're talking about to the public? People that we'd recognize? Or are these people who are out of the public eye?
BUZBEE: No, they're people in the public eye, of course. Venues you know, people you know, people you've heard of, executive types. And, of course, also, you know, let's not forget, there may be banks involved, there may be hotels involved, venues involved, clubs involved, individuals who own private residences. I mean, it's as broad as you can possibly imagine because we're talking about conduct that happened over a long period of time, many, many times a year.
[23:45:00]
COATES: Tony, the allegations that are swirling around right now in light of what you have said are particularly damaging, and I do wonder what -- when you will file and how his counsel will react. Thank you for joining us this evening.
BUZBEE: Thank you very much.
COATES: Tony Buzbee. So, the question a lot of people have is this: If the allegations against Diddy are true, how could it have gone for so long? I mean, he's talking about years and years without anyone saying anything. My next guest has interviewed some people who have known Diddy for quite some time. Toure joins with his insights, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, people in the music industry might be looking over their shoulders and wondering if the allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs could implicate them.
[23:50:00]
Singer Aubrey O'Day, who was part of the Diddy group, Danity Kane, calling out Diddy's inner circle, posting on X -- quote -- "All of you who knew -- all of you who knew who Diddy was that paid this man with money, or opportunity, or enabled him to continue, you all have blood on your hands" -- unquote.
Now, O'Day and other accusers believe a culture of silence and complicity runs rampant in the music industry, helping to turn a blind eye to alleged abuses. Again, Diddy has denied all of the claims against him.
My next guest reports that as Diddy accumulated more money, more power, people close to him saw the music mogul changed, saying that he plummeted into a drug-induced haze, calling him a -- quote -- "addict" and even a sociopath.
With me now, renowned music writer, critic, and author, Toure. He has covered Diddy and the industry for decades. Toure, thank you for joining me this evening. You probably heard my last guest, an attorney that says that he is preparing to bring 120 lawsuits against Diddy from new accusers, and there are powerful accomplices whose identities, he says, would -- quote -- "shock people." You've reported on some of the people who helped mentor Diddy over the years. Do you think the attorney's claims will actually be proven right?
TOURE, MUSIC WRITER, CRITIC, AND AUTHOR: Well, you know, what we've seen, and I've been doing a lot of reporting on this on my Substack "Culture Fries" by Toure, I've talked to a lot of people who have worked with him, who've been close to him, and it seems like there's a whole mechanism of control whereby if you want to be in the music business, you want to be a rapper, a singer, a dancer, a producer, you get into his inner circle, and then he tests you.
Are you willing to do this thing or that thing at this party or what have you or in this studio or whatever? And if you are, then you're able to sort of keep moving up and continue to be an artist. And if you're not, you are violently threatened. He doesn't take no for an answer. And he may threaten or actually conspire to kick you out of the music industry. So, he's preying on your dreams. People who are coming to him saying, can you help me achieve my dream? And because they're like, you know, I'm willing to do whatever to become a known professional creative, he's like, oh, you're willing to do whatever? Okay, well, let's see.
COATES: Well, this has gone beyond this -- where the infamous making the band of getting Junior's cheesecake in the middle of the night walking a certain distance. What is being alleged here is not just, what are you willing to do, what's being alleged is criminal behavior that goes far and beyond, even if you can call it run-of-the-mill exploitation, if there ever were such a thing of a powerful executive.
We're talking about men, we're talking about women who are accusing him as well. And you're a music insider, have you -- had you heard these complaints that rise these allegations before?
TOURE: I certainly had not heard anything about freak-offs before. But now, we see that Diddy is constantly, allegedly, drugging people, right? That's part of what Tony Buzbee is talking about, that a lot of his clients are saying they're going to the hospital and finding horse tranquilizer in their bodies, and in the indictments.
And again, in the people I've talked to, in my reporting, we see over and over, they're saying, Diddy forced me, pushed me, urged me to take a drink, a shot, what have you, and the next thing I knew, I felt terrible, I woke up the next day, I didn't know what had happened and like my memory had been wiped and, you know, I felt really sore in places where I shouldn't.
And so many people have said that in the indictments, and said that to me in the reporting. And it is frightening. He is clearly incapacitating a lot of people, allegedly through this means, through horse tranquilizer and other drugs. Um, and, but also through the narcotic of fame.
I mean, you talk about making the band. Cassie gets it worse than anyone for 10 years. She believed she was working on an album. That was the method of control he used to keep her doing what he wanted her to do at night. During the day, she's working on an album. The album never had a title. It never had a release date. It was never intended to even come out. He had her basically on a treadmill running, occupying her, so then at night, she would do what he wanted her to do.
COATES: Hmm. The allegations that you have described are just stomach-turning for so many reasons.
TOURE: Yeah.
COATES: And to think about -- again, these are allegations. And look, the prosecutor in me will tell you, there is still a presumption of innocence. There are still -- obviously, you have to prove these things are allegations. But what is circling is very disturbing. And, in fact, you have your own personal story about Diddy. You say that you've helped a relative get an internship with his record label, but it abruptly ended. What happened? TOURE: Yeah. This happened a long time ago. I knew this man. I mean, I've been in the music business, the media part of the music business for a very long time.
COATES: Right.
[23:55:00]
TOURE: I knew him. I saw him come up. So, I knew him well enough to call him at one point when I had a family member who was trying to break in. Say, hey, will you hire, you know, my family member as an intern, unpaid internship, and he said, sure, and he took him on, and for three months, it was fun and exciting, going to the mansion, going on the jet, going to Atlanta, what have you, and then it abruptly stopped. And I asked, why did the internship stop? And I got no answer. And it wasn't until years later that I was finally told that Diddy had said, come home with me tonight or the internship is over.
And I was shocked that he would have the audacity to say that and do that to somebody who is related to somebody in the media. And you know how easy it is for us to get on a platform and to talk about what happened. And --
COATES: Hmm.
TOURE: -- you know, I thought the audacity there was just stunning. Obviously, I had no idea that that was possible, that he might say that to somebody in my family because if I thought there was even 1% of a chance, I wouldn't have put my beloved family member in that position. So clearly, I didn't know that that was possible from him.
COATES: Hmm. Toure, there is a lot to discover in this case. We know this is not going anywhere. Of course, he's being held in jail, pending a trial on the federal charges, and more than a dozen cases still looming. Toure, thank you so much.
TOURE: Thank you.
COATES: Everyone, thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
