Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Backs Off His Tariff Promises; Air Traffic Controller Speaks Out On Newark Meltdown; Nuclear-Armed Nations India And Pakistan On Brink Of War; Which Jurors Will Make The Cut For Diddy's Trial?; Cardinals To Gather In Sacred Process To Elect Pope. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 06, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, deal or no deal? Competition. The president backs off his promise of inking trade agreements. But is his treasury secretary getting closer to catching the big kahuna?
Plus, inside the multiday meltdown at Newark Airport, including the moment one air traffic controller is calling the most dangerous situation you could have.
And the breaking news developing right now, Pakistan says it's preparing a response to India strikes, and is the region bracing for potential war?
All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, it has been mixed signals and missing deals since Trump ignited his trade war. But tonight, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is trying to untangle the mess. How? He plans, well, to talk with China this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: What we're going to do in Switzerland is -- you know, we've agreed to talk. Then on Saturday and Sunday, we will agree what we're going to talk about. My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the -- the big trade deal. And -- but we've got to deescalate before we can move forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, baby steps? At this point, I guess, Wall Street and Main Street are craving any sign of progress, especially since the Trump administration has been all over the map on whether negotiations with China were even happening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, we're meeting with almost all of them, including China.
UNKNOWN: Has the president spoken directly with Xi?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't have anything to read out on a direct talk between the president and President Xi.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): They've reached out since the 145% tariffs?
TRUMP: Oh, yeah. Sure.
(CROSSTALK)
A lot. All the time. We're talking.
UNKNOWN: Has there been anything between you and the Chinese?
HOWARD LUTNICK, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: I think we've had soft -- uh, the way I would say it is, is "soft entrees," you know, through intermediaries.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you talking to them actively now?
TRUMP: Actively. Everything is active.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And that's not the only head of -- head-spinning inconsistency. You know all those art of the trade deals the administration has been teasing?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: We've got 90 deals in 90 days possibly pending here.
LUTNICK: Now, we're doing gigantic deals in 90 days.
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I think it's more than 20 now where we actually have hard offer on the table.
BESSENT: Especially on the 18 important trading partners. We're doing bespoke deals.
TRUMP: These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are -- they are dying to make a deal. Please, please, sir, make a deal. I'll do anything. I'll do anything, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Remember that Trump even claimed just a couple weeks ago that he had struck -- what was the number? 200 deals? Well, now he is fed up. Apparently, people are even asking him when the deals are coming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: People say, when, when, when are you going to sign deals? We don't have to sign deals. We can sign 25 deals right now, Howard, if we wanted. We don't have to sign deal. They have to sign deals with us. So, I wish they'd keep -- you know, stop asking, how many deals are you signing this week? Because one day, we'll come and we'll give you a hundred deals. And they don't have to sign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Sounds like semantics. I mean, the point isn't who signs first. It's whether anyone signs at all and whether there actually are deals on the table or now.
And, of course, the problem is companies across America heard the promises we played for you. And right now, they aren't being delivered. It has been actually 34 days since so-called Liberation Day. Not one deal has been announced yet. And it is small business owners who need the answers the most. I mean, they're waiting every single day for some sign that they won't have to shut at their doors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT ANDERSON, CO-FOUNDER, 5-STAR-NORTH LLC: If these tariffs don't end tomorrow, we're out of business in months.
BETH BENIKE, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, BUSY BABY LLC: Without the revenue that comes in from this -- our online sales, I don't have money to pay the bills, to pay my employees, to pay myself.
ELENOR MAK, CEO AND FOUNDER, JILLY BING: While, you know, bigger toy companies can absorb some of these costs or ship their productions to other countries, I just -- I just can't afford to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, the business world is waiting for an agreement with China. That's not the deal that Trump seems to want most of all. Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, met with Trump in the Oval Office today, and the president once again dangled the prospect of Canada becoming part of this country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It would really be a wonderful marriage because it's -- it's two places that get along very well.
[23:05:02]
They like each other a lot.
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: Well, if -- if -- if I may, as you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: We're sitting in one right now. You know, Buckingham Palace that you visited as well. TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign last several months, it -- it -- it's not for sale, won't be for sale ever.
TRUMP: I say never say never. I've had many, many things that were not doable, and they ended up being doable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Notice the owners of Canada, he mentioned, despite he means the Canadians.
Here with me now, chairman of O'Leary Ventures and Shark Tank judge, Kevin O'Leary, and former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Tom Malinowski. Good to have you both here.
Let me begin with you for a second, Kevin, because Trump is clearly heaved over questions on when these deals are coming. They -- they could actually sign 25 deals right now. So, the question is, why do you think he has not? And are you confident that there actually are presently deals on the table?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES, SHARK TANK JUDGE: Yeah, I believe there are. But trade deals are very complicated to get done. And then, of course, China is a different stack completely.
This Canadian meeting, though, was rather remarkable imagery because you've got to realize, Carney was facing certain defeat until Trump gave him a reason to even be in politics because he was able to use Trump as the reason that he would help Canadians defend themselves against losing their sovereignty, and that was -- allowed him to deflect from the track record of his party over the last decade, which has wiped out the Canadian economy. And, as you know, Trudeau was kicked out for that and replaced by Carney.
It was a brilliant move. I mean, this is one of the most --
COATES: I -- well -- well, I hear you on that. I am -- I am intrigued by that meeting. But I want to go back to the question I asked about, which involves these deals and the lack thereof. Why do you think these deals have yet to be signed? Where are they? And is this an indication that the strategy that Trump has employed is not working?
O'LEARY: No, I don't think so. You know, it's rather interesting to say that Trump can't get it done in five months for trade deals. Any trade deal historically has taken over a year.
COATES: These weren't our words, though, or yours. These were his words. Right? He -- he was the one who talked about this, and he has fallen quite short of the problem --
O'LEARY: I understand that the -- I understand about that bombastic nature of Trump. But you got to look at the signal. I mean, where are we right now? Are they -- are we resetting trade rules with every country, the 17 major ones leaving China out, as I said? Yes, including the Indian story, which last week looked like it would be the first to get signed, not done yet.
But if it's true that India ends up being a standard, maybe let's call it 10% tariffs in both directions, that's a major win, I think, for both economies, frankly. Same with England, same with the E.U. I'm not that concerned.
And by the way, the real index you should be looking at is the market. From the April 3rd lows, we've almost recovered everything. So, the market believes there will be deals. That's the bottom line.
COATES: Well, let me ask Congressman Tom Malinowski about this. I mean, Trump was frustrated that people are fixated on the lack of deals which, frankly, seems rich. Is it fair?
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Well, you know, again, he -- he was the one who -- who said, and he has been inconsistent. But -- but he -- he said this will be easy, just as -- just as he said that solving the Ukraine war will be easy. We'll do it on -- on the first day, solving the Gaza war will be easy, Bibi will just do what I ask him to do, I'll impose tariffs on every country in the world, and before long, every single one of them will be begging me, will be coming to the White House to kiss my ass.
And it -- it hasn't happened. It's not going to happen. One reason it's not going to happen is because -- well, you know, Kevin was right about Canadian politics. The most popular thing to be in the world right now is a leader who stands up to Donald Trump. And that's not a situation that's conducive to these countries compromising with us on trade or anything else.
So, you know, maybe if we're looking for meaningful deals, it could take a year, it could take two years. The American economy does not have that time. Small business people don't have that amount of time. Truck drivers don't have that amount of time. Consumers who worry about inflation don't have that amount of time. And --
COATES: Speaking, by the way, of -- of that idea of the consumer patience and beyond, I want you to listen to Secretary Bessent on Fox News tonight. He was saying what he would tell a girl who is sad about having fewer dolls, which I find a very interesting analogy in this context. Listen to this.
[23:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BESSENT: I would tell that young girl that you will have a better life than your parents. Your family will own a home. You will be able to be advanced. You will have a good education. You will have economic freedom. That's what we are advancing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not certain, Kevin, he has spoken to any little kids in a while who would hear that and say, oh, okay. Also, the parents and consumers who are purchasing those. That sort of idea of burden sharing in some respects and looking to the future, is this the right tactic for the administration to lean on?
O'LEARY: I think the reality of this situation and, you know, all this narrative and noise and bluster and talking pencils and dogs, the midterms will determine what happens next, and they're coming up. We're a way away.
But all of these trade deals, the ones that really matter, 70 plus percent of the trade are simply Canada, Mexico, the E.U., Britain, Switzerland, maybe Italy, India. That's 70%. So, are those going to get done, let's say, in the next four or five months? I think 100%. And so, that's why market not that worried.
And I -- I -- people love to bash. You know, if -- if you have Trump derangement syndrome, you have Trump derangement syndrome. I try to avoid all that noise because it's kind of irrelevant for what I have to do for a living investing.
COATES: Do you think the -- do you think the market has Trump derangement syndrome, Kevin? Because the market, you say, was supposed to look at the responses, too.
O'LEARY: No. I think --
COATES: Do they -- does the market as an entity have Trump derangement syndrome?
O'LEARY: No, not anymore. It has come back almost completely from its April 3rd lows. I'm over here in Dubai right now. The country is looking -- administration showing up here to do business. That's why so many of us, their investors are over here. We are anticipating that this will be -- will end up being a pretty good outcome. And we're here, you know, looking forward to what happens next.
COATES: Well, Tom, on that part -- hold on, Kevin. Before you go on, Kevin, I want to -- I want to get Tom in here because when I hear things like investors, the market, wealth, Dubai, I hear wealth. I'm talking about what the average consumer, who is asked to be patient and hearing a doll analogy -- why do you think they keep talking about dolls instead of the basic goods that people need? Tom?
MALINOWSKI: Look, you -- you -- you may know, I -- I grew up in a communist country, and what -- what -- what they're saying reminds me of sort of the early true believer communists in -- in Eastern Europe, who would say that, look, it's worth being hungry today because in the distant glorious future, we're going to build this perfect system, and your parents and your grandparents will thank you for your suffering today.
And to hear an American president say, you know, it's fine that your kids won't have as many toys for Christmas, have we ever heard that before from an American president?
And, you know, going back to the Canada meeting, the tactics of this, I actually think the most revealing moment was when Trump was asked, what concessions do you want from Canada? And he didn't know. He -- he said, oh, I just want to be friends.
What concessions are we asking for? We have a trade deal with Canada. We have a trade deal with Mexico We have good trade relationships with Europe. What kind of trade deal do you want from Australia or -- or South Korea that have 0% tariffs on the U.S. right now? Trump doesn't know. All he knows is that he loves -- he loves tariffs.
COATES: Well --
MALINOWSKI: And -- and I don't think this is going away for that reason because whatever deals countries make, and this is another reason why they don't want to make deals with us, whatever deals they make, he's going to renege and he's going to ask for more in six months and in 12 months.
COATES: Well, we shall see if that's indeed the case. Listen, gentlemen, I just want to be friends. And Kevin, here is my concession. Send me something. The Dubai chocolate, the pistachio one. Okay? You're out there. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
O'LEARY: You got it. Thanks.
COATES: See you soon. I want to bring in CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Zolan Kanno- Youngs. I'll share the chocolate with you. I wasn't going to be selfish about this. But talk to me about this hot and cold approach that Trump seems to have towards Canada. I mean, what are you hearing from the White House?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: So, the president will often -- when he makes -- when he announces tariffs, he'll often keep the benchmarks ambiguous. Right? And I wrote a story about this a couple months ago, that that's actually a deliberate strategy.
If I'm a -- if he's going to tariff Mexico, he says he wants improvements on migration, but he won't say what number of border crossings he wanted to be brought down. For Canada, if it's fentanyl, he won't actually say the exact number or -- or -- or an exact benchmark, an exact line. And that's because it allows him to declare a win, really, whenever he wants.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
[23:15:00]
KANNO-YOUNGS: This was a case where we actually did have some specificity when it came to the benchmarks. We're going to have 90 deals in 90 days. Already, 70 countries have come to the White House and want to have a deal. Those were the comments made by his own officials.
COATES: Yeah. He didn't hedge.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. That's right. So now, of course, the question, if you're a reporter, if you're the public is, okay, well, where are we on those 70 deals? Where are we on those nine deals? You have specified the benchmark. And today in this meeting, you almost had an effort to go back and make it ambiguous again.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And say now, well, wait, why -- why are you asking about this? We don't need deals here. We don't need to actually have that. In a way, it's -- it's an effort to make it broad and ambiguous so that he can declare when -- when he wants.
COATES: Well, I want to get to this breaking tonight, what has been happening. I mean, your publication is reporting that the Trump administration is planning to send a group of migrants to Libya as soon as tomorrow. And their nationalities are actually unclear at this time.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah.
COATES: And CNN reported last week that this was under consideration. But the timing of all this, I mean, this is tomorrow, the day after you had not one but two more federal judges that actually blocked the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to try to deport migrants. What are you hearing?
KANNO-YOUNGS: So, there's still a lot we don't know here, including, you know, the administration will have deportation flights go often even without the Alien Enemies Act. Right? But the big question is going to be, what are the nationalities of those folks that are on the plane?
COATES: And that's important because?
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's extremely important because the administration has been -- has been actually making effort to send detainees to third countries. Sending detainees from all around Latin America to Panama. Of course, sending Venezuelans to El Salvador. We've talked a lot about that. Now, can you imagine a scenario where you're sending migrants or detainees from the western hemisphere to a place like Libya?
I've talked to administration officials that have said that we should think of all of these not just as isolated immigration actions, but actually a part of a package in effort to create an ultimatum and send a message to undocumented immigrants that are still in the nation, sending a message of you can stay and try to avoid an ICE agent, or you can risk getting caught and potentially getting sent to a country like Libya or El Salvador.
COATES: But one -- one from which you did not come --
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right.
COATES: -- since at all.
KANNO-YOUNGS: That is not your home nation. Right.
COATES: The State Department spokesperson did tell CNN that they do not discuss the details of diplomatic communications. The department is -- quote -- "working globally to implement the Trump administration's immigration policies." So, they've mentioned that in some respect.
But then "The New York Times" also is reporting that there was a new declassified memo. It's actually poking some holes in the rationale that Trump has said for why he wanted to use the Alien Enemies Act. That he -- that they are saying -- the memo says that spy agencies do not believe Venezuela's President Maduro is actually directing criminal gangs with Tren de Aragua's operations.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right.
COATES: Politically speaking, if -- if they don't believe that this is a government-directed invasion, the words that Trump has tried to use, then how does that impact the political strategy of all this?
KANNO-YOUNGS: It would undermine the justification in using the Alien Enemies Act, and it would undermine the administration's argument for using the Alien Enemies Act.
COATES: Even in the court?
KANNO-YOUNGS: On this -- especially in the court. On the surface of this law, it would -- it would seem to require, most lawyers would agree, establishing a link between the group that you're specifying and the government.
So, in this case, the administration has targeted Tren de Aragua with the Alien Enemies Act. Well, the justification behind using this law would say that the Venezuelan government is actually directing that gang to come into the United States. This intelligence assessment says that that is not the case.
So -- and by the way, this has also frustrated some officials within the State Department that also work in this region. We did an investigation last week and found that soon after those deportations on March 15, that officials in a meeting that actually work in this region, they were being informed also for the first time of this --
COATES: Really?
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- intelligence assessment as well and were taken aback because they had heard the argument from top administration officials saying that this actually was a justified use of the Alien Enemies Act. This undermines that argument and from the government's own spy agencies.
COATES: A pile of uncertainty and head scratching, it seems. Zolan, thank you so much.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, one of the air traffic controllers who witnessed the meltdown at the control tower for Newark Airport is speaking to CNN. What he describes and why it has everyone from airlines to pilots, frankly, to passengers, on edge.
India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers now at each other's throats with military strikes that has the region bracing a war.
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, the most dangerous situation you could have. That's a direct quote from an air traffic controller who was inside the facility that lost radar and communications with pilots that were approaching Newark Airport in New Jersey. The 90-second meltdown last week setting off a nightmare scenario for passengers where, so far, about a thousand flights have been canceled.
And tonight, that same source is telling CNN in this kind of outage that it has happened before. In fact, twice before.
With me now, commercial airline pilot, Captain Steve Scheibner. Captain Scheibner, thank you for joining us.
[23:25:00]
I -- I want you to -- to listen to the air traffic control audio for when this meltdown transpired.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): No, you do not have a bravo clearance. We lost our radar and it's not working correctly. Radar Service terminate Squawk VFR. Change approved. If you want a bravo clearance, you can just call the tower when you get closer.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Okay, I'll wait for that frequency from you. Okay?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Okay, no, just Squawk VFR, look up the tower frequencies. We don't have a radar, so I don't know where you are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I don't know where you are. I mean, can you explain to our viewers just how dangerous that moment could be?
CAPT. STEVE SCHEIBNER, COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOT WITH 40 YEARS PLUS OF EXPERIENCE: Yeah, it's extremely dangerous. Once the radar goes down, they're blind. They're sitting in a little dark room looking at a scope. Once that scope goes blank, they -- they lose all situational awareness.
Now, the airplanes, they keep moving in the -- in real world, in the air, but the controller now loses control of the -- the whole situation. And it's still in motion. So, it's not surprising that he's going to tell an aircraft, hey, look, I can't give you frequency, I -- I just need you to not fly through the Class B airspace, and you are kind of on your own for a little bit until we can get this thing fixed.
COATES: So, what do you do as a pilot in that situation? You just sort of circle or what? What happens? And what do you tell the passengers?
SCHEIBNER: So, there are things that are called lost comm procedures if you lose the communication. But most of the lost comm procedures are designed for a single airplane to lose its communication. In other words, if I'm piloting and my radio stopped working, I'm trained to follow my flight plan all the way to its conclusion, and everybody else is expecting me to do that. It's unprecedented for the ground controllers to lose all comm and everybody basically goes lost comm at the same time.
Now, if it's VFR, which is Visual Flight Rules, and you can see outside, pilots will most likely clear themselves. They'll start talking on the radio saying, hey, I'm here, I'm turning here, I'm doing that. That was kind of the saving grace that day at Newark, was that everybody could see everybody else out there.
COATES: Hmm.
SCHEIBNER: If it had been I am the instrument meteorological conditions and you're in the clouds, it would have been a huge panic. A lot, lot worse than it was.
COATES: It -- this just sounds -- it just sounds terrifying to think about that coordination of a major airport and even the best conditions. I mean, you had Sean Duffy, who is secretary of transportation. He's acknowledging that the equipment that air control -- air traffic control uses is pretty old, saying they actually still -- I couldn't believe this. They still use floppy disks.
I mean, that department is going to announce a plan Thursday to remodel these systems. But that's not going to change overnight. So, can this happen again? And should passengers be worried?
SCHEIBNER: Well, it can happen again. You've got a computer system that's 30 or 40 years old. It's trying to coordinate a radar system that's even older than that. We're still talking on the radios. All of those things come through that same computer system.
And if something fails in the system like you saw at Newark, both the radios and the radar goes down at the same time, yeah, absolutely, it could happen someplace else. Fingers crossed it doesn't.
But we can't work fast enough to get this 40, 50, 60-year-old system replace with something that puts us in the 21st century and hopefully gets us set up for the 22nd century.
COATES: So, bottom line, I mean, should people be worried about flying in or out of Newark? SCHEIBNER: I don't think so. What they're going to do at Newark is they're going to slow everything back. They're going to do fewer departures. And again, a lot of this has to do with the shortage of air traffic controllers as well. There's only so many people demand those radar screens.
But what they'll do is they'll throttle it back. They won't try to get as many airplanes moving all at once. That will help relieve some of the load on the system. But that doesn't help people that have to get places and want to do things. You might have to go to different airport, maybe Philadelphia or JFK, that can handle a heavier load at the moment. And, you know, fingers crossed, they get Newark back up and running here before too long.
COATES: Captain Steve Scheibner, thank you.
SCHEIBNER: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, are India and Pakistan headed to all-out war? The very real fear happening tonight as strikes hit deep inside Pakistan. Our team will have the very latest on this breaking news.
And later, he was nervous yesterday. But today, a different vibe coming from Diddy, according to those who were in the courtroom. So, what was it about today's jury selection that may have made the difference?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Breaking tonight, two nuclear powers are on the brink of an all-out war, India and Pakistan. India launching its deepest attack inside Pakistan in 50 years. A barrage of missiles striking nine targets in Pakistan and Kashmir. Pakistan says at least eight people have been killed. Its military claims it shot down at least five Indian Air Force planes.
And this new flash point erupted two weeks ago after a deadly attack on Indian tourists in a disputed Kashmir region that both countries claim as their own. India said that Pakistan was behind the attack. Pakistan denies it.
The two countries have been fighting for decades. But this rapid escalation is alarming world leaders, including President Trump.
[23:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They've been fighting for a long time. You know, they've been fighting for many, many decades and centuries, actually, if you really think about it. No. I just hope it ends very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Army major general, James "Spider" Marks, and Bobby Ghosh, geopolitical analyst and former editor of the Hindustan Times. Glad to have both of you here.
Bobby, let me start with you because Pakistan is vowing to retaliate against India's strikes. Is there any off ramp or will these hostilities continue to escalate?
BOBBY GHOSH, GEOPOLITICS ANALYST: Well, if you see the way traditionally this -- this this kind of a conflict has gone in the past between these two countries, both sides make very large claims. We did this, we did that, we hit so many targets and killed so many people, and we shot down so many planes. These are big claims. The other side automatically denies those claims.
But these claims are designed to give each party the off ramp. They're designed to give each party the opportunity to say, we've achieved success, and now we can be the bigger guy and we can -- we can sort of deescalate the situation.
But also, in previous instances, when these two countries have come to this place, the rest of the world has tried to engage with the leadership and tried to calm them down. Right now, the rest of the world, including the United States, is pretty distracted.
So, the -- the risk with this kind of a confrontation is that with every time this happens, there's a tendency to go one step or two steps beyond the last occasion. So, in the last occasion, Pakistan brought down one Indian aircraft. This time, they claimed they brought down five. We won't know for certain for quite some time whether that is true. India on the last occasion, I think, hit three targets. This time, they're claiming they hit nine times.
COATES: Okay.
GHOSH: The risk always is you never know what is the point of no return. And you always worry that by accident, without really meaning to, one or the other side will cross that point of no return.
COATES: General, let me bring you in. I -- I rely on your military expertise. Pakistan's military made this declaration right after the strikes. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AHMED SHARIF, PAKISTAN LIEUTENANT GENERAL (voice-over): It was an unprovoked and blatant act of war. On their instructions, the Indian Air Force, while remaining with the Indian airspace, violated Pakistan's sovereignty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: India and Pakistan, they've had bad blood for decades. But, General, why does this conflict concern so many in the West? MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED U.S. ARMY MAJOR GENERAL: I think primarily because of the size of the attack that took place about 10 -- 10 days ago, two weeks ago, number one, against Indian tourists in the Kashmir region. All of them were killed.
But what -- what we see now with the response from India, and bear in mind, India took them -- that entire amount of time to dig into and determine that they had good enough intelligence, and they could then assign with a degree of credibility blame on this attack to one of the terrorist organizations that is hosted by Pakistan. Now, the Pakistani government will say, no, they don't.
But the LeT, the Lashkar-e-Taiba, lives and trains and exists within Pakistan. They also have a chair to warn. And so -- but they are -- you know, they -- they have supported Al Qaeda in the past.
So, as a result of the amount of time that India took, they then have claimed, as described by Bobby, they then had nine targets, precision strike. It was a proportional and measured strike, is what the Indians will tell you. Again, battle damage assessment must be done to determine what actually took place.
The key then is, is Pakistan now going to respond to this response? Are we now in a cycle of action, reaction, counteraction, and then that escalates? Nobody knows. But bear in mind, culturally, both sides have achieved a degree of honor. It's proportional. It's precise. India is saying Pakistan struck first. India then responded. Is that going to be enough?
If we're having a Pakistan response to an Indian counter attack, we now are in a potential situation where forces have already been pre- positioned along the line of control. That's our artillery units, maneuver units. We're talking about attack helicopters. And bear in mind that targets have already been predesignated and preplanned all long ago. So, this is a potential --
COATES: Yeah.
MARKS: -- battlefield with the possibility of significant damage.
[23:40:03]
COATES: Bobby, really quick, does the U.S. have any influence in calming things down?
GHOSH: Not at the moment. It does not. And -- and both sides, the India and the Pakistani leadership, mainly their calculations will be based on domestic reaction on how they sell this to their own people.
The United States, frankly, whether it was -- whether it was this administration or the last one, at this point in the conflict, there's not a whole lot it can do except to say, if you guys want to talk, we're here to help.
But I don't think it has -- the U.S. has enough leverage on either of those two countries given how far things have gone. Now, it's all down to decisions that will be made in Delhi and Islamabad, according to calculations that are made by leadership in both places.
COATES: Retired Major General James "Spider" Marks, Bobby Ghosh, thank you both so much.
Up next, Diddy seen nodding along to certain prospective jurors as the process depict the men and women who will decide his state makes major progress. So now the question becomes, which jurors will make the final cut? Plus, our eyes and ears in that courtroom. The sketch artist who watched Diddy's every move will join me again tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, by this time tomorrow night, there could be a jury seated and ready to hear the sex trafficking, prostitution, and racketeering case against Sean "Diddy" Combs.
And there's one critical piece of evidence most of the prospective jurors say that they have already seen. It's the disturbing 2016 security video from a hotel showing Combs hitting then girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. One man said the video -- quote -- "gives the appearance of an angry, hostile person" -- unquote.
But that prospective juror said he could remain impartial, and he was allowed to move on to the next round of jury selection tomorrow.
Well, back with me tonight, courtroom sketch artist Christine Cornell, who was in court again, and criminal defense attorney Stacy Schneider joins us as well. Ladies, thank you both for being here as we're unpacking this jury selection moment.
Christine, Combs said yesterday that he was -- quote -- "a little nervous." Today, you realized he was staring at you in court. What was that like? Does he still seem nervous?
CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: Well, it was very funny. You know, I had my binoculars trained on him because I was having a little bit of a razzle trying to see his lips. He's -- I'm looking at the back of his head, so I'm waiting for his head to turn.
And I have this -- you know, my -- my telescopic vision beaded on him, my binoculars. And I realized he's looking at me which, of course, is kind of a -- a social faux pas. So, I dropped them rather swiftly. And he grinned and gave me a little wave like this. It was kind of cute.
COATES: Hmm.
CORNELL: I smiled back.
COATES: You know, Stacy, this next phase, the peremptory strike phase means that prosecutors or defense lawyers can strike a potential juror really for any reason they want. What would you be looking for in deciding who to strike in a case like this?
STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, on the defense side for Sean Combs, I would be looking for any juror who hesitated during the questioning about their reactions to that videotape of his girlfriend from 10 years ago, the alleged domestic violence video that many, many people have seen and many jurors or prospective jurors have admitted seeing.
I would really be watching their body language during that questioning and their response time to that kind of questioning because even though jurors say, yes, I can be fair and I can set that aside, a picture tells a thousand words.
And going into a trial with the judge already saying that that videotape is admissible here is a real hurdle for the defense in picking juries. So, I'd be very careful about that.
And another thing that I think the defense is looking for is men, more men than women --
COATES: Hmm.
SCHNEIDER: -- because one of the questions posed to prospective jurors was, have you or anyone in your family been the victim of sexual assault or sexual misconduct? Some of the jurors have spoken to the judge privately about their experiences and that often happens in a trial when those type of questions are raised during jury selection. But, you know, the prosecution wants as many women as they can get on the jury because of that very reason.
COATES: Hmm.
SCHNEIDER: And the defense wants men -- wants men on the jury so that they have a little bit of a different perspective. Now, obviously, an alleged crime is a crime.
COATES: Right. The men can be sexually assaulted and be the victim of domestic violence.
SCHNEIDER: Of course.
COATES: And so, they're going to have to weigh how that looks. And, obviously, there's a lot of factors to consider. I -- I am curious --
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
COATES: -- from your perspective, Christine, when you're -- you're trained on, of course, Diddy inside that courtroom. You're not looking at the jurors. You're not trying to draw them. It would be inappropriate for you to do so. But what has been the reaction from Diddy when statements are made about that video involving Casey -- Cassie, excuse me, and that abuse?
CORNELL: Well, I think any time anyone equivocated on their response to it and, frankly, they were whitewashing it. If they wanted to be on the jury, they said, oh, well, I could put that aside.
[23:50:01]
One guy even went as far as to say that it was circumstantial evidence, which kind of almost -- it made my -- my brain have to do backflips of how is it something that you see is -- is circumstantial.
COATES: Was that person kept on the jury or dismissed?
CORNELL: They were not thrown off --
COATES: Okay.
CORNELL: -- for cause. They were not.
COATES: So, of course, on that point --
CORNELL: -- hanging on.
COATES: They're hanging on. Just so the audience is aware, we haven't seen any jurors be seated yet. They want to have a jury pool from which they're going to then choose to figure out who they're going to strike. They're not just doing it on the first round. Is that right?
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. They -- they're picking 45 jurors out who are eligible or qualified to sit on this jury. They don't have a bias. They have set -- stated that they can be fair and impartial. There's no conflict.
There's something that's -- there's nothing there that the jurors would be impeded by among the facts of the case or the witnesses, potential witnesses whose names have been introduced to the juries, the juror -- prospective jurors rather, and those names have included some celebrities. They have been prescreened for all of that.
The next phase, which is expected tomorrow, is the attorneys will use these peremptory strikes to get rid of all the jurors they don't want on both sides.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SCHNEIDER: And they don't have to state a reason to the judge why they're getting rid of a juror. So, they'll take turns going back and forth between prosecution and defense saying, I strike this person, I strike this person. And the jurors will be weeded out until they get a jury seated of 12 people and then the number of alternates that the court is permitting.
COATES: We will see how this all unfolds. And Christine will be our eyes inside of that courtroom with binoculars up or down. We'll rely on you and your insight. Thank you both.
Up next, choosing the next pope. The cardinals, now just hours away from the start of the conclave and the centuries-old tradition of betting on who might be pope, now getting a 2025 spin. Harry Enten is running the numbers for us, and he's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: You can't seriously believe that I have the slightest desire to become pope.
UNKNOWN: Come on. Every cardinal has that desire. Every cardinal deep down has already chosen the name by which he would like his papacy to be known.
UNKNOWN: Well, I haven't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We'll never know exactly what goes down behind closed doors when cardinals gather to elect the pope. But the Oscar-winning film "Conclave" gave a small taste of the drama, politics, and infighting the process entails.
Just hours from now, the conclave will kick off with mass in Saint Peter's Basilica, then the cardinals will sequester themselves to choose the new pope. Who will they pick? Only time will tell.
That's not stopping modern day odds makers from the other tradition that comes along with the conclave, betting on who will be the pope.
Chief data analyst Harry Enten has that for us tonight. Harry?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Laura, the moment is almost here. That is the conclave, the election of a new pope. And who is actually going to be the next pope? Well, the prediction markets have some predictions, and basically their prediction is betting markets chance to be the next pope.
Look at this. Parolin, who is pragmatic, comes in at 26%. Tagle, right behind, much more progressive at 24%. You get another progressive in Zuppi at 10%. But then look at this, 40% on another. Perhaps it might be a conservative, maybe a soft conservative like Pizzabala, or maybe a hardcore conservative like Erdo from Hungary.
Bottom line is the race at this particular point is wide open, though Parolin and Tagle are the favorites at this point, summing up to 50%.
Now, you might be asking yourself, what the heck are we doing betting on the pope? It turns out it's a tradition that goes back centuries. Indeed, get this. Folks have been betting on the pope since 15 -- 1503. My goodness gracious. That's really long ago. What is that? That is over 500 years ago. And this year on the betting markets, get this, already 19 million gambled on the betting markets. That's a lot of change. Of course, a lot of folks are interested in the conclave because of the hit movie. And indeed, that hit movie has received a bit of a boost because of the upcoming conclave. Get this. Views of "Conclave" on Amazon Prime, through the roof, up 3,200% in the week after Pope Francis's death.
I saw it. I thought it was a pretty gosh darn good film. There's a reason why it won so many awards during the award season.
But it is not just on Amazon Prime in which we have seen "Conclave" go through the roof. What are we talking about? How about go to Wikipedia? Visits to "Conclave" on Wikipedia. Get this. In the day before Francis passed away, get this, there were 16,000 views on Wikipedia, 16,000 visits. Get this. In the days since Francis died, the average, the average day, get this, nearly a hundred thousand more, at 114,000 on the daily average.
The bottom line is we're ready. The conclave is about to begin. We're going to get a new pope, hopefully, soon enough. But, of course, in politics and in pope elections, you never know.
[00:00:00]
Laura, back to you.
COATES: Harry Enten, thank you as always. CNN's live coverage of the conclave begins at 4 a.m. Eastern. Don't miss it. Thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
