Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Targets Apple, Harvard To Get Them To Comply With Demands; Key Witness In Prosecution's Case Not Expected To Testify; Laura Coates's Guests Answer Viewers' Questions; Five Years After George Floyd: Has Anything Changed?; One-on-One With Legendary Coach Dawn Staley. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 23, 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]
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016: And chew with your mouth closed.
(LAUGHTER)
The three things that stick with me today. And he was also a U.S. veteran, and I want to think about him on Memorial Day weekend.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is beautiful.
MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I thank him for his service. So, best advice that I got, it was that when you turn 30, everything goes downhill from there.
(LAUGHTER)
So -- so, the weight gain and everything --
SIDNER: That was the warning.
ABDUL: And everything -- yeah. Well, see, it was advice. Somebody told me that you need to be mindful because you eat a whole lot. So, once you get 30 --
SIDNER: Wow.
ABDUL: -- you need to be mindful. And so, for all of my friends who, you know, joke with me because I'll eat a salad for a whole week, well, it's the reason why, is because I'm over 30.
SIDNER: That's why you're slender, and they're not. Everyone, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, President Trump takes on Harvard and Apple in a dramatic escalation against two American brands. Plus, the big news in the Diddy trial as we learn a key witness will no longer be taking the stand after all.
Also, tonight, five years since the murder of George Floyd. The former Minneapolis police chief who lived through it all will be my guest.
And later, one on one with legendary basketball coach, Dawn Staley. Her life, her career, and her take on the biggest drama in the WNBA.
All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, it may be a holiday weekend, but President Trump isn't easing into that weekend. Instead, he's waging war on some of America's top brands. Take Apple, the tech titan with billions of products used by people all across the globe. Trump is now threatening the company with a 25% tariff unless it makes iPhones right here in the United States. He called out Apple CEO Tim Cook in a Truth Social post this morning. And then came this news from the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You know, the iPhone, if they're going to sell it in America, I want it to be built in the United States.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): I don't see it.
TRUMP: They're -- they're able to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: One problem. Apple has long said it isn't able to do that. Most skilled engineers are overseas, and it costs Apple way less to pay those engineers. Even if production moved back home, it would take years, and you'd be looking at a massive price hike.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: This is a fairy tale that, ultimately, Apple could bring iPhone production to the U.S., because we've said, if you actually produced iPhones in the U.S., it would ultimately take four to five years and probably 20 billion just to get 10% of the supply chain to come to the U.S. And what that means? $3,500 iPhone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Ouch! If you can just ditch the iPhone for a Samsung Galaxy, well, think again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you have the power to tariff one single company?
TRUMP: It would be more --
UNKNOWN: And why would you want to hurt an American company in that way?
TRUMP: It would be more. It would be also Samsung and anybody that makes that product. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It's not just Big Tech in Trump's crosshairs. He's also turning on his sights on another American powerhouse, the Ivy League, and specifically Harvard, the crown jewel, some would say, except for this Princeton grad, of higher education at home and also abroad. Trump has been pressuring university to bend to his demands from what it can teach to who it can hire.
But now, Harvard is striking back and notching a win. A federal judge has temporarily blocked Trump's ban on international students there. The administration put that ban in place just yesterday, remember, accusing Harvard of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on its campus.
But the fight isn't over, and the president says that he's looking forward to making changes even beyond Harvard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you considering stopping other universities besides Harvard from accepting foreign students?
TRUMP: Well, we're taking a look at a lot of things. And, as you know, billions of dollars have been paid to Harvard. How ridiculous is that? Harvard is going to have to change its ways.
(CROSSTALK)
And so are some others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, also CNN political commentator Brad Todd. Glad to have both of you here. It has been quite a week if you're Harvard, quite a month if you are as well. Brad, let me begin with you. What's the end game here for going after Harvard?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, first off, Harvard is a great foil for President Trump, and you're not going to find a lot of sympathy in Middle America. We're talking about 7,000 foreign students. Now, why does Harvard take them? Because they pay full freight. Now, 97, 96% of the people who apply to Harvard don't get in, including tens of thousands of American kids who have the grades, but they can't pay full freight like the foreign students can.
So, President Trump is going to really strike a chord here, I think, with a lot of people.
[23:05:00] And -- and keep in mind, he's not saying Harvard can't have academic freedom. They just can't have the government's money if they're going to do -- if they're going to do what they're doing right now.
COATES: Well, the admissions process doesn't look at necessarily the income of a student or their ability to pay. It's who they would like to be a part of their community. And sometimes, the criteria is very distinct from the financial aspects it ought to be. What's your take on why this administration is using Harvard as this foil?
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Well, first of all, the foreign students pay for the American students. I mean, the -- the reason why universities -- it's not just Harvard, it's all over the country -- can afford to pay for more scholarships for American students who can get in, who are smart, but who can't pay full freight, is because you have all these foreign students.
So, if you kick out all the foreign students and at the same time, the Trump administration is slashing student aid programs, how do you think those deserving and needy Americans are going to get a college education? And that's an issue that is going to hit home with families all across the country.
Number two, this isn't just about foreign students.
COATES: Yeah.
MALINOWSKI: This is about gutting cancer research. It's about gutting the -- the most important role that American universities, not just Harvard, state universities, colleges all across America, play in supporting our economy and public health in -- in this country.
COATES: But Trump -- but -- but Trump would say -- I want you to respond to this because -- I mean, the nonpartisan foundation for individual rights and expression, they -- they rank different universities. And one of the reasons that the administration is saying they're targeting Harvard is because of a rise of antisemitism or their practices that are not accounting for the protection of students.
And they -- this entity actually ranked Harvard as the worst college for free speech. Does university deserve some criticism or is this sort of a pretextual after the thought here -- here's a way to explain --
TODD: Well, their own task force that just came back this spring agreed with a lot of what the Trump administration said about the antisemitic climate that Harvard has fostered. In fact, that was our headline at CNN, is that Harvard's task force agrees with the Trump administration. So, Harvard does have a clear problem on this.
Second thing is, you know, Harvard fought the lawsuit about racial discrimination in its applications all the way to the Supreme Court for 10 years.
COATES: Hmm. TODD: They lost. This year, Harvard is not releasing the data on who it admitted. So, the Trump administration has a right to try to figure out if Harvard is complying with the lawsuit they lost.
And I think what you're going to see next is civil rights suits coming from the Department of Justice, from the Office of Civil Rights against Harvard. Maybe not suits, but at least inquiries where the Trump administration is going to dig into every admission stat at Harvard to see if they're compliant.
COATES: Well, if that's the reason they're doing it, that's not what they're describing right now. That would be --
TODD: I think that's the next step.
COATES: -- additional cost, which --
TODD: I think that's the next step.
COATES: --seems might sound pretextual as one reason. But let me ask you because Democrats, they've been praising Harvard for not caving into the demands of the administration. And it's not just Democrats. There has been a lot of other institutions that have said, yes, you have the endowment to essentially --
TODD: Fifty-three billion.
COATES: -- go against the administration and say what you believe in, and we want our educational systems to be, you know, apolitical.
The idea that they're fighting for this foil, Harvard, this elite institution, does that hurt Democrats' appeal for a broader attempt?
MALINOWSKI: Well again, it's not just Harvard. They're -- they're using Harvard as the -- the -- the case study in a broader war --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MALINOWSKI: -- on American higher education. There's nothing to do with antisemitism. Obviously, there's not a single Jewish student at Harvard, and -- and -- and Jewish students at Harvard need our support.
There's not a single Jewish student at Harvard who wants to expel a fifth of their classmates because they happen to come from foreign countries. There's not a single Jewish student at Harvard that wants to destroy the financial basis of their university. So, that's not what this is.
You know what -- you know what it is? Couple of years ago, J.D. Vance gave a speech to a conservative political conference. The title of the speech was "Universities Are the Enemy." He said explicitly, because they teach ideas we disagree with. He said explicitly, we cannot achieve anything in this country as a conservative movement unless we aggressively go after the universities. That's what they're doing right now. Americans like the fact that we have great universities, not just Harvard, but all over the country. And the one good news here is this is a lawsuit. They are going to lose in an embarrassing way. All of these things that they're trying to do to Harvard are going to fail.
TODD: I -- I want to go back to what you said, though. You said that no Jewish student at Harvard would want to expel foreign students. I think they would want to expel foreign students if those foreign students are -- are anti -- making antisemitic demonstrations.
MALINOWSKI: There are -- there are over a hundred Israeli students and scholars.
TODD: Yes, but you said not one would want to expel foreign --
MALINOWSKI: They're being expelled. They're being expelled.
TODD: I mean, you -- you just said --
COATES: Well, his -- to his point, he seems to be talking about the basis was just international --
MALINOWSKI: They're expelling all of them. It's nothing to do with base of --
TODD: But the Department of Homeland Security's revoking of Harvard's participation in the student visa program is because Harvard will not demonstrate that they're cracked.
[23:10:01]
That's what the letter says. That's the option.
MALINOWSKI: That's not why they're doing it. And, in fact, we just heard President Trump said --
TODD: No, no, no. Congressman, that's what the letter said.
MALINOWSKI: We're looking at -- we're looking at the whole issue of whether American colleges and universities should be allowed to have any foreign students. They are trying to expel. If -- if not for that court, every single foreign student, including the Israelis, would be expelled from Harvard today. They would not be graduating today if they were scheduled to graduate.
That's what President Trump wanted. And absolutely, nobody at Harvard --
TODD: Do you believe that higher education does need a reset, though? Should it be as monochromatically liberal as it is or do we think higher education have a problem?
MALINOWSKI: I think higher education does have a problem. But there's no role for the federal government. As a conservative, you should agree with this --
TODD: I don't like --
MALINOWSKI: -- and -- or saying universities to -- to -- to apply a particular ideological mindset.
COATES: And here it is, graduation week all across the country. Stand by, guys. A lot more to talk about.
What the tariff, though? President Trump once again reigniting his trade war. Here to help us make sense of all of it, our favorite economist and a professor in higher education of economics and public policy, University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers. Glad to have you back, Justin.
Professor, Trump has a tall order for Apple. They got to make the iPhone here in America, or they got to have a 25% tariff. Is there any world where Apple would or could do this?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: No. I guess that's the interview. We're done.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Thanks for coming. Good night. Okay, next question. Explain why. Explain why it's impossible.
WOLFERS: Okay. So, first thing is the cost of labor differences between China and the United States are just massive. If you want to pay American wages for your iPhone, you're welcome to, but you're going to be paying a whole lot less and your wages are going to go a whole lot less far.
Secondly, most Americans have jobs right now. Nearly everyone who wants a job can find one. If we're going to employ more Americans screwing tiny screws into iPhones, that means we have less Americans doing other things. So, which of the jobs you want to destroy in order to put Americans into factories?
I have dreams for my kids. Rich people tend to think that poor people want to work in factories. If you talk to people who work in factories, they want their kids to grow up and have cushy white-collar jobs like I do.
The third thing that's really important, this tariff is a 25% tariff, and it's meant to scare Tim Cook into building a massive multibillion- dollar manufacturing facility in the U.S. It will take years and years and years to build. But this 25% tariff policy, how long is it going to last? I've had prawns I've left out in the sun that stayed around and were healthy longer than individual Trump policies.
(LAUGHTER)
This trade policy will be gone in a week and a half, so you'll feel like a goose if you build a factory based on it.
COATES: Well, the market is reacting to the news when we took another tumble after the Apple threat and the threat of a 50% tariff not only up on the E.U. How do you make heads or tails of today's twist and, again, the maybe unpredictability of not just the length of these tariffs, but that they aren't happening at all?
WOLFERS: Look, there's only one thing this reminds me of, and it's my dog, Max. Max is actually a lovely dog and has a great personality. But every time he's inside the house, he knocks on the door and says I want to go out to the yard. And he runs around, and he chases a squirrel. And then he comes and knocks and says he wants to come back in. And I let him in, and he walks around, and he finds the house is boring, and he knocks and wants to go back out.
And that's the status of American trade policy except for occasionally, Max sleeps, and we get some steady calm in our house. And that's not how trade policy has been at all.
Look, we were hoping Trump was having a sleep. The problem here is he's all of a sudden gone back to, oh, yeah, every time I get a little itchy, I'm just going to pull the tariff trigger, and it'll make me feel better.
So, the problem today is not just the tariff on the European Union. Fifty percent, by the way, for high wage countries is high enough that it's effectively an embargo. If there's anything you like from Europe, kiss it goodbye, they're not going to load the boats, they're not coming over.
So, what does that mean? Well, of course, it means French wine. If you're still a graduate student, it's Spanish wine. But here's the thing, it also means precision manufacturing equipment. If you want to set up a factory, if you want to get a soup in the can, the machinery that does that comes from Germany or Italy. If you want to set up an Apple factory, it's probably going to require a whole lot of precision equipment from Europe.
So, if you're halfway through building a factory right now and you suddenly got told all of your precision equipment is going to be up 50%, you might just stop and abandon the whole project because all of a sudden, the president just made it uneconomic.
COATES: I guess I'll stop you there because your dog wants to go for a walk. Justin Wolfers, nice talking to you. Bye, Max. Bye, Justin. Talk to you soon.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Brad and Todd -- Tom, excuse me, are back with us as well. Todd, what's your reaction to this?
[23:14:58]
I mean, the idea of the unpredictability and the what the tariffs of it all, why do this?
TODD: Well, Apple is the biggest brand in the world.
COATES: Yeah. TODD: It's the largest corporation in the world. And he's trying to reset the thinking process for CEOs of American companies. And so, if he will demand this of Tim Cook, then he will demand it -- it's a signal to everyone else. You need to be figuring out how to get out of China, and you need to be trying to bring as many jobs as you can back here to the United States. That's the intent.
COATES: Well, what timeline?
TODD: Over -- he's trying to reset this for a generation. This is not about the next six months. We have gone since the mid-90s where American corporations has been out -- have been offshoring jobs as fast as they could. President Trump is trying to reset that calculus so that those decisions are made in the reverse, so that companies here try to keep as many jobs here as they can.
COATES: But what about the idea of government getting out of the -- the nitpickiness of business?
MALINOWSKI: Well, first of all, we have been trying to reset that equation. And one way in which we did it successfully was with the Chips and Science Act to try to bring something really important, not screwing in, you know, little iPhones, but microchips which are the fuel for all 21st century technology.
We are building microchip fabs all over America right now, creating high-paying union jobs, the types of jobs that we want to be creating in America.
And as Justin pointed out, you can't build those factories, in the case of microchip fabs, without a particular piece of precision equipment that's made only in the Netherlands. And, you slap a 50% tariff on that. We're not making that or microchips in the United States. We're going backwards.
TODD: I don't think the tariffs is going to -- is going to stick --
MALINOWSKI: So, why is he saying it? So, why is the president saying something that's --
TODD: Because he knows. For instance, a 10% tariff right now. If you have a German sports car, you bring it to the United States of America, it's tariffed at two and a half percent. An American Corvette goes to Germany, it's tariffed at 10. It's four times. It's not fair.
So, President Trump is trying to be as bold as he possibly can to make the Germans feel good about dropping that 10% tariff down to two and a half. That feels like they got a deal.
COATES: You seem skeptical.
MALINOWSKI: I -- I -- I think if you want a deal, you don't say as the president of the United States said today, I don't want a deal, I just want 50% tariffs. There were negotiations. There are things the Europeans want from us. So, you're right. Like, their car tariffs are higher than ours and that's -- TODD: Inexplicably too high. And Joe Biden left them in place that way.
MALINOWSKI: But we -- but we have much higher tariffs on things like European trucks. Right? So, there's a deal to be had where -- where reasonable people come together and -- and compromise. But I don't think Trump wants to compromise. He wants to defeat our allies.
Look, something else happened last week. Another European country, Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, told Trump to go to hell. They said -- Putin said, you've got this peace deal, I don't care, I'm not going to do any of it. And what did Trump say? No problem, that's fine, I'm going to go to war with our allies instead of negotiating a trade deal with them.
What sense does that make economically, politically? The only answer I think to your question why is he doing this, is because he sees tariffs not as a way to get to trade deals, but as a way to maintain constant leverage over everybody, to keep everyone on the defensive.
COATES: Well, Tom, Brad, thank you. I want to hear from President Trump and his reaction to that as well.
Still ahead, there's new reporting from CNN revealing that a key prosecution witness in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs will no longer testify. What happened and what's going to mean for the trial?
Plus, the defense introduces new exhibits, photos of Cassie Ventura for the jury to see. We'll explain why this matters next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, the defense of Sean "Diddy" Combs wants the world to see a different side of his ex, Cassie Ventura, entering these new photos as evidence. They're arguing the images show Ventura hard at work, glammed up, loving her job.
The defense says Ventura was not constrained or controlled by some master manipulator as fellow prosecutors argue that she was in this sex trafficking, prostitution, and RICO trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs.
Meantime, a twist for the prosecution. It's confirming that the victim number three, also known as Gina, will not testify. The prosecution says they've been struggling to get in contact with her ever since jury selection.
Hmm. With me now, Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty. I'm glad you're here. She's a BBC journalist and host of the "Diddy on Trial" podcast. Great to have you on.
I mean, first of all, this news that the victim number three, she was mentioned in the indictment as part of that racketeering charge. She's an ex of Sean Combs. She has been mentioned in court. In fact, she was, I think, a part of the opening and also another witness mentioned her. How can she not be there? How does it impact the prosecution's case?
ANOUSHKA MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY, BBC JOURNALIST, PODCAST HOST: Right. So, it is quite interesting that she's not going to be there. But the prosecution said, if you hang out -- hang around after court, you can kind of hear --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: -- where they -- they hash out these issues. They said, we are still going to go there with the offenses that they alleged are related to this person, we are still going to talk about that, we're going to have people come on and corroborate narratives around that, and she's very much central to what we're going to try and prosecute in front of the jury.
So, whereas you might see on social media, oh, she hasn't turned up, so that whole part of the indictment is not going to be pursued, that's not quite true. They're still going to go there.
And we've still heard multiple things about this person, including incidents of violence, including incidents of being forced to do things that they don't want to do. So, the prosecution are kind of saying, don't worry, it's -- it's still going to be central.
[23:25:01]
COATES: I'm curious how the jury will see that. But you're right that they have mentioned her several times in court. I mean, it was the Ventura's ex-best friend, Kerry Morgan, who testified and she, by the way, did not want to be there as well. But she also mentioned during her testimony -- what did Morgan say about her?
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: Well, this had the court in an uproar.
(LAUGHTER)
It just goes to show, you never know what somebody is going to say when they're on the stand. Kerry Morgan got up there, and they asked her about Gina. And they said, Gina been a problem, hasn't she, multiple times throughout the relationship with Cassie? And she said, yes, she was a real problem because he was basically having a relationship this whole time with this little girl.
COATES: Hmm.
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: And there were gasps in the courtroom. Now, the defense came in straight away, Mark Agnifillo, clarifying that she was of age. This is an adult woman we're talking about. But Carrie doubled down and said, yeah, well, she acted like a little girl. And then she said, and I think she got pregnant, at which point they were moving on, moving on, moving on very quickly. That is not a narrative they want introduced to the jury and certainly one they've worked very hard to have eliminated in those pre-court trial hearings that we had.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: They worked very hard to not have the idea presented that he was into people who may have looked younger than they were.
COATES: Talk to me about these glamour shots, that these are new things that the defense wants to enter into evidence. I mean, some of them are stills from music videos, and they're now arguing that these images prove that her career wasn't hurting at all because there's these photographs. How did the jury react to them?
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: I think there has been a lot of interest in the kind of photo evidence that they put up. They always lean in, have a look. I always base it off what members of the public are reacting like.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: Like, when they come out, because it's kind of your window into seeing how everyday Americans might be responding to this. When I came out of court and spoke to people outside, they were saying, oh, well, that didn't quite line up with the presentation that we got from the prosecution of what Cassie was going through.
And they've also introduced the defense certain other lines that kind of match up with this photo evidence that they're presenting, which is, well, didn't he set up collaborations with Kid Cudi? Didn't he set up collaborations with people like Lil Wayne?
This idea that he was working to further Cassie's career, which directly goes against the idea that he was trying to stop it, which is central to this sort of coercion element of the sex trafficking charge.
COATES: You and I both know in that courthouse, the focus groups that are happening all across from whether it's overflow rooms with the conversations happening in hallways or outside, everyone is having an opinion and leaning in all around. And these focus groups, if there are any indication of what the actual jury thinks, there's some work to do.
Anoushka Mutanda, thank you so much for doing -- being with us. Dougherty, thanks for coming on.
MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: My pleasure.
COATES: Well, you all sent in tons of questions about the case, our kind of focus group for you all. So, tonight, it's time for "America Asks" "Diddy on Trial" edition.
Joining me now, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. Also, Monique Pressley, a trial attorney, and the host of "Make It Make Sense with Monique Pressley" on YouTube. Glad to have both of you here.
Let's begin. Our first question is from Australia -- from Florida. Here's the question. Can't the government subpoena any of the 100 plus alleged victims that are currently suing Combs for sexual assault? Take it, Elliot.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Sure, they can, but they probably will not. Here's the thing. Big important legal term is relevance.
COATES: Hmm.
WILLIAMS: This idea of only introducing evidence that seeks to prove or disprove something at trial, something that helps that -- helps do either of those things is relevant.
The problem is that any of these a hundred people may not have anything useful to provide on what is a racketeering case here. Yes, he may have assaulted or abused or done other things in other circumstances, but if it's not tied to the allegations and the indictment, they're just not going to bring that up here. But certainly, they have -- and they have subpoenaed victim number three, Gina. They just can't find her.
COATES: Which is surprising to me. I have to tell you. Let's go. Evelyn from Long Island in New York asked this question: Will Diddy's associates, who were aware of the physical abuse towards Cassie, be charged? Monique?
MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Unfortunately or fortunately, no. Not for that. If there are associates who had something to do with this common scheme or plan or had something to do with one of the charged crimes in the indictment, then perhaps, and it seems like we're getting people who are already having agreements. Like, we saw one assistant who testified pursuant to an agreement so that somebody maybe would have been charged, but won't be.
But I think the important thing for people to know here is it is not against the law to not intervene if you are not medical personnel, if you are not police, if you are not in some duty-bound position that requires you to intervene and help someone.
And that's not just with domestic violence. That's even with violence on the street. If you see someone who needs help, you would think, as a human, that you would be duty-bound to help, but it is not against the law for you to refrain.
[23:30:03]
COATES: An important point. It might be surprising to people as well. Let's go to Texas because Katherine from Texas asked this question: Has the prosecution not included drugs and gun charges because they can bring those charges later if they don't get the guilty verdict they want on this case? Elliot? WILLIAMS: Excellent question, Katherine. Hook them horns. But -- from Texas.
(LAUGHTER)
But -- go Texas. Let me put -- take off my analyst hat, put on my federal prosecutor hat. There are a few reasons why that would not be the case. One would be just an awful use of resources --
COATES: Hmm.
WILLIAMS: -- to go into a trial knowing that, well, if we lose, we're just going to go back to trial on charges we could have brought the first time around. So just -- it's just sort of a silly use -- use of a government time, they wouldn't do. Number one.
And number two, you know, this is a RICO or racketeering case. It's actually easier in many ways to establish the racketeering conspiracy than to actually convict him of the gun or drug or individual offense because for this racketeering charge, he can just have directed the crime and had someone else carry it out. If you charge him with a gun crime, he's got to have the gun on his person, he's got to have the drugs on his person or whatever else.
And finally, to your last question, Katherine, you know, with respect to firearms, there's not a lot you can charge him with because he doesn't have any prior felony convictions. Maybe if someone saw him doing drugs and holding a gun at the same time, you could get him under the federal charge for being a drug user who's in possession of a firearm. But again, it's just hard to do.
So, for a host of reasons, what you're seeing in this indictment is what they're going to charge Diddy with.
COATES: That's a good response as well. I mean, go back to you, Monique. Martina is asking this question: Will anyone testify on Diddy's behalf? And if so, who are either the prosecution or the defense planning to call any big names from the music industry? That last is, of course, the million-dollar question. I don't know if you know the answer to that. But who do you think would testify on Diddy's behalf, and what would be the reason they would?
PRESSLEY: Well, listen. Let me sit squarely in the defense attorney hat and say we have no idea what they're going to do. Maybe they won't need to do anything. The point of being the defendant on trial is that you don't have an obligation to put forward a case.
It's really going to be an assessment that's based on what happens during this first however many weeks that the prosecution is putting on their case, and then it's going to be an assessment of whatever charges may end up getting kicked because it -- you know, the way it's going in today now, I'm still kind of waiting for the beef on some of these -- these charges.
So, once we get past all that, then they'd be prepared to do some things that are rehabilitative. You know, they'd be prepared to introduce some people who maybe had evidence against some of the primary witnesses. But we -- we just don't know at this point, and I don't think that they know at this point.
The one thing everybody keeps asking is, will he take the stand? Will the defendant take the stand? And that's the very last decision that you make.
COATES: Two brilliant lawyers able to answer these questions today. Elliot and Monique, thank you both so much.
And if you had any questions, be sure to send them our way. Just go to cnn.com/diddyquestions. And be sure to listen to my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." You can find it on cnn.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
Still ahead, George Floyd's murder five years later. As the city of Minneapolis gets ready to mark one of its darkest chapters, the question is being asked, has anything changed? The city's former police chief who lived through all of it will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, this Sunday marks five years since the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, in my home state of Minnesota, when the world saw an officer kneel on his neck for nearly nine minutes, launching what may have been the largest protest movement in American history.
Memorials are expected all weekend long to honor George Floyd's life. Today, the community gathered at the corner of 38th in Chicago where Floyd was murdered on May 25, 2020 during the height, if you recall, of the pandemic. That graphic video is still so difficult to watch.
Floyd calling out for his mother as other officers stood around and a crowd of people watched a teenager videotaping it. Five years later, ex-officer Derek Chauvin has been convicted. There have been attempts at police reform.
But just this week, President Trump's DOJ rolled back efforts. Floyd's brother hopes the progress made after his brother's death is not lost.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILONISE FLOYD, BROTHER OF GEORGE FLOYD: And the facts still stand that we need people to hold police accountable. That's the bottom line. I understand police. they have to do their job. But also, you have to have respect for others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, former Minneapolis police chief, Medaria Arradondo. He was the chief when Mr. George Floyd was killed. He was the author of the brand-new book, "Chief Rondo."
Chief, thank you for being here. You -- you wrote in your new book, and I'm quoting here, "I felt that Chauvin's state and federal convictions delivered a sense of justice for George Floyd. I also knew that much more work needed to be done -- work from a justice standpoint and also work for our city to heal and repair."
[23:40:03]
Chief Rondo, five years later, what work still needs to be done?
MEDARIA ARRADONDO, FORMER MINNEAPOLIS POLICE CHIEF, AUTHOR: Well, first of all, Laura, thank you for having me on your show. I think that you can see it not only in Minneapolis, but around other cities across our -- our -- our nation.
I think there's this sense that we know we need the brave men and women to -- to help us daily, serving as public servants, as police officers. But communities also know, Laura, that they need to do it right, and they need to be supported in doing it right.
But when we have these tragic, tragic situations and killings like what occurred with Mr. Floyd back on May 25th, 2020, it has tendency to erode that trust, and it seems to put a stop on any progress that is being made.
But we have to stay at it. I know that police agencies and police chiefs across this country are working with urgency and purpose to try to repair that trust as our communities continue to try to heal.
So, the work is -- the work is far from over. But I -- I do recall a conversation I had in North Minneapolis during that very tumultuous time. A young African-American man said to me, but Chief Rondo, we're tired of slow justice.
COATES: Hmm.
ARRADONDO: And so, I understand the pain and -- and that we have to get this right. Laura, we have to get this right. But I do believe there has been some incremental progress. But at the same time, whether it's a situation that occurred with Mr. Tyre Nichols in Memphis and others, we have a lot more work to do.
COATES: Your book is so compelling, really laying out for people the erosion of trust, but how you can get it back and what it means for the community and, of course, your personal journey.
And then you see setbacks. I mean, there are some supporters of President Trump who are advocating for a pardon for Derek Chauvin. Trump previously dismissed it. And Chauvin, of course, was left to serve his state conviction because the president cannot pardon for state crimes.
But what is your message for people who are advocating for a federal pardon of this former officer? ARRADONDO: So, here's what I would say to those individuals, Laura. Derek Chauvin had the justice system working as it was intended to do. He had his due process in state criminal court. Twelve jurors, 12 peers found him guilty on all three counts, second-degree murder, third- degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
He also pled guilty. Derek Chauvin himself, under counsel and under oath, pled guilty to violating Mr. Floyd's federal civil rights. And that wasn't a plea of convenience, that was a plea of responsibility.
To -- to even think about pardoning him, I believe, would be an absolute, profoundly misguided decision. Communities are trying to heal. Police departments across this nation are trying to move forward and mend that broken trust.
And so, I don't know what it would cause other than to retraumatize, excuse me, millions of people across this country, even across the world. And so, I hope that does not take place.
COATES: What did take place this week is the DOJ chose this week to announce it is rolling back the police reform agreements that were reached in places like Minneapolis, like Louisville, Kentucky where Breonna Taylor was killed.
It appears the DOJ is taking a bit of a different approach than what healing and training and trust would require. Who will police the police now? Are you concerned that there will be no one?
ARRADONDO: You know, I -- I'm disappointed because the -- the DOJ historically has been a mechanism for cities who have felt this distrust for -- for many decades with their policing departments to have that support, to have enforcement oversight.
While we know that's not going to be the case, certainly for Minneapolis and other cities across the country, I think it's a call to action, Laura, for -- for communities and police departments to say we have to do this work right.
I believe that we -- that these cities have the capacity, the leadership, and the solutions to do it right, that should outlast any administration.
So, while it is absolutely disappointing that that federal support arm is not going to be there, I -- I believe, especially in Minneapolis, I believe the will is there, and they've got the leadership and the people here on the ground to -- to work towards that.
COATES: Chief Rondo, thank you so much. Hope everyone reads your book. It really is so compelling and profound as are you. Chief Rondo's book is called "Chief Rondo: Securing Justice for the Murder of George Floyd." Thank you.
ARRADONDO: Laura, thank you so much.
COATES: Up next, she is a basketball legend, one of the greatest of all time. And I got to talk to her about the journey she took to get there. My inspiring conversation with Dawn Staley is next.
[23:45:01]
And yes, we'll get into that Caitlin Clark and Angel Reece drama, too.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Angel My next guest is someone who has defied all expectations at every single layer of her game and beyond, frankly. I mean, look at this resume. She's a six-time WNBA All-Star, a three-time Olympic gold medalist. As a coach, she has won three NCAA championships with South Carolina and even coached Team USA to a gold medal in women's basketball back in 2020.
I'm talking about the legendary GOAT, they say, South Carolina women's basketball coach, Dawn Staley, who's now adding author to that long list of achievements with a brand-new book. It's called "Uncommon Favor." It's writes about her experience growing up in the projects of North Philly, her journey from player to head coach, and becoming a -- quote -- "dream merchant for young athletes everywhere."
[23:50:07]
Coach Dawn Staley joins me now. I almost feel badly listing even a part of your accomplishments because the list is so long. Sis, I am so proud of you. So, yeah, tell me, how do you feel about how the whole journey has been?
DAWN STALEY, BASKETBALL COACH: Thank you. I'm proud. I'm -- I'm -- I'm glad I made my mother proud.
COATES: Hmm.
STALEY: She is the one that -- that started it all off. She was a -- a disciplined mom, a faithful mom, a mom that would sacrifice her needs to give her kids their wants. That type of mom. So, to make someone like that proud, my heart is full for her.
COATES: You write about the strength of your mother. Your whole family, really. I mean, your siblings, the neighborhood family that you have, of course, growing up, and your place in it. And you talk about how she had a lot of rules for all the kids, but she didn't mind when you would break the -- maybe the curfew rule because she could find you on a basketball court. You, from an early age, felt home there.
STALEY: I -- I did. I mean, I -- I grew up the youngest of -- of five. I got -- Like, I never had, like, anything on my own. I shared a room. Right?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
STALEY: I -- I even share my birthday with my oldest brother. Like, there's nothing that I had on my own.
(LAUGHTER) But sports was something that I considered, like, mine.
COATES: You know, you -- this book is so self-aware. I mean, you talk about your experience at UVA, being for the first time in a predominantly white environment. That translates in many ways to the way in which you even approach how people comment on Black athletes, on Black women, the way in which it's -- it's not about a genius Black basketball coach. Right? It's about a relatable basketball coach, similar to how people talk about an articulate Black person.
Why has that been such a triggering striking of the chord for you?
STALEY: Well, I think it's -- I think it's -- it's lazy. I -- I do think it's really lazy. When you -- when you deem a person a certain -- certain way because of what you think. It's not necessarily of -- of who they are and what they represent and their expertise. I think it's really lazy to -- to -- to not think of someone as a -- as a whole person, as a whole coach. There are strengths and weaknesses of every single coach.
COATES: Let's talk about the WNBA. You think about how everyone takes for granted that it is as popular as it is, as well-received, that issues of equal pay are more spoken about. You have had to be a very big advocate of it. People have not always given you the respect for equal pay, let alone any of your colleagues.
STALEY: I mean, it's -- it's only right. I think I -- I -- I'm somewhat of a, you know, an anomaly, so to speak, because, one, the type of success that I've had at South Carolina. Right? And then, you know, the -- the type of success that my male counterpart did not have and him getting a -- a -- a larger raise than me. Like, I -- I find that very hard to swallow.
If -- if our success over sustained period of time demands a higher raise than my male counterpart who's not as productive, then -- then do the right thing. You know, give me my worth.
COATES: This industry that you're in -- hell, any industry --
STALEY: Uh-hmm.
COATES: They want to pit women against one another. They do not want to believe that someone could want another to do as well as they are doing. You saw it with the Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese. You saw the pitting against each other. You see it with -- at the college level. Everybody wants to have the enemy be the story.
When you're watching all this unfold, respecting basketball the way you do, what did you make of this Angel Reese-Caitlin Clark media rivalry?
STALEY: I -- I think, one, I actually like it, to be quite honest.
COATES: Hmm.
STALEY: Here's why. Because all sports have it. Every sport, every men's sport, every women's sport should have it. But it gets to a point where it's -- it's dangerous, you know, when you have people -- when you have people speak about them in an unpleasant way.
Like, I -- I just think that what just took place, both young ladies said it was a basketball play. Let's move on. Everybody else has all these think pieces on how they think these young ladies feel against each other, and it's not. So, even if it -- even if it was, they're not showing it, so why should all these think pieces think they actually know when they just started watching women's basketball?
COATES: Hmm.
STALEY: But I would say this: They're talking about it because it gets them more clips. They're talking to get them more views. So, I like it in the sense of we're being talked about.
[23:54:58]
We're going to get to the other good stuff because they're going to want more and more, more and more of Caitlin Clark, more and more of Angel Reese. That means more and more women's basketball. So, we win either way. As long as we're controlling that narrative, I think it's best for women's basketball.
COATES: Well, let me tell you, your heart is on full display throughout this book. And whatever might be next for you, I'm so glad that the uncommon favor has gone to you. Thanks, Dawn.
STALEY: Thank you so much, Laura. Appreciate you.
COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
