Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Diddy's Former Publicist Speaks Out; Defense and Prosecution Spar Over Mistrial Request; Trump Intensifies Pardon Spree as He Eyes Controversial Convicts; "Crypto King" Under Arrest for Alleged Torture Scheme. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 28, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've got the plan largely completed, and we'll be filing over the next two or three weeks, maybe sooner.

We're going to be having a news conference in about two weeks to let everybody know how well we're doing.

We're signing a health care plan within two weeks. A full and complete health care plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: By the way, we are still waiting on that health care plan.

Thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media: X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, allegations of destroyed evidence, a dramatic call for a mistrial, and the new witness who may have connected some pretty major dots. This is all ahead on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."

Well, good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates here in New York City tonight. In day 11 of Diddy's trial, it brought some explosive testimony, threats of leaked sex-tapes, shelved mixtapes, and new accusations of physical abuse. All of it from someone who worked with Diddy and Cassie Ventura for nearly a decade.

In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders will go through everything we heard in Courtroom 26-A in Lower Manhattan, and it was packed with drama.

Now one of the biggest moments came early when the defense asked the judge to declare a mistrial. The motion rejected. We also heard from a former stylist at Diddy's company. Now he testified that Diddy threatened to leak sex-tapes of her online. He said he saw Diddy beat his friend, Cassie, and heard him vow to bury her music if she didn't do what he said.

The stylist's name is Deonte Nash, and he gave specific examples of how Diddy used his power over Cassie's career, testifying -- quote -- "Diddy told her that one time, if she keeps having a smartass mouth, her little mixtape won't be coming out."

Nash said Diddy broke a promise to monetize one of Cassie's mixtapes even though it was a top download when released for free. Nash testified that he thinks only about 10%, and he was being generous there, of Cassie's music ever saw the light of day.

But while Diddy was allegedly holding back her songs, Nash said Diddy was threatening to expose her sex-tapes. He testified about one incident when Diddy pushed Cassie out of her apartment. She and Nash drove away, but then Diddy called and demanded they pull over.

The prosecutor asked Nash, what did you hear Mr. Combs say when he came up to the car window? Nash answers that she F-ed up, and that he was going to put her sex-tapes on the internet. He was going to release them on schedule, that he was going to first start by sending them to her parents' jobs, and he was going to get them fired.

Nash told Cassie to let Diddy release the tapes because he'd be on them, too. The prosecutor asked, how did Cassie respond when you said that Puff was on the videos as well? Well, she said that she -- that he wasn't on the videos, that it was him taping her with other guys.

And Nash testified that Cassie told him she didn't want to have sex with the other men, but she did it because Diddy wanted her to.

Nash's testimony wasn't the only big moment in court today. Even before lunch, the defense pushed the judge to declare a mistrial. Why? Well, the defense was not happy with the prosecution for questioning an arson investigator.

When the witness told the jury that fingerprint evidence from Kid Cudi's home was destroyed without his authorization, the defense argued the prosecution was suggesting that Diddy was somehow responsible for destroying it, and that intimation would not be enough to un-ring the bell.

The judge denied the mistrial motion but told the jury to ignore the testimony. One of Diddy's lawyers told the judge, there is no way to un-ring this bell.

I want to begin with CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister, our eyes and ears inside that courtroom, who has been in the trenches with me every single day. Elizabeth, there has been a lot of testimony. But Deonte Nash, he recounted a number of violent encounters between Diddy and also Cassie and himself, including how they allegedly searched his home. Tell me about that.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, Deonte Nash, as you said, he recounted a number of violent instances that he said that he witnessed, and many of them corroborated Cassie's testimony.

But this specific instance, he said, was around 2013, 2014, when Diddy showed up to his house and started searching everywhere what he thought was for Cassie.

[23:05:03]

Now I want to read you some of Deonte Nash's direct testimony to show --

COATES: I want to hear -- I want to hear more. I have (INAUDIBLE) with your sound, but I have to hear you because it's so important. I want to walk over and get our -- rest of our legal panel in this. Okay? Because Elizabeth Wagmeister, what she has to say, everyone needs to hear, because she has been on this story since the very beginning.

So, I'm going to have her join this table. And for a moment, I'm going to go to this illustrious panel. We got a panel full of lawyers, including Joey Jackson and Jennifer Rodgers and Misty Marris. They need no microphone. Lawyers are always loud. So, bring it to me, everyone, here, talking about this while we get more information.

One thing that we're going to hear about from Wagmeister on the testimony of Deonte Nash was about how -- this element of control. Right? They need to talk about the control because, you know, for sex trafficking cases, you got to have this coercion, this fraud, these threats.

Jennifer, there was a moment throughout the testimony where he talked about Diddy's control over Cassidy. Did they move the needle, though?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They did. I actually thought they had a good day today because she testified, of course, that she did feel coerced, and there has been a series of witnesses who were corroborating her in certain respects.

But this witness, I thought, was really powerful because he got down to specifics, that she was told that her music wouldn't come out, that her career would be stalled, that she was told that the sex-tapes would be released. It would ruin her reputation. So, this control is not just a vague thing, it's like a concrete thing. These are the specific ways in which I saw him controlling her. I thought that was very powerful.

COATES: I mean, you agree?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah. And -- and I also think -- look, he corroborated the physical violence, but it was a step further than that. He talked about times when he saw -- Deonte saw Diddy come to find Cassie with, like, five or six of these security guards that we've heard so much about, the intimidation factor that -- that she was being beaten, that she was trying to hide from him, and he was hunting --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MARRIS: -- her down and finding her. So, that speaks to this element of coercion, force, fraud, and coercion, which is in the sex trafficking statute, that she was living under this threat during this period of time. To me, that really moved the needle on that aspect of the case.

COATES: He was talking about that. Right? I mean, he was describing how -- I mean, just to paraphrase, she had nowhere to run. She tried to go to a hotel. The hotel -- and he -- and she was supposed to call Deonte on the phone when she got to the safe house, this hotel. When she called, Diddy saw the phone and saw the hotel pop up. They then went to the hotel and told him to go get her. I mean, at one point, she describes even perhaps taking drastic steps.

WAGMEISTER: Yes. And, you know, now that my mic is working, I can read you --

(LAUGHTER)

-- part of this direct testimony from Deonte Nash, which is actually talking about that instance that you're referencing, Laura, but before. So, he speaks about how Diddy shows up to his home and starts searching for Cassie. Here's what he said. Quote -- "Puff came in, and he was, like, where the "F" is she? He started looking all around my house, in the closets. He went in the oven. I don't know why he looked in the oven. He -- and he asked me where she was."

Then when the prosecutor said, who is she? He clarified that it's Cassie. And then after he looked around his house, then he asked for his car keys and took his phone.

So, as Misty said, it feels like there was this culture of fear and monitoring and intimidation, at least according to Deonte Nash's testimony. And again, he was someone who was not just inside Combs's and Cassie's inner circle as a stylist, he was one of Cassie's best friends. So, he really was hearing from her in real time what she perceived was happening.

COATES: And they're still very close. Right?

WAGMEISTER: Very close. In fact, he said that he spoke to her yesterday to congratulate her for the birth of her baby boy, which is really kind of an incredible turn of events after her testimony that we saw across the course of four days. Of course, she was very pregnant --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- when she testified. But Deonte Nash was asked about how close he was with Cassie still, and he said, we're very close. You know, I spoke to her yesterday. He was also, by the way, asked if he still speaks to Combs --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- and he did admit that he has stayed in touch with him. He said it in a very nonchalant way, basically, like, of course, I would talk to him, he's Sean Combs. And when asked how he feels about him being there today in court, he said, I don't hate him, it's not in me. COATES: It was an amazing moment. And -- and just the idea of all the people that Misty was talking about who were there -- I mean, security is ever present when you're talking about any of these allegations.

In building the enterprise, the prosecution is trying to show the inner circle and people who work for Bad Boy more broadly. They weren't just doing maybe legitimate work on the different entities, but they were also the right hand -- hand men and sometimes women, they allege, of Sean "Diddy" Combs.

But what about the fact that this witness is an employee? And he, along with another person who was named a former chief of staff, they were trying to help her escape through the side. Does that undermine that the whole enterprise was working in cahoots with Sean?

[23:10:03]

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, here's my view. There's no question that Nash furthers the narrative with respect to control, with regard to abuse, and with regard to coercion. No question about it. The bruising, the weekly visits in the hotel she didn't want to do.

The issue with me is the causal relationship --

COATES: Hmm.

JACKSON: -- between his abusiveness, his coercive, his need for control. How's your hair? How's your makeup? What are you wearing today? Where are you? I'm going to look for you in this house, even in an oven. Right? Because I'm just so maniacal. But is that --

COATES: And that irrational part might undercut it, you're saying?

JACKSON: Yes. But the -- is there a causal connection between his irrationality, his jealousy, his outrage, his rage, and his just being inhumane and him coercing her to engage in this sexual activity?

COATES: What about the threats to expose her tapes and also to get her parents fired as well?

JACKSON: Yes. But is that because -- right -- is that because you're not going to do a "freak-off" with me? Is there a direct connection between, hey, I'm going to expose these tapes, I'm going to get your parents fired, I'm going to extort $20,000 from your parents, et cetera? Is that because you come to this "freak-off" with me or else? And that's the issue.

You got to establish his conduct: maniacal, radical, horrific, inhumane, indecent. But is that because I want you to "freak-off" with me? And if you establish that connection and the jury gets it, it's one thing. If you just show that he's a maniac who's doing horrible things because he's jealous, that's quite another.

COATES: Well, you know, on the 29th birthday party, there was testimony that she had gone to a club with her friends. And Deonte Nash testifies that Cassie is essentially persuaded -- persuaded and almost browbeaten. She's saying, I want to have fun with my friends, I don't want to do the "freak-off."

And at one point, he says that he hears Diddy say, and I'm paraphrasing here, I do all this stuff for you and you can't do this one effing thing for me, "F" you.

That was how they tried to thread the needle about the pressure, about the "freak-offs." Does that address Joey's claim or is that still not enough?

RODGERS: You know, I think it doesn't have to be so surgical. Right? I mean, I think --

COATES: Hmm.

RODGERS: -- if you have a relationship where there's all this pressure, all this coercion day in and day out, she doesn't really control her own life, he controls her life, and then he makes these demands on her, including these sex parties, part of which was the trafficking, right, element.

You know, I think that that's going to be good enough for the jury to say we're going to find the sex trafficking because of the kind of totality of circumstances of their relationship.

But I do think that because of the relationship and how long it lasted and how much she wanted it to be more serious, the jury is going to have to decide that the coercion was really coercion. I mean, they have to get into that hurdle. But I don't think it has to be so specific of, like, at this time, right before the "freak-off." It has to be coercive.

COATES: Well, I want to get you on this, Misty, but I first want to ask just so you can sort of set the scene for us because, Elizabeth, there was a lot of testimony about this mixtape. A mixtape that Cassie had been working on for quite some time, had major artists on it, anyone from Wiz Khalifa to Rick Ross to Too Short. I think French Montana was on it. The list goes on. And it seemed like there was a deal that if this did well, he would then monetize it in some form of streaming. That never happened.

Explain why that was significant.

WAGMEISTER: That did never happen, according to Deonte Nash's testimony. And Deonte Nash explained that this mixtape was put up online for free, and that it was actually the most popular free mixtape of that year. And that Diddy had said, if this does well, then we are going to release it, and he never did.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: You said earlier, Laura, that Deonte Nash testified he was being generous if he said that 10% of her music during the time that he worked for the couple was released. So, the point that he was making here is that Cassie was constantly in the studio. At one point, he said every day that he was in the studio with her.

COATES: They even slept there at one point.

WAGMEISTER: They slept in the studio. He said that she was working all the time, but that Diddy controlled her career. He controlled if this music was ever going to be put out, and that the majority of it wasn't.

COATES: So, Misty, on that point, they're trying to make the case on cross that he was treating her as an artist, not as a girlfriend, not as maniacal. But if you performed as an artist, great. If you were not performing, you did not get the -- the sunlight from him. Tell me about that relationship and why that testimony might be crucial for either prosecution or defense.

MARRIS: Right. So, for the prosecution, they want to show that Diddy is in control of her entire career. That's one of the aspects of control that requires her to comply with whatever he wants, to do to make that connection that Joey was talking about between the sex trafficking, the conduct, the freak offs, and -- and their relationship. Right? It brings it to that next level.

Now what the defense tried to do is undercut that, and they said, well, doesn't hit Bad Boy records, and Diddy personally have a financial incentive for her to succeed.

[23:15:01]

And this also went into aspects about controlling the way she looked, controlling her style.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MARRIS: Well, isn't that normal for a record label to assert that type of control over an artist? Because at the end of the day, this is a business. So, the defense is trying to cut off those elements and couch them in a completely different light. It's business-related. It's not part of this element of coercion. It's not part of control. It's something you would see with any artist regardless of whether there was a romantic relationship.

COATES: Really important, especially when you contrast what happened yesterday with Capricorn Clark's testimony. You got this, who was Cassie's worst enemy? Was it herself, her talent, addiction, or was Sean "Diddy" Combs?

Stand by, everyone. There's much more to get to tonight, including that dramatic moment in court that led Diddy's defense team to call for a mistrial. Might the testimony in question come back to haunt the prosecution's case?

Plus, witness after witness after witness describing Diddy as a control freak, obsessed with maintaining not just Cassie's image, but his own reputation as well. Well, tonight, one of the people who helped shape that public persona is going to join us. Diddy's former publicist is standing by, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: As you know, we've been getting a glimpse of what it was like to work for Diddy from his past employees, the ones who took the stand, and we've been noticing a pattern. Despite all of the horrible things that they say they witnessed and maybe even endured personally while working for him, they still talk about these feelings of reverence, almost like there were two versions of Diddy.

Take his former assistant, Capricorn Clark, for example. She testified that Diddy had threatened her life more than once, made her take lie detector tests in some abandoned building, but she also revealed that she -- quote -- "liked him as a friend," that she respected him, that working for him was kind of like a business school.

Another former assistant, George Kaplan, he testified that Diddy threatened his career almost monthly. Despite this, he almost gushed about -- not almost. He called Diddy -- quote -- "a God among men," adding that he still wishes him a happy birthday, invited him to his wedding, didn't get a response, and reported that this made Diddy smile.

So, were there really two versions of Diddy? With me now is Rob Shuter, who is a former publicist for Diddy, represented him in the early 2000s. He's also the host of the podcast "Naughty But Nice with Rob Shuter," which I -- is probably apropos. I'm getting ready to ask you about the naughty but nice dynamic here at play.

You represented so many very famous, you know, high-profile celebrities, whether it's been Alicia Keys or Jon Bon Jovi or Jessica Simpson, let alone Diddy. You say that he was one of your favorites to work with. Are you recognizing the person they're talking about on the stand?

ROB SHUTER, FORMER PUBLICIST FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS, PODCAST HOST: This --that's a very complicated question.

COATES: Yeah.

SHUTER: It's something that I think people that have worked with him are really struggling with. The Diddy that I knew was charming and funny, was cheeky, was naughty. But there also were red flags. There were signs he was controlling. He wanted to get his own way. He -- he threw tantrums when he didn't get his own way.

And so, I think what makes this story so interesting is there are so many sides to Diddy. It's almost, like, we understand why potentially he got away with this for maybe so long. Because people liked being around him.

COATES: Uh-hmm. SHUTER: He was a lot of fun. I've worked -- you've named some of them, some of the biggest stars in -- in the world. Diddy was fun. If I could go out, maybe not tonight but 10 years ago, if I could go out for a drink with one of them, I would have always picked Diddy. He was fun.

COATES: Well, you know, as you describe it, so many people, the names I've just mentioned, let alone Diddy, I mean, they're a totally different celebrity stratosphere. Most people will never interact with them personally. They might know them through their music and videography.

So, what you described, the tantrums, always getting their ways, many people associate that with being a celebrity --

SHUTER: Right.

COATES: -- and being a rich one at that. How did his behavior differ, you think, from sort of the average controlling personality that would have to propel themselves to be a star?

SHUTER: He was not self-destructive or at least it seemed like that to me at the time.

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: This is a guy that I would work his parties, and I would go home after the red carpet ended. He would go on partying to the wee hours, but he was up at 5 or 6:00 in the morning that next day finding out when is entertainment tonight running? Am I the lead of the show? Is People magazine covering this story? And so, he --

COATES: That was important to him.

SHUTER: Very much so. He knew exactly how he wanted to be photographed. He knew exactly how he wanted to be presented. And I was a young guy when I first started working with him. He taught me how to be a publicist. He was paying me, I should have paid him. It was like in the university.

COATES: You know he has no control over those things right now, which I wonder how that might impact him. I mean, he is -- you watched him. If he has to go to the bathroom, he's got two marshals in front of him, two marshals behind him.

SHUTER: Yeah.

COATES: He can't control how he's photographed or, obviously, drawn in the court. How does this impact somebody like Diddy?

SHUTER: Well, a couple of things. I think -- I think that the courtroom sketches with the gray hair is probably what is upsetting him the most.

COATES: Hmm. SHUTER: It sounds like a shallow thing, but that's something Diddy was always very focused on. And then another side of me believes that in a sick perverse way, he's loving this. He always wanted to be the most famous person in the world.

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: He is. He's now escorted to the bathroom. You say he's taken to the bathroom by guards. That's true. In his mind, he's presidential. He's escorted in and out of the courthouse.

[23:24:58]

And so, I know that sounds so wacky, but he always wanted to be one of the most famous people in the world. And today, he is.

COATES: He seems like he wants to be loved as well. Outside the courthouse, you're not seeing a groundswell. You see people who are out there with their cameras and bloggers and, of course, journalists as well, you have a couple "Free Puff" shirts, but there's not maybe the --

SHUTER: No.

COATES: -- groundswell he hopes for.

SHUTER: Oh, I'm sure he's terribly disappointed with that. I remember, once, I was working with him and there was a record release party, and the crowd was okay but it wasn't huge, and he was really angry about that. And the next day, we had to have like an emergency meeting --

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: -- where we decided how can we make the crowd bigger, and there were some suggestions of paying for people to turn up. But that sort of stuff, crowd size, what people are saying, how he looks, that's very important to Puff.

COATES: I see him jotting a lot of notes in court and handing to his counsel. They often come over to him to consult before they sit down again. Is he controlling his legal team?

SHUTER: Oh, yeah. He controls everything. I could not send out a press release without getting approval. If I wanted to put out a statement, it would go through him. He really is hands on. He's a micromanager.

And that's why at this tape, at this Cassie tape, which Elizabeth, your Elizabeth at CNN broke, had that not been released, I'm not sure this trial would have even happened.

He's very, very good at controlling people, whether it be through screaming and shouting or showering them with love. He knows how to play both sides of that equation.

COATES: Would -- how about testifying? Would Diddy testify? SHUTER: I predict he's going to testify. Now, I could be wrong here. And I know -- I've listened to your panel all week about this trial. I could be wrong. He's going to want to testify, and I would imagine his lawyers are going to try and talk him out of it. Let's see if they are successful. He believes -- he believes that nobody can make the case for him as well as he can make it himself.

COATES: Do you think that he has had this attitude towards all the artists that were under him at Bad Boy and Beyond? Or was it -- was the sun shining only on one, particularly Cassie?

SHUTER: The sun -- the sun was shining on one person, Diddy, not Cassie. It's always about Diddy. Always was. When he invited celebrities to his party, it wasn't for -- for -- to -- to -- to celebrate them. When Beyonce turned up or big stars, he didn't celebrate them. He used their celebrity to make his bigger.

We used to joke, and we were serious about it. His hobby is Diddy. He doesn't collect stamps. He doesn't have any interests. He's not interested in traveling. He's not watching the Kardashians. He thinks about Diddy 24 hours a day, and that's what he's doing right now.

COATES: Rob, fascinating conversation. Thank you so much for joining. We'll see what he's thinking about these days as well.

Still ahead, the defense today ripping into the government, calling one particular line of question -- quote -- "outrageous" at the moment that led to the denied request, but a request nonetheless for a mistrial. And it could be a pretty big sign of things to come. The legal panel is back with me to explain, next.

And later, a break from the trial coverage to bring you the major pardon spree from the Oval Office, the men and women he has already spared, and the very controversial convicts that he has his eyes on, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the defense of Sean "Diddy" Combs throwing a legal Hail Mary in court today, trying to get the entire case thrown out on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

An arson investigator with the L.A. Fire Department testified about fingerprints collected from the car of rapper Kid Cudi when it was allegedly firebombed in 2012. When prosecutors asked what happened to those fingerprints, the investigator said that they were destroyed. When prosecutors asked if that was usual, the defense objected and moved for a mistrial. The judge denied that request, but he did say that he will strike that testimony from the record and tell the jurors to ignore it.

My panel is back with me. Misty, break it down for me as to why that was so consequential.

MARRIS: So, that -- that -- basically, what the defense did was say that prosecutors were engaging in misconduct, that they asked a question about fingerprint cards, which was evidence that should have been preserved, but actually was destroyed by the LAPD.

COATES: They were intimating what?

MARRIS: They were intimating that it was Diddy who somehow, because he's so powerful, was able to manipulate that investigation and get rid of those fingerprints. So, obviously, the defense went nuts and ultimately asked for a mistrial, saying that that implication was highly prejudicial.

COATES: Both you started laughing at the thought of that statement. Why? Tell me why.

RODGERS: I mean, the defense asks for a mistrial, like, all the times. Right? I mean --

COATES: But not in this trial.

RODGERS: The prosecutors may not have even understood that they were going to say that. Right? In other words, like, I don't think they were actually trying to imply that Diddy was somehow behind this disappearance. What they were probably trying to do is get ahead of the claim that the investigation was shoddy and that, you know, they're -- the prosecution is suggesting that Diddy is behind this.

But there's no proof of that because the LAPD didn't properly investigate. And so, they wanted to explain why those fingerprints, you know, weren't followed up on.

JACKSON: And it's a little inside baseball, but the judge gave what's called a curative instruction. What does that mean in English? It means you're not getting a mistrial. And by the way, mistrial doesn't mean the case is over, Diddy goes free. It means we're going to do this all over again. That's what it means. Nobody wants to do that.

But the judge said, you are to disregard that testimony. very difficult, Laura. Right? Because, as we all say, you can't un-ring a rung bell. Once it's wrong --

COATES: Yeah.

JACKSON: -- you hear it, and it's problematic.

[23:35:00]

And the big issue is they're connecting that to Diddy, that being the arson --

COATES: Yeah.

JACKSON: -- the Porsche, because it goes to racketeering, this criminal enterprise. And one of the things they're suggesting prosecutors that Diddy did in his big enterprise business was to engage in arson of Kidi Cudi's Porsche.

COATES: And obstruction of justice is also a predicate crime for RICO. So, they're going to try to establish that along with the hotel surveillance video where somebody was paid to make a video go away. Of course, we saw it nonetheless.

How about this? What I'm calling an O.J. moment because a glove -- can we have a case where a glove does not make an appearance?

(LAUGHTER)

There was a big do with the glove. Essentially, there was a driving glove in the back seat of the -- of the Porsche owned by Kid Cudi. The investigator said it was the driver, Kid Cudi's. He never tested it for prints. There was a big to do about it. Why was that so important?

RODGERS: Yeah. I mean, you know, listen, the victim is Kid Cudi. He's the one who wants this investigated. He says it's his glove. You know, they think they don't need to go further with it. But again --

COATES: Misty is already, like, no, no.

(LAUGHTER)

RODGERS: But again, that's it. The defense is trying to make this point of, like, they should've investigated further if they wanted to try to pin it on him.

MARRIS: Yeah, they -- they want to cut arson off. They want the jury to believe that it wasn't Combs and his associates that were responsible for the arson. So, they're saying there isn't any evidence that really links them.

And look, this investigation was totally botched. They didn't do what they would have done in any normal investigation, which is testing items that were actually in the vehicle. So --

RODGERS: Although you wouldn't necessarily test victim's items in the victim's car.

JACKSON: You test everything because those are best practices. You exercise due diligence. But, of course, the glove should have been tested. It wasn't. But if the glove doesn't fit --

COATES: Ahh, my hand.

JACKSON: -- you got to quit (ph).

COATES: I knew it was coming. Walk right into it. Let me pass -- let me go for a second right now. How about looking ahead to tomorrow's test? We're going to hear from somebody named Mia. It's a pseudonym.

The jurors are already aware of this. In fact, in court today, when you had Deonte Nash testifying, they showed a picture of the person they're going to refer to as Mia, signaling to the jury, again, this is the name we're going to be using. She is a former assistant of Diddy. She said that she was sexually assaulted. This is another victim in the case. What do they need to show to build the case, the pattern, the trafficking, the racketeering? How does she help?

MARRIS: So, she's going to help if -- when she testifies not only about the sexual assault, but also about that aspect of the violence, of the threats. That's all going to speak to both components of the case, both the sex trafficking as well as the -- the RICO.

And it's mainly because Diddy is basically threatening everyone in his sphere, right, this is a prosecution's argument, to comply with what he wants. He's threatening anyone and everyone who he has associated with, so that they do his bidding. And so, prosecutors are going to need to elicit that on -- on their direct testimony.

COATES: We are learning the prosecution is ahead of schedule, whatever that means, and that they might be cutting some witnesses. This might be a five- week case in chief. How long will the defense? We don't yet know.

Thank you, everyone. Work on your rhyming, Joey Jackson.

(LAUGHTER)

Don't forget, there's much more of trial coverage on my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." Tonight's episode featured a fascinating extended conversation with "The Punisher," the male escort who testified about the "freak-offs." You can listen to it wherever you get your podcasts.

So, ahead tonight, an Oprah-style giveaway from the Oval Office. You get a pardon and you get a pardon and you get a pardon. President Trump going on a massive spree of commutations and pardons. There are critics wondering just how easy is it to get one, anyway.

And later, the escape from an alleged crypto torture chamber in New York City. CNN has the video first and the dramatic details of what police say this man endured for weeks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump on a pardon spree, granting clemency to a slew of people who've been convicted of crimes that range from tax evasion, fraud, guns, just to name a few.

The list includes rapper Kentrell Gaulden, also known as NBA Youngboy, who was convicted in the federal gun crimes case, former Republican congressman Michael Grimm, who pled guilty in 2014 to tax evasion and served seven months in prison, an ex-sheriff in Virginia, Scott Jenkins, found guilty of conspiracy, honest services fraud, and bribery, former Republican governor from Connecticut, John G. Rowland, who was committed not once but twice in federal criminal cases, and then there's reality show couple, Todd and Julie Chrisley, who are officially free tonight after being convicted in the scheme to swindle banks out of more than $30 million.

The attorney for the Chrisleys has a theory on what's behind all these pardons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX LITTLE, ATTORNEY FOR TODD AND JULIE CHRISLEY: Some of these decisions about pardons aren't necessarily about guilt and innocence. They're about how the process works and whether it should work this way. And I think, ultimately, the White House was convinced it didn't work the way it should have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Jennifer Rodgers is also back with me. Brian, let's talk about perhaps coincidences or not because --

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- Variety magazine reports that Lifetime just green lit a new docuseries about the Chrisley family --

STELTER: Yes.

COATES: -- following this whole prison sentence. How does this play out on television?

STELTER: This is going to be a reality T.V. reunion. I have a source close to the show that confirms yes, the cameras have been rolling. This was going to be a kind of an attempt to a new version of this reality show where the -- where this couple is going to be behind bars, maybe --- maybe heard on the phone once in a while in a jailhouse date.

[23:45:08]

Now, they're going to be the stars of the show again. And I suspect this show is going to paper over what are some pretty dramatic crimes that were alleged in this case.

COATES: I watched that show myself.

STELTER: Yeah.

COATES: I was a fan of the program. I know Savannah. Actually, the daughter was at the RNC, and she was speaking about what she called sort of the lawfare aspect of it. But really quick --

STELTER: Right, right.

COATES: -- Jennifer, I mean, they had to pay, I think, what, $17 million in restitution.

STELTER: Wow.

COATES: What happens now with the pardon? Does that poof, go away?

RODGERS: Well, I don't think they'd paid it all back. So, the part that they have already paid, they do not get to claw back. The victims get to keep that for DOJ policy. But if they haven't yet paid all of it, then they don't have to pay the rest if they get a full and unconditional pardon, which I think is what was on the table.

STELTER: Hmm.

COATES: Brian, I mean, Ed Martin, who's Trump's pardon attorney, is serving in multiple roles inside the DOJ, as you know. But he talked about a theme of lawfare, people being overcharged. Is that the threat here?

STELTER: That is the threat here. And I believe his words on X this week are words we're going to remember for a long time. He said, leave no MAGA behind. Instead of leave no man behind, leave no MAGA behind. That's very specific. It means something very specific.

It means Republican lawmakers, friends of the president, people who get up in front of the RNC and promote Trump, they are going to be innocent, they are going to be free, they are going to be pardoned.

This is a very clear signal both from Trump in these pardons recently and also from this pardon attorney about how it's going to work for the rest of Trump's term.

And I think the question is not, what's Trump going to do? He's clearly going to look around. Any Republicans who are convicted, any lawmakers, they're going to be pardoned. We know that. Question is, what is everybody else going to do? Is -- is there any recourse? And, of course, other than a constitutional amendment, there's probably not.

COATES: It's interesting you talk about that because, of course, you've talked about frequently how his attention is on the T.V. platform.

STELTER: Right.

COATES: People he'll hire from Fox or hire from television. It seems as though there's a theme. Some people who've had a lot of attention on television, he has his eye on.

STELTER: There is. It's absolutely working when it comes to pardons as well. We're hearing about other ways. Right? People also paying for access to Trump, paying to get into dinners, but there's no match for being on television and catching his eye that way.

COATES: You know, he mentioned that maybe Republican officials might be as part of the pardon list, but we hear from administration officials that say that more commutations might be possible, Jennifer, including that Trump has said -- this is his words -- he's going to look at whether or not to pardon the men convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. I mean, that's pretty stunning, to think about those people being considered. What does it do to the rule of law?

RODGERS: Yeah. Well, I mean, we're not talking about the rule of law here. We're talking about, you know, favoring your supporters and favoring your friends. The -- the people who were after Governor Whitmer, because they were right-wing extremists, are his supporters and his people. And so, he's looking at pardoning them.

I mean, there is no justice now with respect to pardons, and there is nothing that can be done about it. I mean, we have, you know, almost an unlimited pardon power, probably unlimited. It's never really been litigated if there are any limits to it.

But even for a pardon that was like a clear quid pro quo, you know, you talk about this couple. Apparently, the mother went -- spent a million dollars to go to the Trump dinner, you know. Is there a quid pro quo there? That doesn't matter either in the wake of the immunity case Trump versus the United States. Right? They can't -- can't be criminally prosecuted for that.

So, you know, it's pretty much an unlimited power. He can use it as he wishes. He wishes to use it to -- for people his eye is caught on T.V. and for his friends and supporters, and there's not much to be done about it.

It's supposed to be an elector -- a ballot box issue. Right? If someone abuses their power in this way, presumably they'll be, you know, not elected the next time or their party will be punished at the ballot box. There's -- there's no other --

COATES: Well, I mean, Former President Biden was criticized for his use and exercise of the pardon, even in preemptive categories.

STELTER: Right.

COATES: Does he contribute in some way to this notion of no justice and pardons?

STELTER: I think in terms of that slippery slope, sure. Now that Biden waited till the very last days and hours of his term, it's notable that Trump is doing all this, basically, any day that ends in "Y." You know, not waiting for any fear of shame or embarrassment or scandal. There's none of that anymore.

We've come a long way or come devolved a long way. What was the Nixon line about if the president does it, it's not illegal? Now, it's going to be if the president's supporters do it, it is not illegal. And that makes you wonder if a Democrat is back in power in three and a half or four years. Is there a way to get back to normal? I don't know.

COATES: Or will they.

STELTER: Or is this how it'll be from now on for the rest of our lives?

RODGERS: Well, this is his DOJ, right, whose cases are being undone here.

STELTER: Yeah, right.

RODGERS: These prosecutors -- you know, this is DOJ prosecutors whose cases are being undermined here, and he doesn't seem to care about that either.

COATES: Jennifer, Brian, thank you so much.

STELTER: Thanks.

COATES: Up next, a man known as the "Crypto King" under arrest, accused of torturing a man to get his Bitcoin password.

[23:50:00]

And now, we have all the video of the alleged victim's escape. The shocking moment in what police say he went through, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, new video obtained exclusively by CNN that shows a barefoot man bolting up the stairs from the basement of a New York City townhouse. This before running onto the street.

[23:55:00]

Now, that man, a 28-year-old wealthy Italian cryptocurrency trader, who was allegedly kidnapped and also held hostage in that Manhattan apartment for weeks. Investigators say that two men, who wanted the password to a Bitcoin account that was worth millions, are behind all of this.

You are looking at the moment he escaped. Those two men have been arrested in this case. The man on the left is John Waltz, also known as the "Crypto King of Kentucky." Prosecutors say that Waltz and an accomplice tortured the 28-year-old for days, allegedly threatening to kill him, even dangling him from the top of a flight of stairs.

For more, let's bring in CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. John, this was stunning, to see this footage, and what has happened to this man. Two men have now been arrested. What are prosecutors alleging that they did while holding him?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, they're alleging that he was taken to the basement, tortured on numerous occasions. This involved, allegedly, his feet being placed in water, and then live wires attached to a power source being applied to him, to shock and burn him, psychological torture, guns being held to his head, threats of death.

But there's a bizarre twist here, which is there were also two female suspects involved here who, at various times when the two male suspects were playing bad cop, would be playing good cop, saying, you know, we can work this all out, all you have to do -- you know, you're going to make money with these people, it's all just give them the code to your crypto.

COATES: Now, I saw this footage of him escaping. How did that happen?

MILLER: So, that's really interesting. He was tied up when he was being tortured. And when he became more agreeable about maybe we can work this out, I can try to get the code, he would enjoy some movement around the house. Now, they had an air tag on him, and they said if you escape, we'll know where you are. The doors were locked, so it was hard to make a run for it.

But, Laura, this starts on May 6. You know, this was on Friday, when he finally bolted. He said, you know, I'll get the code, I just need you to get my laptop. They had taken his phones. They had taken his passport. You know, they had taken everything from him when he got there.

And he said, during that moment, I knew, like, this is it. You know, this is my chance. They're going upstairs to get it. He ran from the first floor, down the stairs to the basement, bolted for the door that leads upstairs to the street from the basement. You see him in that footage. You know, he runs to that gate, flips the lock, and then takes off running.

He finds a traffic enforcement agent, one of the people who looks like a police officer, but he writes tickets, and he says, I need help, and he notified the police, and they were there within minutes.

COATES: Oh, my God. I mean, one of the suspects is known as, I think, the "Crypto King of Kentucky." What do we know about him?

MILLER: So, that's Waltz, and he has been in and out of the crypto business, raised money for different ventures. He runs around in Porsches and Ferrari and -- Ferraris and lives in expensive places. And, apparently, the gambit here was that he had known Michael, the victim, for four years --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MILLER: -- and lured him back on the idea that they had some falling out over money involving crypto, blockchain stuff, where he said, you know, I've got a business proposal that's going to make us both rich.

COATES: Wow.

MILLER: And from Michael's standpoint, it was, well, either we're going to settle our business dispute, and I'm going to get out of business with him, or I'm going to go all in. He had no idea what he was walking into.

COATES: I keep hearing about stories like this, where people who have cryptocurrency or Bitcoin or otherwise are getting increasingly targeted. Some people are being very bombastic and almost maybe drawing a kind of target on their own backs. Is this becoming a trend where increased security is necessary, etcetera?

MILLER: So, this is something we've seen around the world. If you just go back the last month, Pakistan attempted kidnapping for millions of dollars in crypto, two cases in Paris, France, case in Canada, another case in Chicago. So, in the last six months, we've seen this start to not only spiral up in terms of numbers, but also in terms of our territory here in the United States, not just in Europe and foreign countries.

So, the question is, is this, to crypto, what the murder of the CEO of a big health care company was to CEOs? And what we're seeing is not exactly the older established crypto exchange bosses are talking about getting security, increasing security, lowering their personal profiles, but the young guns are pretty much cowboys in this business.

[00:00:03]

And part of what brings the business in is them showing we've got bling, we've got cars, we've got tons of money, and we're making it all of this and you should invest.

COATES: Hmm.

MILLER: They're really advertising their own vulnerabilities.

COATES: Well, this man, as alleged, seems to have been particularly vulnerable. Thank you for giving us the story. We have reached out to CNN to the attorneys for the suspects. We have not heard back. John Miller, thank you so much.

MILLER: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.