Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Laura Coates Interviews Suge Knight; Witnesses Testify About Diddy's Ex-Chief Of Staff; Small Business Owners Take On Trump's Tariffs. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 29, 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]

(WHISTLING)

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, Lord.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Okay, some dancing from Ashley?

(LAUGHTER)

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: And then when you all pass out, I can bring you all back.

ALLISON: That's a lie.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: You guys --

ALLISON: Take it on the road, guys.

PHILLIP: This is amazing. The news -- the "NewsNight" talent show, I think, is going to be next.

ROCHA: That's the gong show.

PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. We'll make sure that they all perform the next time. Thanks for watching "NewsNight."

A special programming -- special note for you. Tomorrow night and most summer Fridays, we are taking the show on a little bit of a field trip. We'll be broadcasting our roundtable debate from the Food Network Studios. We will have food and drinks and some lively conversation. That is tomorrow night right here on CNN. But first, "Laura Coates Live" begins right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a new alleged victim takes the stand against Sean "Diddy" Combs, backing up Cassie's claims and making some new ones of her own.

Plus, Diddy's longtime rival, Suge Knight, named again and again in testimony. And tonight, he's calling in from prison to respond on another special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."

Good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates. And on day 12 of the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, we heard from the second woman alleging that she was sexually abused by Diddy. This former assistant broke down on the stand, describing his violent outbursts, blackmail threats, and how she was humiliated and controlled by the man who employed her.

In just a moment, my legal experts and court insiders will unpack her testimony. And whether it bolsters the prosecution's racketeering case, well, we will see.

Only the jurors actually saw her real name. To the public, she was known and is known only as Mia, the former assistant who worked for Diddy for eight years.

And she described graphic instances of alleged sexual abuse. She told the jury she couldn't tell Diddy to stop because she feared he would retaliate.

Mia also backed up Cassie Ventura's claims of abuse, saying she saw it happen all the time. Mia couldn't even count how many times Diddy got violent with Cassie. She told the prosecutor, I've seen him attack her. I've seen him throw her on the ground. I've seen him crack her head open. I've seen him chase her.

She described one instance where she worried for Cassie's life, saying -- quote -- "I just saw him pick her up, and I thought he is actually going to kill her, and he slammed her head into the corner of the bed."

But Mia's most harrowing testimony was what she claimed Diddy did to her. She alleged that he sexually assaulted her, threw things at her, berated her, and threatened to use photos against her.

She testified Diddy once ran off with her phone after borrowing it. Mia went after him, and she said he slammed her arm in a bathroom door repeatedly. When she found him later, Mia said Diddy told her this: I sent all of your compromising or inappropriate photos to my phone so I got something on you just in case you got something on me.

But her most emotional testimony came when she described multiple alleged sexual assaults. She spoke in almost a whisper, and she broke down on the stand. She testified about an incident months after starting her job during Diddy's 40th birthday at a New York City hotel. She said Diddy gave her two shots that hit her hard, and then she claimed he kissed her and put his hand up her dress.

Mia described another incident when she was asleep at his Los Angeles home. Her door was unlocked because Diddy didn't allow her to lock it. House rules. She said that she woke up with Diddy on top of her, and she alleged he raped her.

And Mia testified she couldn't say no to Diddy because she feared he would ruin her life. She said -- quote -- "I couldn't tell him no about a sandwich. I couldn't tell him no about anything. There was no way I could tell him no, because then he would know that I thought what he was doing was wrong, and then I would be a target."

The prosecution asked why she didn't go to H.R. She said, H.R. was only around when Puff wanted to call H.R. to punish you. H.R. was not there to protect you, but also who was going to believe me?

And what about telling the police? Well, Mia testified that she didn't think that was an option either. And when the prosecution asked why she didn't report Diddy's abuse toward Cassie, Mia responded, I believe that Puff's authority was above the police.

[23:05:03]

I want to begin with BBC journalist and host of the "Diddy on Trial" podcast, Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty. She was in court today as she is every day in the trenches following along.

Anoushka, this was riveting testimony. It was so emotional at times. I mean, she described in detail the chaotic, the fear-inducing work environment that Diddy allegedly fostered. But she never wanted to tell these stories at all. She never wanted to be in this position publicly. Right?

ANOUSHKA MUTANDA DOUGHERTY, PRESENTER, BBC'S "DIDDY ON TRIAL" PODCAST: Yeah. And Mia made clear that, you know, she was subpoenaed and that's why she was there, but she also said particularly pertaining to some of the sexual abuse that she alleged. She only spoke about this for the first time a year and a half ago when she started speaking to prosecutors.

And even when she was on the stand today, it was different from when we heard from Cassie. Cassie kind of felt like she'd been over this before. She'd sat with what she alleged happened to her, and she'd kind of worked it out, what she thought, what she felt. Today with Mia, it kind of felt like she was coming to terms with it on the stand.

COATES: Hmm.

MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: And sometimes, that meant she was looking down. She couldn't finish her sentence. Prosecutors had to kind of help her get to the end of the testimony. And it got a reaction in the room. Multiple journalists were in the lift crying, and that is not something you see every day.

COATES: Especially given the graphic nature of what has been over a dozen witnesses at this point describing in detail. Violence, sexual assault. These allegations are not for the faint of heart.

And, as you point out, you're still not even desensitized to what you're hearing, particularly with this particular witness because she was afraid. At one point, her lawyer in the first week of trial said that she wanted to take this information to her grave, Anoushka.

MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: Uh-hmm.

COATES: How did Diddy react to her testimony? MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: So, Diddy is looking at her, but I think the most important thing is she doesn't want to look at him at all. When she was speaking, she looked down the entire time, and to the point -- you know, some people bring binoculars in to look at the screen if they're in the overflow room. People were leaning in. They're trying to look at her. She did not look up once. I mean, he looked dead forward. He does that a lot. But the most impactful thing is that she kind of played with -- it's, like, she got smaller and smaller as she told the story.

COATES: Hmm. It's so uncomfortable to watch and, of course, for her to relay this in real time. And she was crying for a good part of the testimony.

MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: Yeah. She was upset. She was -- like I say, she was kind of grappling with what she felt and thought at the time, and she kept trying to get across. I don't know why I feel ashamed. I don't know why I felt like it was my fault, but this is how I felt. I must have done something wrong to make him so angry. I -- I felt stupid afterwards. I felt like it wasn't going to happen again, and then it did.

These were all the things that she was alleging. But she was kind of trying to communicate to the jury. There's a really complex set of emotions here that it sounded like she was just starting to come to terms with while she was up there.

COATES: In the public eye, under a pseudonym --

MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- hoping to have taken all of this to her grave. Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty, thank you so much.

MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: My pleasure.

COATES: My brilliant legal panel is back with me right now. We have former federal prosecutors, Gene Rossi and Alyse Adamson, and also Benjamin Chew, who served as co-lead counsel for Johnny Depp in his defamation trial against Amber Heard.

I mean, let's just start for a second at what that -- we've all been in a trial in front of a jury.

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

COATES: And although this person has a pseudonym and we don't have eyes and ears in the courtroom through the actual lens, the weight of testimony, that emotional, is going to take a toll, not just the reporters, but the jurors themselves. I mean, to think about them hearing this and the weight it has taken on her, what impact does that have if you're the prosecution?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah, Laura, I mean, I can't imagine how this might have resonated with the jury.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ADAMSON: As we just heard from the reporting, this witness was crying. She was shrinking. Jurors assess witnesses' credibility, and that seemed from all accounts to be very credible.

I think the impact on the prosecution's case is it's going to be helpful because witnesses need to be believed for the prosecution to prove their case. And I think this is probably one of the strongest witnesses that have come out for prosecution thus far.

And it is very sad that she had to be retraumatized to get this testimony out, but it was necessary to be able to hold Combs accountable. That's the way the prosecution sees it and why they sponsored this testimony.

COATES: They certainly want that debt to be connected for the jury, and they want to be able to pull on the figurative heartstrings and say, you corroborate Cassie, look what he has done, violence, sexual assault and allegations.

[23:10:02]

But they have a RICO case.

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

COATES: And the RICO case is notoriously difficult to connect dots, particularly because jurors assume there'll be stand-alone charges. Okay, if he did these things, then why am I not seeing the rape, the arson, the sexual assault, the gun, the drugs? You had to piece that together.

So, tell me, Ben, in your estimation, does her testimony move the needle as emotional as it was towards the RICO case?

BENJAMIN CHEW, CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR JOHNNY DEPP IN HIS DEFAMATION TRIAL: Well, I don't think directly, but I do think -- I totally agree. I think it was so impactful on the jury --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CHEW: -- and it underscores, you know, all the other testimony that they've heard from Cassidy. I think on the RICO case, I think Capricorn Clark's testimony yesterday went a long way toward that because you had a kidnapping --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CHEW: -- which is another predicate act.

COATES: The allegation being that he came to her house and removed her against her will to go with him to Kid Cudi's house so that they could essentially confront him for dating Cassie. That's the predicate crime that she is alleging on that point.

You know, but this idea of this -- this -- the pattern, RICO requires the pattern of conduct as well. So, one predicate crime.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right.

COATES: Another predicate crime. When you're hearing the violence aspects of it, is -- is that the -- the crux of the prosecution's case? These are not to say related, but you've got all these sprinkles of predicate crimes.

ROSSI: I think Mia was probably almost as important as Cassie.

COATES: Really?

ROSSI: Yes. Cassie was what I call the prologue witness. You know, beginning of a great book. You have a witness that sort of summarizes everything. The beauty of Cassie -- Mia is she corroborates a ton of what Cassie said.

But that little report you just did, to me, connects a dot to the enterprise. How? He's using the H.R. department as his playground. And she was asked on direct, why didn't she report it to H.R.? Because he controls it. So, you are now connecting his threat, his coercion, and his fraud to his own business through the H.R. department.

And the more I think about it, he did control the H.R. because none of these testimony -- testifying women have even thought about going to H.R. because he probably had a flunky or flunkies in H.R. that were under his thumb and would do anything he wanted, including firing an employee. That connects him to the enterprise.

COATES: Hmm. That's an interesting point. We have heard about people in the inner circle that have been --

UNKNOWN: Yeah.

COATES: -- the recipients of reports and that they have said, I will then talk to him. But the idea of that enterprise is part of the element. I mean --

UNKNOWN: Yes.

COATES: -- you can't just look at this in isolation. You have to connect the dots if you're the prosecution. And actually, we heard from Mia, she was one of the first -- I think that's the first time we've heard someone in this trial who suggest that she could not give consent to Diddy. And I want to point out why.

Because she testified about an alleged sexual assault where he gave her two shots that she said hit her pretty hard. Then she says Combs approached her unwanted and -- quote -- "My next like memory is I just remember being on a chair like in the main room in the penthouse and like coming to the chair and the sun was coming up."

It suggests that she wasn't able to remember the series of events. That's important in the sense of the control, the coercion. It's not just psychological. Right? ADAMSON: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean -- and there was a lot of that. I think even the reporter also said -- she said that she couldn't say no to a sandwich. She also testified that if she tried to leave, he would send security out to find her. She was not free to leave. She was not there in her own free will.

And with respect to the RICO charge, I have to say, her testimony supports two other predicate offenses. Potential forced labor, I think -- I mean, that sexual assault doesn't go to forced labor, but being forced to work 24 hours a day in a mansion that you're not free to leave sure does. Also, distribution of narcotics. She testified he forced her to try ketamine.

I mean, horrific. That is not how a regular business operates. That is establishing a corrupt enterprise.

COATES: And we should point out that a business can have legitimate business operations --

UNKNOWN: Yes.

COATES: -- and still engage in illegitimate and criminal actions and -- and create that -- that -- that prosecutorial crime here we're talking about.

And also, I would point out, she's an employee, not a girlfriend. So, the idea of this being a romantic jealous person that you find for Cassie, very different.

But let's just talk about the idea here that she couldn't go to police. She didn't go to police. How will the cross, as defense counsel, try to undermine this? Because the words "free will" keep coming to my mind. I'm thinking about how would I anticipate the defense working this. Is that the angle, that her choices is the issue?

CHEW: Yeah, I think they'll try that. But I think this is a very dangerous witness --

COATES: I think so, too.

CHEW: -- for them to push. I think to -- to go after such -- such a vulnerable witness who has obviously made such a -- a strong impression, I think, is very dangerous.

[23:15:04]

COATES: But what should they do?

ROSSI: Oh, on cross?

COATES: Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

ROSSI: First off, you pray. (LAUGHTER)

Get out your rosary.

(LAUGHTER)

And -- I'm serious. If I were the defense attorneys, I would want to crawl under the table. And the thing that I used to do in my big trials -- all my -- not all my trials are big, but I would always assign somebody, watch the jury. When a witness is on a stand, I want to see what the jury is doing.

COATES: Hmm.

ROSSI: Are they crying? Are they getting emotional? I -- I wanted to hear more about the jury's reaction. That reporters were crying. That's a pretty good sign that her testimony was powerful.

COATES: Yeah.

ROSSI: But -- but to get to the cross, on a serious note, I would -- all I would try to do is focus politely and professionally. If you go after her hard, a destructive cross versus constructive, you're going to lose a case tomorrow. So, I would just try to get into, she had an opportunity to go to the police, she had an opportunity to leave him although the threat was real. She was enamored with his glamour. She had a job, a well-paying job, a steady job.

COATES: Hmm.

ROSSI: I would just focus on that rather than going after her with any inconsistencies.

COATES: So, you focus on the idea that -- similar to how you did for Cassie, a mixed motive for staying --

ROSSI: Absolutely.

COATES: -- as opposed to just one. Well, you seem really concerned about her being somebody optically you could go after in a destructive cross. What would you focus on?

CHEW: I -- I would -- I agree with Gene. I -- I would go after, you know, just the fact that she did have options, and I would -- I would be somewhat gentle with her because I think the -- the prospect of it blowing up in -- in their faces is -- is huge.

COATES: It could also highlight how important a witness she is the more you go after because they didn't even cross some other people.

Alyse, finally, the defense is knowing that the prosecution has alerted them of some changes in their case and that this could make the case go longer than the promised July 4. Many people wondered, will this really go to that level? What could those changes be?

ADAMSON: Honestly, I was wondering the same thing. I'm, like, they say they're going to call fewer witnesses, and now you're saying your case is going to take longer. I mean, it's possible that they're going to call more witnesses to rebut what they've heard. Right? Or they -- there's -- there's something that they've heard and they want to introduce more evidence.

ROSSI: Right.

ADAMSON: Right? Do you agree, Gene?

ROSSI: Absolutely. What I think of -- I'm -- I'm just thinking out loud here as a defense attorney. They're probably going to call one or two experts. Guarantee.

COATES: Yeah.

ROSSI: They're going to throw experts because when you put experts on the stand, they can -- they can hurt your case. But you're calling an expert on a certain topic and, you know, they don't really have as much baggage as anybody else. So, I predict they're probably adding one or two experts to get beyond July 4.

COATES: You'll do it?

CHEW: Yeah. Somebody to rebut Dawn Hughes.

ROSSI: Exactly.

CHEW: Maybe someone a little more active and a little more likable maybe.

COATES: Hmm.

ADAMSON: I think it signals that the prosecution is doing a good job, quite frankly.

COATES: Or they're doing --

ROSSI: Yes, I agree.

COATES: -- what they did not expect them to. Remember this, what is -- who's not going to testify now? So maybe they have to change or just defend strategy overall. Fascinating conversation. Thank you. Stand by. You're all coming back.

There's so much more to get to this evening, including reaction from one of rap's most infamous names, Suge Knight. Diddy's longtime rival named over and over in testimony. And tonight, he's calling in from prison to respond.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, a decades-long music beef is spilling into the courtroom. Sean "Diddy" Combs versus Suge Knight. The two presided over rap rivalry that divided the music industry and the country at one point. They battled over artists, over money, and territory as Combs ran Bad Boy Entertainment on the East Coast and Knight ran Death Row on the West Coast.

Now, a 2009 incident between the men in L.A. is coming into the spotlight. Cassie Ventura testifying in court -- quote -- "Sean and I were having a freak off at one of his homes in L.A. And I just remember we were kind of, like, just chilling at this point. And D-Roc came in, and he said that Suge was down at Mel's Diner, which is just right down the hill. And they quickly packed up and drove down there."

D-Roc was one of Combs's security guards. And an ex-employee of Combs, David James, describing the moment he saw Knight at the diner, saying -- quote -- "Mr. Knight was standing there in the middle of the parking lot under a light, until we saw one gentleman get out of the car, and he passed a gun to Mr. Knight."

Prosecution said -- quote -- "What was D-Roc's reaction after he saw Suge Knight handling a gun? James: He said, we got to effing go. Prosecution: Did you go? James: I did, yes.

Joining me now by phone from prison in San Diego, the founder of Death Row Records, Marion Suge Knight. Suge, welcome to the program. I -- I am so curious about your answer to this question because, as you know, your one-time rival, Sean "Diddy" Combs, he is now facing life behind bars. How did you react to the fact that he is now standing trial?

SUGE KNIGHT, FOUNDER, DEATH ROW RECORDS (via telephone): I mean, any time somebody is fighting for their life and they have kids, you still got to show some type of, you know, sympathy for them. He might have, allegedly, did a lot of things, but I don't want to see the children locked up. You know? Because when a man is in prison or a woman is in prison, so is their family. You know?

COATES: Hmm. Yeah. His kids, his family are in the courtroom, and it's hard not to have your heart go out to them, knowing what the entire family is experiencing.

[23:25:01]

But let me ask you. I mean, the two of you worked in the same industry. We know you so well from Death Row Records and beyond. On the outside, we always hear about sex, drugs, rock and roll. But these allegations that are coming out, they're still pretty shocking. Do any of the accusations about trafficking or the drug-fueled sex parties, do any of those accusations surprise you?

KNIGHT (via telephone): No, because one thing about this industry, just like my artist. When I first started my company, I had my artist follow their bro. They would just smoke weed. Weed, weed, weed. Then when I start taking the endoscope, he was making jokes like, well, you can smell the weed in elephant, you can smell the weed on when they're coming off.

COATES: Hmm. KNIGHT (via telephone): And then they graduated. When they start meeting the other sexes, they start doing powder cocaine and (INAUDIBLE) and everything else. So, once you open that door and play with the devil, you're going to become the devil. So that's when a lot of the problems came in, I'm quite sure, for Puffy and everyone else.

COATES: Well, look, the Pandora's box you just described seems to be evident in the allegations. I just want to point out, you know, these high-profile execs, they have not been named in Ventura's lawsuit against Combs, and they've not been mentioned as witnesses or participants in any of the actions at trial and have not been charged.

But I take that your greater point reflection -- reflecting on this is about the industry that you have witnessed. We have heard how Combs controlled Cassie Ventura's career, down to what she wore, Suge, how her nails look, how her hail -- hair looks. You ran a record label. Can you just describe the kind of control you would have over the artist that you signed?

KNIGHT (via telephone): I mean --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.

KNIGHT (via telephone): -- because I came from the bottom and made it to the top, so I definitely love my artist.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KNIGHT (via telephone): So, I kept Snoop from getting life in prison. I got Tupac out of prison. I got -- stop a corrupt to go in a prison or to (INAUDIBLE) rage. And I don't regret anything. But it's a lot of you got to really care about each other. And a lot of times, in this dentistry, sometimes, people want to take short cut. And I love the jealousy of Mary J. Blige.

I -- I believe that as an executive or a record label owner, you're supposed to make them the star. Once you start trying to be the star, that's when the problem come in at. But it's not about accusing anyone.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KNIGHT (via telephone): We got to put everything on the table. If we put everything on the table, we can stop the cycle. But everybody says all the stuff about Puffy, but it's still a cycle. And you say, well, these other people haven't been accused of these things. A lot of them have because they slept in the rug.

COATES: Hmm.

KNIGHT (via telephone): It's not about making anyone look bad. We just got to do better. We just got to do better by the artist. We got to have a -- we got to have a union for the talent. I wanted to do one a long time ago.

COATES: Hmm.

KNIGHT (via telephone): We need to be a union where every time, they should have dental, they should have medical, they should have -- please replace when they're pregnant. They should have retirement. And they have none of these things.

COATES: When you talk about trying to provide artists with benefits, with all the things you've just named, what speaks to me from hearing testimony, from learning about the industry that you know very well, if artists don't have that individual level of independence, are you saying that they become more dependent and, therefore, more vulnerable to the people who own the labels?

KNIGHT (via telephone): Of course.

COATES: And if that's the case --

KNIGHT (via telephone): Absolutely.

COATES: -- what kind of control can you have over the person? I mean, we're hearing about violence. We're hearing about the inability to be free to leave. Are all of those things part of what an owner of a record label could do to keep that artist, well, beholden to him?

KNIGHT (via telephone): You still got to be a man. I think a lot of times, if you're a man and you know you're a man, you don't get to -- you don't get to act tough. You don't get to do tough things. You can just be regular. And sometimes, things do get tough with all of it. And sometimes, we have a learning experience. We do. So, certain things you do at 20, you're not going to do at 40.

But more importantly, what I'm trying to say is that money is the problem. Let these people make their money. This is like if you look at it right now, if you do streams, right? If they do a million streams, that's, like, only $300 for them. And who policing that? You know? So, the artist is always in a position where they're going to lose.

[23:30:00]

And that's got to be stopped. And the artist is always going to be in a position where -- I could find an artist in the project sitting down on a -- on a milk crate with no furniture. I could take that artist and make them a star.

But at the same time, once I make them a star, the major is going to walk that artist. And they're going to start in -- they're going to get in the air and make those artists turn against you. And I might know them better than those -- than the artist knows thy self. I might know that, hey, this guy can't be around drugs. This rock can't be around him.

But once the major is taken from you and nobody is there to keep him in line, they're going to do the drugs, they're going to make bad decisions.

COATES: Wow.

KNIGHT (via telephone): Because once you become somebody, everybody is against you. Once you become successful, your phone does not ring like ring, ring, ring. Your phone rings and says, what do you want? What do you want? Because every time your phone rings, somebody wants something.

COATES: You know, that's one thing that they said.

KNIGHT (via telephone): That's why you keep the artist --

COATES: That's one thing that they talked about, the idea that everyone wanting someone from somebody who owned a label. That's one of the things the defense was talking about, that everyone wanted something from Combs and what they got in return was different.

But then, of course, the prosecution has a whole different side of this, Suge. And you actually think that Combs may ultimately walk free. Given what you've heard from these witnesses this week, what you've heard about, do you think there's a possibility that Diddy gets acquitted?

KNIGHT (via telephone): Well, one of the things you got to believe is that I don't feel that the prosecution wants him that bad because a lot of stuff they had on him, they left out. Don't seem like they're really coming in hard at him.

COATES: Well, why is it?

KNIGHT (via telephone): Other situation -- well, like when they're not proving -- they're not taking the steps, like, actually showing the RICO. They're not actually showing the drugs. They're not actually talking about all these illegal drugs with the serial number raised off. They're not talking about -- they're not getting the actual individuals who might have lost their life or killed somebody.

They're not talking about a guy who might have gave Puffy drug money, how many people are speaking. Puffy got him a pardon instead of doing a whole bunch of years, and got a pardon from being a drug dealer. They're not talking about none of that stuff.

COATES: So, they're -- in your mind, they're not connecting the dots. They're not protecting the dots. Do you think they're focusing more on the violence --

KNIGHT (via telephone): I don't think they --

COATES: -- than focusing on anything else?

KNIGHT (via telephone): I don't -- I don't think they want to connect the dots.

COATES: Really?

KNIGHT (via telephone): FBI, they can connect the dots if they want to. I think that Puffy did a lot of favors for these people over the years. And I'm quite sure they owe Puffy a lot of favors. And there's no pressure on Puffy.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This call and your telephone number will be monitored and recorded.

COATES: I know we're hearing an alert from your phone just now, but go ahead.

KNIGHT (via telephone): If you get convicted, as Puffy gets convicted, Trump is going to pardon you. Trump is the president that stands up and do what he wants to do. And he's going to do what he feels best. So Puffy has nothing to worry about.

COATES: I wonder if he feels that way because, obviously, he's inside a courtroom fighting for his life, and there has been no indication that the president is intending to look at this case.

But let me ask you one last question in the time we have, Suge. From what you know about Diddy, Puffy as you call him, Sean Combs, do you think that he will want to testify in his own defense?

KNIGHT (via telephone): He probably -- he probably was advised not to without -- I feel if he do tell his truth, he really will walk. He can humanize his old stuff, and the jury might give him a shot. But if they keep him sitting down, it's like he's scared to face the music. He should have faith in God, put up his pants, go up there and tell his truth.

COATES: Suge, I think we -- I think we're losing you for a second, but I do wonder -- and, of course, his attorneys are going to have to counsel him and talk him about it, but I do wonder if Diddy will take the stand in his own defense. We're still in the active part of the prosecution's case. We want to hear more from you and, of course, hear what he has to say through his counsel at the very least. Suge Knight, thank you.

Still ahead tonight, Diddy's former chief of staff, not named in the indictment or charged with any wrongdoing, but who is she? And how has she come up so many times in the testimony? And is she important to the prosecution's case? The panel is back with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: She has been mentioned more than three dozen times in court so far, but she hasn't been called to testify, at least not yet and not as far as we know either.

Her name, Kristina Khorram, also known as KK. She has seen Diddy -- she has been Sean "Diddy" Combs's former chief of staff, someone he has described as his right hand, someone he's publicly given high praise to, saying in social media in 2021, KK has -- quote -- "consistently proven to execute and get shit done" -- unquote.

His right hand, someone who gets things done, how will that translate in court?

[23:40:02]

Well, one example, stylist Deonte Nash testified that he told KK, Khorram, about Combs's violence against Cassie. When the prosecution asked him, how did Kristina respond when you told her about violence that you observed between Mr. Combs and Cassie? Stylist responded that she would talk to him.

Now, to be clear, Khorram has not been charged with any crime and was not named in Diddy's federal indictment. She has been named as a defendant in three civil lawsuits against Combs, but she has denied all the allegations in those suits.

In a statement, she said in part that she -- quote -- "never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone" -- unquote.

My panel is back with me. So, is this person, mentioned over three dozen times, the missing link in the ability to show that enterprise or is her testimony going to further that?

ROSSI: I think KK will be the missing link to show that he used that enterprise as his playground, and he facilitated all his crimes by using employees, associates, and independent contractors. And allegedly, from what I'm reading, is she was aware of it and she condoned it.

COATES: Well, she said she didn't condone it, but it's her awareness --

ROSSI: I don't care what she said.

COATES: Why? That's what -- that's what the prosecution is going to say.

ROSSI: Yeah.

COATES: But is her awareness enough to link her?

ADAMSON: Yeah. Not necessarily. First, I think the prosecution may have already established this pattern through the low-level folks. But I agree, she would -- she would be the -- the icing on the cake at this point --

ROSSI: Yes.

ADAMSON: -- because she was so high level.

ROSSI: Yup.

ADAMSON: She was the chief of staff. And I --

COATES: And just to be clear, when I say link her, I mean being able to help the government prove an enterprise was behind the allegations against Combs. ADAMSON: No. Absolutely. And that's -- that's what I mean. We've seen low-level associates testify so far. But she was very high up. And when you read the indictment, they mentioned high-level supervisors. We hadn't seen those yet. She would be that person.

And to your point, in the opening, she has been mentioned three dozen times. And if you read the civil suits, she's alleged to have participated in a lot of this alongside Combs. So, I think it could be really key to get her up on the stand if they can.

COATES: I mean, she denies all the allegations, of course. Right? But the idea that the jury doesn't necessarily know about these civil lawsuits, but they are hearing her name over and over again -- they're actually showing her a picture on the screen, by the way.

CHEW: Yeah. And I think that's a great point. I think the jury is really expecting to hear from her. So, if the prosecution doesn't deliver her, I think they'll wonder why.

COATES: But what if the defense calls her? Would they do that? Would they risk that?

(LAUGHTER)

Oh-oh.

CHEW: No. And the reason is the prosecutors would have cross- examination.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CHEW: And it's a beautiful thing to do across as a prosecutor. I cannot imagine that she's not going to be a witness. I can't.

COATES: But would she do it? I mean, look, she's no fool.

CHEW: And for the prosecution.

COATES: Well, she's no fool. And I don't -- I don't know this woman. I know she denied all the allegations in the civil suits against her. But we've already heard a witness who has testified under immunity already and said I'm not testifying. He was a part of -- he was the assistant who talked about getting drugs for Diddy and beyond. Is there a possibility they would give her immunity if she did testify?

ADAMSON: Very possible. Right? I mean, if she does have testimony that could be that link, why not? That is what we usually see in these types of cases. Either they're cooperation agreements where someone is going to get a lesser charge because she does have a Fifth. I mean, if -- if the allegations are true, or they immunize folks to get them on the stand. So, I think it's a distinct possibility.

ROSSI: Yes. And here's -- I'm thinking of defense attorney now. If I'm in doing my closing argument and they don't call KK, all right, I'm going to point to these eight prosecutors and say they were so obsessed with Sean Combs Diddy. We have a -- as you can count members of the jury, there are eight of them, so obsessed with my client, yet an alleged conspirator named KK, they don't even call her as a witness because they gave her a free pass.

COATES: Let me ask you, how would you exploit that? And given, of course, you can -- you can prosecute RICO and a conspiracy case based on RICO without charging everyone who's a part of the conspiracy, allegedly.

CHEW: Exactly. But I still -- it goes back to the point. It begs the question, why didn't they call KK if they're mentioning her all the time? They may not technically need her, but I think as a practical matter, they do.

COATES: So, who else they need to call? You could think about the category of witness that you'd want to hear from next. Who would it be?

CHEW: I would just go for other insiders. It's not necessary, but I think they've established everything about Cassie Ventura. I think they've -- they've established Kid Cudi, the whole incident, the firebombing, at least through circumstantial evidence. I think you've got to go for more insiders.

ADAMSON: Victim two. I mean, we know victim three ended up being a reluctant witness, is not going -- expected to testify. We need victim two. I -- she did not have the same kind of ongoing relationship with Combs that Cassie did, and I think that would definitely firm up the sex trafficking charges.

ROSSI: KK did not work in a vacuum. This is a big enterprise, big corporation. She probably has a lot of information, but she also has underlings that may have invaluable information, and they worked in what I call a C-Suite.

COATES: Hmm. I wonder why we haven't heard from the security.

[23:45:00]

They're named all the time as a category. More, I guess, ahead. Thank you so much, everyone.

And much more on Diddy trial on my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." You can listen to it on CNN.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

So, ahead tonight, the major legal development that's ricocheting across the country and the globe. Trump's tariffs suddenly back on. It's a day after small businesses challenged him in court and won. What are they going to do now? The business owner who filed the very first lawsuit against the terrorists will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: You know, it seems like we can't go, what, 24 hours without more whiplash in President Trump's trade war. An appeals court is now reviving Trump's tariffs after they were blocked by another court just yesterday.

Now that ruling found the president overstepped his authority by invoking a 1977 law to declare a national emergency. The court battle comes on top of the constant back and forth, well, from Trump himself. He has repeatedly announced new tariffs only to pause them or reverse course later.

Joining me now are the first people to challenge Trump's tariffs in court, senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Andrew Morris. His organization is filing a lawsuit on behalf of Emily Ley, owner of the Florida stationery company, Simplified. Welcome to you both.

I'll begin with you, Emily, because you and I spoke a little over a month ago when your lawsuit was first filed, and you told me that you were -- quote -- "facing raising prices, cutting staff, or closing doors." Now, a lot has changed since the moment you and I spoke. How are things for your business?

EMILY LEY, FILED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING TRUMP TARIFFS: A lot has changed and yet so much remains the same, the chaos of constantly changing news and misunderstanding what the tariffs actually are. It's so hard to keep up while you're trying to keep business afloat. So, truly, not -- not much has changed for us. It's still -- it's still a lot to handle.

COATES: I mean, really is whiplash. I mean, you have the Trump reversals. You've got the tariffs coming in and out. You've got the appeal court that today paused a ruling that would have blocked these tariffs. How are you navigating this uncertainty knowing that business does require some element of certainty?

LEY: Well, I make planners for a living.

COATES: Yeah. Good point.

LEY: So, my whole team pivoted. We've pivoted from a lot of growth opportunities that we have this year, and we are solely focused right now on plan A, plan B, plan C for whichever way these things go so that we can survive it.

COATES: Andrew, your organization is filing actually a separate lawsuit. You're also arguing the president cannot use this 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs. Are you more optimistic --

ANDREW MORRIS, SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL, NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE: That's right.

COATES: -- given, well, I guess, yesterday's ruling?

MORRIS: Well, we certainly think the rulings are causes for optimism, Laura. In the last -- so in the last 24 hours or so, two different courts in two different jurisdictions, New York and D.C., have both ruled that these tariffs are entirely unlawful.

Now, as you pointed out, they've both been put on hold while the appeal goes through the process. But two different courts have held that the tariffs are unlawful. And this is a total of four judges, two Republican- appointed, two Democratic-appointed.

We think the opinions are strong. They're very solid in lawyerly terms. And so, we are optimistic that these are solid opinions that should be upheld on appeal.

COATES: Well, there are those four judges, but everyone looks to the nine who are part of the Supreme Court because that, too, could eventually possibly hear a case like this. Are you already thinking about arguments to be made before those Supreme Court justices and how they might rule if they do hear this case?

MORRIS: Yes. While it's hard and impossible to predict that -- that the pace and speed at which this might move, and we'll know a lot in the next week or two, we -- our view is we're confident that the nature of the arguments here should appeal to the -- the -- the entire Supreme Court, all nine justices down the line.

There's nothing radical in -- in this decision. This is -- what is new here is that the president, for the first time ever, any president, has invoked a nontariff law to impose tariffs. He has bypassed the tariff laws. And applying the basic principles the Supreme Court has set out at how we decide whether a president is overreached, we saw cases during the Biden administration --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MORRIS: -- where overreaching was struck down. And now, in our view, this is the same kind of case here. So, we think it's well positioned to be affirmed if it reaches the Supreme Court.

COATES: Well, before that happens, if it happens, Emily, there's the day-to-day of business operations. And I am wondering, from your perspective, Emily, if you could say something to President Trump tonight about what these tariffs, what the whiplash means for your small business, what would it be?

LEY: You know, I would say that we spend so much time talking about how small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but when it comes down to it, who's standing up for them? And why are we the ones standing up here right now trying to protect keeping our doors open?

[23:55:04]

I mean, if my business were to go under because of this, it wouldn't be because my business failed, it would be because our government failed us.

COATES: Really, really powerful words. Emily Ley, Andrew Morris, thank you both. MORRIS: Thank you, Laura.

LEY: Thank you so much.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," a day after one court put his tariffs on hold, the higher court let them go.