Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Boris Sanchez And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Colorado Terror Suspect Charged With Attempted Murder And Federal Hate Crime; Boris Sanchez Interviews Sketch Artist Christine Cornell; Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Diddy; Clinical Psychologist From Depp-Heard Trial Speaks Out. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 02, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And that is like what it looks like.

(LAUGHTER)

I can't -- I can't even think about tsunamis. It gives me nightmares.

Okay, everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is on right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, hate and terror in Colorado. The alleged year-long antisemitic plot revealed as officials vow to bring the suspect to justice. Colorado's attorney general will join us tonight.

But first, claims of brainwashing, tracking devices, and more than a hundred objections in new and dramatic testimony against Sean "Diddy" Combs, tonight on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."

Thank you so much for sharing your evening with us. I'm Boris Sanchez, in for Laura tonight.

Day 14 of the trial of Sean Combs brought aggressive questioning and serious claims about just how much control he had as a former aide took the stand for her third day of testimony.

In just a moment, our legal experts and court insiders will unpack what we heard from Mia, who says that Diddy sexually assaulted her.

Here's the snapshot of today's key moments in court. The defense grilled Mia on why she didn't report her abuse allegations, but she fired back, telling the court that she was brainwashed after years of psychological manipulation. Mia also explained why she never urged Cassie Ventura to leave Diddy, claiming that he used tracking devices on his ex-girlfriend's car.

Defense lawyer Brian Steel picked up his cross-examination by showing Mia's own text messages to Diddy, many of them from years after she had left his payroll. One from May 2020 says -- quote -- "I will always be here for you in every capacity." Another one from August of that year -- quote -- "I love you with all my heart, and I'm still here with you forever." Another one from July 2022 -- quote -- "I love, love, love you."

But Mia told jurors that those texts don't tell the full story and mask a much darker reality. She claimed that she was brainwashed. She said that Diddy was her authority figure, her only authority figure. She testified that when Diddy was happy, she was safe. She said that she knew Diddy's power and his wrath.

The defense then asked Mia if she ever reported what she went through. She said no on redirect and was asked to explain why. She testified -- quote -- "Human resources only punished me unjustly." Then went on to say, I wouldn't be believed, I would be wiped out, I would be abused, fired, and somehow made out to look like it was -- like I was a crazy person, making everything up.

Mia explained that she kept quiet and even shielded Cassie out of fear for their safety. She told the court, he has stolen my phone many times. He has stolen Cassie's phone many times. He has put tracking devices on her car. I'm not sure what he was capable of. I was terrified.

CNN's Kara Scannell was back inside the courtroom today, and she joins us now. Kara, the defense spent a lot of time questioning Mia about these text messages she sent to Combs, some of them very flattering in nature. What were they trying to prove?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, they did present a number of text messages, about a dozen, that she sent after she's no longer worked for Sean Combs. For over six years, she was continuing to message him.

And they were trying to get at this idea that she has been testifying under direct examination and under cross, that she was so scared of Combs, that he had physically abused her, that he had sexually assaulted her and raped her.

And so, they were asking her repeatedly and having her read these text messages to ask, why were you doing this? I mean, one of these messages is from August 2020, and she says, I've also been thinking about you so much and feeling your pain. And just so you know, I love you with all my heart, and I'm still here for you forever. We have so many hilarious ass memories and stories.

So, they're asking her, why did you send this message, among other ones, where she texted him, I love, love, love, love you! and many of these without being prompted by Combs. She was just sending them on her own. So, they asked her, why were you doing this? And she said, I was still brainwashed at the time. And she said also that she didn't understand what had happened to her until very recently. She said number of times that she has been in therapy.

So, the -- the kind of the thrust of this here was just this incredulous questioning by the defense team, asking her how she could say all of these things and yet never do anything.

And then, even at one point, Combs's lawyer had said to her -- brought up what she'd said on direct examination where she said, at the time, there was -- the "Me Too" movement hadn't happened. That started after she no longer worked for Combs. So, it wasn't really a place where a woman would be believed.

[23:04:58]

And so, they said to her, well, a number of these messages, including the most recent, it was from November 2023, wasn't that after the "Me Too" movement? And they said -- a lawyer said to her, well, it seems like you just got a lawyer so you could get on the "Me Too" money grab, which she was about to answer, but the judge had sustained an objection from the prosecution.

And there were a lot of objections during this testimony. The prosecutors standing up a number of times because they felt that he was asking -- Combs's attorney was asking her questions that went, you know, beyond, that he was testifying himself, and this came up during a sidebar with the judge where the judge had said -- you know, he thought that the lawyer's questionings were fine to the extent that he was just putting them in the wrong form.

But he said he was going to keep an eye to make sure that the lawyer wasn't just asking questions to try to get the question in the mind of the juror even if it wasn't a proper question to ask the witness based on the way that it was formed.

SANCHEZ: And Kara, testimony is set to continue tomorrow with several more witnesses expected to be called, including a couple with links to Combs. Who are they?

SCANNELL: Yes. So, they're going to call someone who used to work for Bad Boy and Combs Enterprises. His name is Derek Ferguson, and he was in the finance department.

This fits in because part of the government's theory in this case, the racketeering conspiracy, is that this was a criminal enterprise. And so, they have been introducing evidence through a number of witnesses to suggest that Bad Boy and Combs Enterprises was paying for a number of these things to put it on the whole company working on this. I mean, even Mia testifying that she felt she couldn't go to H.R. because H.R. was just there to punish her and others and to promote and protect Combs. That is a theme of the government's case.

And so, he's going to be asked, I think, about the money trail when he's on the stand.

They also said they're going to call this other witness, Bryana Bongolan, who is known as Bana. She has come up numerous times during the testimony. Cassie Ventura testified that Combs had dangled her over a balcony in Cassie Ventura's apartment. She also -- Bana had filed a civil lawsuit against Combs, which Combs denied, but she is a witness who is going to be a person who the jury has already heard a lot about and in some vivid testimony. SANCHEZ: Kara Scannell, thanks so much for the update.

Let's get some perspective now from our powerhouse legal team. We have trial attorney Monique Pressley, who used to represent Bill Cosby, Jim Trusty, former chief of the DOJ's organized crime and gang section, he used to represent President Donald Trump, and Shan Wu, defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. Great to be with all of you.

First to you, Shan. So, Mia has been questioned for three days now, virtually the same amount of time that we saw Cassie Ventura on the stand for. What impact, do you think, she's going to have on the outcome of this trial?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think the reason you're seeing her up there for such a long time is because it shows what kind of impact she could potentially have on it. Like Ventura, she's also being presented as a witness who was also victimized here.

And so that's a very important piece of foundation for the prosecution to lay. They still have a lot of stuff to tie together, but they have to get this evidence out there. And I think from the sounds of it, it has been awfully a compelling testimony.

SANCHEZ: Compelling testimony that does overlap with some of the allegations of physical and sexual abuse that we've heard previously. Is there a risk that the prosecution is overlapping too much?

WU: There's a risk in cases like this where the prosecution really has to be careful that the more impactful, even salacious testimony doesn't go past the point of being probative versus prejudice which can solve a lot of problems for you on appeal if you get the conviction.

A little hard to say. I mean, you're seeing objections from both sides a lot today. I think today's objections were more the prosecution was trying to make a point to the jury that defense was kind of being bully towards the victim.

But they do have to be careful with that and they have to really stay in the focus zone of making sure all this very impactful, compelling evidence gets tied to the elements of the charges.

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, DOJ ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Can I say something --

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

TRUSTY: -- about those objections?

SANCHEZ: Please.

TRUSTY: Yeah. Just -- it's a bit of trial advocacy, I suppose. Yeah, it is a difficult spot in front of a jury to have somebody in the other side who feel -- you feel is drawing you into constant objection because in a sense, if you keep objecting, you're highlighting that they're scoring points. SANCHEZ: Hmm.

TRUSTY: Sometimes, the jury takes it the opposite way like you're obstructing a logical course of questioning. So, it's a real art to figure out when do I just sit down and let it play out, when do I not.

What I'm hearing from the report is that the judge is not being a particular activist about shutting down the defense cross. If that's the case, you got to read the room as a prosecutor and wait for just a few times where it's really critical to object. So, I think that's an interesting kind of game within the game that's going on.

The other thing I just want to mention really quick, you know, assault and sexual assault are not predicate crimes for RICO. This is charged as a racketeering influence corrupt organization, the entity being all of Sean Combs's businesses and himself. So, it's legally permissible but kind of factually tricky.

[23:09:567]

I think what this is building to, believe it or not, is a witness that's not a victim. It's building towards an expert on human trafficking and sex trafficking to explain why someone like Mia would stick around, why Mia would still have this misplaced allegiance years later. And they're going to put it in the context of the psychological control that happens in human trafficking cases.

So, I think that's going to be a real interesting battle down the road, who comes in to tie these crimes together that are not actual RICO predicates, but will come together as a human trafficking or sexual trafficking predicate.

WU: The forced aspect of violence does go to the forced sex trafficking, too. So, they kind of have that outlet.

TRUSTY: Right, but not the assault, not the rape per se. It's got to be, you know, part of the bigger picture.

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: And the sex trafficking depends on whom the victim is actually supposed to be for the sex trafficking. They spent the first few weeks of this case saying that it was Ms. Ventura who went to me. That was always kind of obvious, that there were others who they could probably get a better case out of.

But I agree, where's -- where's the beef is what we're going to need to know if they're trying to use the expert that you think that they're going to use. I think that's a huge problem because they're trying to put again someone on the stand to explain why people did things that they haven't evaluated, that they -- who they weren't treating.

It's the same thing as the prior expert that they had who tried to explain why Ms. Ventura would do things or not do things when she hadn't spent a day treating her, hadn't done an evaluation of her.

That's highly unreliable, and juries are not dumb. WU: Okay. On that, I would disagree with you. I'll just say I'm the expert because I'm actually was one of the first prosecutors in D.C. to use a domestic violence expert. As long as the expert isn't opining on the ultimate issue, saying this was, you know, wrong legally, I think it gives you a very good framework as a prosecutor to fit in the behavior of the witnesses and possibly explain this question of why didn't you report earlier.

SANCHEZ: It's fascinating to see the prosecution and -- and someone with prosecutorial experience take one side and the defense take the other. I wonder what you make of what Jim was describing, about the difficulty in push -- pushing a RICO case forward. You have cell phones being stolen, you have cars being tracked, allegations of which -- does that not rise to the level of coercion and does that not get them closer to a RICO case?

PRESSLEY: Right now, it's all kind of sounding like throw everything against the wall and see how much you can get to stick. It's not coming out like some organized common scheme or plan. It's not sound -- I mean, RICO cases are hard to prove, anyway.

And when you have a circumstance like this where a jury may very well be looking and thinking the domestic violence is horrible -- this is not anybody's great guy. They may detest the defendant, but they may not see that as the same thing as a criminal enterprise. They may think this is a horrible domestic violence relationship and that this is a person who was a cool boss.

And those two things can be true without there being a RICO at the end of the line.

TRUSTY: True, but a very, very challenging closing argument for a defense attorney because you've got -- by that point, there may be this critical mass of people being dangled out windows, sexual assaults, obstruction, horrible things. You get to a point you stand up in closing, you go, yeah, that's kind of all true, but it doesn't add up to a RICO.

That's a tough argument. Doesn't mean it's not -- it's available, for sure. We're going to hear it, for sure. But -- but it's a tough fight by that point of the trial for the jury --

PRESSLEY: And it depends on the jury. It depends on how many people they've dangled out of windows, how many times they've been --

TRUSTY: Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

PRESSLEY: -- obsessed lovers who were running down the middle of the street, trying to keep their wife from leaving.

SANCHEZ: That's fascinating perspective.

PRESSLEY: You have to figure out who you have as a jury in order to know what they're going to be thinking. TRUSTY: You ask questions during jury selection. How many of you have dangled somebody else?

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

PRESSLEY: Yeah. They -- they answer honestly.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: I do wonder -- I do wonder what you all make victim number three. This is someone that was set to testify. They're not going to testify even as we've seen other witnesses come forward and make clear that they are only testifying because they're under subpoena. What -- what's going on with victim number three?

WU: Well, it's hard to speculate what's going on with them. As a prosecutor, I wouldn't be too worried about that if I've portrayed this atmosphere of being intimidated, and I just kind of let that speak for itself.

And going back to number two, I think if this trial continues to play out this way, you've got all this really explosive kind of evidence, the job for the prosecutor at the end is to stay pretty dispassionate, don't rely too much on the emotion, explain how the charges and the elements are met by this evidence, and don't rely too much on that explosive aspect because that's where you get into trouble.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate all of you. Thanks so much for the conversation.

TRUSTY: Good to see you.

SANCHEZ: Still plenty more news to come this hour. Charges of a hate crime in Colorado. Police revealing the suspect plotted a heinous attack for over a year. And tonight, we're learning it actually could have been far worse. Was he on law enforcement's radar? If not, why? We're going to discuss that and more with Colorado's attorney general, next.

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We have to warn you, the images you're about to see are disturbing. A horrific scene unfolding during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration on Sunday for the hostages still in Hamas captivity when 45- year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman drove to downtown Boulder with a homemade flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. The suspect yelling "free Palestine" as he tossed the incendiary devices into the crowd. Twelve people were injured in the attack. Two of them remain hospitalized.

Law enforcement says that the suspect acted alone and that only one thing kept him from attacking sooner, his daughter's high school graduation.

[23:20:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. BISHOP GREWELL, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLORADO: Mr. Soliman stated that he had been planning this attack for a year. And when he was interviewed about the attack, he said he wanted them all to die. He had no regrets, and he would go back and do it again. He said that he had previously tried to purchase a firearm, but resorted to the Molotov cocktails when he could not purchase a gun because he was not a legal citizen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Officials have charged Soliman with a federal hate crime, and he could now face life in state prison on 16 counts of attempted murder in the first degree.

With me now, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. Sir, thanks so much for sharing your evening with us. The federal government is confident they can prosecute the suspect with a federal hate crime charge. They've not charged him, no, with terrorism. Do you share that confidence?

PHIL WEISER, COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: This has every single marking you can imagine about a hate crime. The individual knew the people he was targeting. He knew they were Jews. He knew they were there because they were peacefully demonstrating against the injustice of hostages in Gaza who've been there now approaching two years. He planned it over a long period of time and it said, according to the federal arrest warrant, that the goal was to kill as many people as possible. He knew the people who were there. So, that's every harm making of a hate crime.

In federal law, there are complications about when you might prosecute someone as acting as a terrorist. We're focusing in Colorado on state law. There are also state law charges here, including attempted murder.

You add all this up, this individual is going to be held to account to the fullest extent of the law.

SANCHEZ: Now, I actually spoke with a member of the community earlier today who said that though they never expected violence at these walks, the group had become accustomed to being heckled. I -- I also understand that certain tensions over the war in Gaza reportedly started to boil over at city council meetings. You're the top law enforcement officer in Colorado. How do you plan to tamp down growing hostility there?

WEISER: What I am very much working towards and what I believe is the opportunity is for people to see this act as the ugly face of antisemitism, to see this act as a warning sign. When you escalate demonization, when you justify harassment, even violence, this is what it can lead to.

We all need to take a look in the mirror and say this sort of political violence is unacceptable. We all have to condemn it. When people want to change public policy, they engage in dialogue and the democratic process. Violence, harassment, name calling, demonization. This is something we're seeing too much of. It's got to stop.

SANCHEZ: Who do you think needs to be held accountable for some of that rhetoric? And -- and I should note, you are a Jewish elected official. You've said that this attack is personal to you. As you reflect on the rise in antisemitic crimes across the country, where does that accountability over some of the rhetoric directed toward Jewish people begin?

WEISER: It's worth setting the stage. Before October 7, there were more hate crimes against Jews than any other religious group, and that's by a considerable amount.

In the 2023 to 2024 cycle, if you will, after October 7, we saw 40% increase in Colorado in antisemitic incidents. Obviously, the rhetoric in the wake of October 7 has turned to a range of actions towards Jews that are hateful, that are targeting people because of who they are.

We've heard about some of the activities on college campuses where chance is to go back to Poland or other -- again, hateful in some cases, vandalizing in some cases. People are being actually physically targeted. We need to take a look in the mirror at this range of behavior that's targeting people because of who they are.

And what America promises, and this was from George Washington who wrote a letter at Rhode Island synagogue, is this is a nation where bigotry has no sanction, where everyone can live safely under their own vine and fig tree. That's what every American deserves. That's what we have to work towards.

SANCHEZ: I -- I do want to ask you about claims from some in the administration. DHS says that the suspect was in the United States illegally. He, apparently, had overstayed a work visa that was issued under the Biden administration. President Trump is squarely blaming his predecessor's policies for this attack.

[23:25:03]

To what extent do you think Democrats are responsible?

WEISER: This is not a helpful conversation, to call this a democratic or a republican issue in terms of responsibility. This is an American issue. And we all as Americans owe the following to one another.

If you hear something about someone planning attack and this attack was planned over a very long period of time, then please say something. It's serious. There's someone who's in critical care whose life hangs in the balance. There are 12 people who are injured in a fire attack that's going to leave not just physical damage, but psychological damage.

Everyone has to say, what's my part in making our nation a nation, where everyone can feel safe, and where no one, because of who they are, Jewish, non-Jewish, what have you, has to worry about being targeted.

SANCHEZ: Attorney General Phil Weiser, thanks for joining us. WEISER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Let's continue the conversation now with former chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the government of D.C., Donell Harvin. Donell, thanks for joining us.

So, this suspect had been planning this for about a year, though the Boulder Police Department said that he wasn't on the radar, on their radar. Should he have been?

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Well, that happens a lot, and you hear this all the time. He's considered a lone actor. Lay people call them lone wolves. If they're not communicating their threats to anybody, then he is completely off the radar.

And so, what they're doing right now in part of the investigation is they're looking at any leads that they may have gotten that may have been ignored, any threats that may have made online or individuals -- individuals, in person, to kind of run that down. But it is very plausible.

SANCHEZ: I also wonder about the fact that the suspect's family has been cooperative. He allegedly left behind a phone with messages to his loved ones at home, a phone that his wife actually turned over to police following his arrest. What do you make of all of that?

HARVIN: You know, this individual -- based on that, his family has probably taken aback. I mean, he went to his daughter's graduation. They're probably shocked. They probably didn't see this coming. You know, a lot of people are radicalized, but not everybody mobilizes to violence.

And so, while people have very vociferous and very outspoken views on different things, mobilizing the violence really takes a degradation of someone's moral character, and they may not have seen that coming.

SANCHEZ: I'm also fascinated by the fact that he had tried to obtain a gun. He -- he went and, I believe, obtained a firearms license and took lessons, but he couldn't because he's not a legal resident of the United States. Is this a case where the system worked to prevent this from being much worse than it could have been?

HARVIN: Absolutely. I mean, that was clearly a soft target. Fortunately, law enforcement got there pretty quickly. But you can imagine how much damage he would have been able to do if he had a semiautomatic weapon. Understand that most active shooter incidents are over in thirty seconds. And so, had he had a gun, he could have killed people.

SANCHEZ: I also wonder, because you mentioned soft target, and this is a weekly walk that has been taking place now for a couple of years, so somebody could have easily observed it. I also think about what happened here in D.C. a few weeks ago outside the Jewish museum. These workers for the Israeli embassy getting shot in cold blood.

Is there such a thing as a soft target anymore for attacks like this? Because it seems like they're happening just about anywhere.

HARVIN: Well, everything's a soft target at this point. Right? And so, you know, I -- I was here almost two weeks ago talking about that D.C. attack, that that was an embassy staff, you would think they'd have more security. You know, these are individuals that are peacefully protesting. And sure, they're probably police, law enforcement, but there was no active threat. They'll probably find out no one was making active threats. This is a regular occurrence.

And so, you know, the Jewish community is completely under attack at this point. I mean, you -- you heard the attorney general say it. The -- the statistics are even worse nationwide. The Jewish population makes up about 2.7% of the member of the United States citizens. Yet, in 2023, the FBI logged almost 70% of hate-related crimes were targeting towards that small population. And so, you know, everyone needs to be on alert.

SANCHEZ: Donell Harvin, great to get your perspective. Thanks for joining us.

HARVIN: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead, our eyes and ears in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Sketch artist Christine Cornell on how Diddy was acting during today's intense cross-examination and how the jury was reacting, too.

And later, President Trump says he won't rule out a pardon for Diddy. Fifty Cent says he's going to try to bend Trump's ear to convince him otherwise. Who's going to win this potential effort to get Diddy pardon?

Plus, one of Trump's former attorneys and the man that Diddy originally wanted on his defense team, Joe Tacopina, standing by for more on that, next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: So, what was it actually like inside the courtroom as Diddy came face-to-face with his former employee, who's alleging that he sexually assaulted her?

Earlier, I caught up with sketch artist Christine Cornell, our eyes and ears inside the courtroom, and asked her how Mia was behaving when she took the stand today.

[23:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: I have never seen a witness carry themselves the way she did. She never raised her eyes to anyone, not to the jury, not to the lawyer who was asking her questions. She was kind of, like, in a -- in a little withdrawn cave. And even when she passed me, which she would have to do every time she left the stand, she didn't make eye contact with anyone in the courtroom. She was just trying to get out of there quick. And --

SANCHEZ: And how about Diddy?

CORNELL: I've never seen that.

SANCHEZ: I -- I know you were -- you were sitting close behind him. How was Diddy reacting to all of this?

CORNELL: Well, when she first took the stand, he was very agitated. And he moved his chair three times. I think probably just wanting to make sure he had the best line of sight at her. Like, he wanted to do the eyeball to eyeball thing, and she wasn't having any of it.

You know, he resorted to doing what he could do, which was take notes and pass notes to his lawyers, and -- and -- and just try to throw it in her face, which you saw over the last two days --

SANCHEZ: Hmm.

CORNELL: -- everything, you know, that she'd ever said that was glowingly flattering of him as to, you know, counter her current claims, which is that he kind of really wrecked a havoc on her life.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. We also saw sparks flying between the prosecution and the defense today when Mia was on the stand. You had a prosecutor, Maureen Comey, telling the judge -- quote -- "Mr. Steel has yelled at this witness, Mr. Steel has been sarcastic with this witness, Mr. Steel has been argumentative with this witness." What was that moment like?

CORNELL: Well, you know, the judge said he didn't see it. And actually, I think they picked the best person to do that job. Mr. Steel did it in such a -- a kind of a -- a downplayed way that, yes, he was definitely, you know, battering her or trying to. He called her a liar. He said, aren't you making this all up? But he was doing it like -- it almost trying to, like, coax it out of her, but it wasn't happening.

I watched the jury very carefully today. I had a feeling that they were also somewhat exasperated with the defense insistence on just, you know, naysaying everything that came out of her mouth, saying, oh, you said you loved him here, oh, you sent him a card here, you know, how do you -- how do you come back, you know, from that and call him a rapist? I do think that -- that the jury was weary with it.

SANCHEZ: Christine Cornell, thank you so much for joining us.

CORNELL: Okay.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Joining me now is defense attorney Joe Tacopina. He previously represented President Donald Trump in the civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, and recently successfully represented ASAP Rocky when he was acquitted on felony gun charges back in February.

Joe, thanks so much for being with us. President Trump not ruling out a pardon for Diddy if the music mogul is convicted. He told reporters that he's going to -- quote -- "look at the facts." Given what you know about the president, do you think he really would consider a pardon?

JOE TACOPINA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I mean, I -- look, I wouldn't put much stock into that back and forth. That was an off the cuff question by a reporter.

The president wasn't scripted, obviously. He simply said, look, having been through what he has been through, four prosecutions in one year, none of which were successful. You know, I think he's a little sensitive to, you know, unjust prosecutions. So, I think what he was simply saying was that he'd look at it. Of course, that has now become headline news and a story and everything else.

One thing he was also clear about is no one has asked him on -- on Diddy's behalf for a pardon. I don't think -- I think we're putting the car way before the horse here. First of all, there needs to be a conviction. And secondly, you know, if there is a conviction, is this sort of a case that the president would -- would pardon and -- and set aside a jury verdict? I just don't think so.

But, honestly, Boris, if I'm the defense team right now, this is the last thing I want us talking about or anyone talking about, because the last thing I want is the jury to hear that, oh, so wait a minute, if we convict him, there's a chance that perhaps he's not even going to jail, so then the press is really off us, so let's just convict him because, look, what's proven in this case is that Diddy is a bad guy, what has proven in this case is that Diddy is a criminal, okay, in regards to domestic abuse and in regards to drug use, was proven in guns, and what's proven in this case is that he is a domestic batterer.

[23:40:00]

Okay? All bad things. Not a good guy. What's not necessarily proven is he's a racketeer. These are --

SANCHEZ: Hmm.

TACOPINA: -- charges, not domestic assault charges. Okay? So, there's a lot of things proven in this case. I still don't believe what has been proven at that is that he's a sex trafficker or a racketeer. And those are the big burdens that the prosecution has to meet here. So, I -- I'm not so convinced that this case is going all that well for them.

SANCHEZ: When it comes to the idea of the potential for a pardon, you're right that, as far as we know, nobody from Diddy's campus requested one. Somebody has spoken out already against one without there even being a conviction, and that's 50 Cent, arguably the greatest troll --

TACOPINA: Right.

SANCHEZ: -- of all time. He has been sharing these videos on Instagram of Diddy appearing to criticize Donald Trump in the past. I wonder how much some of that criticism might be a factor in a decision to potentially pardon not just Diddy, but anyone else because there is a perception, at least lately, that some of the pardons that the White House has issued are in part because of folks that have tried to curry favor with the president. What do you think?

TACOPINA: Look, I don't think it's as simple as that. I think when he pardoned someone, he believes that they've been either treated unfairly by the system or that there's a just reason to issue a pardon. Okay? I know people are quick to say, oh, he's doing favors to people who are good to him. I -- I -- I don't think he's making that evaluation.

That being said, I do know that if someone has a lot of awful things to say about him, that is something he's going to consider when he's evaluating whether someone deserves a pardon or not.

Again, this is not the sort of case to me that if a jury finds guilt, that the president is likely to upset that verdict. I just don't believe he would. Again, he needs to understand the facts of this case. But knowing the facts of this case, I don't think he would base it on the -- base on the type of evidence that has been presented.

Again, I still think there's a big void where the evidence of racketeering enterprise should be and built in this case. But, look, they -- they -- they -- look, this is what the prosecutors' theory was all along.

Make him out to be one of the worst human beings that ever walk the face of this earth, make him out to be a very unlikable guy, a batter of women, an abuser of people lower than he, someone who's not nice to anyone, it seems like, and someone who's willing to lose his mind over someone interfering with his relationships with women.

Have they proven he's a completely insane, jealous boyfriend? Absolutely. Does that make him part of a racketeering enterprise? You know, Boris, I guess the jury is going to have to decide that. But in this case, it's not that simple. I mean, we're spending days in federal court talking about baby oil and apple sauce on burgers. I mean, this is not the sort of stuff you hear in federal racketeering trials for the most part.

SANCHEZ: Joe Tacopina, fascinating to hear from you on this. Thanks for joining us.

TACOPINA: Okay, Boris. Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Up next, it's a question that the defense keeps bringing up. Why did Diddy's alleged victims not leave him or at least report him? We have insight tonight from one of the psychologists who testified in the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial, and she's standing by, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: When he was happy, I was safe. Those seven words from Mia highlight how accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs say they try to placate the music mogul to protect themselves from his alleged violence and abuse.

For psychologists, that testimony reveals an all too familiar cycle. It's something my next guest knows all about. She evaluated Amber Heard during the Johnny Depp defamation lawsuit. Here's some of her testimony in that trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHANNON CURRY, CLINICAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Borderline personality disorder is a disorder of stability. It's instability. And it's instability in personal relationships, it's instability in their emotions, it's instability in their behavior, and it's instability in their sense of self and their identity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Clinical and forensic psychologist Shannon Curry joins us now. Shannon, thanks for being with us. So, when you hear this testimony from Mia saying that Combs brainwashed her and that he used to be her protector, what comes to mind?

CURRY: Well, that is an excellent question, and I want to preface that first by saying that, as a forensic psychologist, it is really important that I'm representing to the public that I'm not here to give any opinions about anybody who is a party to this trial. I have not evaluated anybody.

And so, I'm really here to share some of the science, some of my clinical experience on these more general issues around violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence, and why people would stay in these situations without making any sort of opinion on what is really within the realm of the jury and the judge to determine about guilt.

So, with that said, you know, depending on what specifically you're interested in, a lot of -- I understand that the brainwashing comment has gotten a lot of criticism and questioning.

[23:49:58]

And I will say that for people on the outside looking in, a lot of the behavior you might see from somebody who is going through intimate partner violence or who is in some sort of relational dynamic with somebody who is using coercive control or is psychologically violent or is just doing things that can be intimidating, their behavior, of the survivor, of the victim, it can seem counterintuitive.

So, in a -- in very established research-based ways, we know that there is the foot in the door, that these things don't start overnight, and that there really is a gradual process of coercion where, over time, you find yourself sort of like the old adage of a frog in boiling water, it gets hot so slowly you just don't jump out.

SANCHEZ: So, then, why do some people find it so difficult to leave their alleged abusers or -- or even to report them, especially given some of the testimony that we've heard from witnesses in -- in this case, for example?

CURRY: Uh-hmm. Excellent point. And that's exactly what I'm speaking to, is it can seem so counterintuitive. If you're hearing these explicitly violent accounts, it can seem, like, why didn't you run screaming? And I'll tell you exactly why.

Because usually, this starts off not like a horror show, it starts off like a fairy tale, and you are given -- especially if you came from a complex traumatic background, if you had to earn love from your parents or if you weren't ever really safe in your family of origin. You're going to take crumbs. You're going to accept crumbs.

And if somebody is coming at you, who has immense power, who you've idealized in the media, who seems benevolent, and then they are showering you very quickly with love, adoration, saying that this is, you know, you are the one for them, you are magical, you have all these wonderful qualities, you're going to probably ignore some of those initial thoughts that this is really quick, this person doesn't even know me.

And if you don't even have some of that stable support, you didn't come from a loving background, you're going to be very quick to jump right in.

And it's really once you've given up a little bit of your autonomy, maybe you've given up your apartment, you've moved for the person, you've quit your job to work full time for this person, that now they've got you, and you're going to see this very gradual uptick of cruelty and diminishment of your self-esteem that at first is really destabilizing and devastating because you're in the fairy tale and you can't believe that it's slipping away.

And so, you might actually try to grab it back, you might try to earn that love back. And if you came from a background where you had to predict your parents' moods to avoid beatings or to make sure you were safe or your siblings were safe, that comes very naturally.

And another important point here is that we need to understand that there is nuance in everything. And that this relationship, when you're dealing with an abuser and a victim or a survivor, it's not black and white. It's not always horrific. There are usually genuine moments of love and connection.

And so, it -- it -- you start to live for that reinforcing prize. There's the building tension. And then suddenly, you get the relief, you're close again, and then it's entrenched, and you're going to stay. Now, it's stronger than ever.

SANCHEZ: Shannon Curry, we very much appreciate your expertise. Thank you so much for joining us.

CURRY: Thank you so much for having me.

SANCHEZ: Pleasure. So, you can get much more on the trial by listening to Laura Coates's new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." It's available wherever you get your podcasts.

Up next, we're jumping into the DeLorean to head back to the day that made tonight and the last 45 years possible.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

SANCHEZ: Before we go, we've got an important birthday to mark. You see those bold, bright red letters on the bottom right of your screen? CNN is celebrating 45 years on the air. Our first broadcast was back in June 1980. It was a bold idea from a bold founder. Here's Ted Turner dedicating this network to a mission that launched on cable and still guides us as we enter a new era.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED TURNER, ENTREPRENEUR, TELEVISION PRODUCER, MEDIA PROPRIETOR, PHILANTHROPIST: To act upon one's convictions while others wait, to create a positive force in a world where cynics abound, to provide information to people when it wasn't available before, to offer those who want it, a choice.

For the American people whose thirst for understanding and a better life has made this venture possible, for the cable industry whose pioneering spirit caused this great step forward in communications, and for those employees of Turner Broadcasting whose total commitment to their company has brought us together today, I dedicate the news channel for America, a cable news network.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," a peaceful march in Boulder, Colorado targeted in an antisemitic terror attack. The latest on the alleged would-be killer, and we talked to an eyewitness who came under attack.

[00:00:02]