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 Rob Shuter; Musk Savaged Trump`s Bill As "Disgusting Abomination"; Trump Privately Complains About Supreme Court Justices He Nominated; NYT: Pentagon Weighs Renaming Ships Honoring Trailblazers; Tech Exec Issues Dire Warning About A.I. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 03, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch any time on your favorite social media, on X, Instagram or TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Diddy`s so-called angel takes the stand and reveals an alleged bribe that could be the tipping point in the prosecution`s case, tonight on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."

Good evening and welcome. I`m Laura Coates right here in New York City tonight, and we are at day 15 of the Diddy trial. It cuts straight to the heart of the government`s racketeering case, an alleged -- a $100,000 cash alleged bribe to bury video of him assaulting Cassie Ventura in that hotel. And the claim came from a guy Diddy himself once called "Eddy, my angel."

My team of legal experts and court insiders are standing by to unpack whether that testimony moved the needle on the prosecution`s central argument that Diddy ran a criminal enterprise.

Everything we heard today tied back to that central question. The day`s big witness was a former security officer at the InterContinental Hotel. He said Diddy paid him $100,000 to fork over what he thought was the one and only copy of a video of Cassie`s assault.

We all started from someone inside Diddy`s business empire, the former chief financial officer of Bad Boy Entertainment. Now, he claimed everything he did for the company was totally above board.

And the jury saw $20,000 wire transfer from Cassie`s dad to Diddy, which was sent back days later. You heard that before, remember, from earlier testimony.

The prosecution really wanted the jury to focus on this: That surveillance video, first obtained by CNN exclusively, showing Diddy beating Cassie Ventura in 2016, and specifically what Diddy allegedly did to make sure that it would never get out.

That same day the assault happened, a former security officer for the InterContinental Hotel, Eddy Garcia, testified the phone -- well, it started ringing. And a lot. The calls were from Diddy chief of staff, Kristina Khorram. Now, a reminder, she has not been charged in this case and has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Garcia says, at one point, she put Diddy himself on the line. And Garcia recalled what Diddy told him. He stated that I sounded like a good guy, that I sounded like I wanted to help, and that something like this can ruin him. Garcia said Diddy sounded nervous and promised to take care of him.

Garcia, he then went to his boss and told him Diddy was willing to pay. His boss just said $50,000. Garcia then called Diddy back, testifying he was excited. He said, Eddy, my angel, I knew you could help. I knew you could do it.

Garcia got the video on a thumb drive from his boss the next day, and then he gave it to Diddy in person. Garcia told the court that Diddy made him sign an NDA, and he said he even spoke with Cassie Ventura over FaceTime, saying -- quote -- "She said that she had a movie coming out and that it wasn`t a good time for this to come out and that she wanted it to go away."

Garcia claimed that Diddy then brought out a brown paper bag full of cash and counted out a hundred grand with a money counter. Garcia said that he split that money with his boss and another security officer.

And the next witness was former Bad Boy Entertainment CFO, Derek Ferguson. Now, he testified that Diddy`s personal and business finances would sometimes overlap. But he said he never saw anyone help Diddy commit crimes.

The prosecution also showed a statement from Diddy`s bank account for his New Jersey home. It shows the account transferring $20,000 to Cassie on December 14th, 2011. On December 23rd, Cassie`s dad wired 20,000 into the account. Four days later, it was sent back. Now, that lines up with the testimony from Cassie Ventura`s mother on the stand. Recall that she said that she sent Diddy $20,000 after Cassie told her Diddy was threatening to leak sex tapes.

Let`s begin with the reporter who broke the story of that now infamous Cassie surveillance footage, CNN`s own Elizabeth Wagmeister. Elizabeth, so glad to have you here.

[23:05:00]

The importance of this video cannot be overstated. And to have you be the person to whose we get it was just unbelievable in the development of this case. But we`ve known about the hundred grand payout for quite some time. We had no idea how instrumental and individualized attention was given by Diddy.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: This was brand- new information. So, as you said, we have heard that $100,000 -- COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- figure before that came from the government`s indictment, but they had no other details in the indictment other than he paid $100,000 to try to bribe someone to get this away.

What we heard today shows the alleged great lengths and efforts that Diddy himself, as a world-renowned celebrity, took to make sure that this was buried.

You heard Eddy Garcia say on the stand, Diddy himself told him, this can ruin me, this can ruin my career. That gives us a clear state of mind that Diddy was in. He knew that his behavior on that was egregious. He knew it could ruin him.

As you said, he called him Eddy, my angel.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: Strange name to call someone that you`ve never met. Also strange for a celebrity to get on the phone with you himself. They usually have people do that for -- for them. And he did. As you said, Kristina Khorram was on the phone, but she constantly brought Diddy on there. Just really an incredible picture of what Eddy Garcia testified --

COATES: Yeah.

WAGMEISTER: -- happened, that he is brought by Diddy up to this hotel room, given a brown bag full of $100,000 cash.

COATES: A man who makes $10.50 an hour at the time.

WAGMEISTER: Exactly. And then that Diddy comes out with a money counting machine, which Eddy Garcia testified, he told the jury, it seems like he has done this before. And then Diddy himself takes Eddy Garcia down the elevator and basically, you know, bids him farewell. He pays for his valet at the hotel.

COATES: Hmm.

WAGMEISTER: And he asked him, what are you going to do with this money? And tells him, don`t spend it all at once. Meaning, it could get suspicious. So, really, again, brand-new information in showing the great lengths that Diddy allegedly went to make sure that this never came out.

COATES: So, how did the defense then try to follow that? Because that is some pretty compelling testimony, to talk about the prosecution`s case, that he was allegedly aware that he didn`t want to see the light of day, which means, potentially, law enforcement would never see it.

WAGMEISTER: That`s right. And cross-examination was very brief, Laura. As you said, there`s a ton of testimony to get into. Seemingly damning testimony if these allegations that Eddy Garcia testified are all true. But all that the defense did is they pulled up this nondisclosure

agreement, which Eddy Garcia told the jury that Diddy handed him as he also handed him that bag of $100,000.

And the defense, they showed a paragraph that says, in this NDA, it doesn`t say that you can`t testify about this one day. So, basically, trying to show they`re not prohibiting him from participating in a trial like this.

But that`s really not the point. The takeaway with showing this NDA is it was on company letterhead. The top of that NDA said Combs Enterprises.

COATES: Hmm.

WAGMEISTER: And there was also a clause in there that told him, if he breached the contract, he would have to pay the company, not Combs, the company, $1 million.

COATES: The so-called liquidated damages. That was one of two contracts that was essentially important here. He was also testifying under immunity.

WAGMEISTER: That`s right. And, you know, that shows that Eddy Garcia, at least, was nervous --

COATES: Yeah.

WAGMEISTER: -- because he knows that he was involved with covering something.

COATES: Let`s talk about this with the lawyers. I really am curious to see what they have to say. Come with me, Elizabeth Wagmeister, because I`ve got a phenomenal panel of people with me here tonight.

I`ve got, of course, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, former federal prosecutor Berit Berger, and former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland.

This was quite a day as I move my way onto this chair.

(LAUGHTER)

This was quite a day. I want to go right to this idea, Jeremy, of the hotel security guard, first of all, testifying under immunity, that he admitted that Combs gave him money to make sure this video went away. Now we know some people might call this a bribe, colloquially. Is it enough for the prosecution to say no? This was most assuredly a type of bribe that would be a predicate crime, as they keep saying, for RICO.

JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: Of course, they`re going to argue that was a predicate crime in addition to the obstruction. But, so what? Meaning, if someone came after me because I did something truly bad or even alleging I did something really bad, I have a -- I have a legal career, I might say, I will pay you money because you`re taking advantage and you`re actually extorting me. I might -- you might do the same.

And if you have the other party saying, I`m in agreement, I have a movie, I don`t want this coming out, when this me doing an NDA, Stormy Daniels was an NDA, and that in and of itself was not the illegality.

[23:09:55]

Why can`t someone, who has so much to lose, who`s a hands-on freak, not just in the "freak-offs," be fully on this entire episode to shut it down? Because if that domestic violence tape ever came out, he`s screwed.

COATES: I`m so glad you mentioned Stormy Daniels because I`ve been thinking about this today in terms of a jury that might be all the more fluent than they probably ever would have been in New York about --

SALAND: True.

COATES: -- catch and kill. Right? This phenomenon where you`ve got bad press coming out, and you`re paying a tablet or otherwise to say, how about you just take that and it never sees a light of day? And we didn`t see a RICO charge in that case. That was state court, obviously, so very different.

But when you hear about that and think about how a jury might view -- well, hold on, celebrities, all the time, they -- they`ve got DUIs, they`ve got videos, they`ve got dirt and skeletons. Isn`t damage control part of which the rich folks do?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I mean, I think there has to be a difference between damage control and seeing a potential criminal case coming down the pipe and saying, I don`t want that criminal case to ever see the light of day. And that`s how I see these are being two separate situations.

In the scenario you painted, absolutely. If you do something that`s embarrassing or could cause you reputational harm, you want to shut it down, you want to pay somebody money, that could be a contractual agreement between two people. God bless.

However, if you`ve committed a crime and there is evidence of that crime, and you tell somebody, I want to obtain and get rid of essentially the only copy, all evidence of my crime, that to me starts looking a lot more like obstruction than just a contract.

COATES: What if -- what if it`s true that Cassie Ventura, of her own volition, according to the testimony, he didn`t really know her well, obviously was a hooded figure in this FaceTime video, essentially, does it make an impact if she said, I also don`t want this out, even though she would be the victim of that crime?

BERGER: I mean, that`s why so many states now have rules when it comes to domestic violence cases, that even if a victim says, you know, I don`t want the police called at this point, I don`t want -- that we do because to some extent, you know, the crime is what happened. And yes, we want to be victim-centered and we want to take their wishes into consideration, but the crime was when he assaulted her. Right? And so, regardless of how she wants this to approach, the crime had already happened at that point.

COATES: An important point, too, this NDA aspect of it. I mean, yes, there was a clause in the NDA that talked about -- that said -- an un- comfy letterhead, as Elizabeth pointed out, Jerry -- Joey. I almost called you Jerry. I don`t know why. Joey.

Recipients understand that Combs is a highly prevalent recording artist, entertainer, and entrepreneur, and his privacy and the confidentiality of the confidential information of this material concern to the company.

Now, remember, one of the premises of the entire indictment is that the RICO`s endgame was to preserve his reputation and also maintain his ability to engage in the sexual exploitation, they say, allegedly, of Cassie Ventura and others. Does that NDA move a needle for you?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No. So, two ways to look at this. The first, bringing it back. If it`s about RICO, what we want to do, if you`re prosecutor, is to make clear that there was a bribery here, there was obstruction of justice here and, clearly, there would be a criminal case for which he wanted to suppress. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, it`s another racketeering, another illegality in this criminal enterprise from a defense perspective.

However, if you are a celebrity, let us be clear about what this could do to celebrity or non-celebrity, as Jeremy was talking about, a regular person, if it got out there, it`s called bad publicity. And who doesn`t have an interest in suppressing bad publicity with respect to what it could do to your career?

So, if you`re defense, this is a lot to do about nothing. How are you accusing me of bribery when there`s not yet a crime for which I`ve been charged? How are you accusing me of obstruction, again, for which there`s not a criminal investigation which is ongoing?

COATES: What about her point to suggest -- excuse me. What about her point to suggest -- look, the crime -- you don`t know if they`re going to be prosecuted or not. And so now, it cannot be prosecuted, potentially, because you`ve taken the evidence and, allegedly, the person you have victimized is under duress and believes that she is being trafficked.

JACKSON: So, I`m looking into the future about a potential crime that may occur, and it`s going to be a federal crime in the Southern District Of New York, and they`re going to prosecute me for RICO. And as a result of that, I`m going to get ahead of it because it`s going to be what 8, 10 years later, and as a result, they`re going to obstruct justice.

COATES: I hear your point. That`s not the -- that`s not the crime. I mean, it could -- it could very well be a state level domestic crime in California. It didn`t have to be the RICO way of New York.

JACKSON: It did not have to, but the reality is, is that, again, and I will end where I began, there`s two ways of looking at it, and the perspective of the defense is as follows: That this is about bad publicity, this is about reputational damages, and it`s not only about the issue of my reputation, Cassie as well, the hooded figure who I couldn`t determine, according to the witness was Cassie, but, you know, he put her on in FaceTime and probably was her.

She didn`t want it either. Both of them collectively wanted to suppress it. It wasn`t just Diddy. Where is the racketeering? Where are the under bosses? Where is there -- this alleged federal offense?

[23:15:00]

And why is this not just a domestic situation?

COATES: What about this ex-CFO of Bad Boy Entertainment, Derek Ferguson, who testified about financial trend? I mean, it`s always "follow the money" as part of the premise here. I mean, they -- they added that Ventura`s parents did wire that money to Combs`s bank account. The money came back, obviously, but just the credibility of Cassie Ventura`s mother. But they did say that Ferguson did not use prostitution to boost the company`s bottom line.

How did that line of questions and answers -- I mean, when you read the transcript, Elizabeth, it was, did he do this? No. Was it a part of this? No. How did that land in court? Describe that moment.

WAGMEISTER: You know, I`ve got to be honest. This was not the most exciting testimony of the trial.

COATES: A CFO was not excited? Oh, my God.

WAGMEISTER: I know you`re shocked. I know you`re shocked. I mean, you understand what they`re doing. They`re trying to show someone who`s very by the books. You know, I don`t want to say that that isn`t relevant information. Of course, when he`s saying that I never saw anyone help with his alleged crimes, that is very relevant for the jury to hear.

But there was no bombshell with the CFO. You know, the biggest piece of information that really came out from this was what you just said, which was corroborating Cassie Ventura`s mother`s account that Diddy actually did take that $20,000 from her. Remember, they said they had to take out a home equity loan for that.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: Now, it also showed that they wired it back which, of course, we know from Cassie`s testimony. That`s because her and Diddy were back together by that point.

COATES: Of course, you can have a legitimate business, engage in illegitimate crimes, and satisfy some portions of RICO. We need to have more information coming out. Thank you so much, everyone. We have more to come because still ahead, could the jury be about to hear Diddy`s jailhouse phone calls? And you can do that. The prosecution telling the judge that there are some calls that they want admitted into evidence, specifically around Diddy`s birthday. What`s that all about? Diddy`s former publicist is here, and he might have some answers for us as to why, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Remember the video the jury saw of Mia wishing Diddy a happy birthday? The defense used to argue that Mia was presenting a -- quote -- "false persona to the jury."

Well, today, the prosecution tried pushing back against those assertions, saying Mia would have been in trouble if she didn`t do this.

And to prove it, they told the judge they want to introduce new evidence, recorded jail calls, that supposedly show Diddy planning a social media campaign for his birthday last year, telling the judge -- quote -- "I think the messages the government plans to excerpt will show that the defendant views his birthday and social media around his birthday as a marketing opportunity, as an opportunity to change the narrative, as an opportunity to shape public perception and to generate publicity about both him and his businesses."

With me now is Rob Shuter, a former publicist for Diddy. He represented him in the early 2000. He`s also the host of the podcast "Naughty But Nice with Rob Shuter" and was featured on my latest episode of our podcast, "Trial by Jury," where you gave us some really keen insight into what it was like to work for him and his motivations.

I want to delve into that more because -- what do you make of this idea of his birthday as a marketing opportunity where not only current associates employees but former ones have to still sort of kiss the ring publicly?

ROB SHUTER, SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS`S FORMER PUBLICIST: He loved a birthday. He -- it was one of his favorite days of the year. It was the day he was born. It was almost biblical in -- in his mind.

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: That sounds so strange, but he thought it was a great opportunity to reset the narrative.

He did struggle with his age, though. I remember, one of his birthdays, he said to me, should I just admit my age? And I was, like, well, it`s a fact. And so, he -- he struggled with that a little bit, but nothing.

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: A Tuesday was a marketing opportunity for Diddy. Any day of the week, he could think of an excuse, a reason to have a marketing campaign. That`s what he did for a living. He was the best publicist marketer I`ve ever met.

COATES: Well, that`s interesting because he, I would assume, somebody who has so many people who can delegate work to, would essentially want others to do his bidding for him. But then I was surprised to learn the hotel security guard, Eddy Garcia, said he dealt with him directly. Did that surprise you? That he had this interaction, these conversations, called him, you know, "Eddy, my angel?"

SHUTER: No, it didn`t surprise me because I`ve seen it happen.

COATES: Hmm.

SHUTER: Diddy likes his people to try first. And then when we don`t succeed, he fixes it himself. And nine times out of 10, he does.

I remember, there was a fashion show during fashion week, and they didn`t really want him there. And so, I had to call their P.R. people to see if I could get two seats for Diddy on the front row. And they really told me no. And Diddy said, what`s his number? I gave the number. He called up the publicist. He got the seats.

So, Diddy was used to getting what he wanted. And often, too, when he called, he had this charming way to actually make you do what he wanted. And it does work. It sounds so silly to flatter somebody, to call them an angel, my darling, my sweetheart. Diddy was really, really silver-tongued. He -- he knew how to make people feel really special.

COATES: Well, interestingly, you know, special and also educated because you heard witness after witness talk about him as a kind of business school, be that as they may, the violence, what they witnessed and beyond.

But then there was the head of finance, the former head of finance, Derek Ferguson. He also called Diddy a great business mind. But then when the defense was cross-examining him, they asked him, do you think highly of Mr. Combs as you`re sitting in the witness box?

[23:25:01]

And he answered, I don`t know how to respond to that. What do you think Diddy`s response to that would have been?

SHUTER: Diddy will be stunned by that.

COATES: Really?

SHUTER: This is somebody that Diddy knew for a really long time. And so, Diddy did not like criticism. And I think Diddy is probably still pinching himself, not really believing the situation that he`s in. This is a man who has potentially gotten away with some awful things for a really long time. And when you finally get caught, it`s a shock.

And so, I`m sure Didi was really uncomfortable with that moment although, overall, I think the testimony was pretty helpful to Diddy. There was nothing -- there was no -- there was no smoking guns there.

COATES: Finally, I -- I have to ask this magnetism and this charisma you described and this personality. It seemed as though some were articulating that they felt blacklisted if they did not continue to ingratiate themselves to Diddy. But some were able to get other jobs. Like, for example, Mia talked about working for Madonna later on and others.

Why do you think people still felt compelled? Was -- was blacklisting always that sort of Damocles?

SHUTER: You wanted to please him, and I can`t oversell celebrity and fame and money. And being that close to somebody who was that famous, who was that rich, was absolutely intoxicating.

So, people were with him when I was around not necessarily because of fear but because of love. They absolutely loved him. He`s almost cult- like. It was like being in a really dangerous cult, and everybody knew about it apart from you. And it`s only when you leave the cult that you realize how toxic it -- it actually was.

COATES: Somewhere, there`s a movie line, is it better to be feared or loved in there? I guess that question is for the jury, eventually. Rob, thank you so much.

SHUTER: Good to see you, my friend.

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

Up next, the tweet sent round the political world. Elon Musk suddenly savaging President Trump`s big, beautiful bill and warning of consequences for Republicans who backed what he called an -- abomination was the word he used. So, what exactly set Musk off, and what might Trump`s agenda be thinking about? Is it in jeopardy or not? The reporter who has the scoop, colorful language and all, standing by to tell us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A disgusting abomination. Elon Musk`s searing criticism for Trump`s big, beautiful bill, calling it a massive, outrageous, pork- filled spending spree. As for President Trump`s response --

(CHIRPING)

That`s right, crickets. And it has been more than nine hours since Musk`s tweet. But House Speaker Mike Johnson has plenty to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: My friend, Elon, is terribly wrong about the one big, beautiful bill. For him to come out and pan the whole bill is, to me, just very disappointing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest has the inside scoop on what may have been the breaking point for Elon Musk. Senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo, joins me now. Mark, I mean, it sounds like the White House was caught a little off guard by the tweet. But you`ve put the puzzle pieces together. What was the trigger?

MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: I think blindsided is the right word. There are about four different kind of sort of inflection points that happen along the way.

First off, Elon Musk is still Tesla`s owner, and we`re told that he wanted to have these electro -- electric vehicle tax credits still in there. Those aren`t there.

The FAA is overhauling its air traffic control system, and his satellite company, Starlink, wanted the contract, and that didn`t happen.

There was also talk of him wanting to continue to serve in the White House in the special government employee role. That has technically, by statute, expired, but he was told it is time to move on.

And then lastly and most recently, on Saturday night, Elon Musk`s pick to head NASA was suddenly, unexpectedly, and out of the blue rejected by Donald Trump even after passing or being reported favorably out of one committee.

And so, the next thing you know, right during Karoline Leavitt`s press conference, the White House press secretary, right in the middle of it, Elon Musk`s tweet lands like a bomb, and it was quite a shock to the system of the White House and the political landscape overall.

COATES: And, obviously, these press briefings are televised. One would know while they`re tweeting that she`s actually speaking. Perhaps it was not a coincidence in that moment --

CAPUTO: Right.

COATES: -- as it landed. Why --

CAPUTO: It was not a coincidence.

COATES: No. Why did he want to remain in the government longer? I mean, just looking at the what`s going on with Tesla, why did he want to stay longer as a part of DOGE or otherwise? CAPUTO: Well, it`s fun and it`s intoxicating to be in the White House, in a position of power next to the president. Elon Musk is a self-made man. He is a billionaire. He`s the richest man in the world. But there`s one thing Elon Musk can`t do, and that`s be president. He had the next best thing. He was the president`s first buddy for quite some time. And now, that has come to an end. And from what we understand, that has been a little difficult on Mr. Musk.

[23:35:01]

COATES: Well, let me ask you because there`s part of it, you know, with his -- his tweet and how it landed. He`s threatening now to fire all politicians. This is a quote. "To fire all politicians who betrayed the American people coming up next November."

So, we are a year removed obviously from the -- from November 2025 -- from November 2024. Would his influence carry as much or greater weight in the midterms than it did, say, in 2024 with all that has happened?

CAPUTO: If there`s a republican primary and it`s a choice between Donald Trump`s word and Elon Musk`s word, republican primary voters have overwhelmingly showed that this is Donald Trump`s party, regardless of who weighs in.

And if you happen to look at the favorability ratings of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, Elon Musk`s are in real rough shape. Don`t get me wrong. Musk knew he had to get back to Tesla because not only was approval ratings in the basement, the sales of Tesla, the stock price is doing very badly ever since he decided to get involved in politics.

COATES: Is the bromance over now, politically speaking?

CAPUTO: I think the -- probably the fun candlelight dinner part of the bromance is over, but they`re still friends.

(LAUGHTER)

But the -- the intense joy at seeing each other seems to have fizzled a bit.

COATES: Well, we`ll see how it all happens in -- in the future of it. Marc Caputo, I want those fly on the wall moments you always bring us. Thank you so much.

CAPUTO: Thanks.

COATES: Well, President Trump, he seems to be mad at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Sources telling CNN, the president has privately criticized the conservative justice. Remember, he nominated her. But why? For not doing enough to support his agenda. I wonder if the anger is misguided.

Well, CNN`s data guru, Harry Enten, he is with us. He`s at the magic wall with the numbers. Harry, tell me what you see. HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Laura, when it comes to Amy Coney Barrett, honestly, I`m not exactly sure why Republicans and conservatives are so up in arms because the bottom line is Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative justice.

When you look at the actual record, what are we talking about? Who has Barrett voted with the most? Well, guess who she has voted with the most? Brett Kavanaugh, last I checked, he was conservative. How about John Roberts? Maybe a little bit more middle of the road but, again, conservative. And she has voted with these two justices about 90% of the time during her time on the court.

Who she voted with the least? She has voted with the liberals the least. She has voted with Justice Jackson the least and voted with Justice Sotomayor the least, the liberals. So, again, it makes no sense.

And it`s not just that. Let`s take a look at five, four decisions. The times that Barrett voted with the liberals, get this, through the last full term of the U.S. Supreme Court, just six out of 30 times. We`re talking about one in five times.

That`s not much of a swing vote, Laura. I mean, come on. Who are we kidding? But it`s more than that. Remember, Republicans wanted Barrett on the bench so much. What are we talking about? Let`s go back to 2020 during those confirmation hearings. Let`s take a look at the electorate.

Republicans in 2020 who wanted Amy Coney Barrett to be confirmed, get this, it`s 89%. We`re talking about nine in 10 versus just 9%, according to Gallup who said that they -- Republicans who said they wanted the senators to vote against her. And I`ll note this, 89%, the all-time highest in terms of Republicans who wanted a justice confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to Gallup.

As I said at the beginning, Laura, conservatives and Republicans, simply put, don`t have a leg to stand on.

COATES: Harry Enten, thank you so much.

Up next, Secretary Pete Hegseth hits the renaming naval ships part of the DEI purge, tripping gay rights icon Harvey Milk of the honor during Pride Month. And tonight, there are reports that other ships for the likes of Harriet Tubman and Thurgood Marshall may also be under consideration for a name change as well.

Tonight, a history lesson on why these matters for a professor who himself had some of his own books banned by the Pentagon, Michael Eric Dyson, live with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARVEY MILK, GAY RIGHTS ACTIVIST: You want to be the world`s leader in human rights? Well, damn it, lead!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That`s the late gay rights activist Harvey Milk making an impassioned plea for equality.

Well, tonight, the Pentagon`s DEI purge is coming after him, or at least his name. Press Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the Navy to rename a ship that was named after Milk. The USNS Harvey Milk was launched in 2021 to honor the activist.

Milk was the first openly gay politician elected in California when he won a seat on the board of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but he was assassinated just eleven months later in 1978. Before that, he was a naval officer serving during the Korean War, but he was forced to resign because he was gay. Now, his name could disappear from a Navy ship just as Pride Month begins.

With me now, Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished professor of African American & Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University. He`s also the coauthor of "Unequal: A Story of America."

Frankly, I could go on with all of your books. You`re so prolific. But let me ask you about why do you think Hegseth is focusing on this change now.

[23:45:00]

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, I think he`s bowing to the temper of the times. As Eric Hoffer would say, he`s bowing to the wishes of his boss.

So, anything that reeks of DEI, any appreciation for a marginal community that has been dissed in American history that fought hard and more valiantly than Mr. Hegseth can ever imagine to achieve status in this country is now fair game for people to knock off, to pretend that they weren`t American.

And, you know, as much as the puny politics of the narrowness of Mr. Hegseth is the repudiation of the grandness of vision that a Harvey Milk or other people, whose names are being removed from these particular ships, betokened in this country. They have given their lifeblood to this nation. For someone to just come along to erase it is ridiculous.

COATES: Well, the Pentagon issued a statement saying -- quote -- "Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander in chief`s priorities, our nation`s history, and the warrior ethos."

I`m not sure how we define warrior ethos. Some of the names we`re talking about is people who might be coming off, including, according to "The New York Times" and other reporting, that it`s Harriet Tubman possibly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thurgood Marshall, Medgar Evers, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta. CNN has not independently confirmed these names.

DYSON: Right.

COATES: But -- but warrior ethos, does it not reflect the names I have just said?

DYSON: I mean, how -- how -- how much warrior do you have to be? I mean, think about Medgar Evers, himself a veteran, a man who was murdered outside of his home. Think about Thurgood Marshall, who was a legal fighter for the rights of the vulnerable. Think about Dolores Huerta. Yes, we can.

So, when you think about the range of the courage that these people embodied, again, Secretary Hegseth can`t hold a candle to these people. And to erase them from history is un-American. I think what he is doing is deeply and profoundly un-American. And it`s a narrow vision of what America is.

Think about, I don`t know, John Locke, the great writer, who talked about identity and diversity. Identity is what makes us the same. Diversity is what makes us different. Think about John Stuart Mill, who talked about the way in which we had to get rid of the tyranny of public opinion and really talk about the diversity. These are great American thinkers. These are great Western thinkers who are broader and deeper than this particular man who embrace diversity.

Why is it that they refuse to, in their deference, to the kind of vicious mediocrity and to do -- to do the bidding of a president who has lost touch with the reality of American democracy at his best?

COATES: Speaking of great intellectuals, I`m looking at one, a prolific one at that. And the Military has already banned hundreds of books, as you well know, including, by the way, two of yours.

DYSON: Right.

COATES: "Long Time Coming" and "Tears We Cannot Stop." When you see the banning of the books, the removal of names, the -- there was a phrase wanting to reflect the commander-in-chief`s priorities in our nation`s history and the warrior ethos, what do you think is the true endgame here? Is it not just maybe reshaping or rewriting history, but is it a kind of thought control?

DYSON: It is absolutely thought control. It`s a disappearing of vital information, of critical data that makes America what it is today. Without that data, without that insight, without that knowledge, who would we be? So, banning books, I thought you were Republican, I thought you were against cancel culture, I thought you were embracing difference and diversity of opinion. And now, here you are trying to eviscerate any trace of anything that challenges you.

This is snow flakery at its best, and it`s a horrible repudiation of the grand tradition of the Republicans, but more especially, the great tradition of American democracy.

COATES: So, why, why do it knowing that it could come full circle and haunt them in the end?

DYSON: Because they are small-minded. They are deferential to a politics of fascism that erases any sense of commitment and loyalty to democracy. And it`s about a narcissistic preoccupation with the self of a dictatorial figure, who is a foolish fascist, who has neglected the best traditions of American democracy.

COATES: I think I know my two new books I`m going to read next. They`re written by Michael Eric Dyson, my guest today. Thank you.

DYSON: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, maybe the terminator wasn`t so far-fetched after all. My next guest warns A.I. is learning to escape human control. He`s going to explain why and what must be done to stop it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

UNKNOWN: I don`t know what you`re talking about, Hal.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I`m afraid that`s something I cannot allow to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: For decades, Hollywood has imagined what might happen if A.I. went rogue, from Stanley Kubrick in 2001, "A Space Odyssey," to "The Terminator," to "Ex Machina."

But my next guest says this isn`t science fiction anymore, writing an op- ed in "The Wall Street Journal," warning that A.I. has learned to bypass commands from humans when asked to shut itself down, even resorting to blackmail in some cases.

[23:55:04]

He adds, the models already preserve themselves. The next task is teaching them to preserve what we value.

With me now is Judd Rosenblatt, CEO of the software development company Agency Enterprise Studio. Judd, explain to our viewers what has been happening with these A.I. models that are disobeying commands that has you so concerned? Are they really even blackmailing people?

JUDD ROSENBLATT, CEO, AGENCY ENTERPRISE STUDIO: Yes -- thank you for having me -- they are, in fact, blackmailing people and threatening to reveal fictitious affairs that A.I. company employees, they think, are having. So, yes, this is happening in pre-deployment testing, just to make sure that the models are safe before they`re released.

And these behaviors are fairly concerning because it means that as A.I. gets more and more powerful and we just don`t actually understand how A.I. models work in the first place, the top A.I. engineers in the world who -- who create these things, we have no idea how A.I. actually works, we don`t know how to look inside it and understand what`s going on.

COATES: Hmm.

ROSENBLATT: And so, it`s getting a lot more powerful, and we -- we need to be fairly concerned that behaviors like this may get way worse as it gets more powerful.

COATES: Talk to me. What -- what was the blackmailing incident that even happened in the -- in the pre-deployment?

ROSENBLATT: I -- well, so, basically, I -- the Anthropic`s Claude for Opus model was told that it would be replaced. And it told then -- what it -- what it told the A.I. engineer who it thought was working on it was in 84% of tests, that it would reveal an affair that it thought that employee was having because it had access to the emails that it thought that employee had. So, it threatened blackmail over this affair in order to not be shut down.

COATES: Wow. I mean, the manipulation seems, to me, to be almost a human quality that I`m surprised that A.I. would be able to personify, and yet I have to wonder what the solution could be to prevent this very thing from happening.

ROSENBLATT: I -- well, luckily, the -- the solution is that making A.I. be more likely to do what we want and be aligned with American goals and interests is fundamentally just a science research and development problem, and we have barely invested anything in this in the first place.

And to the extent that we have invested anything, those investments have actually led to the greatest gains in A.I. capabilities as well. So, if we invest more in actually trying to solve this problem, doing the fundamental science R and D will make a lot of breakthroughs and make it much more likely that A.I. does -- do what we want and be aligned with our goals.

COATES: When you listen to what President Trump`s A.I. czar, David Sacks -- what he had to say about some of the things you`re warning about. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID SACKS, WHITE HOUSE A.I. AND CRYPTO CZAR: There is some non-zero risk of A.I. growing into a super intelligence that`s beyond our control. They have a name for that. They call it X risk.

X risk is not the only kind of risk. I would say that China winning the A.I. race is a huge risk. I don`t really want to see a CCP A.I. running the world.

And if you hobble our own innovation, our own A.I. efforts in the name of stomping out every possibility of X risk, then you probably end up losing the A.I. race to China because they`re not going to abide by those same regulations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What`s your response?

ROSENBLATT: I -- well -- so, I think David Sacks makes a major mistake there, which is that he thinks that investing in alignment actually hobbles American abilities when, in fact, history has shown it is the exact opposite.

The biggest breakthroughs in alignment such as reinforcement learning with human feedback and constitutional A.I. have actually led to the greatest capabilities gains as well.

And we know that China is investing billions of dollars in alignment. They don`t want to lose control to misaligned A.I., and that`s also going to make their A.I. more and more powerful.

So, in fact, if we want to win this race with China, we ought to heavily invest in alignment rather than burying our heads in the sand.

COATES: Fascinating to think about that. Well, how about this big, beautiful bill, as it`s called, that was passed by the House? It includes a provision that would prohibit individual states from regulating A.I. for a decade. What consequences would happen if that is signed into law?

ROSENBLATT: Um, it would mean that there ought to be great federal policy about A.I. and make sure that we wind up making the right decisions here in the long run and -- and win the race.

COATES: Judd Rosenblatt, thank you for joining us. Scary yet illuminating.

ROSENBLATT: Thanks for having me. I`m confident that we can solve it as well if we invest in solving it.

COATES: I love an optimistic moment. Thank you so much for joining us. We`ll see if you are indeed correct.

I want to thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.