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 Perry Sanders, Jr.; New Developments Arise In The Case Against Luigi Mangione; Musk Escalates Fight Against Trump's Agenda; "Me Too" Is Under Scrutiny Amid Diddy And Weinstein Trials. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 04, 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 HOST: Most summer Fridays, we are taking the show on a little field trip. We'll be broadcasting our round table debate from the Food Network executive kitchen. We're going to have food, drinks, some lively conversation. You don't want to miss it. We had a lot of fun last Friday. I will see you there this Friday.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Dangling 17 feet from potential death, the accuser behind one of the most chilling allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs took the stand. We'll talk about it tonight on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."
Well, good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates right here in New York City tonight where I was in court for day 16 of the Diddy trial. And I heard Cassie Ventura's close friend say that she witnessed violence against her firsthand and, frankly, lived through it herself allegedly.
In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders will unpack Bryana "Bana" Bongolan's testimony and how the defense tried to pick apart her credibility and her claims.
Now, here is just a glimpse of what the jury heard today. She accused Diddy of dangling her over the railing of a 17-floor balcony. She claimed that he got in her face and told her he's the devil and that he could kill her. And she said she saw Diddy throw a knife at Cassie, at one point, who threw it back.
Now, Bongolan's testimony was a moment many had been waiting for, frankly, on both sides. That's because she was referenced in Cassie's 2023 civil lawsuit against Diddy, but not by name. It described an incident where he allegedly dangled a woman over a balcony at a hotel.
Well, today, Bongolan put her name and face to that story and revealed that it actually happened at Cassie's apartment, not a hotel. More on that in a moment.
She testified that, "He basically came up behind me. He lifted me up, and then had me on top of the rail." She said he kept yelling, "Do you know what the 'F' you did?"
Now, Bongolan claimed that she was dangling for about 15 seconds, and then Diddy threw her on the balcony furniture. Now, she says that she got a bruise in the back of her leg and still suffers from nightmares and paranoia.
It's not the only violent incident, though, that she said happened at Cassie's apartment. One night, she says she woke up to Diddy banging on the door and recalled Cassie coming out of her bedroom and Diddy then being inside the apartment somehow. She said, "I just remember seeing a knife get thrown in her direction." She testified that Cassie threw it back at him, both throws missed, and then he left.
Bongolan spoke about another moment in 2016. She was at the beach with Cassie for a photo shoot, she says, and then she alleges that this happened. "He came up really close to my face." It's something around the lines of, I'm the devil, and I could kill you.
Now, when Diddy's team got their turn at cross-examination, they took their chances. His lawyer, Nicole Westmoreland, got to work. She suggested that Bongolan told prosecutors that death threat happened at a party, not a photo shoot. She pointed out that Bongolan told prosecutors in an interview that Diddy and Cassie would get into knife fights -- plural -- sometimes. Bongolan said that she didn't remember saying either of those things.
And then there's this exchange over the alleged balcony incident. Now, Westmoreland asked, "Isn't it true that just two days ago, you told the prosecution you don't recall the details of the balcony allegation? Bongolan replied, "I don't remember."
And that was a theme of today. I want to bring in CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister, who was in the courtroom today, in the trenches every single day.
And there was a moment that the defense was scoring some points on credibility, I should say. But the persistent drug use, it continues to play a role throughout the trial, whether it's Cassie Ventura admitting to it, allegations that Diddy himself was an addict at one point in time, or during Bana, her nickname, testimony. Tell me how that played out today.
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: There was a lot of discussion about drug use during Bana's testimony, both on direct and on cross.
Now, Bana admitted that she had a drug problem. She said that she and Cassie had a drug problem. In fact, when Diddy's defense asked, wouldn't you agree with me that you had a serious drug problem? She said, yes.
Now, as you said, this has come up before Cassie admitted to drug use. Cassie said that her drug use got much worse as she dated Diddy.
[23:04:53]
Now, it appeared that the defense was trying to show that Cassie was able to hang out with her friend, Bana, without Diddy there and that they did drugs without Diddy there, showcasing that it wasn't just that Sean Combs was forcing her to do drugs in any way.
But something that I noted, just listening to all of this testimony throughout the trial, is Cassie and Diddy began dating around 2008. Her and Bana became -- became friends in 2014, 2015.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WAGMEISTER: So, if we listen to Cassie's testimony, she said that the drug use got worse during her relationship with Diddy, so that would track. But, yes, they spoke about doing -- smoking marijuana, ecstasy, ketamine. I mean, the list went on and on. They listed about 10 different drugs. So, this was a prevalent thing today.
COATES: And, as you mentioned, she was around Cassie for up to a year before she even met Diddy --
WAGMEISTER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- suggesting for the defense that Cassie had more autonomy than was earlier revealed, but we'll see more about that.
She was also pressed a great deal on her civil lawsuit. It took up the bulk, I would say, of the cross-examination so far. What was she demanding?
WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, Bana said -- admitted on the stand that in her civil suit that she is demanding $10 million, she said that it's compensation for damages. And she said on the stand, this is to seek justice --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WAGMEISTER: -- for what happened to me. Now, this is where it got a little bit murky. Bana said that she had hired an initial attorney, who then sent multiple demand letters with information that she did not agree with, she was not aware of. She fired that attorney, but then she hired another one who filed this civil suit, which is currently still pending.
To your point, this really took up the bulk of cross-examination, and this has become a theme throughout the trial. Any witness who has filed a civil suit, they walk right in to the defense's argument. This is a money grab. You want money from our client.
Now, one final point, something that was very crucial during cross- examination is, obviously, Cassie filed a lawsuit in November 2023 --
COATES: Yeah. WAGMEISTER: -- and the defense got out of Bana that her and Cassie were friends. Bana filed her suit after Cassie's --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WAGMEISTER: -- and they essentially put out this picture in front of the jury that they were in cahoots, that they spoke about the events that Bana would list in her lawsuit together.
COATES: A really important point trying to sever the credibility of Bana and take a hit at Cassie Ventura. Talk with me. Walk with me for a second. We've got a great legal panel of mine to talk about all of these issues.
I have got with me CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. I also have the former federal prosecutor in the Southern District Of New York, Sarah Krissoff, and criminal defense attorney Stacy Schneider.
Glad to have all of you, guys, here. I mean, first, let me begin with you, Sarah, on this because -- and I'm going to refer to her as Bana. That was the name that she was described. We've heard her name before.
Bryana is here full name.
She didn't tell Ventura, she says, about her lawsuit. But it was a really big theme that the chronology -- that she was aware of Cassie Ventura's lawsuit. They were talking about the details of the balcony incident, whether it happened, who or was not there, and beyond the idea of drug use being -- and giving holes in her memory.
How does this collectively impact the way the jurors see her credibility?
SARAH KRISSOFF, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Yeah. I mean, the defense is going at her credibility any way they can. Right? They're trying to show, first, there's inconsistent statements with what she told the prosecutors before, what she put in her civil demand and her civil lawsuit before. They're trying to show perhaps this was concocted with Ventura.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KRISSOFF: There's some sort of meeting of the minds. Let's -- let's get our stories together, and then, you know, maybe we can get some money out of that. All of these things, you know, they're just picking away at Bana's credibility and also, through her, really attacking Ventura's credibility.
COATES: Speaking of money, there was a moment when -- first of all, this witness is testifying under immunity, presumably because she has admitted on the stand that she was selling drugs to Cassie Ventura.
She is providing drugs at times to her free of charge, but also said that she could not afford her drug habit and that Cassie would be a part of this sort of drug partnership where she would get the drugs, Cassie would pay for them, and even said that Ventura would be a part of her income stream, partially, not in full.
Does this impact the way in which the jury might see this criminal enterprise that they're trying to build for RICO?
STACY SCHNEIDER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: I don't think so. I'm going to actually say, I don't know what this witness is doing in this particular case.
COATES: Tell me why.
SCHNEIDER: I don't know what the prosecution is trying to prove. I feel like -- I'm no fan of Sean Combs, but they are piling on every bad act he has ever done. But how does this woman, being in Cassie's apartment on the 17th floor and getting dangled from a balcony, have anything to do with the racketeering charges and the indictment and the -- the sex trafficking? She's a friend.
[23:09:59]
She's like -- almost like a bystander of the alleged domestic violence that's being portrayed from the defense side.
So, I'm not even sure why the judge allowed this testimony in. I think it's distracting. I think it's prejudicial. I mean, he's got enough problems on his own without this testimony. His conduct, described by these witnesses, has been horrific.
COATES: Hmm.
SCHNEIDER: But how is she even linked in here? I don't see a single connection yet. I don't even know that the prosecution is going to be able to connect her later on. I feel like they're just grabbing whatever nasty conduct they have on him and throwing it into the pot of this trial.
COATES: Interestingly enough, if you're walking around the courthouse with people who are in and out of the courtroom, you're going to hear their commentary when the court of public opinion is everywhere in that courtroom. Today was one of the first times during her testimony I heard the word "railroading."
UNKNOWN: Hmm.
COATES: But people who are normally talking about their support of Cassie Ventura or the government's claims were talking about railroad. And that was the word they used today, mostly if it makes what you're actually talking about.
She did say at one point in time that after this alleged balcony incident, that she was on the phone with or patched through by one of Diddy's employees or otherwise, and he also spoke to her. They're trying to connect that the corporation, the enterprise, is involved in it. But she really was there to buttress the credibility on the balcony incident that Cassie Ventura talked about.
Was this the prosecution piling on to their detriment? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, my friend, Stacy, makes an exceptional point as usual, and I think, certainly, it could be viewed that way.
Look, if you're the prosecutor, here's what you're hoping. You're hoping that it's a pattern of lawlessness. What do you have in RICO enterprises? If you're a racketeer, you're just lawless, you do what you want because you're above the law, and that's what I can do. And if that's what the jury takes from this, you have problems.
Additionally, in terms of the sex trafficking, she adds a coercive element. Oh, boy, here he comes again, Diddy. He wants Cassie. Cassie doesn't want to go with him. You get that. Right? The coercive nature of it.
But overall, right, it's not only the issues with respect to this witness and her relevance, it's this issue on her credibility. You're talking about a person who would supply drugs, you're talking about a person who admitted to persistent drug use with Cassie repeatedly, you're talking about a person who admits that she just was in the zone half the time, and you're talking about a person who has 10 million reasons to lie because of the lawsuit.
In addition, final thing, there are these things called inconsistent statements. You remember the fabulous prosecutor you are, Laura? Right?
COATES: I'm still here.
(LAUGHTER)
JACKSON: So, so the result of that is they come in and they meet with you, and you put these notes together, and you ask them specific questions. Those notes go to people like me, defense attorneys. So, when you're testifying and you said something different to Laura Coates, then you are on the witness stand to problem. It's called the prior inconsistent statement. So, get your facts together. And if they're not, there's something amiss. You know why? Because the truth doesn't lie.
COATES: You know what's so important about that? That was today, a star witness was the government's nose. It has been a constant theme throughout the trial, that sometimes witnesses are testifying and they don't remember what they have said, and they're having their -- their aggression refreshed and they say, I don't remember saying that. That's a problem for the prosecution in terms of how they're presenting.
But there was one question today I want you to address, that the defense attorney asked, in relation to that immunity testimony, she asked her, and you realize -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that you can only be prosecuted now and lose the protection of immunity if you lie. Who gets to decide if you're lying? And she said, the prosecution.
That landed pretty well in terms of the courtroom because it was one of those moments of, oh, as long as she is saying what the prosecution wants, that's the intimation. How does that land with the jury?
KRISSOFF: I mean, I -- I think they're receptive to that. I mean, that is -- I mean, I -- I don't want to give away the defense counsel techniques, but that -- that is a very common line of questioning. Right? Because the -- the -- the witnesses are prepped to say, I have to tell the truth, I'm obligated to tell the truth, all of these agreements require me to tell the truth. And then the next question, of course, who -- who decides if you're telling the truth? And it's always the prosecutors.
So, I mean, they -- but it's effective. There's a reason defensive counsel asked that question because it's effective with the jury.
COATES: And, of course, you were in the courtroom seeing what was going on, too, Elizabeth. I mean, the technique and the decision to use which particular defense counsel is a really important one. And you see that they -- the woman they had today, Westmoreland, she was taking this witness who was very concise in her statements to task.
WAGMEISTER: Yes. And I also want to note that earlier in the trial, that this same defense attorney, and Diddy has about 10 defense attorneys sitting with him every day, she also cross-examined Dawn Richard, which we all spoke about here on this show. What's the similar theme there? Well, Dawn Richard also has a pending civil suit. And this defense attorney, she went in hard on that. And then again today, she went on hard -- went in hard on that.
So, I do wonder, is the jury picking up on these different personality types?
[23:15:01]
We were talking about this today, Laura.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WAGMEISTER: Between the defense attorneys. You have Marc Agnifilo, who's kind of nice cop but has been very effective.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE).
WAGMEISTER: Yes. And then you have Nicole Westmoreland today who -- she goes in. And I think that that could come off different ways, depending on what each juror thinks. But today, again, she made a lot of points that did show inconsistencies, as Joey just said, between the lawsuit, her discussions with the government before, and what she said on the stand.
And I also do want to note that our colleague, Kara Scannell, she has a perfect view of the jury, and she said that today, she noticed that Sean Combs was looking over at the jury to see their reaction during this testimony. He does not do that every day. When we have been able to have a good view of him and the jury, we both noted he has not been looking at them all the time.
SCHNEIDER: And just what Elizabeth said, I just want to point something out. It's not a coincidence that a female defense attorney from the team is paired up with a female witness on the stand, especially a witness whom -- who that attorney wants to dominate.
You don't want a male defense attorney, you know, really taking a witness to task on the stand. There's a power dynamic that comes through -- through in natural life that the jury sees. And when you really want to make someone miserable up there, you kind of want to match the genders. It's a little defense secret.
COATES: You want to make someone miserable? Send in a woman.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you, everyone. Much more ahead tonight, including some insider perspective from one of the music industry's biggest lawyers who once deposed Sean "Diddy" Combs. Perry Sanders, Jr. has represented the families of Notorious B.I.G. and Michael Jackson. So, what does he make of the allegations and the culture of silence? Well, I'm going to ask him next.
And later, the major new details just revealed in the case against Luigi Mangione.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Before he was Diddy, Sean Combs was Puff Daddy, starring alongside rapper and longtime friend, Notorious B.I.G, in the music video for the 1997 classic song "Hypnotize." Biggie was signed to Combs's record label for years until he was shot and killed just five days after "Hypnotize" was released.
Joining me now is attorney Perry Sanders, Jr. Now, he deposed Sean Combs in a lawsuit related to the death of Biggie Smalls, also known as Christopher Wallace.
Perry, I'm glad that you're here. Thank you for joining because your insight will be invaluable to us. How do you believe that Combs has managed to keep everyone around him silent about what they have seen for so long?
PERRY SANDERS JR., LAWYER WHO DEPOSED SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: I've seen the same thing you've seen in trial. I'm not sure. I think Diddy had plenty of power, plenty of money, and I know that the little bit of effort I made to try and get something done with him got met with a little bit of resistance.
COATES: Hmm.
SANDERS: But he ended up doing the right thing, being deposed, and then subsequently had no issues with him. But I think that you take people of this ilk that are this powerful and have this much public sway. They can accomplish a lot of things, including getting away with things that the average person could not get away with.
WALLACE: What was it like to depose Sean Combs?
SANDERS: It was really fun because he didn't want to be deposed, and I ended up having to send a message after he wouldn't do it saying, you're -- you're getting sued tomorrow if you don't give us a date for deposition. One of his good friends got ahold of me and said, he's running around New York screaming at the top of his lungs, all mad, and blah blah blah.
And then I get a call and say, we'll let you depose him on X, Y, Z day. So, I show up and he shows up. And he's nice as he can be, only had one bodyguard. Not too assuming at that. And the bodyguard is there and he's there. He goes in, we take his deposition, he answers every question, had no reason to believe he lied about anything.
At the end of the deposition, even though we got little crossways where we said I might sue him, we sat around, and it was just the two of us hanging out in the conference room.
COATES: Hmm.
SANDERS: And he was training for a marathon. And he was -- he had two cups of tomato soup. And he looked at me and he goes, here. And he handed me that. And he goes, don't say I never gave you anything. He was that charming.
COATES: Really?
SANDERS: He gave me some tomato soup.
COATES: I mean, that could either give you answers or some heartburn, depending by how you adjust to citric acid like that.
(LAUGHTER)
But let me ask you about, in that moment, his -- his demeanor. Did he -- was he comfortable answering the questions after he had initially refused? Did you attribute that to being deferential or arrogance?
SANDERS: I attributed -- first of all, nobody that was on his team -- they were all discouraged from testifying or giving depositions.
COATES: By who? Discouraged by who?
SANDERS: By him.
COATES: You knew that?
SANDERS: I was told that. I -- I didn't hear him. By the people. Like, for instance, one of the bodyguards who was a really key witness, who initially did not want to be deposed, we had a hard time serving him, spent a ton of money tracking him down, and finally, he got tired of it and said, okay, I'll meet you.
And we met at the Hilton here in downtown Manhattan. And we went. My partner, Rob Frank, got there first, and I showed up when I got there. There -- I never met the guy. It turned out he was really big.
[23:25:00]
He was a big bodyguard, 300 pounds, 6'7". And I walked in, and there's a gigantic pair of basketball shoes there. This was an incredibly reluctant witness who had key information. And I said -- I said, I can whip your ass at one-on-one (ph). He looked at me and goes, who does crack of EMF (ph)?
(LAUGHTER)
And I said it again. And he goes, you know what? You're just crazy enough. Okay, I'll sit down and talk to you.
COATES: Hmm.
SANDERS: And next thing you know, he gave his deposition, and it was a key deposition.
COATES: Was he -- do you think that Sean "Diddy" Combs is either charming or crazy enough, like how you view it, to testify in this trial?
SANDERS: I don't know that he's going to have -- let me ask you a question as a prosecutor.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SANDERS: If you had a slam dunk case where you got a video that's about as nasty as anything you could see, somebody being dragged by their hair, kicked, slammed, assaulted, battered, probably -- you know, then -- then it's easy to go say, probably a rape happens after that.
Why do you, other than the fact that he's super famous, end up going after racketeering and all these other things? Why do you turn that into that? When you as a prosecutor and you were a great prosecutor, why would you -- would -- would you take a slam dunk or would you go through all this rigmarole?
COATES: I like slam dunks. I don't like to have a jury give me an alley. But there are instances, however, when the federal crimes dictate that this is the appropriate charge. They think that's the appropriate charge.
SANDERS: I think they do.
COATES: RICO can be difficult to prove. But he would get up there and open the door to, perhaps, more skeletons in his closet. People always think that they can win over a jury. In your experience, watching him in a deposition, did he win you over?
SANDERS: He was okay. He was definitely, I think, truthful in the deposition. Otherwise, I'd have made a big deal out of it. But he wasn't involved in the murder of Notorious B.I.G., Christopher Wallace. He was not involved in his murder. So, he didn't have anything to hide in that regard.
He just didn't want to testify himself. I'm -- I'm guessing the reason is, if you can kill Biggie and you can kill Tupac, two of the most powerful rappers in the world, even if you're Diddy, you're not necessarily wanting to jump up in the hot seat and participate in that.
COATES: Hmm.
SANDERS: In other words, everybody is touchable by the right crowd of people that want to touch you. And I'm going to guarantee you, the people that were involved in some of these homicides and certainly in Christopher Wallace's homicide, those people decide they want to touch you, you're going to get touched.
I get a call from, like, the head of the FBI on the West Coast as the things going on --
COATES: No fish or thought, please.
SANDERS: Okay.
COATES: Don't leave me on a cliffhanger.
SANDERS: Well, sorry. I got a little thing in there.
COATES: Yeah.
SANDERS: So, they -- I get a call from the head of the FBI, and I'd met him. He knew that I was sincere about what I was doing. And he goes, Perry, this is so and so. I'd like you to go to a landline phone and give me a call. And I do.
And I call him and he goes, I want you to assume for a second that every single cell phone call you make without exceptions be a monitoring, which only meant that the good guys, the FBI in this case, were monitoring some really bad guys. They were monitoring --
COATES: Wow.
SANDERS: -- everything I was doing. So, people that want to get to you can get to you.
COATES: The irony here, the person that they say is most fearsome had something to fear. Fascinating to hear your take on this. Perry Sanders, Jr., thank you.
SANDERS: Really nice to meet you.
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.
Still ahead, the major new developments in the case against Luigi Mangione. The prosecution revealing new information about the evidence they say will make this a closed and shut terrorism case. Mangione's own words being revealed. And tonight, they're also detailing some dramatic actions allegedly taken inside UnitedHealthcare. Plus, Mangione's defense team demanding a significant change to his appearance in the courtroom. I'll explain, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, if ever there were an open and shut case pointing to a defendant's guilt, this case is that case. I'm quoting directly the Manhattan D.A.'s office tonight in a new filing in the Luigi Mangione case, where prosecutors are standing by all of their charges against Mangione, including terrorism.
Earlier, the defense had tried to dismiss that terrorism charge, but prosecutors are pushing back, arguing that Mangione's actions -- quote -- "do meet the standard because they were meant to intimidate civilians and send a clear message."
They note that some doctors at UnitedHealthcare quit out of fear. Call specialists started receiving death threats. Some employees refused to sign their name to denial letters out of fear of retribution. And one employee even dyed her hair and moved out of her house for safety.
That's not all. Prosecutors are also pointing to writings from Mangione saying defendant was hoping for a headline that read, "Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference." They believe this evidence is enough to prove Mangione acted to intimidate and instill fear.
[23:35:04]
Back with me, Joey Jackson and Sarah Krissoff. Sarah, how strong is a case involving terrorism for this defendant?
KRISSOFF: Yeah. I mean, they don't really need that charge here. Right? I mean, they have so much else.
COATES: Like what?
KRISSOFF: You know -- I mean, this is -- there's -- the DA himself said this is a -- this is an open shot case of murder. Right? And so, they're adding -- they're really sort of piling on the charges here. I -- I don't know if they need that and they -- you know, to fit it within that framework is a little aggressive.
COATES: Joey?
JACKSON: Yeah. I don't -- first of all, I don't think prosecutors should be talking about open and shut cases. I think the public sees what we see. And certainly, it appears to be that their evidence is solid. At the same time, it's a matter of protecting the integrity of the process.
And I think you can talk about the charges, you could talk about the facts that are alleged in the indictment, but I don't think you should be talking about things like that.
Having said that, I think the terrorism charge is a jury question. What does that mean? It's a question of fact. Why you were attempting to coerce a civilian population? I think --
COATES: I will say, really quickly, there was a moment from this -- it's writing in the diary. Bombs equals terrorism. And that it would -- quote -- "recklessly endanger other employees." And so, you've got this idea here where he was avoiding that for that reason, they're suggesting.
JACKSON: Yeah. And -- and I get that, too. And, you know, and to Sarah's point, yes, it is a bit of piling on, but I think prosecutors, I'm a former prosecutor, have the notion that you charge what you think you should prove and what you think you could prove, and I think what is justifiable and what is publicly -- not publicly acceptable, but what really makes the public feel safe and secure. And I think there's a case to be made in this issue and this situation that he did.
What is a major concern to me is whether you have, in this case, the term we always use, Laura, right, Sarah, jury nullification?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
JACKSON: For whatever reason, this guy is resonating with the public like you couldn't imagine. People are calling him a hero, Saint Luigi. They're selling trinkets and shirts and this and that. And so, have we gotten to the point where people say that, hey, because of what you did and because of the nature of the industry that you did it to, maybe we give you a pass?
COATES: Hmm.
JACKSON: I'm very concerned about that if I'm a prosecutor.
COATES: Societally, we should be concerned --
JACKSON: Yes.
COATES: -- with that, frankly, as well. And I'm going to tell you what the -- what the prosecution mentioned. They said that he was trying to really avoid hurting other people as opposed to just the person that he was alleged to have murdered, saying, you don't get a trophy or any kind of absolution under New York's anti-terrorism law because you only killed one innocent person and not others.
I mean, the defense, what is the plan if you're the prosecution trying to read the tea leaves? How are they going to defend against this? KRISSOFF: Frankly, I don't know yet.
(LAUGHTER)
Right? I mean, they -- they may be just going, as Joey said, for this jury nullification idea. Right? I mean, there's a lot of facts there that they're just not going to be able to contest. So that may be what they're -- what they're banking on.
COATES: They are trying to delay the New York trial indefinitely. They did move to do that. They argue that it'd be unprecedented and untenable to defend both cases at once. They've got multiple cases going on and also a risk of potential double jeopardy at play here. Any merit?
KRISSOFF: Yeah. I mean, the -- I think it's really interesting, this sort of this double charging here. Right? We've had a situation where we have the state charges and then the subsequent federal charges.
At the time that happened, both the D.A. and the U.S. attorney's office said they were playing nice with each other, and the U.S. attorney's office was going to back off and let the state go first. We're so gracious. I'm not sure that's going to happen anymore. Right? The people running the U.S. attorney's office have changed. You know, we still have the same D.A. But I don't know that those dynamics can change over time.
COATES: Yeah.
JACKSON: So, Laura, two quick things. I mean, look, you have, as we always talk about, we know, concurrent jurisdiction in cases. In English, that means there's a state and the ability for the state to get involved because it happened at the state level. All right?
In the beginning of the day, it's problematic. Citizens of Manhattan want to feel safe and secure. The federal government piling on, do you really need a federal prosecution in this case or is it sufficient and appropriate that the state move forward?
And in the event that they do and there's a conviction, then why would you have a federal, really, prosecution thereafter? Would it make sense to the extent if you get a conviction at the state level to move forward federally?
COATES: Now, I'm waiting for the judge's ruling on whether they can have him no longer wear a bulletproof vest and be unshackled in court, changing his appearance in front of the jury. That's a pending motion from the defense. We'll see if they actually rule.
Joey, Sarah, thank you both so much.
Up next, the political drama capturing Washington, D.C. First, buddy no more. Elon Musk now relentlessly attacking President Trump's agenda, calling to kill the bill and demanding Congress go back to the drawing board. How far is Musk willing to go on this? We'll debate it, next. [23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Elon Musk wrapping up his crusade against Trump's big, beautiful bill. And a flurry of new posts in a social media platform X declaring, kill the bill, America is in the fast lane to debt slavery, bankrupting America is not okay, flat out calling for a do over as Republicans were gathered for their conference luncheon. And then minutes later, Senate Majority Leader John Thune had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): We obviously respect everything that Elon did with DOGE. On this particular issue, we have a difference of opinion. He's entitled to that opinion. We're going to proceed full speed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons and former White House spokesperson under President George W. Bush, Pete Seat. Glad to have you both here.
I'll begin with you, Pete. This is day two of this fight. Who's going to win out, and what will that say about who's really running things?
[23:45:03]
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: Donald Trump is going to win this fight because he's the leader of the Republican Party and most members on Capitol Hill are going to side with him on the big beautiful bill.
And I think they look at Elon Musk and they say, my favorite quote from the 2024 election was two things can be true at once. He is right on the policy. We need to reduce deficits and debt. But he's also throwing a temper tantrum. And as someone who was once two years old, I know a little something about temper tantrums. And that's what he's doing right now because he's not going to get his EV tax credit, and he's angry about it, and he's going to throw some elbows, hoping he gets what he wants.
COATES: I applaud your ability to remember your two-year-old temper tantrums. That's -- that's something very impressive. Jamal, let me ask you about this question because we haven't heard much from President Trump. He has been silent. Are you surprised?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I'm not surprised because Elon Musk is worth a lot of money.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Hmm.
SIMMONS: And we deal with Donald Trump. You always got to think not just about what the policy is, but what's the profit here and where is it that Donald Trump has his angle. And we just don't know yet what the relationships are between Trump and Musk.
I bet you, though, he is still hoping that Musk is going to be helpful to the Republican Party in the next election. If not helpful, then certainly not hurt some of the members that he wants to take care of.
So, this is the one difference with Elon Musk that he has with a lot of the other people he get into a fight with. Musk has his own power base, and he can fight Trump back.
COATES: You wonder if it's that or that he's trying to signal irrelevance in some way by not punching. But who knows?
SIMMONS: I don't know.
COATES: It's a psychological test here. Pete, let me ask you this.
SIMMONS: Follow the money.
COATES: Well, yeah. Trump also announcing tonight a new travel ban targeting a dozen countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, all in the name of national security. Now, courts have blocked several iterations of Trump's travel ban, as you recall, in the first term. What's motivating this action and these bans now?
SEAT: Well, this is a day one priority for the Trump administration. He talked about it on the campaign trail and literally on day one said that he was going to move forward on this after a period of study and ensuring that they had their Ts crossed and Is dotted. So, hopefully, this one will stand up to court scrutiny.
But it's all based, as you said, Laura, on national security. The -- the countries on that list are largely failed states, and we need to protect our citizens and our nation and ensure that bad actors are not coming here and abusing our visa process.
COATES: I want to ask you about another issue that's happening right now as we try -- as we try to unpack this. I want you to address this point, too, in response to what he said. The administration has said that the ban was because of the antisemitic attack in Boulder. The attacker, as we know, was from Egypt. They're not on that list. Is the national security issue more nuanced than we're understanding?
SIMMONS: Again, it's no telling -- there's no telling what Donald Trump is up to because here's the thing. You know what failed state there was? The apartheid state of South Africa. And now, here we are bringing white South African -- Africaners to the United States on a specious argument that they have been unfairly discriminated against or attacked in South Africa when the numbers just don't bear out that's the case. I just -- I just don't know what Donald Trump is actually up to when it comes to these cases.
Let me tell you this, though. My Jewish friends will say to me -- they have some offense about what Trump was doing in terms of antisemitism --
COATES: Uh-hmm. SIMMONS: -- because here you have a case where the -- the Republican -- I'm sorry, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is Jewish, was attacked physically at his home.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SIMMONS: Right? His home was attacked. And Donald Trump hasn't really done anything about that. So, he's actually concerned about antisemitism. There are real acts of antisemitism for him to take a stance on, not just ones that he thinks are going to benefit him politically.
COATES: I can't let you go before asking you about Karine Jean- Pierre's new book, announcing a new book called "Independent." She's saying that she's quitting the Democratic Party. Why?
SIMMONS: You know, she's saying that she's taking a look at -- you know, she wants to take steps forward. Right? She wants to be independent because she wants to find a way -- to find the ground where people can come together and find a new way out that will help protect the country and help the democracy.
COATES: How will that impact Democrats who see her, obviously, as the press secretary for a Democratic president?
SIMMONS: She's going to have a tough time. I've talked to people, some of my colleagues, former colleagues from the White House. People are not happy about this book. People are not happy about maybe the way Karine may have set it up, that the White House was broken.
I think a great book for Karine to write would be one that talked about her own individual place inside the White House and how maybe she may have had struggles, and then those struggles, she overcame those struggles. Those are the books that people, I think, find compelling. The George Stephanopoulos book is the one that comes to mind. Right?
So, I think we've got some time. It's not until October when this book comes out. I think there are a few more edits left to do. I would love to see Karine writes something that talked about her own struggle as well as some of the failings in the White House that they had to overcome.
COATES: I don't think she's taking suggestions. But we'll see. Jamal Simmons, thank you so much. Pete Seat as well.
[23:50:01]
Up next, tonight, is the "Me Too" movement about to face its biggest test yet? A jury now set to deliberate in the Harvey Weinstein retrial while jurors in the Diddy case hear the defense hammer what they call a "Me Too Money Grab." The movement's founder, Tarana Burke, speaks to our own Elizabeth Wagmeister, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: So, you all know about the Diddy trial. But tonight, another major case involving alleged sex crimes is at a crossroads. The jury is set to begin deliberating in the retrial of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. He's accused of raping a woman in 2013 and forcing himself on two others years earlier. His prosecution has been seen as defining a moment for the "Me Too" movement ever since the first allegation surfaced in 2017.
[23:55:01]
The Weinstein and Diddy cases aren't just about the men that have been accused or about the legacy of the cultural reckoning that helped bring them to trial. Here's Elizabeth Wagmeister.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TARANA BURKE, FOUNDER, "ME TOO": We cannot understate what it takes to get somebody as powerful as a Diddy or Weinstein into a courtroom.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): But some say "Me Too" itself is on trial.
JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: Can't believe I'm on Harvey Weinstein's side.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): The movement that changed how the world treats sexual violence and workplace harassment now under scrutiny.
ROGAN: This happened in the 80s. They probably would have thrown it out.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yeah.
ROGAN: But in the "Me Too" movement, they were -- it was a hot witch hunt.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: And I want to thank you, Candace --
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein himself was given a new platform in extreme far-right media to reframe some of the 100 public accusations against him, which include rape, as simply bad behavior.
WEINSTEIN: I'm wrongfully accused. But justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.
MARY ANN MASSE, WEINSTEIN ACCUSER: It's so hard to watch something that should not be a political issue become politicized.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Now, Weinstein accusers like Sarah Ann Masse worry his retrial will become a judgment of the "Me Too" movement.
MASSE: I will be maybe devastated if he's not found guilty. But I think it's also a reminder that no trial outcome can change the truth.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein's case gained momentum last year when an appeals court overturned his New York conviction, not on the merits of the accusers, but because too many were allowed to testify that weren't directly tied to the case.
BURKE: The people spoke. The judges made a different decision. That's -- it's, like, shame on you all.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Tarana Burke, who founded "Me Too," says the integrity of the movement is not about outcomes in court.
BURKE: The system was not made for survivors. It was not meant for us.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): In the Combs trial, where the music mogul pleaded not guilty to all federal charges, including sex trafficking, a former assistant who testified she was raped by Combs spoke of the "Me Too" reckoning that came later.
She said -- quote -- "Who was going to believe me?" This was way before "Me Too."
BURKE: I hope people hear that and understand that there's a clear before and after. The courage that it took for people to come forward then really gave passage to what we see now.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Cassie Ventura, the prosecution's star witness, was the first accuser to file a civil lawsuit against Combs outside the original statute of limitations. It was only possible with 2022's New York State Lookback Law inspired by the "Me Too "movement.
But Ventura's testimony faced scrutiny for texts that seemingly show her at times encouraging the abusive behavior that Combs is accused of.
BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: If you want us to think you weren't all always ready to "freak-off," don't write, I'm always ready to "freak-off."
(LAUGHTER)
BURKE: People say, why didn't she leave? Why didn't she quit? Intimate partner violence and sexual violence go hand in hand. And I'm so glad that that's being foreground in this -- in this Diddy trial so that people can see the reality of what it looks like to be traumatized in your relationship.
WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Regardless of the verdicts in the Weinstein and Combs trials, Burke says the accusers and their courage have already won.
BURKE: He's never going to be who he was again. He'll never wield that kind of power. He'll never not be the name synonymous with these -- these horrible acts. You can't un-ring this bell.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Elizabeth Wagmeister is back with me now. Elizabeth, Tarana Burke told you that it's not about court outcomes, but we have seen the "Me Too" movement land some significant legal settlements as well. Right? WAGMEISTER: That's right. You know, she told me that she understands
that these significant high-profile cases, they matter. After all, these celebrity cases are part of the reason the movement was even put on the map.
But she says it's so much bigger than that, and she doesn't want people to get caught up in these cases because there's so much legislature that has passed because of the "Me Too" movement.
So, when that hashtag went viral in 2017 since, we've seen a lot of laws that help sexual assault victims and sexual assault survivors. In fact, I interviewed Gloria Allred, of course, the famed women's rights activist and attorney, and she told me, since the "Me Too" movement, she has seen more change in less than a decade than her 50 years as a practicing attorney.
COATES: You know, your piece also looks at how the right-wing media is giving kind of a new platform to Harvey Weinstein. And in some cases, actually supporting him as well. And in the past, they had attacked Democrats for even associating with Weinstein. So, how has the conversation around him changed?
WAGMEISTER: You know, 2025, we are in a very different moment than 2017 when "Me Too" went viral and, certainly, in 2020 when the first Weinstein trial occurred.
Now, I have been covering this since the very beginning, and it has been kind of incredible to see the shift culturally, politically.
[00:00:00]
But I have to tell you, I hear from survivors that I speak with, I hear from sources all throughout Hollywood. They say they understand if there's criticism of the "Me Too" movement, that every social justice movement deserves to be looked at and deserves to evolve and to grow, but they say, don't make Harvey Weinstein the example of that.
He has been accused by 111 women, convicted of rape in two jurisdictions. Yes, one of them overturned, that's what he's back on trial for, but they say he shouldn't be the example.
COATES: Elizabeth Wagmeister, as always, thank you so much.
And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
