Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Mystery Deepens Over Fate of Iran's Enriched Uranium; Political Meltdown Over Mamdani's Win Intensifies; Crime after crime - DOJ's Closing Argument Against Diddy. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 26, 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]

MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST: John Legend, come on down, come talk to me, baby. We're going to do a duet together. It's going to be my wedding.

(SINGING)

That's what we're going to do. We're just going to sing right now.

(SINGING)

That's all. I got nothing than that. So, John Legend is coming on my wedding.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I -- obviously, Beyonce would perform at my wedding.

UNKNOWN: Yeah.

UNKNOWN: That's it. It's a dream.

PHILLIP: All right. 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" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, where is Iran's enriched uranium? The mystery is deepening as senators get a briefing they can't seem to agree on.

Plus, Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani beat his party's establishment in New York, but is the national political machine about to fight back?

And later, the prosecution's closing message to jurors in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs and the one part that may have come as a surprise.

All these tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, it's the same strike, but two very different stories. Tonight, senators got briefed on the U.S. attack against Iran. And the takeaway, well, depends entirely on who you ask. Republicans say it was a home run, a home run against Iran's nuclear program. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I believe that this mission was a tremendous success and that we have effectively destroyed Iran's nuclear program.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): They blew these places up in a major league way. Major league setback. Years, not months. Obliterated is a good word for me to use.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, Democrats say the White House is overselling it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months. I -- I just do not think the president was selling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): My personal view, based on what I've heard, is Iran continues to be a threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But, you know, they did agree on one thing. Iran could still be holding on to highly-enriched uranium, which is the fuel that you need to make a nuclear bomb.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COTTON: I will say it was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to seize it or anything else.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Some of the enriched uranium was never going to be taken out by a bunker buster bomb. So, some of that obviously remains in -- in Iran.

GRAHAM: I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly-enriched uranium exist, but it wasn't part of the target set.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Nine hundred pounds of highly-enriched uranium. Now, that's enough to make about nine nuclear weapons. And it's not as hard to move as you may think. One of my guests tonight says you can fit it inside cylinders that kind of resemble a scuba tank. So, was Iran able to get that uranium out before the strikes? Well, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says he has seen nothing to indicate it was moved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And the official line from the White House, same thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We were watching closely, and there was no indication to the United States that any of that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strike.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): From any of the sites?

LEAVITT: Correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, at this point, it's hard to know what Iran may have done at those sites before they were hit. But there is this satellite image from the Fordow facility. This was two days before the U.S. strikes. You can see a line of trucks near an underground entrance.

Well, here's another image from the very next day. Some of those trucks are gone. A handful remained. Now, to be completely clear, we do not know what those trucks were doing.

President Trump says they had nothing to do with uranium. In fact, he posted this on social media: The cars and small trucks at the site were those of concrete workers trying to cover up the top of the shafts. Nothing was taken out of the facility.

For days, the White House has used one word over and over. Obliterated. But highly-enriched uranium is a critical part of being able to make a nuclear weapon. And you heard those senators at the top. They say the uranium could still be out there, that it wasn't the official target.

And even though the administration isn't saying anything about that, Israel is. The country's defense minister says Israel and the U.S. are pushing Iran to fork over any uranium.

[23:05:02]

He's telling Israel Channel 13 -- quote -- "It was clear from the beginning that the strike would neutralize the surrounding infrastructure -- it wouldn't eliminate the material itself. Now there is a joint American-Israeli position saying to Iran: you must hand over this material."

So, if the uranium wasn't destroyed in the strike, was it moved? And if it was moved, where is it now? And even if we knew exactly where it was after Operation Midnight Hammer, can Iran even do anything with whatever uranium it may still have?

I want to bring in nuclear expert, Daryl Kimball. He is the executive director of the Arms Control Association. I'm so glad to have your expertise on this because the president, Secretary of Defense Hegseth as well, they deny that any of the enriched uranium was removed from the nuclear sites before Saturday's operation.

Is that possible to know with certainty when you've got international inspections suspended during what's now known as that 12-day conflict?

DARYL KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: I think we have to assume that Iran moved the 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. Why?

COATES: Why?

KIMBALL: Because Iran told us they were going to do this if attacked. Several days before the Israeli attacks began, they informed the International Atomic Energy Agency they would take special measures to protect that material. So, Iran was clearly anticipating that the attacks might come and they were going to protect this material.

So, just because the U.S. intelligence so far has not seen that material move out of the facilities, it doesn't mean that we don't know where it is, and that is the fact that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, doesn't know where it is, the United States government doesn't know where it is. And so -- you know, I would also add that there's a "Financial Times" report just out today that European intelligence agencies believe it was moved.

So, you know, the -- the strike that the United States conducted with the B-2 bombers, I mean, clearly, it was a tactical military success, but I think it was a strategic blunder because now, we do not have insights into where Iran's nuclear material is, even though the major facilities were severely damaged, they're not operating.

Iran has uranium centrifuges that have been stored but not installed. They have the capacity to build more centrifuges. So, they still have a residual capability to produce material that could be used for nuclear weapons.

That means that what we ought to be talking about, what the administration should be talking about is, how are we going to secure this material? Now, it's one thing to demand that Iran turn it over.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: I don't believe they're going to do this. Right? So, it requires getting the IAEA back in there. But Iran, just two days ago, the Iranian parliament said, we're not going to cooperate with the IAEA unless our facilities and our scientists, who the Israelis were assassinating, their security is guaranteed.

COATES: Well --

KIMBALL: So, we have an impasse here that -- that needs to be addressed through direct talks between the two parties.

COATES: Well, let me break it down. I mean, I have you break it down a little bit more on this point, Daryl, because if the damage was done to -- and we -- we don't have the full scope of knowledge that --

KIMBALL: Right.

COATES: -- we likely need to have to draw any final conclusions. But I am wondering, if there was damage done, if there were setbacks, if there is the idea of uranium still being out there and centrifuges possibly being impacted or stored elsewhere, there has been some level of setback to the ability to make it immediately. Right?

KIMBALL: Clearly. Right.

COATES: Okay.

KIMBALL: So, I mean --

COATES: So, if that's --

KIMBALL: -- here's a baseline that --

COATES: Go ahead.

KIMBALL: Yeah. I was just going to say, the baseline we should be thinking about here is before the Israeli-U.S. strikes. Iran had the capability to enrich that material, that 400 kilograms of 60% enriched material within a couple of weeks to bomb graves. That's not an arsenal, but that is the raw material for, as you said, nine to -- nine or so nuclear bombs. And so, they would have needed several more months to build a crude device that maybe could be delivered on a truck --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: -- but up over a year to -- to build a light enough, small enough device that could be delivered on a ballistic missile. So, clearly --

COATES: Explain, though, on that point. This -- forgive me.

[23:10:00]

I'm -- this is -- I'm a layman in this space, obviously, compared to you on this. But I want to understand clearly. If there has been this weakening, if we do know where it is and they're not able to immediately put these parts together to do so, why do you say it's a tactical blunder? Because we don't know where the full stock of the enriched uranium is? Would we have known that without the operation?

KIMBALL: Well, the Iranian nuclear facilities were under International Atomic Energy Agency --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: -- monitoring before the strike. They knew where the material was. They could account for it. It was under IAEA seals. Okay? So, it would have been very difficult for -- sneak this away. Now, the IAEA is not there. The Iranians have snuck it away, the enriched uranium. I think we have to assume that that is what has happened by all the evidence and the lack thereof so far. COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: So, their capacity to build a bomb on the timeline that was there before has been severely diminished, clearly.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: But they still have residual capacity to enriched uranium at some point down the line. And the other thing that's important is the political impact here. Iran, I think, is more determined to continue this program than before.

COATES: Uh-huh.

KIMBALL: They're less to let the IAEA in.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KIMBALL: And the decision the supreme had not made, which was to go ahead and build nuclear weapons, that may be a decision that now is tilting in favor of building the nuclear weapons.

COATES: I see.

KIMBALL: After all --

COATES: I see.

KIMBALL: -- they kept intact. They may change their minds. So, I think in the long run, this makes risk of proliferation greater, not lesser.

COATES: Daryl Kimball, thank you so much.

I want to bring in CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid. Barak, the Israeli defense minister says both Israel and the U.S. are telling Iran to hand over any enriched uranium. What are sources telling you about what happened to it?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Laura, from what I hear from Israeli officials, and I spoke in the last two days with three Israeli officials who have direct knowledge of the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, and all three officials told me that actually, the Israeli intelligence thinks that it has very good idea where this material is, where the 60% enriched uranium and the 20% enriched uranium.

Most of this material is in tunnels in a nuclear site in Isfahan. The other part of this material is in the facility, the fortified facility in Fordow. And in both cases, the Israeli officials said that this material is currently sealed off from the outside world because of the bombing.

COATES: Hmm.

RAVID: And the Israeli intelligence thinks that it will have very good ability to know if the Iranians are trying to get there to dig it out.

COATES: Well, it's important to think about the intelligence information that's coming in on this very point, Barak. I mean, because senators are divided, as you know, over the state of Iran's nuclear program. So, what is the latest assessment on the severity of the damage given what you said?

RAVID: Well, I think, and I heard a lot of senators speaking today and I think --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAVID: -- we can all agree that the senators are divided according to one parameter only, whether they're from the Republican Party or from the Democratic Party. Check which party the senator is from and you'll know what his position about the briefing that he got. If he's Republican, he will tell you that the nuclear program was obliterated. If he's a Democrat, he will tell you that, you know, nothing happened. So --

COATES: What's the independent assessment?

RAVID: -- unfortunately, we are not sure -- sorry?

COATES: What's the independent assessment then? Forget politics for a moment. Do you know?

RAVID: So, I think as far as what I hear from Israeli intelligence officials, and I think what we saw in a pretty detailed report of the International Science and Security Institute, the Iranian nuclear program has been significantly damaged to the point of -- you know, Mr. Kimball described a few minutes ago --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAVID: -- the capabilities that Iran had two weeks ago. Okay? To produce enough 90% weapons-grade uranium for nine nuclear bombs within weeks. They do not have this capability today. They were -- they had the ability to get the nuclear weapon between three months to 12 months, depends who you ask.

[23:15:01]

They do not have this capability today. And I think it is -- it is clear to anybody or at least to anybody who knows the intelligence and who's a nuclear expert. The Iranians do not have today the nuclear capability they had two weeks ago.

How long will it take them to rebuild it? First, they need to take a decision to rebuild it, and I'm not so sure that they will be in any rush to take such a decision.

COATES: Hmm. Sounds like there's a window perhaps of diplomatic opportunity with that leverage. Barak Ravid, thank you so much.

Joining me now, CNN military analyst, retired major general, James "Spider" Marks. General, thank you for coming. I want you to listen to how Defense Secretary Hegseth addressed the big looming question of what happened to Iran's enriched uranium.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Do you have certainty that all the highly-enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain or some of it because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly-enriched uranium was moved?

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Of course, we're watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the more -- the -- the one who misrepresents the most intentionally. We're looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, he's attacking Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague, by the way, from Fox News, who frankly is a very accomplished Pentagon correspondent. What was your reaction of the attacks from Hegseth?

JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER U.S. MAJOR GENERAL: He needs to calm down and realize, which I'm sure he does. I've got to give him some -- some slack on this a little bit. His approach toward Jennifer was totally inappropriate. You don't do that. You open yourself up and you say, what are your questions? And you ask the questions, and you move on.

The deal is the bomb damage assessment and the effects that you're trying to achieve are going to take place over time. That was stated from the outset by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that it's going to take time.

And as intelligence becomes available, multiple forms of intelligence, imagery intelligence, which is commercially available as well, imagery intelligence, signals intelligence, cyber web crawling, human intelligence, hopefully there are still Mossad agents that have penetrated deeply into the Iranian nuclear program and are still covered and can still access what they have been doing before and they'll be able to extract intelligence from that.

Laura, this takes place over time. It's a sweater. You got to stitch that bad boy together. And also, assessments like these are intentionally done to disagree and begin the conversation. They are not emphatic results immediately. In fact, this was set out by DIA. Probably -- I'm only going to assume inappropriately. But it was a low confidence assessment, which means really in the world I grew up, that's no confidence.

So, there's essential time that needs to be a part of this assessment process. So, what we saw, I think, is on a personal level, professional level, inappropriate.

COATES: Well, talk to me about what the administration is saying because, obviously, I want your expertise on this. They are saying that questions about the effectiveness of the operation are a direct criticism of the brave men and women who --

MARKS: Yeah.

COATES: -- valiantly executed this mission. How do the rank and file see that? Are the questions in and of themselves nefarious?

MARKS: Yeah, it's ridiculous. It's a -- it's a dumb criticism. Look, the -- the strike operation took place flawlessly.

COATES: Hmm.

MARKS: Everybody that was involved in this -- this was -- this was a joint operation. Predominantly Air Force, aerospace. You had space capabilities, you had these fighters that were leading the way, you had the bombers, you had air defenders, obviously incredible logistics, a priori, the refueling and route intelligence --

COATES: Wow.

MARKS: -- updates in route. I mean, it's just phenomenal. So, everybody, the strike leader and the strike team, they know that they did a magnificent job, and it's wonderful.

To question the results of the bomb damage assessment goes directly to what was the ordnance that was chosen. The strike commander didn't say I need 12 MOPs, Massive Ordnance Penetrator. He was told, you're going to launch 14 of these things and these are the positions you're going to hit.

[23:20:00]

Don't drop those early, don't miss the target, don't lose any of your crew, make this happen. And, my golly, it happened.

COATES: Hmm.

MARKS: And so, you could go -- you could go right back, you could walk that bad boy up to the chairman and say, okay, you had X number of B-2s, you had an incredible OPSEC, operational security, you had amazing deception, all of that was just wonderful, maybe you should have 19 mass ordnance penetrators. That wasn't the strike leader's job. It was somebody else's job way above him.

So, it's ridiculous to impugn the mission commander and all of those incredible Air Force folks and aerospace, space folks, space guardians. It's just incredible, what they accomplished.

COATES: It indeed is. And questions about whether there is effectiveness doesn't undermine the bravery that they have certainly displayed. General James "Spider" Marks --

MARKS: Laura, it's such -- it's such --

COATES: Go ahead. MARKS: Laura, it's such bravery. It's the incredible professionalism across the word flawless execution.

COATES: Of course.

MARKS: My goodness. Incredible operation.

COATES: There ought to be and there is tremendous pride. Thank you so much.

As the debate over the extent of the damage continues, the world wonders, what is Iran's supreme leader going to do next? Well, he finally emerged after days of silence. And tonight, there are some clues on what his next steps might be.

And later, a stunning level of panic over Zohran Mamdani's primary win. Are Democrats misreading the moment?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Out of hiding and as defiant as ever, Iran's supreme leader making a rare appearance since the conflict between Israel and Iran erupted. He claimed that Israel was destroyed by Iran. That's false. He also took aim at President Trump for saying Iran should surrender unconditionally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN: A great Iran and the word of surrender, they don't match. They don't match with each other. It's a joke. It's a ridiculous thing to say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Meantime, as the tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the White House is trying to set up talks between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program. But, so far, Iran doesn't seem interested.

With me now, Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran program senior director at FDD, and Bobby Ghosh, international affairs analyst and opinion writer. Welcome to you both.

Bobby, let me begin with you. The ayatollah is clearly spinning what happened in the so-called 12-day war. What's his next move?

BOBBY GHOSH, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, OPINION WRITER: Well, he's going to have to protect himself. He's the one who has lost the most in this war. He has lost a lot of personal prestige. He has lost the aura that he had and that he has maintained for 35 years. He has had two of Israel's sworn enemies, Iran's sworn enemies. Israel and the United States strike targets deep inside his country and destroy or at least severely damage his much-prized nuclear program.

So, he needs to find some way to wish that away, to wipe that under the carpet. And this attitude, this language that he's using, which is -- which sounds almost Trump-esque in its --

COATES: Hmm.

GHOSH: -- in its exaggeration, actually, he has been doing this sort of thing for decades.

COATES: Really?

GHOSH: The Iranians are used to hearing this kind of wild exaggeration and overstatement from him. It won't work. I think Iranians will find out if they don't already know. There has been a government attempt to black out all kinds of information, but Iranians know how to get past that.

COATES: Okay.

GHOSH: And I'm confident that Iranians will find out if they don't already know what really happened.

COATES: Well, Ben, I mean, you mentioned that the ayatollah speech mentioned Iran and nation far more than Islam. Speaking of how Bobby is mentioning the Trumpian aspect of it, what is his goal here by focusing on nationalism instead of religion?

BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, IRAN PROGRAM SENIOR DIRECTOR AND SENIOR FELLOW, FDD: Great to be with you. It's an excellent question because, once backed into a corner, Iran's Islamist autocrats, which traditionally tend to abhor the nation, are now trying to drape themselves in the language of nation and nationalism to play to that very base, very deep sense of nationalism that exists throughout the country.

Thus far, they failed to generate a rally around the flag effect. There has been a brief blip of support, you could say, for the government, obviously, because anyone who's living under a war zone doesn't want to get bombed when they're in said war zone --

COATES: Hmm.

TALEBLU: -- and multiple positions across the country have been hit. But I think Iranians are smart enough to see through this, that this is just a ploy for the regime to fight to live another day. And, I mean, it took Khamenei, an 86-year-old, who is currently holding hostage, 91 million people, from the depths of a bunker to begin to even have to speak like this. So that speaks volumes to the average Iranian citizen.

COATES: Hmm. Well, Bobby, Iran's parliament, though, they passed a bill to end cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the ayatollah will still have the final say. What do you read in this effort?

GHOSH: Well, the parliament simply makes some suggestions effectively. The -- as you say, the ayatollah is the one who makes the final decision. If he decides to act on the parliament's advice, he can do or he can completely disregard.

So, I -- I don't take what the parliament says is particularly relevant. I think there's only one man at the end of the day who makes the final call, and that is Khamenei. As long as he is keeping his options open, then all options are open. And he has not yet, I think, definitively said there will be no talks.

[23:30:00]

He said things like there will be no talks while we are under -- under attack.

COATES: Sure.

GHOSH: There will be no talks while we're being asked to -- to surrender, but he's not saying that we will not talk (ph).

COATES: Behnam, will talks likely happen?

TALEBLU: I think it's likely, but not in the very short term. President Trump has said, as early as next week, I think the Iranian play here is going to be trying to generate fear, generate leverage. Traditionally, this is done through nuclear escalation. With much of that infrastructure gone now, the way that pressure is going to be generated by is by diminishing the monitoring.

You know, the real battle damage assessment, things that your various guests have been talking about, will be provided and can really only be provided with the IAEA on the ground. And by circumscribing IE access and doing what the parliament and the Guardian Council have now threatened to do, which is to limit that access, they can generate leverage before they go back into talks. So now the debate is how best to do this.

COATES: Gentlemen, thank you for your insight.

TALEBLU: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, tonight, New York City Mayor Eric Adams officially running to keep his job as the political meltdown over one Zohran Mamdani's primary win seems to reach a fever pitch. Business leaders panicking, Republicans stoking fears, and Democrats appearing conflicted.

Mamdani's win and his energy now being compared to my next guest, fellow progressive and former Democratic congressman, Beto O'Rourke. He's live with me on this and much more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: New York City's mayoral race just turned into a party of five. Late today, sources confirmed to CNN that former Governor Andrew Cuomo will not drop out of the general election to run as an independent, joining four other candidates, including the man who beat him in the Democratic primary, Zohran Mamdani.

The Democratic socialist captured the attention of voters. He's also triggering a five-alarm fire among the political establishment and the business community.

"The New York Times" reports business leaders in New York met yesterday with current mayor, Eric Adams, possibly to bolster his campaign against Mamdani. Adams himself announced his reelection campaign today and took a swipe after swipe at Mamdani without saying his name.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: This election is a choice --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Uh-hmm.

ADAMS: -- between a candidate with a blue collar and one with a soup silver spoon. A choice between someone who delivered lower crime, the most jobs in history, and the most new housing built -- built in decades, and an assembly member who did not pass a bill.

There's no dignity in someone giving you everything for free. There's dignity in giving you a job so you can provide for your family and the opportunities that you deserve. So, this is not a city of handouts, this is a city of hands up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Mamdani was on with Erin Burnett tonight to respond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: You know, I understand what he's doing. He is trying to distract from his own record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Mamdani is now hoping his grassroots primary campaign translates to a victory in November. And my next guest knows all about grassroots campaigns, former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke, who ran for Senate and Texas governor.

Beto, welcome. Democrats across the country are trying to make sense of Mamdani's win. You've been on this fighting oligarchy tour with Senator Bernie Sanders. What does his victory tell you about the direction voters want from the Democratic Party?

BETO O'ROURKE, FORMER TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think they want us to be able to describe an incredibly positive, aspirational, ambitious vision for the future. I think -- I think voters understand that Democrats don't like Donald Trump. They are very clear on -- on what we are not for. What they want to hear is how we are going to make their lives better.

And what Mamdani did, which I think is so exciting, is he authentically described a future where you could get to work without hassle, where you could find the groceries, nutrition and the food that you and your family need, where you can be able to afford the rent in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and where your day-to-day life was going to be more affordable and better.

That's what New Yorkers wanted clearly because they voted for him in overwhelming numbers despite all the political action committees and the corporate money and Bill Clinton and everybody else coming in to weigh in for the former governor.

COATES: Hmm.

O'ROURKE: So, I think the Democrats are smart. They're going to follow what this guy has done, learn from it, and apply it to the campaigns that they're running all across this country going into 2026.

COATES: Beto, many Democrats have not endorsed Mamdani. New York Congresswoman Laura Gillen called Mamdani -- quote -- "too extreme for New York." Have you considered their concerns or any of them valid?

O'ROURKE: You know, I think the -- the old guard of the Democratic Party should be thanked for their work and their service, and now we need to move forward and to turn the page. We -- we lost a stunning defeat in 2024, probably the most important election in my lifetime, if not American history. It has brought us to the very precipice of tyranny and fascism. What we were doing before clearly did not work. We need a new path going forward.

And I think Mamdani is just one of many exciting, especially young Democrats, who are showing the kind of generational change, opportunity, optimism, and hope that this country needs right now.

I mean, it's clear that we're against Donald Trump and what he's doing. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, it's corrupt, it's criminal, it's craven, and it's incompetent.

[23:40:04]

America gets that. But what they want to know is what we are going to replace him with. Am I going to be able to afford to buy a home? Am I going to have a job? Is that job going to pay me enough not to work two or three jobs? Am I going to be able to send my kid to a great local school? Am I going to be able to afford to live in the city that I've called home for my entire life? These are the questions that people are asking us in the town halls that we're holding across Texas.

Clearly, (INAUDIBLE) grows in New York City from Mamdani. And when we speak aspirationally, we talk about a vision that is positive, that includes everyone, and we actually deliver once we're in power. That's how we win, that's how we're able to deliver, and that's how we meet these existential threats posed by Trump and the MAGA movement.

COATES: So, you know, your ex-communications director, Chris Evans, he told "The New York Times" that he saw parallels in your campaign and Mamdani's, saying that you two -- quote -- "just want to be with people, and they want to bring people together." Do you have any advice to Mamdani as he is facing criticism, frankly, from all corners of the political spectrum?

O'ROURKE: You know -- you know, when you shake the existing order, the existing order isn't very happy. Actually, the biggest race that I ran in my political life was in 2012 for the United States Congress. I took on an eight-term incumbent in the Democratic primary, and I defeated him even though he spent me four to one in that election.

I did it by going everywhere in El Paso, Texas, talking to everybody, listening to everybody, and then taking their concerns and reflecting them out on the campaign trail, being myself, speaking like human speak, bringing everybody into that campaign.

And so, whether it was in that congressional campaign or the Senate race or anything else that I've been a part of, that's where I really enjoyed myself, that's where we've had success, that's where we've been transformational in the politics of Texas and contributing to something that I hope is going to be transformational for this country.

So, I'm very optimistic, Laura, based on what I saw in New York earlier this week. I'm optimistic about people that I'm seeing across this country who aren't waiting for the old guard of the Democratic Party to tell them what to do. They're taking power in the future into their own hands, and they're getting after it.

The "no kings" rallies, the hands-off marches, the protests that are taking place everywhere, those are everyday Americans stepping up, standing up to be counted, and describing a vision for a future that all of us want to be a part of. If we can keep that going and get bigger into 2026, good things will follow.

COATES: Beto O'Rourke, thank you.

O'ROURKE: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, it was the prosecution's last real chance to persuade this jury in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. So, after many weeks of testimony, how exactly did they try to connect all those dots? And what was Diddy like during those closings? The legal team is with me to unpack it all next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Six weeks, 34 witnesses. And today, things are wrapping up in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial. The prosecution spending more than four hours, making its closing argument, driving home this message, that Diddy is -- quote -- "the leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn't take no for an answer."

This line, Diddy not taking no for an answer, came up time and again as prosecutors tried to piece together that jigsaw puzzle, building a picture of a man they say stopped at nothing to get what he wanted and surrounded by enablers. They told the jury -- quote -- "Remember, it's his kingdom. Everyone was there to serve him."

The prosecution began by tackling the biggest charge of this case, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, the RICO and/or racketeering conspiracy case, reminding jurors that in order to convict, they must find that Diddy knowingly and willfully agree that either he or a conspirator would commit two racketeering acts, things like bribery and kidnapping, drug distribution, just to name a few.

And then the prosecution moved on to sex trafficking, what they call the brutal crimes at the heart of this case. For weeks, the jury heard testimony describing these drug-fueled freak-offs. The defense has been arguing many of these encounters were actually consensual.

But today, prosecutors told the jury they only need to find one of them was done by either force, fraud or coercion to meet the definition of sex trafficking per named count.

They recounted three occasions involving Diddy's former girlfriend, Jane, one of which took place at her home. Quote -- "The defendant and Jane got into a fight. It got physical. The defendant kicked, choked, and slapped Jane. She ran away from him into her backyard. She couldn't get away. He dragged her back to the house by her hair, and then he forced her into a freak-off. He wouldn't take no for an answer."

They circled back the trial's first and star witness, Cassie Ventura. The prosecution saying that Diddy created a climate of fear for her, that when she was just 19 years old, freak-offs became -- quote -- "her job" and "her shame," that he made Cassie dependent on him and demanded control until the very end.

Eventually, coming back to that same line they repeated over and over. You've heard it many times now. The defendant didn't take no for an answer. And with Cassie, he thought he'd found someone who wouldn't even try.

Here with me now, CNN entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson, and former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger. Glad to have you all here. Elizabeth, you were in court today, were watching this unfold. What stood out to you?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: You know, what stood out to me the most is how the prosecution simplified this case for the jury. [23:50:02]

Look, among this panel, I'm the only one here who's not an attorney. I spent a lot of time in the courtroom, but that means I do not have as deep of an understanding of the law as all of you, brilliant people, and neither the jury. So, if I was a juror, I may be thinking, wow, this isn't as complicated as I thought it may be.

COATES: Is that grace given or is that somehow a concession from this prosecution?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it's really important, and I think they did it masterfully today. I think they really gave the jurors a road map, showing them exactly how they could convict Combs, saying, look, we've put forth all of this evidence about freak-offs, about drugs, but you don't need to find all of it, you only need to find a little bit. You don't need to find every freak-off, just one. You don't need to find every predicate, only two. And they really gave them a very clear path to showing them through each piece of evidence how they could convict him.

COATES: Joey, when you're nodding, I know you don't believe what's being said. What's going on?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, number one, Elizabeth, you should be an attorney.

(LAUGHTER)

You've been a lot in that courtroom doing an excellent job, I might add. Listen. I think they've changed the goal post significantly. I think the narrative has changed significantly. Let me tell you why.

On the issue of the indictment, which is only an accusation, which lays out what you're attempting to prove, they talk, prosecutors did, of this persistent pattern of this person, who was in charge of the criminal enterprise, who for decades exploited women based upon manipulation, based upon money, based upon resources and control. But today, huh, you just need to find one time in these -- all of these years. That's ridiculous.

They moved the goalpost. If your narrative is that he had this criminal enterprise and he was using it for the purposes of sexual trafficking and exploitation, why is the narrative today -- that it was only once? Is that desperation? Is that because you can't prove the persistent pattern, ladies and gentlemen, of the jury, defense will say, that the -- that the prosecutor said to you? They promised you.

And one more take away, please, Laura.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JACKSON: And that is on the RICO issue, what -- what wasn't said? Generally speaking, my view of the world is RICO is for my bosses. RICO is for these people who have all these underbosses who are doing their bidding. And it was curious to me. Where was the prosecution with respect to saying -- you heard rat number one. That's what they call them in court.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JACKSON: The people who dish on their old boss. Rat number one said that he engaged with me, and we did this arson. Rat number two said that we're going to coordinate to do this bribery. Rat number three said, where are all these people who are engaged in this conspiracy, and where's the prosecution telling the ladies and the gentlemen of the jury about that? I am concerned about what they did not say.

COATES: Well, Berit, how about that point on the idea of -- we didn't hear from the people they identified today in the closing as the core inner circle enterprise. I'm talking about Kristina Khorram, who has denied any criminal wrongdoing, has not been charged with the crime. D Rock is a security guard as well, who they keep mentioning. Is their absence of their testimony problematic for the prosecution?

BERGER: I mean, it may be. If you're talking about it, it's possible that the jurors are going to talk about it when they get back into that jury room. But look, I will quibble with what you're saying a little bit.

JACKSON: Of course.

BERGER: But, you know, I don't think this is desperation. It's just the law. Right? I mean, they -- the jurors are going to hear from the judge tomorrow, and he's just going to tell them exactly what they need to prove to find racketeering.

And while you may think you need a mob boss, that's just not what the law says. And the elements are going to be very clear that while, yes, they said that this was persistent, a pattern, that's just not what the legal elements require.

JACKSON: Could we talk about the law for a minute? So, the law on RICO seems to me to suggest that you need a criminal enterprise and you need a number of members in that enterprise to be engaging in criminality. Well, we're talking about the law. Where are these various people who are engaging in this organization with criminality?

We have Diddy sitting there. You've done many prosecutions in federal court. And when you do these RICOs, how common is it to have one person as opposed to a series of people? And they're not going to have those people.

COATES: -- how common is it and how it does play out?

BERGER: It's not common to only have one person charged. However, you don't need to have everybody charged. The prosecution today was very clear, saying he had people bringing him drugs, he had people bringing him escort. Those people, whether they knew they were an enterprise or just thought they were helping Diddy out, by committing these crimes in order to help him out, they became part of this conspiracy. COATES: Let me ask you, Elizabeth, because a really big point here that you and I were talking about earlier is that -- remember, in the opening statements, the pro -- the defense said they own the violence.

Well, today in the closing, the prosecution wanted it very clear. There was no clear demarcation between the violence we've seen and associated in the -- in the InterContinental video and otherwise and RICO. They wanted the juries to blend this together. How effective was that watching?

WAGMEISTER: Yes. And they did say that for Cassie, in particular, because Jane, there was one alleged incident of violence, but Cassie, her 11-year relationship with Combs was allegedly marked by violence. And the prosecution said that violence was intertwined with these freak-offs.

[23:54:57]

And that, of course, if the jury believes that, would tie directly into that force, fraud and coercion, that she was forced or coerced into these freak-offs, because she not only knew about his violent demeanor, because she had experienced it firsthand, the jury saw that through video and through photos, but that she was worried that if she didn't do what he wanted, that it would happen again. So, the prosecutor said she could not say no.

COATES: Something tells me that this conversation will be in a jury deliberation room, and I wonder who will come out on top. Elizabeth, Joey, Berit, thank you all so much.

You can get much more on my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." Listen to it wherever you get your podcast. You'll hear some familiar voices on it as well. Thank you all for watching. Jim Sciutto picks up CNN's live coverage in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)