Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Supreme Court Gives Trump Major Victory; Trump Considers Bombing Iran Again; Diddy's Team Slams DOJ's Case; Gov. Newsom Sues Fox News For Defamation. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Scott, take it home.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, I couldn't think of, like, a specific dish I wanted, but I was thinking, if money and logistics were no object, I would hire, like, a celebrity chef from the Food Network.
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: So, Giada, if you're listening, if this ever happens to me, you're on call.
UNKNOWN: So --
JENNINGS: I don't know if -- I don't know if her office is in the building here. I may slip a note under the door. But, anyway, Giada, I would -- I would bring -- and I would say, you cook whatever you think is best, and everybody here will love it.
PHILLIP: All right. Everybody, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is starting right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, America's highest court delivers Trump a win against all the others inside the Supreme Court ruling that just changed the presidency.
Plus, Governor Gavin Newsom taking on Fox News in a new defamation lawsuit. But can he actually win it?
And Diddy's defense delivering a scathing closing argument, mocking the government's case and telling the jury it was just a modern love story?
Tonight, on "Laura Coates Live." So, the office of the presidency may have just gained a whole new level of power, and President Trump says he plans to wield it. That newfound power came around 10:00 this morning when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that echoes Trump's longstanding criticism of the federal judiciary. It limits the ability of lower court judges to block the president's orders. The decision, well, it was six to three, and it was split along ideological lines.
And what we're talking about here is that phrase 'nationwide injunctions.' And that, of course, is when a federal judge blocks a policy that impacts the entire country, not just where the district is, where they challenge the actual action.
So, what does all this mean exactly? Well, Trump says that he can now go full steam ahead with his agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined in a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, here's where things get a little bit tricky. Did you happen to hear President Trump mention birthright citizenship? Well, today's Supreme Court decision is actually tied to his order to end it. But the justices did not rule on whether that order is constitutional. The only rule that a single judge can't block it nationwide.
So, what does that mean for birthright citizenship and all the other policies that Trump vowed to push through? Well, frankly, it could result in confusion in a sense of a patchwork of different rules depending on where you live in the country.
I mean, take a look at this. Okay? The 22 states in Orange have challenged Trump's order to end birthright citizenship. But the yellow, the 28 in yellow, have not. The Supreme Court's decision clears the way for the order to take effect in those 28 states. So, a baby could be a U.S. citizen in California, but not in Texas? Sound messy? Well, that's because it is.
And it gets even messier. The Supreme Court did leave a backdoor open. Now it gave a path to challenge the president's policies nationwide through class action lawsuits. Groups in two states have already filed new suits against Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship.
So, I'm guessing that you may be wondering, will the Supreme Court eventually rule on birthright citizenship itself? It could. If class action cases raise the constitutional question and the Supreme Court takes them up, then, yeah.
The attorney general, Pam Bondi, says that she believes the justices would side with the administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Most likely, that will be decided in October, in the next session.
UNKNOWN: And how concerned are you that the Supreme Court will come back and determine that the executive order is unconstitutional?
BONDI: Oh, we're -- we're very confident in the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Trump's critics say that today's ruling lets him run roughshod over the Constitution. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave that warning, and she did not paint a rosy future in her dissent. No. She says it is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.
[23:05:05]
But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she called Justice Jackson in her majority opinion, writing, Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by the law.' That goes for judges, too.
Let's start our conversation with the attorney general of Connecticut, William Tong. He, along with the coalition of other cities and states, sued the Trump administration over the birthright order.
Attorney general, welcome on this Friday evening, quite a day in the Supreme Court. I wonder what your perspective is. Is the president essentially more powerful today following this ruling?
WILLIAM TONG, CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good evening, Laura. Thanks for having me. We miss you here at home in -- in Connecticut. But let me just say, I don't know why they're popping champagne corks at the White House and Department of Justice. They have won nothing today.
It's very clear. Justice Barrett -- Amy Coney Barrett was very clear that they did not decide the ultimate question on the merits about whether the president's unconstitutional and unlawful order to amend the Constitution with a stroke of a pen and to cancel and eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is lawful because it's not. They haven't touched that, number one.
And number two, they didn't touch the states. Yes, they issued a narrow and technical ruling that says nationwide injunctions for private plaintiffs apply to those plaintiffs, people before the court, people who are parties, but not to other people who are similarly situated.
Okay. I get that. But Justice Barrett was very clear to say on behalf of the majority that we're not touching the states, we're not addressing the states.
The states have arguments that were different and we do because how will we deal with, you know, if in Connecticut, somebody is born in Pennsylvania and, you know, an hour later, they end up in -- in Connecticut? Well, I guess, five hours later, they end up in -- in Connecticut or the next day. What will that look like among the states?
And because we are different, we need nationwide relief that applies to all of the states. And she expressly said, we'll get to that later, the lower courts have to address that issue first.
COATES: Certainly, a patchwork of different laws runs --
TONG: Right.
COATES: -- antithetical to the idea of the United States of America and being able to have predictability among the citizens of what to expect state by state.
But, as you can imagine, when the Supreme Court issues a ruling, the ruling is broad enough on the powers of the courts and executive branch, although this is the administration of President Trump. And you have to wonder, down the line, could a democratic administration also take advantage of this ruling down that line?
TONG: Yeah. You know, Justice Sotomayor warns because this is so broad and -- and the idea that the president can by the stroke of a pen rewrite the 14th Amendment. It's so crazy. It's as if another president were to say, you know what? I don't care what the Second Amendment says. No American can bear firearms anymore.
Can you imagine if another president tried to pull that off? People would lose their minds. That's how unconstitutional this executive order is, which is why the majority of the Supreme Court didn't touch today.
Again, the president, Pam Bondi, they have won nothing.
COATES: Yeah.
TONG: Birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment, is the law of the land everywhere tonight, at least for the next 30 days. And after 30 days, it's the law of the land in Connecticut and all the plaintiff states at a minimum.
COATES: Well, talk to me about nationwide injunctions because, obviously, they have increased visibly in recent years. It affects administrations across party lines. Trump stands out with the most injunctions. Do you consider valid the argument that injunctions at the nationwide level have been overused in recent years, or do you see this --
TONG: Yes.
COATES: -- as a prudent course?
TONG: I -- I think people -- there are good arguments on both sides of the political divide that nationwide injunctions have been overused at times or inappropriately used or maybe abused. And, by the way, I -- I didn't hear my Republican colleagues complaining when Judge Kacsmaryk, for example, in federal district court in Texas tried to issue a nationwide injunction banning mifepristone, one half of -- of the medication you take for abortion, or when they try to get nationwide injunctions freeing up and eliminating or canceling or overturning gun laws. They want those to apply everywhere -- everywhere.
So, yes, we've complained about that and -- and the aggressive use of nationwide injunctions by the other side.
[23:10:04]
And so, we do admit that there is some conversation that needs to be had about nationwide injunctions, but not in this case. In this case, I think the Supreme Court got it wrong because, again, what are states supposed to do?
New Jersey took the lead in the argument. I often hear my colleague from New Jersey say, you know, in New Jersey, we're very close to Pennsylvania and right over the border, and what if a New Jersey resident goes across the border to have a baby in a Pennsylvania hospital? What happens to that baby when they come back to New Jersey two days later? Is that child a citizen? Is that child eligible for Medicaid, public education, health care?
These questions need to be answered on a nationwide basis because people move between the states. They travel, and they travel frequently. And sometimes, they're stuck in a place by accident because they're -- they're on a business trip and they're pregnant. They're -- they're visiting family and they're pregnant, and there's an emergency birth, and then what happens then?
COATES: You raise important questions. Attorney General William Tong, thank you so much.
TONG: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: With me now, former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Tom Malinowski, and Republican strategist Joe Pinion.
Gentlemen, you know, first of all, broadly, injunctions are not the final disposition of a case. It really is a pushpin to say, let's get everything out, let me decide on the merits. I'm talking about the likelihood of your success in many instances.
But let me just begin with you, Joe, because public polling shows that most Americans, they are not in favor of ending birthright citizenship. So, it begs the question, is this a winning issue for Republicans to focus on then?
JOE PINION, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think most Americans are not in favor of outlawing birthright citizenship because most Americans have not actually read the text of the executive order.
I was at a dinner last night where many people were expressing to me concerns about this retroactive revocation of their citizenship, which is not in the text, is not the position of President Trump, is not the position of the RNC. No reasonable reading of that executive order could lead you to believe that.
We are talking about eliminating the incentive for people to effectively have children here by virtue of vacationing to secure citizenship. That is what we're talking about. People literally crossing the border to have that.
I believe the attorney general raised some excellent points. We do not have conservative justices or Trump justices or Clinton justices. We just have justices doing their level best to uphold the Constitution. And I do believe that when you look at what -- even the things that he mentioned there --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PINION: -- when we have justices that do things that Democrats like, the court is great. When they don't, everything has fallen apart and vice versa to my Republican colleagues.
So, I do think that, ultimately, when we when the rubber meets the road, we have to say the 14th Amendment was not about ensuring that people could just waltz into the country and claim their citizenship. It was specifically put in place to make sure that people that look like us, who were brought here in chattel, were able to actually reap the benefits of the nation that we helped build.
COATES: Well, I can't help but notice the expression on your face, congressman, when you -- when he talks about what's meant by the executive order is not ending birthright citizenship. What's your reaction?
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Well -- well, I -- I don't know if people read the executive order, but most Americans have read the Constitution, and there's almost nothing in the Constitution that is more crystal clear for any fifth-grader would understand its meaning than the 14th Amendment provision on birthright citizenship.
It literally says, if you were born in the United States, you're a citizen. That is like -- it hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court. When it is decided, it's going to be a 9-0 decision. So, what -- what today's decision does is simply create a messier, more confusing pathway to exactly the same outcome. We are not going to become a different country that tears up our Constitution, where politicians get to decide who's an appropriate citizen and who isn't an appropriate citizen.
So, that's not going away, but it's going to be a messier process and it's going to have all kinds of unintended consequences and complications. But really, if I were a conservative, I'd be careful what I wish for because, as the attorney general mentioned, as you suggested, there's going to be democratic presidents in the future --
COATES: Sure.
MALINOWSKI: -- and you can imagine all kinds of ways this could come back.
COATES: Before you interject, though, I want to -- I want to get -- I mean, we talk about messiness and you talk about through the patchwork and going on. You're a former congressman. People often look at Congress and wonder if there has been a dereliction of duty and contributing to the messiness or contributing to what has happened.
[23:15:00]
In fact, Democrats are criticizing simply the ruling about injunctions. But this has frustrated many a party, depending upon which side of the issue you're on, when there's a president trying to implement their agenda and gridlock on Capitol Hill. Should members of Congress be doing something more to stop this?
MALINOWSKI: To stop the gridlock?
COATES: To stop the gridlock, to stop the frustration of messiness.
MALINOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I mean, look, our -- our Constitution is an invitation to struggle, and it has always been that way. There's always going to be frustration because the Constitution was designed not to allow any branch or any person to have the absolute power to do what they want.
That doesn't mean you have to have gridlock. And I often remind people in the time when I was in Congress, despite the reputation we had, we passed more legislation with more, I think, positive implications for the American economy and the American people in probably two generations.
So, even in our divided politics, it is possible for Congress to come together. Right now, it's generally the Democrats with moderate Republicans that -- that could constitute a -- a successful governing majority, and then the courts play their role.
COATES: Well, on this issue though, speaking of what the role can be, I mean, tonight, Joe, the Senate failed to advance legislation that would reign in the president's use of military action against Iran, but one example of what they could be doing right now without congressional approval.
For all the complaints of the courts for ceding power to the executive, whether Congress is doing or not, did senators miss a chance here to assert their authority?
PINION: Look, I think the unfortunate reality is that times are very different from when my colleague was serving in the halls of Congress. We are, in many ways, dealing with this pitched political battlefield where, unfortunately, the people's business does not get done, where norms in many ways get pushed aside in the interest of short-term goals.
And so, yes, even coming back to this issue of what happened today with the Supreme Court, I would agree that similar to the same way that people argue about the filibuster, people love the filibuster when they're out of power. They detest the filibuster when they are in power. In the end, the United States Senate is supposed to be the -- the actual cooling pot for our actual democracy. I think, in similar ways, Supreme Court is supposed to be the guardrails.
And so all that has happened today, in my humble opinion, is that what happened to President Biden with these injunctions, what has happened at an astronomical level with President Trump, has been pulled back so that the business of the American people can proceed with the Supreme Court still, again, having the ability to push back when they feel as if there has been overreach in that executive branch.
COATES: Well, we shall see. It's only less than day one of their decision. I suspect there'll be some reverberations. Gentlemen both, thank you.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
PINION: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, Trump says he'd consider bombing Iran again if enriched uranium hits concerning levels. The question, again, where exactly is that uranium? Congressman Tim Burchett was briefed on the intelligence today, and he's standing by with his reaction next.
And later, Diddy's defense team goes off in court, mockingly congratulating the prosecution for finding baby oil. I was in court for all of it, and I'll bring you the highlights from their closing arguments straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Is Iran already back at one of their bombed-out nuclear sites? Well, these new satellite images from the Fordow facility suggest that they might be. It shows excavators at tunnel entrances and other machinery. And those images were released on the same day that top House members got their first look at the intelligence assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran. And just like the early reports, consensus is hard to find on Capitol Hill, even among some Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you feel like that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated?
UNKNOWN: Absolutely.
UNKNOWN: It's really degraded. It's going to take them years to recover. I think that much is clear.
RAJU: Are you concerned about where that uranium might be?
UNKNOWN: My understanding is most of it is still there. So, we need a full accounting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, with me now is one of the lawmakers who was in the closed-door briefing, Congressman Tim Burchitt, a Republican from Tennessee who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Congressman, welcome. I have to ask you because you and I have spoken before, and you were not a big supporter of U.S. intervention. You even called Republicans who were advocating for it -- your phrase -- 'war pimps.' But you do believe that President Trump made the right decision here. Can you explain why?
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): Yes, ma'am, I do. I believe that Iran was -- was to the point where, in a very short matter of time, that they could be able to deliver a nuclear missile to -- to Israel. I believe their capabilities, from what I've heard in the past, is somewhere at the parameter around Iran would be close to Greece.
So, obviously, it wouldn't hit America but, of course, you got to realize the fact that dirty bombs and things like that, they could be set off in our country, although those things weren't discussed this morning in the -- in the closed-door briefing.
COATES: Well, you know, you had a colleague, your colleague, congressman from Texas, Michael McCaul, he says that there's still uranium in the nuclear sites. Does that mean that Iran could just restart its nuclear program? And if so, are you concerned?
BURCHETT: Well, the thing that I -- I was concerned about early on, and I talked about this publicly, was we have some -- we have some allies, actually. Bahrain is one of them. And there's some others over there that are close. One of them -- I think Bahrain is 90 miles, I believe, I'm probably mispronouncing the name of the country, but I know their folks, but about 90 miles from one of their nuclear facilities in Iran.
[23:25:03]
And I was concerned about nuclear leakage that would get into the sea and could possibly contaminate the ground or air around it and -- and damage that area for those folks.
But I'm -- I've been pretty well convinced that that's not the case, that -- that everything has been very well contained in a manner that I don't think will -- will leak out into the soil or into the air.
So, that possibly -- you know, they could be there. When they say they're digging out, they could be digging out some of their colleagues, actually --
COATES: Hmm.
BURCHETT: -- because of the incredible devastation that's there. We just don't know. But the tactical precision of those strikes, you know, I wish I could tell you what -- what I know about it, but it was -- it was very -- it was spectacular.
It was -- our -- our military men and women. I know there was a lady. That was one of the, I believe, pilots that was reported earlier. And, you know, it's America's best and brightest. They got in without any shots being fired at them on the way in and nothing on the way out, and it was spectacular.
COATES: Truly incredible. And our military should obviously and continuously be applauded for their dedication, their commitment, their patriotism, and their ability to get this done.
I do wonder, as well, President Trump is not ruling out striking Iran again. I want you to listen to what he had to say on this very issue. Okay?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): If the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can enrich uranium to a level that concerns you, would you consider bombing the country again?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Sure. Without question. Absolutely.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And have you had any --
TRUMP: Turns out to be unbelievable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Congressman Burchett, would you support additional strikes on Iran?
BURCHETT: If they were so warranted. But I don't think they're warranted. I -- I really don't. I think they are in a state where they -- there is not going to be needed be any more -- any more strikes, whatsoever. So, I would think that we're in a -- in a good position right now.
But the question was asked kind of matter-of-factly. And you know President Trump. He's -- he's going to let it fly. And he did. But I -- I think Iran realizes the situation.
I think also the fact that they fired 14 missiles back out after it was -- and we were pretty much told where and when they were going to go. Everybody knows that. Thirteen of them hit and one of them -- were -- were knocked out of the air, actually, and one was allowed to go free, as they say, because it was going. So, I -- I think they're trying to save face with some of their -- their so-called allies over there.
And the -- and the bigger thing that went on, you -- you know, you heard some sab -- saber-rattling from China and Russia. But the reality was I don't think they wanted any part of that. They didn't want any part of that. They know Iran is a bad actor. They know the fact that they've exported terrorism all over the world. And they could turn on them just as easy because they're really not a -- they're not a well- behaved country. And -- and the religious fervor that they -- they have and the radicalism, I think, is -- is -- is a scary thing to the rest of the Middle East.
COATES: I'll be curious to see what will be released. I know, obviously, the closed-room meeting today, we're all eager to learn more information. Congressman Tim Burchett, thank you for joining us this evening.
BURCHETT: Thank you, ma'am. It's a pleasure.
Still ahead, I'm going to take you inside the dramatic day in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. The defense trying to flip this case on its head during their closing argument, even telling the jury to believe Cassie. Well, I'll explain it all with my legal team next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: After seven, yes, seven weeks of testimony and 34 witnesses and more than eight hours of closing arguments, the racketeering, sex trafficking, and prostitution case against Sean "Diddy" Combs is going to head to the jury Monday.
Today, Combs' legal team threw the kitchen sink at the jury during closing arguments. Attorney Marc Agnifolo said the United States government couldn't be trusted. That caused an issue. The accusers played Combs and that this case was about domestic assault, not racketeering. Using Cassie Ventura's own words against her, saying -- quote -- "When she says domestic violence is the issue, I'm asking you to believe her," referencing an Instagram posting after her testimony.
And Agnifilo blasted prosecutors for frequent mentions of baby oil and lube in court, saying -- quote -- "They found the Astroglide. They found the baby oil. They got, like, what, five Valium pills. Way to go." That was my impersonation of his tone.
Agnifilo even asserted the male escorts were not paid for sex, they were paid for their time. If the two adults meet because you're paying for time, and they choose to have sex, it looks like that's not illegal.
Well, the prosecutor, Maureen Comey, who rebutted those claims in her rebuttal on domestic violence, Comey said, Combs ever -- never accepted no, never taking it for an answer, adding -- quote -- "Being a domestic abuser is not a defense to sex trafficking." And she reminded the jury that Combs' company likely paid for the thousands of bottles of baby oil and lube that was used in the freak-offs.
And she said the defense's claim that Combs hired escort to spend time with them didn't even pass, she says, the laugh test.
[23:35:02]
Common sense alone tells you that when the defendant flew those escorts out and paid them, it wasn't for their scintillating conversation. It was for sex.
With me now, Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty, BBC journalist and host of the "Diddy on Trial" podcast, defense attorney Misty Marris, and former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland, all with me here this evening.
It has been seven weeks. The jury is going to get it on Monday, and then we can stop trying to guess what they're thinking and maybe know through a verdict.
But Misty, let me begin with you because you are often my glance I exchange with during the trial. Did the defense's closing argument, did it give some reasonable doubt for the jury?
MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, the defense really tried to focus on this being criminalizing Combs's private life, even saying that this is putting crime scene tape around your bedroom. They tried to focus on this is an alternative lifestyle, but these were personal yet tumultuous relationships, and they don't rise to that level of criminal conduct.
But, Laura, I'll tell you, one of the looks I gave you was when Marc Agnifilo called Cassie and Combs a modern-day love story.
COATES: Yeah.
MARRIS: So, I think, in some instances, look, I get the point, but it did go a bridge too far in some of that, you know, really king of over the top language.
COATES: That's the risk for, you know, when you have anything in absolute or try to test the, like, the smell test and any time a juror is kind of going, hmm, what? That's a problem for you. But then there was a moment where Marc Agnifilo called out Combs's accusers talking about free will.
And, Anoushka, I wonder what you think of this because he was talking about regret and resentment as his tandem and essentially saying, if somebody has done you wrong and you have had no part in it, you would never regret it because it's never your fault. But if you regret it, it means that you made decision and now you are wishing you made a different one. And that's where he says these accusers are. How did that play?
ANOUSHKA MUTANDA DOUGHERTY, JOURNALIST FOR BBC, PODCAST HOST: Well, look, Marc Agnifilo is engaging in world building, but he's also introducing scenarios and he's setting the rules in the courtroom.
COATES: Hmm. MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: He has just said, this means, this means this. I mean, the jury don't have to sit there and say, yes, I'm going to take that word as the law. They can say, you can regret things that somebody else forced you into. And I think it allows people to say, well, actually, I'm not going to take what you've told me.
But he is doing what he needs to do, which is pick away at the narrative that was presented for the past seven weeks by the prosecution. And part of that is introducing new ways for them to think about what has happened and the evidence that they're being presented.
And, I mean, I'm not the expert on this, but they didn't present a defense. So, he had a lot to do today. He had a lot to chip away at. And I think when he was doing things like that, he was saying, here's an avenue of thought that you could pursue, and here is what you're going to arrive at.
COATES: Will these jurors drive down that avenue?
JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, they found themselves in an interesting spot. They, meaning the defense. They're in that position where it's you -- you have to admit what you can't deny and deny what you can't admit.
And when you start going down some of the roads like we just heard, about a modern love affair, a modern relationship, that these men were paid for their time, not sex, you start to chip away at your own credibility.
COATES: Hmm.
SALAND: And if you chip away at your own credibility, that's going to adversely impact your client. But you have to work with what you have. So, you're going to just concede that there was, for example, the prostitution across state lines. Well, you're guaranteeing yourself potentially up to 10 years in prison. And if you admit to that, are you opening the door for the other charges?
So, you know, I think the jury is going to have a difficult time with the conspiracy for RICO. To Marc's point, Marc Agnifilo's point, this is a conspiracy for one. We didn't have codefendants charged in this -- this -- this fraud and this scheme, assuming that there is a criminal enterprise.
But I -- I still think his exposure is very real and something much easier lift for them, seeing all this physical abuse, seeing the imagery that they can get to that sex trafficking and, certainly, the transportation charge.
COATES: I'm going to do a quick rundown. I want each of you to tell me if -- what is the one thing you want the jurors to be mulling over for the next 48 hours before they go back to deliberate? Have you thought about it?
SALAND: Who's side? Mulling over in terms of -- COATES: Tell me.
SALAND: For the -- for the prosecution side?
COATES: Sure. Quick.
SALAND: For the prosecution side, yes. If this -- this was an organized effort by Sean Combs and whether or not he was the principal of it, and that's why they removed the attempted aiding and abetting for the sex trafficking. Whether or not he was a principal, he was working with these other people in his organization to secure these prostitutes and do so by force and coercion and all of the threats and violence.
MARRIS: If I'm the defense, I want them to be thinking about the story that was told today. That was a narrative. Prosecution was clinical, stood behind a podium. Today, we heard a story about these relationships and about how all of the employees who are these coconspirators forced labor. There's nobody at this table but Sean Combs. I would want the jury to be thinking about my tale that I told in court today.
MUTANDA DOUGHERTY: I'd want them to apply their knowledge of intimate relationships that they have in the real world and think about what he knew, could have known or should have known, and look at the text messages, and then also think about relationships that they've been in, and interpersonal connections they've made, and try and apply some of that commonsense and everyday experience. That's why we have a jury in the first place.
[23:40:11]
COATES: Hmm. Commonsense. A dangerous thing unless it helps you. Thank you so much, everyone.
You can get much more on my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." Listen to wherever you get your podcast. You might hear some familiar voices you've just heard just now on that podcast.
Still ahead, Governor Gavin Newsom goes off on Fox News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): We're also going to call out the bullshit and the propaganda and the weaponization of lies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tonight, Governor Newsom is suing the network for defamation, and he's seeking nearly $800 million. Is it a stunt or might a court actually consider that? We'll explain it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00] COATES: Tonight, California Governor Gavin Newsom is taking on Fox News, announcing $787 million defamation lawsuit against the network. The lawsuit alleges that Fox and host Jesse Watters falsely claimed that Newsom lied when he said he never had a call with Trump. The lawsuit references that Waters called out Newsom for his reply to an ex-post where he writes -- quote -- "There was no call. Not even a voice mail."
Now, for the record, Newsom says he did speak with the president on the phone just after midnight Eastern time on June 7. And the dates are important here because Newsom points out that in the clip he replied to, which took place during a press conference on June 10, Trump said they spoke a day ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Mr. President, when is the last time you spoke with Governor Newsom?
TRUMP: A day ago. Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job. He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of -- a lot of potential death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Newsom's lawsuit is alleging that on Watters's show that night, his team deceptively edited out Trump specifying this date. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: Trump is not waiting around this time. He says if it wasn't for him, L.A. would be up in smoke.
TRUMP: Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job. He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of -- a lot of potential death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The lawsuit also alleges that Watters knew Newsom wasn't lying because they had the call log showing that the call took place on June 7. Here's the video that the lawsuit references.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: John Roberts got Trump's call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Fox News is rejecting Newsom's claims, saying in a statement -- quote -- "Governor Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed."
As for Newsom, he says he'll drop the case if Fox retracts these claims and issues a formal apology.
Joining me now, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter along with Attorney Ken Turkel. He successfully presented Hulk Hogan in his defamation suit against Gawker. Good to see you both.
Brian, I'll begin with you. The $787 million figure is no coincidence. That's how much Fox settled for their defamation suit from Dominion. Listen to what Newsom had to say earlier.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWSOM: This organization, it needs to be held to account. I think what's so frustrating, I think for all of us, is they learn no lessons from that defamation case as it relates to Dominion. Nothing. They continue the practices that led to that record-breaking settlement. That's why this needs to be filed. That's why we felt compelled to make this case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And what's your reaction?
STELTER: This performance by Newsom, well, that's what it is. It's a performance. And your review of his performance depends on your feelings about Fox. You know?
I read this lawsuit. And legally, I thought, give me a break, because it is true that Fox made some misstatements about Newsom. That is true. But it's a narrow complaint. And the real tell here is the dollar figure you mentioned.
By invoking Dominion, by invoking those lies that Fox aired for a matter of weeks, actually for months, about Dominion back in 2020, causing real harm, you know, what Gavin Newsom is doing here is sending a signal to Democrats that he's willing to fight.
And every Democrat that wants to have a future in elected office is supposed to be a fighter right now, a fighter against Trump, a fighter against Fox.
So, that's what Newsom is doing. Whether you think it's a smart or a weak performance, I think it depends on your view of Newsom and Fox. And, ultimately, you know, he wants that apology, he wants that retraction. He probably won't get it. But I would be surprised to see this go very far in court.
COATES: Ken, do you see any merit to this case, having handled cases similar?
KEN TURKEL, LAWYER: No. I mean -- Laura, no. It -- I don't -- we're fighting over a couple days. You know? It's a president. He's got a busy schedule. Could be an honest mistake. There's a zillion ways to explain why he says yesterday, not two days ago.
What I'm more disturbed about, to be honest with you, is the tweet by Newsom that says there was no call, not even a voice mail, which implies that he never spoke to him. In other words, if you're going to stand on that high and mighty podium and seek Dr. Evil damages, you know, $787 million and you're not clean --
(LAUGHTER)
-- you can very easily put there was no call on, you know, June 9. Right? There was a call on June 6 and 7. If we're going to speak truth, let's speak truth. And then if you read the next line, Americans should be ashamed that a president is deploying Marines on our street, doesn't even know who he's talking to, doubling down as if now he's flipping the script, that's a more dangerous statement.
[23:50:08]
I'm more inclined to take that one to trial than the two-day discrepancy, you know, all day, particularly --
COATES: Let me ask you.
TURKEL: -- $700 million --
COATES: I hear you, Ken, but on one point, though, you know, his lawyers are arguing not only that -- that this happened, but that people who heard Fox's statements, that there's damage to him, that there might be less likely to support him in future elections or donate to his causes, and I wonder if that in any way changes your assessment of the merits.
TURKEL: No. It's an actual malice case. Watters is sourced. He's literally relying on what Trump said. I tried Palin's case twice now where they admitted the lies the last time. They couldn't get a verdict out of it. And it was a real lie. Okay? Like, you know, accusing someone essentially inciting a murder. And we're going to talk about a couple days here just, you know, destroying a life. Come on. Let's get real.
COATES: Brian --
TURKEL: This is not what we should be.
COATES: Let me ask you, Brian, on that point because, and I want you to weigh in to that point, because the landscape has changed in a sense of the way in which defamation cases --
STELTER: Yeah.
COATES: -- are coming up and against the media. I mean, Trump is suing CBS News after --
STELTER: Yeah. COATES: -- accusing them of deceptively editing a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. This lawsuit also involves accusations of deceptive editing. That's the accusation. Do you see a correlation on that path or is this standing alone in that way?
STELTER: I do. That "60 Minutes" lawsuit is ridiculous. Parent company of CBS Paramount is trying to settle it in order to get a merger through the Trump administration. But that's a baseless lawsuit.
And I think what Newsom is doing today is actually trying to make a statement about the ridiculousness of Trump's legal attacks against news outlets. He's trying to make a statement about the hypocrisy of the right- wing media machine.
The reality is that when Fox talks about Newsom, Newsom benefits. He wants that attention. He's a student of Fox, so he knows exactly what he's doing, by picking a fight here. It's not really a legal play, but it's a political play.
COATES: Ken, really quickly, you agree?
TURKEL: Yeah. I mean, that's Brian. I think we're on the same page on this. It's not a particularly good one. There's nothing salacious about it. It doesn't stir up any emotion. It's like we're arguing over a phone call that we all know occurred, and we're debating whether he was accurate, he recalled it happened.
You don't even sense Trump is trying to do, you know, one of those things. Right? An honest mistake there. And, you know, it's easy to make mistakes. I do it all the time these days. A week feels like a month.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Well, we'll see how it happens given that, you know, America's favorite pastime is actually not baseball, it's litigation. Brian, Ken, thank you so much.
(LAUGHTER)
TURKEL: Good day, Laura. Take care.
COATES: Still ahead, bison, presidents, and ramen, all part of my trip to one of America's best towns next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, usually, you see me here in studio or at a courthouse. But recently, I got the most incredible assignment, thanks to CNN Travel. They put together a list of America's 10 best towns to visit this year and sent me to three of them. We'll be ticking through the list across CNN. And tonight, we're starting off with number 10, Rapid City, South Dakota.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
This is James Madison. He was the shortest president, coming in at, I believe, 5'4".
COATES: He just beat me. He just beat me.
(Voice-over): Welcome to Rapid City, South Dakota, nicknamed the 'city of presidents.' It's not only the gateway to this familiar landmark, but history fans can find life-sized presidents all over town.
UNKNOWN: All of our presidents are worthy, all of our presidents should be remembered, and all of our presidents are represented here in Rapid City.
COATES (voice-over): Rapid City is also a hub for outdoor adventure. Just down the road is Custer State Park, where you can see hundreds of wild bison.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): You're seeing lots of mama cows and the little cinnamon cats. The small ones are the brand-new babies that were born this spring.
COATES: They're not dangerous.
UNKNOWN: They are dangerous.
COATES: Okay. Well, then that's my next question. They're very close.
UNKNOWN: They are very dangerous.
COATES (voice-over): You have to respect and appreciate nature from a bit of a distance.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Even though they're docile-acting animals, they're as wild as they can be.
COATES (voice-over): Bison aren't just part of the scenery, they're part of the culture and the menu.
Is this the famous bison ramen?
UNKNOWN: It is.
COATES: This is wonderful. It's so tender.
UNKNOWN: Thank you. We tried to crack the code as it were. The arugula is like as close to like what a bison would eat. It tastes pastoral.
COATES: I've never had ramen this good, and I eat a lot of ramen.
(Voice-over): You can't visit Rapid City without seeing the four biggest presidents of all, and there's a treat you'll want to try.
He was the principal author of Declaration of Independence and also the first ice cream recipe in America. Who knew Rapid City? Who knew?
All right, can I try a scoop of the Thomas Jefferson vanilla, please? Here it is. It even has a nice Thomas Jefferson hair. It's good. Creamy and rich. I don't think he meant to charge $6 for it, though.
Oh, wow. Look at that.
To see it in person and be here in person and to really appreciate what it would take to actually create this. And it really does remind you all the times that so many people think about politics and history coming out of the nation's capital and the Beltway. No. It's here in South Dakota.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[00:00:00]
COATES: I'll share the other towns I travelled to next week. But if you can't wait to find out which ones made the cut, you can go to cnn.com/besttowns.
Hey, thanks for watching. Erica Hill picks up CNN's live coverage right now.
