Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
No End In Sight as Senate Takes On Trump's Megabill; Tillis To Retire After Voting Against Trump's Spending Bill; Deliberations Hit Snag As Concerns Emerge Over Juror #25; Sudden Plea Deal In Idaho College Murders Case; Authorities Identify Firefighters Killed In Ambush. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 30, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The cologne is described as rich, masculine, and for men who lead with strength and confidence. Of course, it is worth noting that no fragrance ingredients are listed. What is listed, however, is the cost, $249 for 3.3 ounces. Just for some context, the same size for the classic Chanel number five, which has been in existence for more than a century, is considerably cheaper at a $176.
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, no beauty sleep tonight for President Trump's big, beautiful bill as the Senate nears midnight with the fate of his agenda still unclear. We're live from Capitol Hill.
Plus, Elon Musk rears his head again, this time vowing to defeat any Republican who supports that bill. Will the party take him seriously?
Also, tonight, the jury in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs having deliberation troubles already as one juror's ability is called into question.
And a shock plea deal in the Idaho student murders. Why Bryan Kohberger is now appearing ready to admit it was him all along.
All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
It's a make or break for President Trump's agenda. Right now, senators are working late into the night on Capitol Hill as the White House urges them to stay united on Trump's huge policy proposal. They're voting on a slew of changes to his one, big, beautiful bill, and they've been at it for 14 hours. Whether the bill makes it to Trump's desk by his own July 4 deadline, that's Friday, by the way, or at all, well, that's an open question.
The bill is facing pressure from moderate Republicans and hardline conservatives alike. Take Senator Thom Tillis. Now, he's upset that Trump's mega bill could cut Medicaid coverage for nearly 12 million Americans even though the president said he wasn't going to touch Medicaid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding is not there anymore? The effect of this bill is to break a promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Trump threatened a primary against Tillis for going against the bill, but Tillis responded with what you might call, well, the ultimate mic drop, announcing he won't seek reelection next year, so perhaps that threat might fall on his deaf ears.
Now, on the other end of the GOP, you've got senators like Rand Paul. Now, he says the bill doesn't have enough deep cuts to reduce the deficit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): But we know next year, this bill will grow the deficit by $270 billion. In addition, the bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. What does that mean? That is an admission that they know they aren't controlling the deficit, they know that the ensuing years will add trillions more. That doesn't sound at all conservative to me, and that's why I'm a gnome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And you could throw on Elon Musk into that same camp. The one- time Trump ally and, of course, DOGE leader says anyone who backs the bill is part of the porky pig party. He's threatening primaries against anyone who supports it.
Trump can only afford to lose three Republican votes in the Senate, as you know. And even if the bill passes that chamber, the House will still have to vote on the changes.
Republican margins there, well, they aren't any better. So, needless to say, the fallout from this bill could have huge consequences for the midterms and it could determine who controls Congress next year. Democrats, well, they see an opening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: We're going to make sure that everybody hears about every Republican who voted to take away healthcare from millions of Americans so that billionaires could get tax handouts, and they voted to run up the national deficit by another three and a half trillion dollars. You better believe, by November 2026, we're going to make sure everybody in America has heard about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Let's start with CNN correspondent Lauren Fox, who has been live on Capitol Hill. Lauren, as you know, 14 hours down. So, at this 11th hour, literally, is the Senate anywhere close to passing Trump's bill?
[23:04:57]
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, they still have a number of amendments that we know that they are planning on voting on in the next several hours.
And I would just let you know that, you know, there are still a flurry of meetings happening behind the scenes to try to shore up the support that John Thune, the majority leader, is going to need to get this bill across the finish line.
You know, Democrats have been arguing all day that as this went on, they noticed the votes were getting slower and slower and slower and, in part, that was, in their view, a symptom of the fact that Republicans were still trying to solve some key issues that they have been working on over the course of the last several weeks. One of those issues is the cuts to Medicaid.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
FOX: There are a number of conservatives who want to make sure that this bill cuts even more dramatically into that program. Specifically, Senator Rick Scott, a Republican from Florida, has an amendment that he has been working to try to get support on. That would basically get rid of the 9 to 10-match for the Medicaid expansion population in the future. That was obviously a key incentive, a reason that states decided to expand Medicaid in their states, and that is something that he believes needs to be cut.
Meanwhile, you have some moderate Republicans like Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski who already think that what is in the bill has done too much to cut into that important program for millions of Americans across the country.
So, that is the dynamic that John Thune is dealing with tonight. As you can see, if you give one side what they want, you start to lose votes on the other side, and that is the challenge for leadership. It has been for the last several weeks, but this is all obviously coming to a head in these final hours before this vote.
COATES: Quite the seesaw. And, of course, Republicans, though, we're hearing -- well, they're insisting, Lauren, that this legislation will not increase the deficit. I know it's late in the evening and it's 14 hours in, but is this math mathing?
FOX: Well, Republicans are using a lot of different tactics to try to add these numbers together. One of them is they are arguing that extending current tax policy, some of these tax cuts from the 2017 tax cuts bill, that that actually does not add to the deficit because it's just current law. Now, Republicans and Democrats got into a big fight over this on the Senate floor just a few hours ago when this debate kicked off, but that is something that they are continuing to argue.
Meanwhile, they have people on their own side, including Senator Ron Johnson, Rick Scott that we talked about, Senator Mike Lee of Utah who have all expressed concerns that this bill adds too much to the deficit.
All you have to do is go back to Saturday night. Senator Rand Paul, a conservative from the state of Kentucky, voted against advancing this bill because it included a massive increase in the country's borrowing limit and increase in the debt ceiling of $5 trillion.
So, there are conservatives on their own side who think that this bill is not doing enough to curb future spending.
COATES: Lauren Fox, thank you so much for your reporting, as always.
With me now, Republican strategist Jeanette Hoffman. CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons is here as well.
Okay, they're burning the midnight oil. A lot of people are going back in time.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think weird --
COATES: Well, I mean, I always burn the midnight oil.
(LAUGHTER)
But I'll tell you what, the -- the promise that Tillis and others have been talking about, that Trump has made time and time again, I mean, you can almost play it on loop. Listen to what he has said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it.
We're not going to play around with Medicare, Medicaid.
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What happens if it comes to your desk, has the tax cuts but also cuts to Medicaid? Would you veto that?
TRUMP: Well, we're not doing that. No, we're not --
WELKER: Would you veto that?
TRUMP: I would if they were cutting it, but they're not cutting it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Okay. But the Senate's version of the bill could leave 12 million low income individuals uninsured. So, the question immediately is, is this not betraying the promise that he has spoken about? What's the consequence?
JEANETTE HOFFMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it depends on who you ask. Some Republicans will tell you, no, we're just cutting it for people who aren't supposed to get Medicaid in the first place. Others will tell you, like Tom Tillis, Josh Hawley, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, I'll name some other names, that this goes too far.
And if you look at -- here's where I'm really focused, the House Republicans, because this bill has to go back --
COATES: Right.
HOFFMAN: -- to House, and it's substantially different than what's going through the Senate right now. There are already a number of House Republicans who are saying, no way, we're not going to pass this because hospitals will close. And these are not moderate Republicans. This are some conservative Republicans that are saying this is political suicide.
COATES: Is it?
HOFFMAN: Well, we'll have to see how this plays out because we don't want hospitals to close. So, you know, it remains to be seen. But there are two competing factions here. There are some that want Medicaid cut even further, and then there are some that are saying, no way, this goes way too far.
[23:10:00]
COATES: And, of course, one of the things Speaker Johnson was concerned about was the bill coming back to them very changed because they were aware of these consequences potentially. Maybe not this aspect of it, Jamal, but all right, you got Republicans who are not united, shall we say.
(LAUGHTER)
But given the montage alone that can be played about Trump talking about the promise, where are the Democrats in this to drive this point home and steer people away?
SIMMONS: Well, if you talk to people in the House, what they'll tell you is the reason that we're talking about the kids who are going to lose Medicaid, a couple million of them who are going to lose Medicaid, is because the Democrats have been on message. The Democrats are the ones who've been driving the point about the fact that we're talking about taking corporate taxes down from 35 to 21%, lowering the estate tax.
And then you're going to cut Medicaid, you're going to cut rural -- rural hospital funding. You're going to see real people bear real costs if this Republican plan goes through. And that's what Democrats have been laying out.
Look, at the end of the day, also Democrats aren't in charge. So, what they can do is they can push a message, they can try to delay it, make it as painful as possible, the pill as painful as possible for Republicans to swallow, and that is their job. Right?
COATES: Well, the jagged, little pill could be a possibility. And yet I recall, when Democrats were in power, Republicans did more than just have the potential pill. I mean, are they not going to exploit the window that might be there?
SIMMONS: Well, I think they're exploiting the window. I mean, what you -- the deal now is go to the Senate, find two more votes. You've already got two Republicans who said no. If you can get Lisa Murkowski, if you can get Senator Collins, if you can get them to vote no, you can shut this thing down. The reality is, though, Donald Trump is the biggest voice in the Republican Party, and he can do what he has to do.
But lastly, I got to say, that bolo tie with the polo shirt, it's fashionable polo.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Oh, my God.
SIMMONS: It's edgy. It's edgy.
COATES: All right, you heard it here first. I guess we're doing fashion now.
(LAUGHTER)
But let me talk about Elon Musk for a second because --
HOFFMAN: Yeah.
COATES: -- frankly, he has been out of fashion when it comes to the Republican Party, particularly Donald Trump. And yet, he is making his clear political threat, Jeanette, to back primary challengers against Republicans who vote in favor of this bill. He said that they should hang their head in shame.
Now, as you know, the legislation would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit. But is Musk as powerful or influential as he once was? Is this a threat that they will take and heed?
HOFFMAN: I don't know. I mean, his stock has gone way down --
COATES: Yeah.
HOFFMAN: -- in the last couple of months.
COATES: Sure.
HOFFMAN: No pun intended. And listen. I have a feeling that if those clean energy tax credits had made it into the bill, he would be singing a different tune right now. He also said he's going to start a third party called the "America Party" tomorrow. This is -- you know, everything is a unit party. I just --
COATES: So, he's a boy who cried wolf?
HOFFMAN: I -- I -- I happen to think he is. We'll see if he puts his money where he did. But remember a couple months ago, he said he's out of politics, he's not going to put any money behind elections anymore. So, I mean, what is he going to do? Join the Forward Party with Andrew Yang and Christine Whitman? I -- I highly doubt it. But, again, he's on the side of cutting more spending and cutting more Medicaid funding.
So, you know, it's -- it remains to be seen if he's going to do anything. But listen. I think Republicans know who the real leader of the Republican Party is right now, and that's Donald Trump.
COATES: It occurs to me people might have whiplash, though, thinking about who's in favor and who is not. I mean, DOGE leader or not, friendships or not. And, of course, this is part of the concern for voters who have a long memory, even a short one, to remember the power of Elon Musk.
Let me ask you this in terms of polling, Jamal.
SIMMONS: Yeah.
COATES: Because a new Yale Budget Lab analysis estimates that the current changes proposed by the Senate would result in the bottom 20%, losing about $700 in income. The top 1% would see an increase of $30,000. Again, you wonder about the haves, have nots, top and the bottom in this great, you know, rift in between. How is that going to sit with voters?
SIMMONS: You know, the polling isn't great for Republicans right now.
COATES: Yeah.
SIMMONS: There's a Fox News poll that only has 38% of voters who are in favor of this thing. There are other polls that say only 67% of Republicans are in favor of this bill. That's -- that's horrible! Seventy-one percent of independents are against the bill. So, you start to see numbers like that.
If I'm a senator sitting there and I got to run for reelection a year and a half from now, I'm getting very nervous. I think they can't count this thing out yet.
COATES: So, given that polling and, of course, Tillis, for example, is saying, okay, well, I'm not even running for reelection here, so is he going to become some sort of a symbolic voice that gives in the ability of others to criticize?
HOFFMAN: Listen. If Tillis had stayed and -- and fought and, you know, ran for reelection, I would say yes. But the fact that he's not even running for reelection, I just think, you know, he's --
COATES: Makes him up to lead?
HOFFMAN: Well, yeah. I think so. But listen. As -- as to the polling, I think the polling is bad right now because we're just watching sausage being made. I mean, there's no other way to put it. Once this bill gets passed, six months from now, these tax cuts go into effect. People have more money in their pocket. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. That is what the American people voted for.
And I think you're going to see the poll numbers, you know, increase. Just like the poll numbers were bad for tariffs, we haven't really seen that hit on the economy. So, I -- I think it's going to turn around very quickly.
[23:15:00]
SIMMONS: I don't know. I did see a polling number that was pretty interesting. It said that people were in favor of the tax cuts, right, for everybody. But when you told them that there were tax cuts going to people who made more than $400,000, drop like a rock. People don't want rich people getting tax cuts while they're going get Medicaid cuts and see rural hospitals get closed. That's just not something that people are up for.
HOFFMAN: But the bottom line is in 2017, households in the lower and middle class, they made a substantial amount back in their pockets with the -- with the tax cuts, and they -- and they'll do so again. It's -- and it's always -- it's -- nobody wants the other guy to get ahead in the -- in these poll numbers.
So, I think it is just normal human nature. I think once the actual economy improves, the tax cuts go through, I think Republicans are going to be in good shape.
SIMMONS: And then we had a pandemic, and the president couldn't figure out what to do with it. So --
HOFFMAN: Well, that's just --
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Oh, I heard that you said it's going to tit for tat for a while. Have a personal break. Jeanette, Jamal, thank you so much.
Still ahead, Senator Tom Tillis becomes just the latest Republican -- we're talking about it -- to call it quits after challenging President Trump. So, what does it say about the state of the Republican Party? Well, former Republican Congressman Mo Brooks is standing by on that next.
And later, two firefighters shot, killed in what police are calling a sniper's ambush. The new clues emerging tonight about the 20-year-old suspect's potential motive.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TILLIS: What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding is not there anymore? It is inescapable that this bill, at its current form, will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis scolding President Trump in his big, beautiful bill while announcing his retirement. But Trump doesn't seem to care that he's losing another Republican in Congress. His response to Tillis's retirement -- quote -- "Great news."
As for Tillis, he's, apparently, upbeat tonight, waving and even blowing a kiss to the C-SPAN cameras on the Senate floor.
Well, my next guest was all about crossing President Trump, former Alabama Congressman, Republican Mo Brooks, who was called the big -- the bill -- quote -- "the big, bad bill."
Congressman, welcome back. Listen. You heard Senator Tillis call this bill a betrayal. In your opinion, is Trump backtracking on his vow, frankly, not to make cuts to Medicaid?
MO BROOKS, FORMER ALABAMA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, Donald Trump has put himself in a very difficult position because he has made a lot of campaign promises that inherently conflict with each other.
By way of example, if you go back to 2015 and 2016, he was not only going to eliminate the deficit within his four years, but within eight years, he was going to pay off all of our debt. And did he do any of that? No. He raised our debt by about $7 trillion, which was a record for a four-year period of time by any president in history of the United States.
Albeit in fairness to Donald Trump, Joe Biden broke that record and did even worse in his four years.
So here we are again. What used to be a $15 to $20 trillion debt burden on Americans is now $36 trillion. And to put that into perspective, that's $2 trillion a year-deficits that we're looking at indefinitely into the future.
In addition to that, the debt service cost, that's interest on the debt, not including the principal you have to pay back, is about a trillion dollars a year. That's roughly 20% of every dollar forcefully taken from taxpayers, is now used to pay past largesse, past borrowings, and is not doing anything productive for national defense, for Medicaid, for Medicare or Social Security today.
COATES: The way you lay it out makes it clear that the bill could balloon the deficit, also the debt.
BROOKS: Oh, it will.
COATES: So, if that's -- if that -- so, if that's the case, I mean, how can it not hurt Republicans in the midterms if it passes?
BROOKS: Well, it absolutely ought to hurt everybody who votes to risk a national insolvency and bankruptcy, which in turn would usher in perhaps the worst era in American history, perhaps only rivaled by the civil war happening, that civil war loss of life and property damage.
We might not be as bad as that if we go into insolvency and bankruptcy, but a lot will be dependent on whether our foreign foes decide to take advantage of us while we're on our economic knees and without an adequate national defense, which is one of the consequences of not having a solvent central government.
COATES: I mean, the idea of national defense being implicated given what's have transpired in the last several weeks, very foreboding.
Congressman, Democratic Senator Mark Warner from Virginia posted to X -- quote -- "I'm tired of my Republican colleagues telling me in private how they feel about this terrible bill. It's time to vote like it."
Do you sense this trend will continue as he's suggesting that Republicans find it difficult to speak up publicly against Trump, and is that making Trump more powerful at the expense of rolling back the power of Congress?
BROOKS: Well, what we sorely need and are lacking in Washington, D.C. right now, Republicans who can explain to the president in a reasonable and convincing fashion that what he is pushing is bad for our country, and that means it's also bad for him and his legacy to the extent he cares about his legacy.
[23:25:03]
And we don't have enough congressmen and senators who are willing to stand up and do that.
I remember the first time I was summoned to the White House in 2017, and the issue was the repeal of Obamacare.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BROOKS: And we absolutely were not going to vote for legislation that was going to increase the insurance premiums on working people by another 20% over and above the increases that they were having to pay because of Obamacare. And we stood our ground. Eventually, we reached an agreement on different legislation.
And that's the situation that we're looking at today. We've got a choice between bad and worse. Well, if you vote down bad and worse, then you know what? You might actually come up with something good. So, I hope that people across America will heed what Elon Musk has said. And I agree with Elon Musk. This is a horrible piece of legislation. It's -- it's good if you're a debt junkie, but it's horrible if you're an American who's going to have to pay that debt at some point in the future. And right now, it's $110,000 for every man, woman, and child. Can you pay it? A lot of Americans can't.
COATES: Well, why is it that people are so reluctant to speak up? Why are your fellow Republicans or members of Congress refusing to do so?
BROOKS: Well, we've got a couple like Thomas Massie out of Kentucky, Warren Davidson out of Ohio who put America first, and I'm proud as can be of those two members of -- in Congress. You've got Rand Paul also in Kentucky, and now Thom Tillis in North Carolina. They're doing what their conscious tells them to do.
And that's what we need. People who will work through the issues and decide what is in the best long-term future of their country and vote that way. We don't need an extraneous factor coming in. And that's the kind of intimidation that the 800-pound gorilla in Washington D.C. -- that's Donald Trump. That's the kind of impact he has in Republican primaries.
We don't need him interceding and forcing people or coercing people into voting poorly for America when we need people to stand tall and vote right for America.
COATES: Mo Brooks, thank you so much for joining.
BROOKS: My pleasure. Thank you.
COATES: Up next, a dramatic first day of deliberations in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. One note revealing concerns about juror number 25, and another revealing a question that could be critical on the defense and the decision whether to acquit or convict. My team of legal experts is standing by to unpack all of it.
Plus, his murder trial was weeks away from starting. But now, sudden word that Bryan Kohberger is about to take a plea deal. Reaction tonight from one victim's family who says they're outraged.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Look, verdict watch is well underway in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. After five hours of deliberations, there's no verdict.
But Combs is keeping himself entertained by reading these books, apparently. You got "The Power of Positive Thinking," which -- it tells you, expect the best and get it. Believe in yourself and in everything you do. You have the power to reach your goals and maybe be kind to yourself. Also, "The Happiest Advantage" while he is in court today, which talks a little bit about how one can have the happy secret to greater success and fulfillment in work and life. He held these books up when the judge was allowing him to have books back in the cellblock. Interesting.
Well, the jury, meanwhile, they were reading and writing questions. They asked two in particular to the judge. One was about juror number 25. The jury expressing concern about his ability to follow the judge's instructions. Judges answer, we told them to go ahead and keep deliberating over the charges of RICO and sex trafficking and prostitution-related charges.
And there are several steps, by the way, the jurors must follow in order to get to find Combs potentially guilty or not guilty of racketeering.
First, they got to determine whether Combs committed at least two of these predicate acts, kidnapping or arson or witness tampering or drug distribution. And then they have to answer if that pattern of racketeering activity included sex trafficking, Cassie Ventura, excuse me, or Jane. They're two of the four accusers who have alleged Combs has done such. Before the day ended, the jurors had another question for the judge. That won't be answered until deliberations resume tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
Let's talk about all of this here and answer your questions as well with CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson, former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger, and jury consultant, Renato Stabile. Glad to have all of you here. I'll read these books later --
(LAUGHTER)
-- because I am very curious as to what happens, and then the mind of Diddy right now. But we're not -- look, jurors ask the judge in one of their questions late in the day, if someone hands over drugs to someone who is requesting them, a big part of this, is that distribution?
Now, they're going to answer it tomorrow. Of course, there is an answer to that question. The prosecution already fronted that, and the answer is essentially yes, if you give them out distribution. However, what are you thinking when you hear the jurors ask a question like that?
RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT, ATTORNEY: Well, you know, that could just be coming from one juror. It's not necessarily that all 12 jurors want to know the answer to that. So, I think they are progressing through the different RICO predicates that they have to consider, and they're up on this one.
[23:35:00]
Now, they've been there for five hours, so they may have moved through several of them, and they're just getting to this one, or they had a general discussion. You know, often, jurors get in the room, and the first thing they do is they sort of take a straw poll. Right? They say, how do people feel about the different counts? We don't really know. We're all reading the tea leaves here about what they're doing. COATES: But on that point, just as you mentioned, I mean, the idea of every juror note, especially one that came within an hour, when you think about that, this is the very first time these jurors have really conversed about the case. They're meeting each other in a way about their mindset on this case. When you're consulting with a team, how do you prepare them for jury notes?
STABILE: Well, you know, everybody is going to huddle around and -- you know, what I tell people is you really can't read too much into it. I mean, some jury notes are obvious. But like the note we got earlier, about one juror not following the judge's instructions --
COATES: Yeah.
STABILE: -- we don't know if that's a pro-prosecution. We don't know if that person walked in and said he's guilty. What are we going to waste our time for? Or that person was pro-defense and said, look, I think this is a setup, I think he's being targeted for whatever reason, and I'm not going to convict him.
COATES: Joey, talk to me about that because during 2025, the idea of the unable to follow the -- there was two and a half hours, almost, almost three, of jury instructions this morning alone. So, we don't know which aspect we're talking about, but what did you make of it?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: First of all, Laura, shout out to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, "The Power of Positive Thinking." I have read that book. It includes so many positive aspects, biblical references. It's amazing. So, he's keeping himself comforted.
COATES: I understand you so well now.
(LAUGHTER)
Okay. Here we go.
JACKSON: Keeping himself comforted as to the issue regarding what happened today. Look, I think a juror has a good faith obligation to deliberate. But let's understand this.
The jury, while they cannot speak with each other about the case until such time as the judge allows, they have formulated opinions about it, they have sat there through all of the testimony, they have certainly been compelled by one thing or not compelled by the other, and they have a certain, you know, position as to it, and you still have an obligation, certainly, to enjoin and engage with your fellow jurors.
But let's just say, for example, this juror says, I don't care what you say to me, he's not guilty, I don't care what you say to me. Right? Is that him not participating? Right? This is a person who has heard the evidence, and I could sit there and listen to your perspective, the law doesn't require that I change it.
Last point, Laura, and this is fertile for appeal. The judge has to really tap dance around how they respond to this question. So, with the judge simply saying, hey, follow my instructions, go back into that jury room and do the best you can with regard to that. That was the only way, I think, the judge could approach this for now.
COATES: It could've been my mother. She would say, don't make me come back there.
(LAUGHTER)
That's what would happen next. Love you, mom. Let me get to the questions. I want to hear Berit's answer about this as well because we got a lot of people asking questions, and they want to pick all of your brains here about the Diddy trial.
The first one is Bill from Kentucky, and he asks, can this juror be dismissed and an alternate seated? Berit?
BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So, the juror could be dismissed if, for example, the juror refuses to deliberate or says, you know, I've been doing something in, you know, that was in opposition to the judge's order, like, I've been reading the newspaper about this or something.
If there's some evidence that the -- the jurors really, you know, completely disavowing the judge's instructions, they could be dismissed. If it's just a juror that's, like, this -- my mind is made up, I'm not really going to engage, probably not.
I mean, what would happen is the judge would ultimately give what's called an Allen charge which is, like, you really can't stop deliberating, you must work with each other. It's, you know, as forceful as you can get but, ultimately, that would end in a hung jury then.
COATES: We'll see. Renato, here's a question because Jose wants to know this answer. Which charge will probably be the easiest and which one will be the hardest to conclude a verdict?
STABILE: So, certainly, the RICO is going to be the hardest. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets acquitted on the RICO and convicted of the others. But I think transporting the male escorts for purposes of prostitution, that -- I'm not even sure what the defense is. I think he'll probably get -- certainly get convicted of those, and then he faces a 10-year maximum sentence on those two charges. But remember, they could be stacked if you were convicted of both.
COATES: We'll see. Of course, we didn't hear from -- from alleged male escort who had traveled yet in this case. We'll see. A big question we got -- Summer asks it, Joey -- why did Kristina Khorram nor D-Rock or other bodyguards testify for the defense or prosecution? Seems like they would have sealed the deal for one of the sides.
JACKSON: Well, as to not testifying for the defense, the defense has no obligation to call any witness. They have no burden of proof. And it certainly isn't up to them. It's not their case. It's the government's case. The government has the burden. And I would say, although, of course, the government waxes poetic, hey, you were defense equally in a position to call them nonsense. Your case, you indicated that there was a conspiracy here. You call them. However, from a prosecution's perspective, these witnesses were technically the conspiracy witnesses, the ones in the organization for which RICO can be formatted.
[23:40:03]
Meaning, he engaged in a conspiracy to engage in illegality. And if you -- if the government would have brought them, perhaps they would have had said it. We'll never know.
COATES: Really quick, Berit. Why do you think the prosecution didn't?
BERGER: So, I think there are probably two reasons. One, they think that they are so guilty, that there's so much, you know, potential exposure, that they would obviously plead the Fifth and they didn't want to immunize them, that's not a good look to immunize one, or they were thinking maybe there's a time that they would ultimately bring charges against them, and so they didn't want to have them immunized for purposes of this trial.
COATES: We'll see how the jurors think about it. Thank you so much, you guys. Renato, thank you. Joey and Berit, stand by because no one saw this next story coming. Bryan Kohberger agreeing to a plea deal in the murders of four college students in Idaho. How did this come together? And the furious reaction from one of the victim's family next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A stunning turn of events in the quadruple murder trial of Bryan Kohberger. Tonight, sources tell CNN that Kohberger has agreed to plead guilty to fatally stabbing four students at the University of Idaho back in November of 2022. In exchange, the state will no longer pursue the death penalty. That decision is reopening wounds in a community already shattered by these shocking murders.
For more, let's get to CNN correspondent Veronica Miracle. Veronica, tell us more about how this plea deal came together.
VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Laura, this case has dragged on for more than two and a half years. So, this plea deal comes after significant delays to the trial start date. They also changed the venue at one point from Latah County where the murders took place to the state capital of Boise. That caused delays. But there was a trial start date in sight. It was slated to begin in August with jury selection expected to start next month.
But the defense team, they've been dealt with some significant blows in the past few weeks by the judge. They were rejected again in their attempts to delay the trial start date. The judge also rejected their proposal of presenting the jury with four alternate perpetrators.
In a statement, he said that there was nothing linking these four unnamed perpetrators, whose names have been sealed to the crime. So, that was out. And then he also rejected Kohberger's alibi defense because there's nothing -- there's no one who can vouch for where he was that evening.
So, given all of this, given where the defense was, they kind of had their backs up against the wall. And this came quite suddenly, but perhaps not quite a surprise given the defense's position. Laura?
COATES: How do the victims' families feel about this? Are they reacting?
MIRACLE: Yeah. There's a lot of outrage from the family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims -- one of the four victims who was murdered. Her family has been very outspoken throughout this whole process. Here's what her father had to say tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE GONCALVES, KAYLEE GONCALVES FATHER: I ask your audience, if anybody knows Judge Hippler, reach out to him and ask him to put his foot down and not accept this offer. It doesn't reflect anything in Idaho. This is not justice. We had an outsider come to our community, kill our kids in their sleep while they're getting a college education, doing everything that they should do, and we don't have the courage to hold him accountable.
No plea deal, let's go for this guy, 100%, Let's do it, and that -- that's how -- that's how this family stand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MIRACLE: Yeah. They've also talked about the fact that they're upset that a hearing regarding this plea deal is on Wednesday, not giving them enough time to really get together and go down to Boise. So, a lot of frustration from that family. Laura?
COATES: What a tragedy for these families. Veronica Miracle, thank you so much.
Back with me now, Joey Jackson, Berit Berger. All right, there is this request to have the plea not accepted. Could the judge do that?
BERGER: Probably not. The judge would only really be able to do that if there was something that the judge found was, you know, illicit about the plea deal, if there was something, you know, he found improper about this.
If it -- I mean, what the judge should do is give the victims a chance to be heard, and then, certainly, those views would be, you know, taken into an account when it comes to sentencing. But ultimately, if both the parties agree to it, it will probably go forward.
COATES: He was at a sort of dead end when it came to no ability to do an alibi defense, no ability to have an alternate perpetrator, which included people whose DNA had already been excluded, by the way, could not have other issues, had already been moved. Was this the only way the defense could avoid that death penalty?
JACKSON: Yeah. You know, Laura, I think, obviously, the reason for the plea is because there was the avoidance of the death penalty. But cases have to have viable defenses. And when you can't say the butcher did it, the baker did it, someone else did it, because the judge shuts you down, you don't have an alibi defense and you're stuck with reasonable doubt where there's significant DNA evidence, there's cell phone evidence, there's other data with respect to your car and your whereabouts. You're really at a dead end.
What I am concerned about briefly is how the victims were treated here. I think that they have a say and they need to have a say. And I think their mantra with the judge will be, hey, listen, this is unfair, we, you know, certainly don't want this plea, we weren't consulted with respect to the plea. D.A. holds the cards.
But, certainly, the victims have a right to suggest and to say what they say, and so they'll try to convince the judge that it's not in the interest of justice and the procedural formality with respect to their consultation ran low. And it's on Wednesday. Do we have some respect, that we can give them a time and opportunity to be there? And so, we'll see what the judge does ultimately.
COATES: Trial was supposed to be August 11. These families, they want their loved ones back. They also want to probably know why, and I don't know they'll ever know this answer sitting here today. We'll have to wait and see.
Joey, Berit, thank you so much.
JACKSON: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Ahead, the other shocking story out of Idaho. Two firefighters shot and killed while responding to a brush fire believed to be started by the gunman.
[23:50:04]
Now, we're learning who the firefighters were and what classmates are revealing about that suspect.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, we're learning the names of two firefighters who were shot and killed in an ambush Sunday while responding to a brush fire in Idaho. They are battalion chiefs John Morrison and Frank Harwood.
John Morrison was 52 years old and served with the Coeur d'Alene Fire Department for 28 years before becoming chief. Frank Harwood was 42.
[23:55:00]
He served 17 years, was the father of two, and a former Army National Guard combat engineer. Another firefighter, 47-year-old Dave Tisdale, is currently recovering after two surgeries.
We're also learning that there are new details about the suspected shooter, 20-year-old Wess Roley. His grandfather tells CNN that he wanted to be a firefighter himself. Former classmates say he was reclusive from his peers. One former classmate says Roley had a journal with concerning images of weapons and hate symbols.
Another telling CNN that he was -- quote -- "verbally aggressive and recalled him drawing swastikas," saying -- quote -- "I believe it was our freshman year; he had an English book and he would draw swastikas. We didn't take it as what he may have believed in. I don't know."
Authorities say Roley was found dead at the scene and appears to have shot himself.
Joining me now, criminologist and behavioral analyst Casey Jordan. Casey, can you tell us what stands out to you from these new details we're learning about that shooter?
CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST, BEHAVIORAL ANALYST: Well, there are three sources that we are getting some information from on the suspected shooter, and you mentioned his classmates growing up who talk about those disturbing images, his grandfather, and also some family court records from his parents' divorce around 2015, public records that we've reviewed.
And, you know, the -- the things that you've cited about his childhood, in school, you know, you can kind of pass that off as a detached or, you know, isolated teenager just kind of exploring.
But from the divorce records, we have found that he came from a military family, that his father was in the Army. In fact, he had lived in Germany, which may have, you know, resulted in a preoccupation with Nazism.
COATES: Hmm.
JORDAN: But most recently, he had lived in Arizona and moved to -- to Idaho. And, you know, we know that he'd grown up in a dysfunctional household. His father may have had PTSD. His mother, alleged domestic violence. There are always guns in the house. But then his grandfather says that he was optimistic in Idaho and that he planned to be a forest firefighter.
COATES: Hmm.
JORDAN: So, these things taken together kind of make you wonder his background, his childhood, his dysfunctional family, and maybe not being hired or not aspire at not gaining an occupation as a firefighter might be a contributing factor to the way this shooting took place.
COATES: I mean, just thinking about how investigators are trying to piece together the why. Obviously, this suspect is dead. But criminologists and investigators still are pursuing because they want to understand and deter in the future anything like this. Will they look at the online presence and otherwise?
JORDAN: The online presence, but I think what everybody wants to know is what was happening in recent days.
COATES: Right.
JORDAN: He has no criminal history --
COATES: A motive.
JORDAN: -- with the law. No motive. But here's what we know about fire setters. Very often, they feel incredibly powerless and disengaged. And fire setting is one of the easiest ways. I mean, even the most powerless child can strike a match and cause incredible mayhem in short order. You know, devastating damage.
So, we know that sometimes arsonist are volunteer firefighters or firefighter wannabes, people who have applied to become firefighters and been rejected. And one wonders, did he actually apply to become a forest firefighter? I will be very interested to know if there are any applications out there. And was he rejected or was he just feeling down on his luck and hopeless?
And use the fire setting not to feel just powerful, although there's a lot of psychology there, but also to use it as a bait trap for firefighters which he has alleged to have shot and killed two of. Maybe it was revenge.
You know, we will find out more as we piece together his recent weeks in Idaho, and we may -- you know, mass murderers are trying to make a statement, and we will find out what that statement was.
COATES: We certainly will. And, of course, the family is desperate to know and understand why and what has happened here. And on the issue of -- of motive, there's a lot of unpacking to do, a lot of investigation. It won't bring perhaps the comfort or solace to the families who've lost their loved ones, but they need to know.
Casey Jordan, thank you so much.
JORDAN: Great to be here.
COATES: Thank you all for watching. Polo Sandoval picks up CNN's coverage of the marathon voting on President Trump's huge policy bill next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
