Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Diddy On Trial; Paramount Agrees To Settle Trump CBS Lawsuit; Online Creators And Influencers Swarm Diddy Trial. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired July 02, 2025 - 00:00   ET

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

[00:00:22]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Welcome to a second hour of this Special Edition of Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial.

In eight hours from now, the jury weighing the fate of Sean "Diddy" Combs. They will see if they can break a deadlock on the most serious charge against him, the RICO by conspiracy. Be back in court to deliberate at around 9:00am after reaching a verdict on four of five felony counts. When they could not decide on is racketeering conspiracy, and that's the one that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Now, they sent a note to the judge after twelve-and-a-half hours or so of deliberating saying that some jurors had, "unpersuadable opinions on both sides" over that first count. But they did reach a consensus on counts two through five. Those include charges of sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution, one of each tied to Cassie Ventura, Diddy's ex girlfriend, known only as the pseudonym Jane.

Now, we have no idea what they actually decided on those four counts because a judge told them to go back and keep deliberating, and did not reveal what they found on those four. In just a moment, we'll unpack for all of you with my team of legal experts and talk all about the scenarios of what could potentially unfold tomorrow. But it's a mystery weighing on everyone involved in the trial, Diddy, his defense team, the prosecutors, the witnesses and victims who have alleged these crimes.

The mood inside the court would dramatically change when the jury sent in their note to the judge. I mean, it was silent. These attorneys, they were circled around him. He even read the note himself.

Both the prosecution and the defense urged the judge to push the jury to stay at it, not to give up yet 12 hours in. And when Diddy left for the day, he whispered to his kids, in the row behind him, and to his mother, he would be all right. Former Manhattan Prosecutor, Jeremy Saland and Jury Consultant, Renato Stabile, are back with me. We also have Criminal Defense Attorney, Arthur Aidala, and BBC Journalist and Host of the "Diddy on Trial" podcast, Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty.

Anoushka, glad you're here. You're joined by lawyer by trade here as well now, through all the time we've spent together, I have to start with you, because you have been inside this courtroom. You've seen the entirety of this trial from start to now, almost finish. What was it like as his cliffhanger was playing out?

ANOUSHKA MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY, BBC JOURNALIST: Well, first of all, today was a circus. Oh, I'll say that. That's working outside while spraying baby oil on each other. They're selling shirts that say, "It's a freako, not a RICO." That was going on inside.

We were bored. We don't have phones. People are reading books. Everybody's talking, just trying to pass the time. And then right towards the end of the day, you have all of this action. There's this note that sent.

We've already had two notes before this. We didn't think it was going to be a verdict, but you could immediately see from how Marc Agnifilo started to react, and the rest of the defense attorneys, when they swooped in and gathered around Diddy as he sort of -- he was looking down. It's the first time we've seen him react like that.

It's definitely not the same person that we saw jump out of his chair last week and tell the judge that he was doing absolutely great and thinks, Your Honor is doing an excellent job. This time, there was a sense of gravity to the situation, and that is when everybody in the room decided to shut up and pay attention, and look at the screen.

COATES: And there had been notes before now, but this one landed differently because of the amount of time. But you're gathered around him. Did you sense, like, tension? Was he vulnerable? Did he seem like he was surprised that they had a verdict now?

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: I haven't seen him like that. It looked like fear a little bit. He was very still. They were around him. There's a lot of gesticulating going on by the defense attorneys.

I mean, Donaldson had his head in his hands at one point, and Brian Steele was getting sort of like, we need -- they're very animated. And they're talking to each other. And then at one point, like you said, Diddy reads the note himself. We haven't seen this before.

But the odd thing was the juxtaposition with the prosecution, who were just sat there completely calm, all of them on their phones or on their laptops. So the difference between the two was quite remarkable.

COATES: Arthur, talked to me about that because if all that's going on -- we saw a little bit of a sketch of this moment. But in this moment, they would have to also address the judge and to what they wanted for deliberation further or not. They're not just sort of convincing him. They have to make a plan if there is that hung jury, right?

ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. And I don't know this for a fact but, you know, when you talk about them being on their phones, it's probably not out of the realm of possibilities that they're communicating with their office. To think that the --

COATES: US attorney. AIDALA: The US attorney. And the highest people at that office are not involved in this decision making. I mean, look, if I was them, if I was their supervisor, I'd be saying, take that verdict.

[00:05:04]

COATES: The prosecution?

AIDALA: Absolutely. If I'm the prosecutor, take that verdict. A bird in the hand, right? I mean, that's what you want.

There hasn't been a verdict in this case, right? The jurors could come home and two of them could go in tomorrow morning and say, listen, I slept on it and I'm changing my mind. And all of a sudden they -- look, they're confident that they have some kind of a conviction one of those counts.

And even if it's one, it's the mandatory minimum on the sex trafficking is 15 years. OK, great. I'll get out at 65 years old then. That's if the judge doesn't run them consecutively, which he can if it was both of them. So they were a little greedy, in my opinion, for not. They wanted to roll the dice and say, we want the top count.

You know, it's very easy for federal prosecutors to get convictions. It's not -- I don't want to say anything bad about them, but it's -- they have a 93 percent or 6 percent conviction rate in the Southern District of New York. It's because the whole system is leaning heavily in their favor, in their direction, and the judges lean heavily in their direction.

So they -- if Diddy beats the top count, the RICO, like, amongst the legal circles, like that's like a victory for Marc Agnifilo and his team, even though Diddy could wind up spending two decades in prison. So if I was the prosecutors, I would say, no, judge, we want to take this verdict right now. We want to lock in a couple of convictions, and we'll take it from that.

That's exactly what happened to me three weeks ago in the Harvey Weinstein case. They came out with a partial verdict. I objected. I said, no way. I don't want a partial verdict. I moved for a mistrial. And the judge said, no. Of course, the prosecutors wanted it. And the judge took the partial verdict.

It was guilty one count, not guilty on the other count. They came back the next day and it was hung. I have a feeling you're going to -- may see that same scenario here. Guilty on things with Cassie, not guilty on things with Jane, and a hung jury with the racketeering.

COATES: Now, we, just to be clear, we have no idea how they would have actually rendered a verdict in those counts. You're assuming, of course, there was a conviction. We don't know that, but how about his point? The idea of the prosecution wanting to have and wait for the whole kitten caboodle, what do you say?

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. And I'll follow up. And I have a complete agreement with you. There is sort of a position that they kind of walk on water a little bit in the Southern District. And they want the whole thing.

They didn't come this far, they didn't come through weeks and weeks of a case that has incredible notoriety and is splashed across every website and every print media and elsewhere to say that we're just going to walk away with nothing or walk away with less. They want the whole thing and I think they are confident.

And again, we'll set it numerous times. We don't know what that verdict is. But based on what where they are, I think it's fair to say that there's likely something certainly for the man act in the prostitution, but very likely for some sex trafficking for Cassie that they have something so they're going to win no matter what.

And the loss, or we could say the win by the defense, is sort of internally. Like if Marc Agnifilo does beat that top count, great but it's still a huge.

COATES: Hold on, wait. Calling devil's advocate right here. I'm a call it right now. Hello, here I am. Even though I've been a federal prosecutor in the in sex trafficking case, sex offense cases, excuse me, in particular, let me ask you though, with a jury.

Yes, the SDNY has its conviction rate. Yes, the weight of the federal government's resources. It's no small feat to say United States versus someone's name. But sometimes in a world we live in, that's exactly the thing that annoys a jury.

You got everything going for you. You guys are so confident, maybe even cocky. You think it's a burden hand. You think I'm going to do whatever you want because you're the federal government. That could work against you and say, if you're the big bad federal government, why am I here for prostitution?

RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT: That absolutely could be the case. Look, let me just say it's easy to be calm, cool and collected when you're not facing jail time. So, you know, I know they want to win the case. But tonight is probably the most excruciating night of Diddy's life, waiting to find out what happens tomorrow.

But you're right, it can backfire. You know, years ago I represented Irv Gotti and he went to trial on money laundering charges. We beat the case. One of the things we found out is that, the jurors were really annoyed with the government for bringing that case because he was just somebody who's a record producer.

Yes, he had a lot of cash around. Yes, he called his label Murder Inc, but to say that he was engaged in some kind of criminal activity was a real turn off to the jurors. They rejected it, and he was acquitted.

(CROSSTALK)

AIDALA: The only way there's a full acquittal here is if there's jury nullification. And what does that mean? That the jurors just feel like that. Like we don't care what the evidence is. We're going to make a statement that the government's not going to come in and take a black entrepreneur, who went from nothing, became a billionaire, and you targeted him.

And in fact, there were pretrial motions that said, Agnifilo and the defense team could not argue selective prosecution because that's the only way you're going to win this case is by saying, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're the only thing that protects the citizens of the United States of America, from the government.

[00:10:05]

You need to make a statement that say they can't pick the target and say, we're going to go after this guy because I'm Damian Williams, I'm the US attorney. I want to be the next president of United States. I'm going to target this guy because he's going to get me in the newspapers. You, 12 people, have to tell folks, we don't care. We're not going to do it. That's the only way you win.

COATES: Wait a second. I cannot disagree more. I ask you, Anoushka, for your thoughts on this as you were watching the trial. I think there is -- I think that if the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurors are required to decide that the person is acquitted.

(CROSSTALK)

AIDALA: Evidence -- well, it's such an easy thing to prove.

COATES: I feel like I'm the defense attorney right now. Anoushka, let me ask you this question. You were watching this. You are a residential layperson, not a lawyer here, thinking about this. Tell me how you see.

Is the only method, I'm not asking how you would find that. I'm not asking you that. You are an esteemed journalist. But I am asking, is it only nullification? Was there a sense that when you were watching and observing that there were some gaps that perhaps the defense could exploit?

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: I think the thing is, and I've been saying this to you since the beginning. The best way to kind of understand what 12 everyday Americans might be thinking is to talk to the public who are there experiencing the trial in real time. Absolutely.

I mean, Marc Agnifilo introduced that idea to the jury, right, when he was doing his closing statements. And they objected against that. And then, you know, the judge spoke to the jury about that. But the idea was still introduced, the idea that this person has prospered against everything, that he's opened schools, that he's a great philanthropist.

I mean, I remember what he was doing during COVID. All these clips are resurfacing onto the internet. There's an ecosystem now, of course, sort of remembering good, positive things that he's done. And I feel like perhaps that, and maybe some misunderstanding of whether this is a domestic violence case or whether this really is a sex trafficking case, can all come together and create a storm of saying, well, actually, maybe you are unfairly targeting somebody. But it's for them to sit there with that evidence. And I think, you know, I'll talk to members of the public, and I'll hear what they have to say. And the pro-Diddy sentiment has massively grown. But once again, we have not seen all the evidence in this trial. We have not seen the freak-off tapes. They watched about 40 minutes of those.

So it could be a completely different experience for them than what we are receiving when we're in that courtroom. And I think that's so important to remember.

COATES: It is. And on that point, Renato, we just -- just to clarify, we haven't seen it because they -- we were not allowed as press. The press went in through attorneys to try to be able to see everything, but there were some things that were so graphic or lurid in nature that they were not allowed to be seen.

And in fact, they had the overflow room. They would have the cameras turned off. They'd have screen protectors in front of the lawyers that they couldn't see behind. And so that was part of it. But talk to me about this. I mean, this jury notification really interests me. I want you all to weigh in.

Renato, there, of course, is the requirement to follow the instructions. There is the reasonable doubt and, of course, the burden on the prosecution. But talk to me about how jurors, you've said they want to do the right thing. What does that mean to jurors in those deliberations?

STABILE: I think they want you, to the best of their ability, follow the legal instructions. By the way, I don't know that they really can. These are 65 pages of dense legal instructions. I've watched many, many, hundreds, thousands of mock jurors try and grapple with the same types of legal instructions. It is nearly impossible.

We have done a terrible job as a legal profession, in my opinion, of making the law and accessible to everyday people because they just can't follow it. It's overwhelming. But jury nullification, the way Artie is talking about it, I think, is exceedingly rare. I think jurors really want to reach the right result for the right reasons.

Could it happen? Sure, it could happen, but I haven't seen any indication it's going to happen in this case.

COATES: Jeremy?

SALAND: It's not happening in this case. I think that's a leap. That's an incredible leap. That's simply not going to work out.

You may have ecosystems, as you're describing them, which is fair, what's happening online. That's not in the courtroom. We like to think that the jurors are not looking outside on social media and reading the news, and seeing these other things. But we didn't hear from Diddy for the right reasons because he would have sunk his own proverbial ship. So you're lacking that information.

And we, on the outside, are seeing the sanitized version of you just described. We're not seeing that ugliness. This is not about the government is bad. This is about, we've seen these videos and these clips, and seen these texts, and seen these injuries, and heard from mothers. And we heard some horrible things, that he is a bad man, if you believe that storyline, there is no nullification.

And if that's what anyone's going to hang their hat on, Diddy is going to be spending a long time in prison.

COATES: Well, let's go forward for a second because I will tell you, I was in the overflow courtroom for the end of the closing argument of Marc Agnifilo. People cheered and they started to chant, "innocent, innocent." This after Marc Agnifilo --

SALAND: Innocent of the RICO charge or innocent --

COATES: Honey, they did not -- they did not disagree.

SALAND: My point is --

[00:15:04]

COATES: However, I know your point you're making, but when it came time for the government, they did not cheer in the same way. Now, that's not the indication of what these 12 jurors are going to do. But to Anoushka's point, the sentiment around this has changed.

But I want to take it a step further. Let's just say, for the realm of argument, that there was a moment that the judge believes that the verdict is wrong. What could happen?

AIDALA: Well, it's that there's two different answers to that. If he's convicted and the judge thinks it's wrong, the judge has a lot of power. If he's acquitted and the judge thinks it's wrong, the judge has no power. If he's convicted and the judge thinks it was -- the evidence didn't live up to a conviction, the judge has the power to set aside the verdict. That probably happens as much as I use a hairbrush in the morning.

Just to my point, when I was talking about jury nullification. In terms of the man act, that transportation trafficking thing, the evidence there was pretty clear, especially with one of the two complaining witnesses. My point is, the only way he's getting fully acquitted, like not guilty, not guilty, not guilty is the jurors have to say, yes, OK, the evidence is there, but we're not finding them guilty.

COATES: But that evidence also involved having them read documents. They did not have testifying male escorts who had traveled. Obviously, Cassie and Jane talked about their own travel, but I don't know.

Did you look at this issue when you were hearing from people and watching the courtroom? Did you get a sense of whether any of these counts were a slam dunk for the prosecution?

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: Well, I think when we walked into this, everybody thought the transportation for prostitution would be the one. It was kind of like, well, that's a given. But I think when they started to bring forward messages that showed that if they didn't have sex, they were still paid. And then Marc Agnifilo pointed to the fact that they were paid for their time, that could sway people.

But I think people always want to be swayed towards what they already believed when they walked in the room. And some of those people who've been there since day one, we might not have been hearing them say "Free Puff" on day one, but it doesn't mean they weren't thinking it. So I think people feel a lot freer now to say how they felt before. Not necessarily that they've been swayed throughout the trial.

But I will say that they marking this flow definitely earned his money and he made some very clever arguments. And I think sometimes there's a long way in going to just confuse people and get them to question something. And I think if you can do that. That's the first step in changing somebody's mind.

And people were questioning the transportation for prostitution, even though they may have thought that was the one that he was definitely going to get convicted of.

COATES: Well, one thing that won't change in my mind, Anoushka is a star. I hope you're watching everyone. Stand by.

Up next, our eyes and ears in court sketch artist Christine Cornell on what she saw during that dramatic huddle between Diddy and his lawyers today as a note of a partial verdict came in. Plus Diddy's former publicist standing by with his reaction to how did he is handling this moment and the self help books he's now reading.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:21:49]

COATES: Seven weeks of testimony from 34 different witnesses, and today we almost got an outcome in this case. So what was it like in the room when news broke that the jury reached a partial verdict? I'm going to ask our eyes and ears inside that courtroom who's been focusing on all the action for weeks to bring us these very sketches.

Christine Cornell joins me now. Christine, take me inside the courtroom. What was the mood like when people first learned that this wasn't an ordinary note? This was a partial verdict indication.

CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURT SKETCH ARTIST: You know, I felt like I was the last person to find out. I mean, it was closing in on the 5:00 hour, and the lawyers were starting to gather about half an hour early. And all of them came in, and then there was a big cluster.

You know, the defense attorney says what are there, a dozen of them? I mean, there's at least eight. And they so masked my view that all of a sudden I became aware that Puffy Combs was in the room.

And the only reason was, is through the bodies I saw the texture of his hair. And I said, oh, dang, he came in here. I was amazed at how they huddle around him like a football team, you know, getting ready for their next move.

COATES: Well, what were they like during that huddle? Were they like anxious seeming? Did they seem nervous in some way? Did they seem calm? Describe what they were acting like in that huddle.

CORNELL: You know, I always look at, for lawyers in these situations is that, this is mother's milk to them. They're used to this kind of like, you know, high wire act. And they were just strategizing about how to deal with, as I found out later, a rather serious note, you know, that said that they were all in agreement on the last four charges and they were just hung up on the one.

The defense was very clear that they didn't want a partial verdict. The prosecution was suggesting a modified Allen charge, which is what they throw. You know, when we hit these cruxes. And the judge said, too soon for that. Just tell him to go back and deliberate because it's only been a little over a day.

COATES: So what was Diddy doing this whole time?

CORNELL: Jesus, if I could have seen him, I would tell you. You know, he was honestly just masked by this bunch of people standing over him, around him, whispering to him. I felt his family rather than seeing them. I felt them all move in because I'm sitting smack dab behind his back, and the row where his family fills up.

And everyone was on alert, everyone showed up for this. It was obviously, you know, put out there that something serious could conceivably be about to come down but --

COATES: Also, by the way, the jurors were there. The jurors came back at one point in time when they were told by the judge to continue deliberating, and then they were excused again.

[00:25:04]

Ultimately, they left for the day. But was there a sense of a change in the energy that they brought at that point?

CORNELL: I was very happy. You know, the defense asked for the jury to be brought in to be told that they could be dismissed for the day and that they would have to come back. I mean, in the last, you know, day, the judge wouldn't call them in. He would just say, OK, you can go home. This time they brought them in.

I was glad to lay eyes on them. I felt a kind of subdued energy off of them. I didn't see any active enmity or anything.

And there's one guy who I always keep an eye on who strikes me as a little nervous and jumpy, and even he was contained. So I think they knew this was coming, that it wasn't -- they weren't going to get out of this so easy. That they were going to have to come back and deal with it again.

I mean, they did send a note pretty clear that they were at polar ends and that they would never agree. But, you know, we all know that's the crucible, right, of the system. It's like they have to really, you know, hammer it --

COATES: A unanimous verdict. Well, we'll see --

CORNELL: Yes.

COATES: -- if the hammering will continue tomorrow, because you're right. For people to understand, normally the jury is there every single day and they're brought into the courtroom and they're sent out. This time, since deliberations have begun, they can come into the courthouse and they begin once everyone's present and they tell the court when it's time for them to leave.

Be back tomorrow at 9:00am, I know you'll be watching and I'll be looking for you. Christine Cornell, thank you so much.

CORNELL: I'll be waiting.

COATES: With me now, Rob Shuter, a former Publicist for Diddy. He represented him in the early 2000s. He's also the host of the podcast "Naughty But Nice With Rob Shuter." I love to listen to it as well.

Let me ask you, first of all, can you tell me what you think he's thinking right now? I mean, I cannot imagine knowing that there are four or five verdicts that are out there and a hung juror, I don't know.

ROB SHUTER, DIDDY'S FORMER PUBLICIST: Yes, a couple of things here. Knowing Puff, there's a perverse part of this that he's actually enjoying. He has made himself or he has become one of the most famous people in the world.

When I worked with him in the early 2000s, he would say to me all the time, Rob, one day I'm going to be the most famous guy in the world. And he arguably is today. So I think he is enjoying all the attention.

I think he's also enjoying all the drama. Puff was always somebody that thrived under drama, attention, high pressure. When it's going to get very difficult for Puff is when he's alone.

When he's alone in that cell and he has not that much to think about, and that is not the case at the moment. He's thinking about, how do I get out of this? He does not give in until the very last minute.

So I would predict that he's still pretty optimistic. And even though it doesn't look good, we've said it on your show, the lawyers have said it. He won't believe it until it's actually said.

COATES: For the average person, this is the most vulnerable and scary time because they are thinking about the worst. But from your night, our conversations, this is somebody who does not manifest or think that way.

SHUTER: No, he doesn't. He has no shame. He has no self doubt. I've worked with a ton of different celebrities and even the biggest of them, I've seen the mask fall. I've seen moments of vulnerability. I've seen some of the most beautiful celebrities doubt if they are good looking enough.

I've never ever seen that with Puff. I went around the world with him. I was on his private plane. I've been in his home. I've spent hours and hours with him. I never ever saw the mask drop.

And it led me to the conclusion that there is no mask. This is who he is. He totally believes in himself. He believes that he can still beat this and he's not going to go down without a fight.

COATES: You know, the reason I have these books here, "The Power of Positive Thinking and the Happiness Advantage." Not Hawking books.

SHUTER: I was wondering.

COATES: The reason I have him is because he has been reading these two books and holding them up in court, which, of course, means he wants us to know that he's reading these books. And one of them in particular, this one. What you're describing is essentially the central theme of this book.

SHUTER: He's sending messages. He's sending messages all the time. When I worked with Puff, he'd love to carry a book when there's lots of paparazzi pictures of him carrying books. And it's his secret way of talking to people.

It's not that secret. We know what he's doing, but he did not walk in with those books by chance. He wants us to know that he is thinking positive.

And I do honestly believe that he believes he still got a chance. He still believes that he can convince this jury that he is innocent. So he has not given up yet. So if you're a Puff supporter, don't give up hope yet, because he has not.

COATES: Given that, why didn't he testify?

SHUTER: Yes. That's really curious, isn't it? So I asked several different people. I'm still close with people in Puffy's world. And they told him, and Puffy believed that he had already won. He believed that he didn't need to.

[00:30:05]

And so, I think he would like to. I think he likes the attention. He thinks he can tell his story better than any lawyer or anybody else. But I think he was convinced ultimately, it was not a smart move for him to do. But I think he was convinced that it just wasn't necessary.

He'd done everything he had needed to be done. And I think if his lawyers know how to play him, and after eight weeks, I hope they do, they will flatter him. And tell him, puff, you've been so amazing sitting there every day, putting on that brave face. We don't need any more from you.

COATES: You know, you've talked to him before about him being a total control freak. SHUTER: At all.

COATES: Delegation, very difficult even if necessary with the extent of his empire. But let me ask you, I mean, this is one of those scenarios where it must be completely foreign to him. He cannot control this. His hand -- his fate is in the hands of strangers.

SHUTER: Yes. This is not a position he likes to be in and worse, a position he hasn't been in for 20 years. He would never put himself into this position. So this must feel really strange. It must feel really annoying.

I would guess he's angry about it at the moment. He doesn't have a lot of self pity. So I don't think he's there yet.

So depending on how this goes, that will ultimately decide what his end and mood is. He might be celebrating in 24 hours, we don't know yet.

COATES: Yes.

SHUTER: And so, I think at the moment he's still fighting. He does not like to have things out of control. But I don't believe he thinks he's there yet. He thinks he's still running the show.

COATES: What about the impact of his family and the dynamic around him?

SHUTER: It's great that the family are there. They're very close family, but he is the center of that family. Not just financially, emotionally.

When Puff talks, everybody else shuts up. He pays for all their lifestyles. They live in these amazing homes because of Puff. They treat him like he's a very special person. And Puff likes being treated like that.

I should say too. His mom, Janice, is the center of his universe. Like that's the only person that he would listen to. There's nobody else out there that could ever have an impact, that could ever break through. If ever I needed something awkward or if I needed something for Puffy to know that wasn't very pleasant, I'd go to Janice and the mom would tell him.

So I'm pretty sure that's still the case now. But he appears as if he's rallying the family. He's the cheerleader, he's reading these books and he seems like he's living it.

COATES: Well, his mother, Janice, is right behind him every single day. And today, he turned to her and said something like, I'm going to be all right.

SHUTER: Thumbs up.

COATES: Wow.

SHUTER: He's still the --

COATES: Really insightful. It's getting like a window into that world and who he is as you know him. Thank you so much. Always great to have you on. Rob Shuter, everyone.

Well, what happened in the Diddy trial today raised a whole bunch of questions about what's next. We've got just the people here to answer them. We'll go through your questions next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:36:24]

COATES: When you've got questions, we've got the answers. Time for more America Asks: Diddy on Trial Edition. Just a reminder for all of you at home who want to participate, send us your questions by going to cnn.com/diddyquestions. My panel is back.

Arthur, here's one for you. Egbert from El Paso asks, can Trump pardon Diddy for these alleged crimes?

AIDALA: Yes, he can. He absolutely can. Whether he's going to -- whether his MAGA base is going to watch that video of watching a man beat up a woman and hearing about these freak-offs. Whether President Trump's going to consider remains to be seen.

But he absolutely did. This is a federal crime. He has federal powers. He's the chief of the federal system as the President of the United States. So yes, he absolutely can.

He can do one of two things. He can commute his sentence. So he can say, I'm not pardoning you. If you've been convicted, you're convicted, but the judge sentenced you to X amount of years. You don't have to do any of that jail time or you're not going to do all 15 years. You're only going to do five years.

COATES: Anoushka, I have a question good for you. Anita from Texas asked this question, Anita from Texas, why would Diddy's three grown daughters stand beside him after the sex tapes were revealed in court?

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: Yes, it's a question that lots of people have. I mean, some of them are 18. The twins are 18.

COATES: Nineteen, yes.

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: Yes, 18-19, babies. And I asked his best friend, who's known him for 30 years, that today at the trial, and he said, you know, don't underestimate the Combs family. They stick together, and they know how to separate their dad's personal life from his private life, from his time as a father, which is something the prosecution seem unable to do. So that was the answer that he gave.

He also said, you know, their constantly talking to each other and supporting each other, but it was there to be like a show of force and a show of unity. COATES: (Inaudible) were also hearing that they were going to see it

anyway, and they wanted to be there, present for the very reasons you're talking about.

Let me ask you this, Jeremy. On this question, you've got Amanda from Kentucky, who asked this question. The defense did not call any witnesses and wrapped up their closing argument in half a day. If found guilty, can he claim in the future that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and possibly get a new trial?

SALAND: Can he? Sure. Will he succeed? Likely not. You can do anything you want. There's a lot of grounds to make an appeal or pursue. But with all his attorneys and all the time, and all the effort, and all the money, and all the different angles they took, I do not see that being successful.

COATES: Let me ask you this, Renato. Christy from Colorado Springs asks, what are the sentencing guidelines for each charge and who determines what the sentence is within those guidelines?

STABILE: So what will happen is, if he's convicted, there'll be a probation report that's prepared by the Probation Department. That's a lengthy process. Sentencing will be months and months from now.

What his guidelines are will be a complicated calculation. There's a point system in the federal system, but he faces on the trafficking charges a mandatory minimum of 15 years up to life for the prostitution charges. The most he can get is 10 years. So it's really a wide variety.

And that'll be determined ultimately by the judge who will read the probation report. And did his lawyers get to weigh in, the government weighs in. So federal sentencing is a very complicated and time consuming process.

COATES: Important point. Let me ask you this, Arthur. Herman from North Carolina Herman asks this question. Will other associates never be brought up on charges if Diddy is found guilty?

AIDALA: That's probably accurate. Probably no one else is good. If they were, this would be the time to do it. They're not going to call, re-call all of these witnesses. This goes to the targeted prosecution, the selective prosecution. Why aren't the other people who aided and abetted him, why are they not charged here? That's an excellent point.

[00:40:07]

COATES: Anoushka, here's a question that Chris asks. Can the jury do interviews after the trial?

MUTANDA-DOUGHERTY: They sure can, which is news to us Brits because that's not really the done thing back at home, but they can. Yes. One journalist phrase it to me as some of them are going to go on a media tour.

And, you know, there's questions about how to keep them safe when they walk out, not be absolutely mobbed by the, I don't know, what do I call them, news-fluencers, influences that are at the trial. But yes, they can speak out, write books, whatever they want.

COATES: Jeremy, Naisha from Maryland asked this question. If the statute of limitations is up for him to be prosecuted for that tape, why were they able to use the tape?

SALAND: Well, he's not being prosecuted for necessarily directly the conduct on that tape. That tape was what we all probably would call a domestic violence assault that should probably have been prosecuted in a state court. But it's part of the greater peace that's brought in with the RICO to help establish the other crimes and help establish the elements that are necessary.

So it's not the actual crime itself, it's a piece that helps establish what is before the jury.

COATES: Renato, let me ask you this question. Gabrielle from Harrington Park, New Jersey asks, would the fact that Juror 25 was not dismissed be grounds for appeal for any guilty verdicts?

STABILE: Well, it looks like that issue has sort of come and gone, but it could be, you know. If there's going to be a conviction that for sure there's going to be some investigation, I would think, conducted by the defense team to try and figure out what exactly was going on with Juror 25. So it's an interesting question.

We had it right out of the gate. It hasn't resurfaced, but I'm sure they'll be exploring all options and it could be.

COATES: And again, we don't know what the verdicts will be, but tomorrow at 9:00am (inaudible) deliberating. Everyone, thank you so much.

Breaking news just in tonight, Paramount is agreeing to pay President Trump millions of dollars to end his lawsuit over edits to a 60 Minute interview. We'll bring you the details of this apparent settlement. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:45:12]

COATES: Breaking tonight, Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS News, agreeing to pay President Donald Trump $16 million to put an end to his lawsuit over edits to a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Paramount saying in a statement, this settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret.

I want to bring in CNN chief Media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, what do you know about the terms of this deal?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: There is no apology, but there is an acknowledgement from CBS that it will handle these interviews differently in the future. And most importantly, Laura, the dollar figure you just stated, $16 million to President Trump's future presidential library. That is exactly the same amount of money that Disney's ABC paid to settle a lawsuit from Trump last December.

That lawsuit last December was the tell. It was the grand reveal for how Trump was going to use lawsuits, use his power, in order to extract things from groups that he deemed his opponents. We've seen this with big law firms, with universities, and here we are once again with Trump versus a major media company.

The Disney ABC deal was December. And now early this morning, we have this Paramount deal which is coming just a few hours before Paramount holds its annual shareholder meeting. The company was really trying to put this lawsuit to bed before the shareholder meeting tomorrow morning.

So that's the context for what's been going on. This settlement's been in the works for months. Paramount finally was able to get it done tonight. And even though there is no apology to the President, this is embarrassing for Paramount and for CBS News because this was a case that it probably could have taken to cordon won, but instead it's choosing to settle with Trump.

COATES: I mean, this months long tension with President Trump, it has led to high level departures at CBS. Any idea what effect this will have in the halls of CBS?

STELTER: This case was legally dubious from the very beginning. You know, Trump was demanding $20 billion all over one answer to one question from one 60 Minutes report. This made no sense. It was a frivolous case. It was clearly a frivolous case. And you had lawyers across the media industry saying CBS should not settle, they should go to court and battle this out.

That's partly why we have those departures from CBS. That's partly why so many CBS journalists have been worried that the parent company would go ahead and do what it has done tonight. But Paramount settled for one pretty apparent reason. Even though it says that it's illegal maneuvering to get a merger through the Trump administration are separate, Paramount is trying to get a merger through the Trump administration.

That's pretty much all you need to know about this story. It is awaiting Trump administration approval, and Paramount executives feared it would not get that needed approval if it did not pay Trump. So this has all the appearances of a payoff to some Democratic lawmakers have even used the word bribe, saying this might look like a bribe.

However, Paramount might be avoiding some of that scrutiny by paying the exact same amount that Disney's ABC paid last December. Because that way they can go and point to the other earlier settlement and say, hey, we're just doing the same thing that a rival company did. Nevertheless, a chilling moment for American media.

COATES: I was going to say. And it is frankly their prerogative to settle cases, you know, in this instance. But nonetheless, as you point out, like you said, the President has reached multimillion dollar settlements with a number of media organizations, including ABC News and Meta, and now Paramount. This is a precedent now.

STELTER: Yes. Corporate priorities and Trump journalistic principles in this case, it's a reputational stain for CBS in 60 Minutes, even though that pioneering news magazine continues to do great work covering the Trump administration and is working on more pieces coming this fall. So we'll see if the Paramount settlement -- excuse me, we'll see if the merger now goes through once the settlement deal has been struck.

But the bigger picture here, Laura, it's pretty clear this is the cost of doing business in the Trump years. This is the cost of doing business with the Trump administration. At least that's how Paramount feels. $60 million might be a small price to pay financially, but reputationally it's still a very big deal.

COATES: And this is what, $16 million, to put an end to the lawsuit over the edits to a 60 Minute interview with the former vice president, Kamala Harris. Brian Stelter, thank you for bringing us the very latest.

STELTER: Thanks.

COATES: Well, if you think all the drama is happening inside the courtroom, where Diddy's fate is being debated, you're wrong. There's a whole lot of action outside of court. We'll take you there after this.

[00:49:58]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, for weeks I've been covering the Diddy trial from inside the courthouse. But outside, it's a whole different show. Influencers, TikTokers, streamers, all lining the block outside in what has become their very own content studio. And many are taking social media by storm. Brynn Gingras has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MS. PLEASANT, YOUTUBER: We down here at the Diddy trial.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT Meet Ms. Pleasant, aka maker of Da Pop Off Show on YouTube.

MS. PLEASANT: We going to do a fit check.

GINGRAS: She's one of nearly a dozen live streamers you'll find outside the federal courthouse in New York City. While inside, Sean "Diddy" Combs sits trial facing life behind bars.

NIQUE LECLAIR, LIVE STREAMER: Hey, what's up? What's up? It's your girl Nique.

GINGRAS: Rain or shine here for the past eight weeks.

What compels you to actually be here every day? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm nosy. It has celebrity, it has sex, it has crime, it has drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, you look nice today, Mama Combs. You stepping.

GINGRAS: How many followers did you have at the start of this and versus how many you have now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had about maybe like 5,000 or so. Right now I got about 16,000, so I gained about maybe like 11,000 so.

GINGRAS: That's pretty good.

Many have amassed a huge following.

You just read these comments or not?

[00:55:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'm reading the comments. I'm interacting with the people.

GINGRAS: By giving unedited access to the chaos surrounding the courthouse.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you see Barney just do one of these.

GINGRAS: Are you live streaming?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, we're live, man. We're all live.

GINGRAS: Some streamers read courtroom transcripts word for word.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He kept his money. He kept his wallet.

GINGRAS: This man reads off his own handwritten notes. Others chase down witnesses and Combs' family members.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just now, I just had to run when the girls came. So I'm also doing the journalism. We're doing that, but then I'm doing the TMZ, and I'm getting on happy feet, sliding in for the count to catch my little footage.

GINGRAS: So you're capturing everything?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm doing everything.

LECLAIR: There is a type of way that we can talk to them, that legacy media probably can't really give an opinion. They can't, you know, we can be like, uh-huh, I wasn't feeling that or I didn't like that. And they feel relatability.

GINGRAS: Oh, you're on live, too. Oh, hi.

KEALOHA CONNER, LIVE STREAMER: Multiple batteries, multiple chargers in case one breaks. Yes. GINGRAS: Kealoha Connor was in marketing before a friend convinced her to step in front of the phone and live stream.

CONNER: Guys, P. Diddy trial update. First day, I was like, it's not going to be anything. And then, boom. Like that first day, I peaked at 20,000 and some change on people.

GINGRAS: And now she's not looking back.

CONNER: I want to go into journalism now because of all this.

GINGRAS: Are you able to monetize yet?

CONNER: On this?

GINGRAS: Yes.

CONNER: I was able to monetize on this one, day one.

LECHAIR: I do also get people who want to donate. They give Cash Apps. And on YouTube, there's a thing called super chats. They want to support your journey in any way that they can.

GINGRAS: The trial now in the hands of jurors. With arguably more people tuned in for the verdict than ever before.

TESS HARPER, LIVE STREAMER: This is as big as the OJ trial. We do want to get closure and understand what this case is going to be. You know what I mean? What is it going to wrap up to be?

GINGRAS: Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COATES: Brynn Gingras, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)