Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

5 GOP No Votes Put Trump's Agenda In Limbo Amid Key Vote; Sean Combs Acquitted On Most Serious Charges But Judge Denies Him Bail; Hear Suge Knight's Advice To Diddy After Conviction On Two Charges. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired July 03, 2025 - 00:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:49]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: A live look at the House floor where President Trump's agenda is in trouble. A key vote to move his marquee Bill Ford (ph) is in bad shape as there are five no Republican votes. Speaker Johnson can only afford to lose three.

But this vote, we're told, is going to stay open for as long as it takes as the White House and the speaker try to convince those Republican holdouts to flip.

Live updates from the Hill as this very long and uncertain night goes on. But first, the verdict that stunned the nation on this second live hour of Lara Coates Live: Diddy on trial.

Today, the jury delivered a full and final verdict in the case against Sean Diddy Combs. He was found not guilty of the most serious charges, racketeering, conspiracy, RICO and sex trafficking. But tonight, Diddy remains in jail.

Well, that's because he was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. And he was denied bail while he awaits sentencing, which could be as late as October, even though the amount of time he will spend behind bars is still uncertain.

Today's verdict was a significant victory for the defense. Diddy is no longer facing life in prison. He could face up to 20 years, since the maximum sentence for each prostitution charge is 10 years each. But early clues indicate it could be less than that. The prosecution says sentencing guidelines call for about four to five years in prison.

The defense, though, of course, is arguing for much less. They cite guidelines for 21 to 27 months and Diddy already served about 10 months since he's been in detention, since he was arrested. They could credit that to the time.

We'll know a lot more next week about when he will be sentenced because the judge proposed originally an October 3rd sentencing day, but then he set a hearing for next Tuesday after the defense said they wanted to expedite this whole process. With me now, CNN correspondent Kara Scannell, former federal

prosecutor Maria Cruz Melendez, who successfully prosecuted singer R. Kelly, jury consultant Renato Stabile, and CNN legal analyst and defense attorney Joey Jackson.

Renato, I want to begin with you here, because I'm wondering why you think the verdict came down the way it did. Guilty on prostitution, not guilty on sex trafficking or racketeering. What do you think went through their minds? Given, of course, yesterday was a hung jury.

RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT AND ATTORNEY: Yes, I mean, talk about not being unpersuadable. That was the word yesterday that I cited was like, wow, I think we're in a hung jury. Let me just say maybe one of the heroes in this case on the defense team that people are talking about, Linda Moreno. I'm not friends with Linda Moreno, but she was the jury consultant that picked this jury. And I have to say she did an amazing job.

COATES: Why?

STABILE: Well, because when I looked at the makeup of the jury, they seemed to be very analytical people. You had doctors, you had analysts, you had people in finance. I think she picked people who were very, very analytical, looked at the facts very closely, tried to match it up to the legal instructions they were given. And under the law, when they applied it correctly, that's what they ended up with. The prosecution just didn't make out the elements they needed to make out.

COATES: Maria, a very different result than what you experienced as a prosecutors successfully prosecuting R. Kelly. How big of a blow was this to the prosecutors, and why do you think they fell short on that RICO and sex trafficking charges?

MARIA CRUZ MELENDEZ, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So I'll start with the sex trafficking charges. I actually think that the government probably put forth enough evidence to support a conviction, though I'm not surprised by the acquittal on those sex trafficking charges. And that's largely because I think at the end of the day, the jury had to be convinced that coercion was happening within the dynamic of that relationship.

And given the dynamic, given the fact that defense counsel did make a couple of good points on cross examination about the fact and the reasons why they were engaging in those hotel nights being because they loved him, because they wanted to spend time with them.

[00:05:04]

I think it --

COATES: Not solely because of force of violence.

MELENDEZ: Not solely because of force or violence or fraud as alleged by the government. And so I think at the end of the day, it's not surprising that the jury wasn't able to get over that hump with regard to the RICO charge. I think because it was charges of RICO conspiracy, what the jurors were looking for was to identify who's the coconspirator here, who is the individual that he agreed to engage in these two racketeering acts that they needed to prove.

I think without a cooperating witness on the stand, without, say, for example, Kristina Khorram getting on the stand and saying, yes, I agreed, not just assisted, but I agreed with Combs to engage in this conduct, it's really hard, I think, for jurors to ultimately make the decision and find that it was proven beyond a reason.

COATES: Why not call her? Obviously, Kristina Khorram has denied any wrongdoing. She's not been charged with the crime. D Rock security guard was also named frequently, also not convicted of a crime or charged with one, and denies wrongdoing, as you assume. And yet the prosecutor said, well, they were equally available to the defense, but they didn't call them.

What do you think went behind that decision? They could have given immunity. Possibly they chose not to.

MELENDEZ: That's possibly true. I think at the end of the day, I don't have specific insight into what happened, but from my experience, it's possible that they reached out that they even discuss the idea of immunity. But when you have a witness who won't take accountability, who, even if the government believes that you were a coconspirator, but won't sit on the stand and say I was a conspirator, then you're not going to add anything to what the government is trying to present.

COATES: Kara, talk to me about what happened when the jurors were watching dozens of minutes of the graphic videos. And consent being a really big part of all this, there was a lot that was said from the defense team, frankly, on this issue. Listen this first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TENY GERAGOS, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN COMBS: I also have been saying this since the beginning of this case. Sean Combs has not sexually assaulted anybody. I've been saying this for months. We've said it with each lawsuit that came out, and today that was proven true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, we didn't get to see all the graphic images because the judge was clear that only the jury would see some of these things. But is that what you think the sex trafficking case hung on the failure to talk about that consent or flush it out.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: yes, I mean, I think that is the key factor here because the statute that they charged was by force, fraud or coercion. And so the defense was entirely that this was consensual and that they sought to bring that out. Like you said, we didn't get to see these tapes, but the government played snippets of the sexually explicit videos.

The defense played much more of them. And what we learned in the closing arguments was that part of the tape that the jury saw was one image was Cassie Ventura eating a watermelon. And so they were trying to show, I think, that this was an event that people were participating in and it wasn't under the threat of force, that there was not necessarily a scary situation. But we didn't see this.

But this is just the sense that was coming out because that was part of the image the defense wanted to project. And also on the consent issue, I mean, they didn't call any witnesses. But what they did do was read repeatedly text messages from Ventura to Combs, including one where Ventura said, I'm always ready to freak off. And ones from Jane where after freak offs, Jane would either send Combs voice memos or text messages saying she had a great time.

So they did that, I think, to kind of muddy the prosecutor's theory, saying these were long term relationships and that at times these freak offs were consensual. And as Agnifolo said in his closing argument, he said, I'm glad the government conceded that. Well, which times, how is he supposed to know when it wasn't?

COATES: And Joey, I mean, Marc Agnifilo didn't commit to saying whether they would appeal. But if you were the defense counsel here, you got these two charges of the conviction. The other ones, no. Would you appeal?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Without question. First of all, the fact, Laura, that you are up and bright and rock and rolling is amazing. You and Kara Scannell have been killing this. So great job.

Anyway, to your issue, you're always going to appeal. All right? The fact is that this was not a RICO case. It was overcharged. It should have never happened as a RICO case. You want to know why people in the organization didn't testify? Very easy. They weren't playing ball with the government. They weren't going to get up and testify to a narrative that was incorrect in generally speaking in these cases. Right. These mob boss cases, you have the underbosses who say, he told me to do it. It was him. Right.

That did not happen here. And it didn't happen because I think that this case, call it what it is, you're trying to get somebody. If your government, you're heck bent on getting him, so you make it into the case. The reason they charge RICO, let's just be clear and honest, is because they wanted to get in all the underlying conduct with respect to his bad behavior.

[00:10:03]

If you charge RICO, you're now permitted to get in the issue of arson, the issue of kidnapping, the issue of bribery, the issue of obstruction. So to your issue, your point of appeal. Yes, I'm appealing because that should have never. That information should have never been brought forth before the jury because it was not such a case.

Now, spinning to the issue of the whole sex trafficking. I mean, again, no is no under every circumstance, without question. But you're in a long term relationship for 11 years. Is this how any of us know drug trafficking to be? You're in a relationship for three years. This is drug trafficking. It's not. So we have to call it for what it is.

So, yes, I'm appealing. And I'm appealing because of the fact that all of the conduct that was admitted in front of the jury clearly prejudiced them. And that's what I'm standing on in my appeal.

COATES: 10 toes down if you're Joey Jackson. Let me ask you this, Renato, what is he facing in time here?

STABILE: So, you know, both parties sent submitted letters today to try and get bail. The government is saying they're estimating 51 to 63 months. But let me tell you something. If he's not a celebrity, if he's not Diddy, if I have a client, first time offender, and that's really his guidelines, I'm thinking 24 to 36 months at the most.

I think a judge is going to depart off of something like that if he's a regular person. I don't think that's going to happen in this case. I think the celebrity is going to hurt him in this case because there are too many people watching the case. I think the judge is concerned. I think the judge might try to send a message because of all the attention. But I think under normal circumstances, remember, you get 15 percent off.

So whatever it is, even if he got the 51 months take off 15 percent, subtract 12 months that he's done, he does about another 30 months. He could get a halfway house. He could get home detention. There's a whole host of things he's not going to be in jail for too much longer.

COATES: Quick, you would want jail time.

MELENDEZ: I'm sorry. Yes. I think he should be sentenced to jail time. I think, I agree that I don't think the judge would necessarily throw the book at him, but I think at the end of the day, the judge is not going to be able to ignore the other information that was elicited at trial. And they're going to take that into account. The government is going to make sure that in their sentencing submission that they remind the court of all those things that heard and witnessed while he was presiding over the trial. And I think he's certainly going to take that into account when he sentences him.

COATES: Thank you, everyone. Appreciate all of your insight as always. Much more ahead tonight, including reaction from famed defense attorney and father of one of Diddy's lead attorneys, Mark Garagos. He spoke with Diddy this evening. He'll tell us all about it.

And ahead, Suge Knight dials in from prison with his reaction to the verdict.

But first, an update on the breaking news on Capitol Hill, where Trump's agenda is still in limbo as the House takes up a key procedural vote. CNN's Brian Todd is on Capitol Hill. Brian, what is the latest?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Laura, this has been a marathon session of wrangling led by House Speaker Mike Johnson. And right now, things are not going in the speaker's favor. About two and a half hours ago, Speaker Johnson came past us and went into the chamber saying he was confident that he was going to get the votes. He didn't say if he had the votes yet, but he said he was very confident that they were going to get this done.

Well, it has hit a snag because right now, just moments ago, a fifth Republican congressman has voted no on this procedural vote to advance President Trump's agenda to a final House passage. That congressman is Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky.

Now, Massie was always going to be a no on final passage, but he had indicated until recently that he was going to vote yes on this procedural vote, this vote on the rules to get it to House passage. But moments ago, Massie said he was voting no on that. So that's a complication. More wrangling needs to be done.

That means right now, Laura, there are a total of five Republican representatives who are voting no just on this procedural vote to advance President Trump's agenda to a final House passage. They are the one I just mentioned. Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Congresswoman Victoria Spars of Indiana, Congressman Keith Self of Texas, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick. He is a moderate Republican from Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

So you've got those five who are now voting against just this procedural vote to advance President Trump's agenda. Speaker Johnson can only afford three defectors. Now he's got 5. And 8 Republican Congress people have not voted at all yet. Congress -- the House speaker, Mike Johnson has said he's going to keep this open now for as long as it takes to get these people on his side, but he is now under more pressure than he's been in several hours to get this done. Laura.

COATES: Maybe a day late and a dollar short it sounds like with already five nos. Keep watching. We will, too. Brian Todd, thank you so much. Be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:18:45]

COATES: Diddy's legal team taking a victory lap following the verdict that cleared the music mogul of the most serious charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARC AGNIFILO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR SEAN COMBS: Today's a great victory. It's a great victory for Sean Combs. It's a great victory for the jury system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, famed defense attorney Mark Geragos, who's also the father of one of the lawyers who defended Diddy in court throughout this trial. I'm talking about, of course, Teny Garagos, who did the opening statement and is being hailed as quite the lawyer, which I'm sure is no surprise to you. But talk to me about this moment. Here we are. There's officially a

verdict. 24 hours ago, there was a hung jury on the most significant RICO charged. It could have had life in prison. Tell me what your response was.

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: At first, when I heard it was hung and that they had verdicts, you know, I think everybody's heart sunk a little bit. Then I read the note and I felt really good. And I -- then I walked in, I heard her talking with another member of the team and I might have exploded a little bit and said, stop it. This is good. And --

COATES: Good that it was a hung jury.

[00:20:00]

GERAGOS: Well, I -- when I read the note, this is what I thought it said jurors, plural, opinions plural. And the idea that they unpersuadable. I've had a lot of hung juries. I've never seen a jury send out a note that says unpersuadable.

It led me to believe at that point I said, well, clearly they're fighting. Clearly somebody is voting or a bloc is voting for not guilty. If they're voting for not guilty and they're unpersuadable, they did not do guilty across the board on the other counts. So I said, just sit tight. Sure enough, after about an hour, the unpersuadable must have gotten persuaded. And what a shocking victory in a lot of ways.

COATES: Yes, I mean, when you look at how people thought about this case more broadly, I mean, one of the first things people say is, oh, it's the SDNY, 90 something percent conviction rate. But that there was the criticism that came quickly thereafter RICO for this because it was not these standalone assault charges, wasn't the standalone other matters as well, but the fact that they weren't able to get this might also show the complexity of a RICO charge and the way in which the defense team tried to plant as many seeds of reasonable doubt as they possibly could.

I have a lot to say about that. First of all, the idea, and you're absolutely right, SDNY, I was told today in the courthouse, has never lost a RICO.

COATES: Wow.

GERAGOS: I don't know if that's never lost a RICO. That's number one. Number two, what you always worry about as a criminal defense lawyer is, does my client have a constituency? Does my client have anybody who is there? I've always said, if you've got a famous client, you get a presumption of innocent. If you have an infamous client, you get almost a presumption of guilt.

Well, Puff kind of went from famous to infamous. And there was nobody defending Puffy. I mean, you know, other than Kanye at the end, it was really kind of a silence.

COATES: Yes.

GERAGOS: So the defense did not call a witness.

COATES: That was a huge gamble. And they didn't call Sean "Diddy" Combs, although we heard his voice a lot through voice notes and obviously the modern communication technology of text messages maybe being quite the substitute for. Well, I've heard what he had to say. Say I need to hear from him. But that was a gamble.

GERAGOS: It was. But I think one of the things -- one of the most impressive things about my daughter obviously was, first of all, I don't think the prosecution ever recovered from the opening statement. I think she gave an opening statement that nobody expected. She kind of owned the violence. And we heard about that today from the judge. Owned the violence and said, that's fine, but we wouldn't be here if that's what he was charged with and kind of set the table there.

COATES: Meaning that he would have pled guilty to that.

GERAGOS: Correct.

COATES: Accepted that.

GERAGOS: I spent -- you didn't ask me, but I'll tell you.

COATES: Oh, I want to -- I want to -- I know you're going.

GERAGOS: I spent a little time with him today.

COATES: With Diddy?

GERAGOS: With -- yeah. And --

COATES: After the verdict?

GERAGOS: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. And we -- just because I've spent a lot of time with him. I've known him for 15 years. I've defended him on numerous occasions. And he was very moved. And we talked about. He talked about Teny and I talked about his daughters and we talked about where he's at and we talked about, you know, I kind of -- I've explained to him and as I do to a lot of clients, it's a timeout. Some of the greatest kind of epiphanies and kind of course corrections that have happened throughout history have been when people have been incarcerated and they -- instead of lashing out, they kind of do a reflection, if you will.

COATES: Is he mentally prepared to possibly serve additional time?

GERAGOS: Yeah, I think so. Look, the relief from facing life because look those counts that he was acquitted on, 10-year mandatory minimum, 15-year mandatory minimum. Another 15-year mandatory minimum. You know, he's 55 years old. That's a -- he could have ended his life prison. That's not going to happen now.

COATES: Were you surprised that the charges he was convicted on were those transportation to engage in prostitution? GERAGOS: No, I was not surprised. And I'll tell you why. The code

section, you know, there used to be a judge in the 9th Circuit where I practice a lot, and that judge used to say, you find me any male walking around and a U.S. attorney can find three code sections that he has violated.

And I've said that for years. If it's one of the reasons you want prosecutors who use discretion, if you are a John, meaning you're the one who is patronizing a prostitute, they can get you.

[00:25:00]

COATES: How much do you think the text messages or even the testimony of Cassie and Jane, if you compare and contrast not their trauma, what they've said, but their testimonies, how much do you think that impacted the jury's willingness to find trafficking? They certainly said nothing.

GERAGOS: I will tell you what I thought was brilliant about the defense in this case. First they put in up and Anna did the cross examination of Cassie and she went through the text messages to your point. Teny, when she did it with Jane, went through the text messages.

Well, when you then hear how many times did you talk to the prosecution? Jane said I think 27 times. Why do you need to talk to a prosecutor 27 times and then try to distance yourself or run away from your real time text messages? That's not a search for the truth. That's a search for a story or a narrative because the text messages were real time. They were not filtered through a therapist 10 years later or a civil lawyer five years later or a prosecutor 27 times, 27 meetings later.

COATES: Fascinating. Mark Geragos, this is not the end of it. People are going to be exploring this for years to come. Thank you.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

COATES: Mark Geragos revealing to us what did his reaction to the verdict was today. Well, next Cassie Ventura's attorney reveals her reaction. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: There's new reaction tonight, the Diddy verdict from the lawyer representing Cassie Ventura, who sat down for an exclusive interview with her own Elizabeth Wagmeister to discuss a trial, how Cassie felt about testifying and his response to some of the claims the defense made about his client.

[00:30:04]

Here is just a part of their conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: You were inside of that courtroom when this verdict was read. What were you feeling?

DOUG WIGDOR, ATTORNEY FOR CASSIE VENTURA: Well, I think there was a lot of mixed emotions in the courtroom, generally speaking. Obviously, we would have liked to have seen convictions on the RICO charges and the sex trafficking charges, but Cassie prompted this investigation by the Southern District. And now Sean Combs stands before the court as a convicted felon of two federal crimes. He faces significant incarceration.

WAGMEISTER: In this trial, the defense seized on money not just for Cassie, but also for Jane. The defense, and this is not a direct quote I'm summarizing, but Marc Agnifolo, in his closing, he said Cassie Ventura is the winner here. He called her the winner. He said she's sitting somewhere in the world with $30 million. She's not naive like the prosecutors are telling you. She knew exactly what she was doing and she's the winner.

How did that make you feel and her feel, to use the word winner when the jury and the world, by the way, has seen her being horrifically beaten on camera?

WIGDOR: Yes, I mean, thanks to your great reporting and the video that saw the light of day, obviously Cassie Ventura at that point in time and today is not the winner. You know, she endured 10 years of abuse where she had to engage in days long sexual acts with UTIs. She alleged that she was raped.

And so to call her a winner, even though she did get $30 million part from, as she testified, part from Sean Combs, part from the hotel, no amount of money is going to ever undo what she had to endure and what she had to go through.

WAGMEISTER: After Cassie filed her civil lawsuit in November 2023, since there has been roughly 70, that's 7, 0 suits that have been filed against Sean Combs. He denies all of these allegations, egregious accusations of people being drugged at auditions, being drugged at his infamous white parties, not remembering a single thing after they were handed a drink and then being sexually assaulted. Given that none of these suits had come out prior to Cassie filing that lawsuit, does she feel like she has made a difference?

WIGDOR: Yes, definitely. And that was one of her major objectives, frankly, when she rejected an eight figure settlement, was not only to shine a light, but to give a voice to others who were suffering in silence. And she knew that there were others out there. And so to now see as reported, you know, numbers in the 50, 60, 70 or more allegations or lawsuits, I think that she's been vindicated in what she did.

WAGMEISTER: Was there ever a consideration that she wouldn't do this? When the government began investigating her claims and asked her to testify?

WIGDOR: There were certainly days where she didn't want to testify. She testified truthfully, but, you know, just having to subject yourself to cross examination and ultimately, when you're done, have a lawyer say the sorts of things that were said in the closing argument about her. That's not easy for anyone to endure.

WAGMEISTER: Is this something that she ever can fully heal from?

WIGDOR: It will always be part of her life, unfortunately. I mean, you can heal, but you'll never forget, you know, the abuse that she suffered. That's something that one doesn't forget. You watch the video, for instance. That was not an isolated event. You know, she has been compensated financially. She's in a good position, which certainly helps, but she's not, you know, the winner as the defense lawyer said, you know, it's hard to call somebody a winner who has been physically abused.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Elizabeth Wagmeister is back with me now. Such a complex and compelling interview. I'm telling you what stood out to you the most during that conversation.

WAGMEISTER: You know, you heard us talking about the mountain of civil lawsuits that Sean Combs is facing. And what really struck me when I was sitting down with Cassie's attorney was really none of this would have happened without her. And I'm not just talking about the criminal trial, which we know from sitting in that courtroom. Both the defense and prosecution had said this investigation, the federal investigation, did not start until after Cassie filed her lawsuit.

It was her allegations, her civil allegations that sparked this investigation. But also, again, this giant number of civil accusers, dozens upon dozens of, none of them came forward until after her.

[00:35:04]

So remember Sean Combs, he has evaded the most serious charges. He is not looking at life in prison anymore. But what he is looking at is a mountain of legal troubles against him. Around 70 civil accusers and probably more to come. We've had four new lawsuits in the past week, Laura.

COATES: So what's next for Cassie?

WAGMEISTER: You know, Doug said what's next for Cassie is her family, normalcy. We know that she testified at eight months pregnant. She gave birth around two weeks after getting off that witness stand. And she is a mother of three now. She is a newborn at home. Her attorney says she really wants to move on. She's looking forward. But he said something interesting. He said, don't worry about Cassie Ventura.

Cassie Ventura is OK. She is strong. She has a great support system. Her husband who was sitting there in court during her testimony, her, you know, her parents, her brother who was there. She also is in therapy, which she spoke about on the stand in front of the jury.

So she has overcome recently within the past few years, a drug addiction. As he said right there, this will be a lifetime of healing. But he said that she's really doing well. She has a great support system. She's just looking forward and wants to keep this in the past. COATES: I'm really glad that you were focusing on what's happening

with the witnesses and the victims as alleged in this case. Thank you, Elizabeth, as always.

Listen, he is Diddy's one time nemesis, but he's got some advice for him nonetheless. Suge Knight dials into the show from prison with his reaction to the Diddy verdict. After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The split verdict in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial reverberating across the legal world today. After the verdict was read, Combs told his family in court, quote, I'll see you when I get out. Now he is still in jail, at least for now.

One man who knows about life behind bars. One time nemesis and founder of Death Row Records, Suge Knight. He was mentioned during the trial, you remember?

[00:40:00]

And I spoke to him from prison earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Suge. Hello. The last time we spoke, you didn't think the government was proving its case at that point, but now we know what the verdict is. What's your reaction, Suge?

SUGE KNIGHT, FORMER RECORD EXECUTIVE: First and foremost, you know, I got mixed feelings with a lot of it because, you know, there's one side of it, you know, I was a mother's boy. Love the woman I'm with, love my mother. And women is the most beautiful things on the work on earth. You know, I wouldn't say things women.

And the other hand of it is that I really love kids. And Puffy have two twin daughters, his mother still living. And anytime you go to prison, your kids in prison with you, your mother doing time with you, everybody, you know, but at the same time, I think that Puffy gives big favors for the government, no matter what.

COATES: What do you mean?

KNIGHT: I think he'd be doing a lot of favor for them over the years.

COATES: So why would they prosecute?

KNIGHT: He got a relationship. That's why they didn't prosecute it.

COATES: But they prosecuted him, Suge. They did prosecute him for last, almost.

KNIGHT: Not really. Not really. I wouldn't say they prosecuted him because at the same time, not that I want to see him do life. I don't -- I truly feel he don't -- he do not deserve to be doing life in prison or die in prison. But what I'm trying to say is that when you talking about the FBI. You talking about the government. You trying to tell me that the government is stupid because they really was trying to do a RICO case on him. They would have put somebody like Keith D on the stand. They would have put some guys on the stand. They didn't put nobody on the stand. But I feel that's a great day for RICO because I never would want to see Puffy go to prison for RICO or get, like, in prison.

COATES: Well, let me ask you about that a little more. First of all, were you surprised that they did not convict on RICO or sex trafficking?

KNIGHT: Actually, I was not surprised.

COATES: Why?

KNIGHT: Because I didn't think they was going to go after him in a way they would do anyone else.

COATES: We spoke and you said that you thought that Diddy should testify. There was a huge gamble. He did not testify. They didn't call a single witness, Suge. That was a gamble because even though they don't have to prove their innocence, it seems like it paid off. What do you think?

KNIGHT: Well, I'm not so concerned with works and what don't work, I'm concerned. But even if it's me, I take accountability. I'm definitely not the same man I was 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 10 years ago. Right. So we always try to prove ourselves. Right.

But the sad thing about it, what I said was I wanted him to take a stand and testify because I think that the prosecution should have made a deal with him. And the deal they should have made with him was they could have gave him some time, but in one condition. He should have got on the stand and stood on his truth. Because that could have been a healing situation for Cassie or whoever else involved. And it could be a teaching lesson for all of us to do better.

Because when it's all said and done, he didn't take the stand and nobody got healed. He didn't take the stand, and it sends the wrong message to society. Because I look at it like this. If they let Puffy go, every person is sex trafficking or pimping or rapes or beating somebody feel they going to beat the case off.

So, we got to get to the point where everybody are talking about like this happened, that happened. Everybody making jokes about it, but it's not funny to me.

COATES: No. Well, I find no humor in what's gone on and describing what the testimony came in. There shouldn't have been a laughter about it at all. I know we have limited time, Suge, so I really want to hear your opinion about this because, you know, his career, reputation is taking a huge hit when these charges were first brought, and he still has dozens and dozens of civil lawsuits. I'm wondering from your perspective what you think the future looks like for Sean Diddy Combs?

KNIGHT: The industry is forgiving. COATES: You think so?

KNIGHT: Yeah. I think the industry is driven by money, success, and fun.

[00:45:00]

Because majority of people in the industry is doing the same thing that Puffy was doing, only thing different he got caught. Only thing was different, he pissed off the wrong person.

COATES: If you could tell Puffy -- if you could tell him anything tonight, what would it be?

KNIGHT: I would say as two guys who don't bother get along, I think we all cannot be enemies. Number one, I would say take your time when you go to prison and work on you. When you grow from prison, don't worry about trying to recreate bad boy. Worry about spending time with your kids, spending time with your grandkids. And more importantly, just say no to drugs. Because drugs is one of the worst things to get everyone in trouble. All these problems wouldn't have happened if these women were sober and if Puffy was sober.

COATES: Suge Knight, thanks for taking the time to give me your insight tonight. I appreciate it.

KNIGHT: Appreciate you guys enjoy yourself. I'm Suge Knight. I'm out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The Diddy trial has gotten attention all across the globe and reporters have been at the courthouse every single day covering it all. Three of them are here to talk about what it's been like going all the way back to day one. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:50:18]

COATES: From TV to podcasts, YouTube to TikTok, think pieces to live streams, one thing has been abundantly clear. The Diddy trial has been sparking conversations in nearly every corner of the media. So tonight, as we wrap up our nearly two month coverage of this tumultuous trial, we want to give you a glimpse into our reporter notebooks and share what it was like to bring you the facts of this case through all these different platforms.

Joining me now, senior correspondent for Extra, Mona Kosar Abdi, Nique LeClair, she's a social media commentator covering Diddy and producer -- senior news producer for the Breakfast Club, Loren LoRosa. Glad you're all here.

I've been watching you while I've been in court. I've been watching how you've meticulously have covered it in such a wonderful and authentic way. So I'm glad you came here as well. Mona, I'll begin with you. What has it been like? You've been covering it since day one. We see

all of your TikToks. What's been the hardest part of this assignment?

MONA KOSAR ABDI, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, "EXTRA": Oh, I think keeping up with the new media. Right. We are so used to the evening report or the morning report depending on, you know, when I was with the network. But trying to keep people informed throughout the day and tell them also what is going on inside the courtroom. What I realized with social media is they want the details. They want the nitty gritty, whatever you can't get in a one minute package. They want to know if Diddy was making a facial expression. They want to know how the jurors are reacting. So giving them that color but then also editing it and putting it up is a whole process in itself.

COATES: Yes. Talk to me about that. Because obviously, I mean, being authentic but also getting it in the way people will receive it is difficult.

LOREN LOROSA, SENIOR NEWS PRODUCER, THE BREAKFAST CLUB: Yes. I think you -- sorry.

NIQUE LECLAIR, SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTATOR COVERING DIDDY CASE: Go ahead.

LAROSA: I was going to say I think you know your audience though. So, you know, to your point, it's like you can do and say so much more on social media than you can in your breakdown of your shows or your dot coms, but you know what your audience is coming to you for.

And I think this case really showed me and all of my friends in the new media, we've been talking a lot about that, just where our niches are, but also too, like, some days you might just not know, and you get online and you have a real conversation with everyone that follows you about, hey, I don't today. Like, I can't decide today. Here's all the information I got. But if I was a juror, I can't make a decision today.

And I think they appreciate that because what you find is, like, a lot of outlets. You guys aren't really allowed to say either way, or not even allowed, but like, it's just not the regular thing to do. I get a lot of pushback because people are like, you're a journalist, you shouldn't tell us your opinion. And I'm like, well, that's why you're here, because my opinion cuts through. So you learn your audience and you know how to edit to your audience a bit and get the message out.

COATES: Nick, how's it been for you? Because you have been following this as well. And to their point, I mean, the old way is not today's way, and people want to hear information. So talk to me about what it's been like for you.

LECLAIR: It's been really exciting because you get to interact and see what people feel right away. And this is another trial that I've done. So it was a lot of eyes from a wider audience than I'm used to. So it was interesting to see different perspectives from different walks of life.

COATES: I love being able to have and watch every one of your footage and all of what you were doing in your content because you were getting the court of public opinion in real time. And most people want to opine about what they think is happening, but you were getting it. If these people had been part of the jury, they wanted you to know exactly how they felt.

ABDI: Yes, the way I approached it was I wanted the audience to be the jury. Right. I'm just going to give it to you. This is what the prosecution said. This is what the defense said. Now battle it out in the comments. And you would see that people arguing with each other, people trying to explain why it was or wasn't RICO, for example. And so I think people appreciated having that space where they can interact with each other and they can converse.

And so for me, it was, again, kind of like what you said. Like, I came up through traditional media and I wanted to bring that platform in a way that was native, though, to TikTok, for example. Native to Instagram and digestible for people.

And so in a one minute, two-minute video, I was able to give them a lot more information, but also give them a platform where they --

COATES: Yes.

ABDI: -- can use the comments to discuss their opinions.

COATES: And feel a part of a community. One thing you saw outside that courthouse is that I'm frankly wondering what most people who have been there day in, day out, what they do now, because there were people who were covering it. And then I'm like, where are the rest of you and what do you do when you're not here right now? You know what we're talking about.

But even more so, I mean, everyone became sort of the armchair lawyer. But there was graphic material here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

COATES: We're all women having to discuss and convey things that were very graphic, that were very sexual. And, you know, sometimes when you open it up to the public, in broad sense, they want to return it to you in a provocative way. Did you experience anything negative in cover?

[00:55:00]

LOROSA: Oh, what? Yes. You get a lot of, you know, because you're also talking a lot -- there's a lot of sexual assault conversation.

COATES: Yes.

LOROSA: So when you're honest about not even opinion or how you feel, but just what was presented from both sides, if you present too much of what the prosecution said that day or what the defense said that day, it's like, oh, you hate women and you don't believe, you know, victims, and you're a woman and you're supposed to. But it's like, no, I'm literally just giving you the facts and allowing you guys to digest what you believe, what you don't believe, or, you know, that's not what I'm here for.

But depending on which clip they see or how it's cut or the time you give one argument versus the other, you get a lot of negative comments because of the type of sensitive things that you're covering. People want you to be overly sensitive to what they think you should be sensitive to.

But what you find is that when you're in that courtroom, there's no way to be sensitive to a certain extent because it's so graphic. And in order for you to really make your audience understand and digest what you're hearing and seeing so they can understand what your thought process is, you have to kind of put it all out there a bit.

And that gets challenging because people either don't like that or they just feel like you're not giving the -- you're not giving enough platform --

COATES: Right.

LOROSA: -- certain conversations.

COATES: They think it's an audience of one, and you're tailoring everything to them. And you're like, I'm talking to everyone. You're included. Nique, let me end with you on this point, because I wonder, was there anything -- was there a moment that will stick with you and resonate from what you saw either inside the courtroom or from what you experienced outside?

LECLAIR: I think it was a show inside the courtroom, listening to the testimony and hearing all of the intricate details. And a lot of people got let down from what they expected to hear. A lot of people wanted to hear about, like, the celebrity of it all. So that was the interesting part of trying to -- try to get to the meat and potatoes of everything that's going on.

But outside of the courtroom, it was like a reality show. So it was inside, you hear all these details about Cassie, Jane, and all of these things that's going on in the bedroom, all of these explosives, and then you go outside the courtroom, and then you see all of these people arguing, line sitters getting into it with each other. Like it's like two worlds going inside the courtroom and out.

COATES: Oh my God. It was. I got to tell you, I will never forget this experience. And it really was one of those Rorschach tests. People saw what they wanted to see, but the show was really outside. Justice may not have happened inside.

Ladies, you were all fabulous in your own right. Thank you for joining me. And thank you everyone and thank you for watching. Please John Vause picks up CNN's live coverage in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)