Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Now: Combs' Defense Cross-Examines Cassie Ventura; Supreme Court Appeared Open to Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, But Wrangled Over Birthright Citizenship Order; Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Birthright Citizenship; Trump: "Nothing's Gonna Happen" Until He Meets with Putin; Rubio to Skip Talks with Russia; "We Don't Have High Expectations". Aired 3-3:30p ET
Aired May 15, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:06]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The cross-examination of Cassie Ventura, the ex-girlfriend of Sean "Diddy" Combs, facing defense attorneys intent on picking apart her story. Her testimony could stretch into Friday.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, the Supreme Court hearing arguments over nationwide injunctions, with the backdrop being the issue of birthright citizenship. What overturning these injunctions could mean, not only for this argument, but for everything the Trump administration is trying to accomplish.
And President Trump's new pick for Surgeon General has praised psychedelic drugs for therapy, despite them being illegal. We're going to talk to a researcher about the science behind psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms.
We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
KEILAR: Hello, I'm Brianna Keilar here in Washington, along with Boris Sanchez.
And breaking this hour, the prosecution's star witness in Sean "Diddy" Combs' racketeering and sex trafficking trial in New York is facing cross-examination. Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, has been on the stand today for roughly four hours.
SANCHEZ: And much of the defense's line of questioning is focused on themes of love, jealousy, and the sexual encounters that took place over the couple's 11-year relationship. The defense is relying heavily on Ventura's own words during her time with Combs, showing jurors a series of text messages and emails between the former couple. We're joined now by CNN Legal Analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
Joey, great to see you, as always.
I wonder what you make of the questioning today from the defense, and specifically repeated questions about Cassie Ventura's jealousy toward other women that Combs apparently had been seeing, including Gina, who is described here in the most recent testimony.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Boris, Brianna, this is a very significant witness because it checks a lot of boxes as she does, right, for the prosecution's case with regard to their racketeering charge, with regard to the sex charges, trafficking and prostitution. And so how she's approached and whether they whittle away is significant. So, let me tell you just a few things going over.
Number one, I think it's important for the defense to humanize their client. We've seen that video over and over and over again, but not as much as the jury has, right? The jury's been shown it, making him to be a monster. So as a result of that, you have Cassie Ventura, right, describing him as charming, engaging, right, loving at times.
And so, the reality is, is that's important information, right? Because you want to get the message across that there was so much more to this man in this complex relationship. This was a charming guy and they had a charming relationship at times.
Now, second point, the other thing significant is pointing out that she was a rising star. This is a person who was independent in her own right, a person who was talented, modeling, acting, singing. And that's significant to go to show that this control that Combs had over her, if she wanted to break that control in the 11 years because she was so talented, because she was resourced from her own perspective, she could have, right? Because jurors are going to be asking, hey, would you have left? She couldn't leave because he was so overbearing and he had so much power over her. Nonsense of defense will say, she could have left if she wanted to because of her talent.
Next point, the point is coercion. There's this major, right, issue concerning whether or not these freak offs were coerced. I made you do it. You had to do it. I wanted you to do it. You had no choice but to do it.
And so, when we talk about these text messages and emails where she's saying, hey, I'm enjoying myself, right? I can't wait till the next one. I'm sorry that you left before we could have a freak off. I think that's important because it goes to show that, hey, ladies and gentlemen, she told you, right, that she didn't want to participate, was only doing it to make him happy. But we just showed you dozens and dozens and dozens of messages where she's embracing that.
So, from the defense perspective, Boris and Brianna, they are trying to, right, the defense, normalize that as part of their sexual activity. And so that is so significant because it goes to sex trafficking, which goes to racketeering, which goes to the whole prostitution issue. And that's what the defense is attempting to do.
KEILAR: And, Joey, with further witnesses, what is the prosecution going to have to do? Because, I mean, just for instance, and as people have learned more about forcible sex in general, that there are a number of people who have been raped by someone that they had consensual sex with at some point, right? This is - something that moves over time, but also this fact that he kind of held the purse strings, right? He was in charge of bad boy. That's who she was signed to for a 10-album deal. She'd only done one album.
[15:05:04]
How - who do they need to bring to convince the jury of just some of these patterns of relationships based on control?
JACKSON: Sure, Brianna. So, the control issue is everything, right? And when you mentioned he did control the purse strings, and that's why the issue of her talent, the issue of her having the ability to do so much with her life independent of Sean Combs will be so important to the defense to point out by her own right, she could have made it happen. She didn't need him. Would he be a significant component? Of course, he would be.
But her - on her own at any point in time, she could have disconnected if she wasn't on board with this. She was. It was an important part of their relationship. She enjoyed it. He enjoyed it. Remember, I'm arguing from the defense perspective. And as a result of that, no coercion, no sex - sex trafficking, not guilty.
Now, remember that she's one witness, okay, very significant witness. But she builds pieces of the puzzle. She lays the foundation to the racketeering case with respect to right guns and drugs and all these other things. There'll be other witnesses that follow that corroborate what she says, corroborate the treatment she was engaged in and corroborate his manipulation and illegality in general. That'll be important.
SANCHEZ: Joey Jackson, always great to get your point of view. Thanks so much for joining us.
JACKSON: Of course.
SANCHEZ: So right now, it's unclear exactly how the Supreme Court is going to rule following a hearing today on whether President Trump can enforce his executive order to end birthright citizenship. The court's conservative justices appeared open to siding with the president on limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, which have blocked some of President Trump's most controversial policies. They did, though, seem weary of the president's specific order denying citizenship to some people born in the United States.
Here's how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summarized her view of the Trump administration's argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a "catch-me-if- you-can" kind of regime, from the standpoint of the executive. Where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Let's get some perspective from Ken Cuccinelli. He served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security during President Trump's first term.
Ken, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. On the question of lower courts issuing these nationwide injunctions, you've argued that they're an attack on the separation of powers. However ...
KEN CUCCINELLI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER TRUMP: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... these kinds of injunctions have been used by conservative attorneys general to block a number of items during liberal administrations, including, for example, President Obama's immigration orders. Did you oppose them there - then as well?
CUCCINELLI: Yes, you know, as the solicitor general said today, these really didn't arise until around 2007. They began in the late Bush era and have accelerated. So, yes, they were used during President Obama's administration, accelerated literally to the highest numbers of all time in the Trump administration, went back down during Biden, but still more than historically. And both Justices Gorsuch and Thomas were asking about the history of the use of injunctions.
And there was never a counter to the fact that they never even were used for anything before the 1960s. And the real acceleration didn't happen until this century, so it is a bit of a modern phenomena. There is no statutory basis for the injunctions. And the plaintiffs did not argue to the contrary of that. Justice Gorsuch asked about the Judiciary Act of 1789, which really is foundational here, and noted that while equity was allowed, equitable - injunctions are an equitable form of relief for your viewers.
SANCHEZ: Sure.
CUCCINELLI: There were no injunctions - nationwide injunctions at that time. So, if one looks to the history of the time the power came into being, the equitable power for the courts, these injunctions didn't exist. So that's what their - part of what they're wrestling with today and it was an interesting and wide-ranging discussion from justice to justice.
SANCHEZ: And it does get very technical as well. I want to present you with a hypothetical --
CUCCINELLI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: -- that - I believe it was Justice Sotomayor who alluded to this if nationwide injunctions are limited, and the next Democratic president issues an executive order that you may disagree with, saying, for example, that for centuries --
CUCCINELLI: Right. SANCHEZ: -- we've all been reading the Second Amendment wrong. And that if you read it in a specific way, it essentially says that having a weapon is predicated on being part of a militia.
[15:10:01]
You would be willing to take away the ability of a lower court to block that executive order from a future Democratic president?
CUCCINELLI: So, she kept going back to the take the guns example frequently. That was her kind of go-to example for a counter discussion. And the - it points up that we're arguing about a process. And if it's going to apply in the case of guns or health care or environment or birthright citizenship, it needs to apply all the time. And yet there is no fixed rule for when and how to use such sweeping injunctions, which is why the Trump administration pressed the Supreme Court for the hearing today to try to lay down some rules.
I would point out that a week and a half ago, a panel in the D.C. circuit, which is the most important federal court other than the Supreme Court on administrative law matters, actually laid down some rules in a two to one ruling on voice of America and several of the several of the spending issues that the Trump administration has moved quickly on.
Now, the rest of the court stayed that ruling, but it - there are several of these questions arising in the most important courts at the same time.
SANCHEZ: Sure. But I want to get your view of this. Are you essentially saying that these injunctions are okay for some things, but they're not okay for other things? Because, I mean --
CUCCINELLI: No, no - they - that's a great question. They need to be applied using the same rules regardless of what the underlying question is.
SANCHEZ: So, then what would be the recourse and what --
CUCCINELLI: Now, the Second Amendment example --
SANCHEZ: Yes, go ahead.
CUCCINELLI: The Second Amendment example is a little bit weak because the Supreme Court has actually ruled on that in 2008 in the Heller case --
SANCHEZ: Sure.
CUCCINELLI: -- it's a personal right that - but the - but her point is still a valid point. And that is, look, we're not just talking about birthright citizenship, this will apply anywhere and everywhere, including when someone of the other party is in power --
SANCHEZ: You've also --
CUCCINELLI: -- and that's exactly the way it should work.
SANCHEZ: You've also made the argument that many legal scholars would object to that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be interpreted the way that it's been interpreted for 100 plus years. And you argue that the precedents that folks say are in place are not actually precedents.
CUCCINELLI: Right.
SANCHEZ: You say that it's been misinterpreted for generations, yet no federal court has ever upheld your reading of the 14th Amendment. Do you want this court to weigh in on it once and for all?
CUCCINELLI: Yes, but I don't expect that to come out of today's argument. Today's argument was about the process.
SANCHEZ: Right.
CUCCINELLI: And I would point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled in the other direction either. That's part of the point here.
SANCHEZ: That's your view.
CUCCINELLI: And for the first 55 years after the 14th Amendment ...
SANCHEZ: That's your view. It's a very narrow reading ...
CUCCINELLI: ... well, yes, but ...
SANCHEZ: ... of the 14th Amendment. There's no asterisk on it.
CUCCINELLI: Well, the Elk v. Wilkins - in the Elk v. Wilkins case, the very first case to touch this subject in the 1880s before the Wong Kim Ark case that those who oppose the president like to rely on the most. And Justice Sotomayor mentioned that case today.
In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court found that American Indians, Native Americans born in the United States, were not citizens of the United States, because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the manner called for under the 14th Amendment.
SANCHEZ: But there have been cases - there are have been cases --
CUCCINELLI: That's - their lack of citizenship --
SANCHEZ: -- the question about jurisdiction.
CUCCINELLI: -- held --
SANCHEZ: I'm sorry, Ken, I just want to get clarity on something because the argument - you just brought up the core of your argument, right, which is the question of being under a jurisdiction ...
CUCCINELLI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... right? Whether the parents of ... CUCCINELLI: Yes. Or more than one ...
SANCHEZ: ... a child born in this country ...
CUCCINELLI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... okay, but this is one of the core ones, right? Your argument is essentially ...
CUCCINELLI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... if I could, that the child of parents who are in the country without papers, who are undocumented, is under the jurisdiction of the United States.
CUCCINELLI: They're illegal, yes.
SANCHEZ: Sure. There have been subsequent cases that the Supreme Court has ruled in which those undocumented people are still under the jurisdiction of the United States. So, how do you square that? If they're under the jurisdiction of the U.S. for some things ...
CUCCINELLI: So ...
SANCHEZ: ... how are they not for citizenship?
CUCCINELLI: That's a great question. That's a great question. So, there are two aspects of jurisdiction that are discussed in the history in this subject area. One is territorial, which you're referring to.
Everybody within the boundaries of the United States, for example, is subject to our laws. But that does not give them the allegiance element called for in the second half of the critical sentence of the 14th Amendment. I'll give you an example.
If two Americans are overseas, say in Britain, just pick a country, it doesn't matter, and they have a child over there.
[15:15:04]
They're living over there. They're not on military orders, no government business. That child is a U.S. citizen under our law. And that child at the age of 18, if it's a man, can be drafted into the U.S. military. Well, similarly, if a child is born of two illegal aliens who are Mexican, we'll just pick Mexico, our neighbor, in this country, that person is also a Mexican citizen and can be drafted into the Mexican Army at the age of 18. That is a form of allegiance that leaves them not entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
So, that's what that - the merits case comes down to. That will be decided on another day because today was about the injunctions.
SANCHEZ: Sure.
CUCCINELLI: But you are correct. There's people on both sides of it. I believe the president is historically correct.
SANCHEZ: Sure. Ken, I have a very limited time.
CUCCINELLI: I believe there's a good bit of evidence and support.
SANCHEZ: I have very limited time. My producers have asked me to wrap, but I still have more questions to ask you, and one just specifically on ...
CUCCINELLI: Sure.
SANCHEZ: ... how you anticipate this is going to be implemented, because one of the arguments we heard today was that the administration wants these injunctions to only apply to those plaintiffs that have filed suit in court.
CUCCINELLI: Right.
SANCHEZ: Does that mean that the government could theoretically then enforce executive orders that are later found to be completely illegal, but they still get to implement them unless the person who is affected by it finds an attorney and files suit? I mean, it - doesn't that make things ...
CUCCINELLI: That is ...
SANCHEZ: ... I mean ...
CUCCINELLI: ... that is one possible outcome, yes.
SANCHEZ: It seems like a likely one.
CUCCINELLI: One of the aspects of the questioning today - well, yes, I think it is likely. I mean, the history of litigation in this country is that rulings only apply to the parties. I mean, that is the starting presumption in litigation in the United States of America for 250 years.
SANCHEZ: But you don't have any ...
CUCCINELLI: But the question today ...
SANCHEZ: ... you don't have any weariness ...
CUCCINELLI: ... led me to believe ...
SANCHEZ: ... about a government enforcing an executive order that could be illegal, that might damage people's lives irreparably. You don't have an issue with that going forward until it winds up at the Supreme Court. And if that can't - if that person can't hire an attorney, if that person is disabled, perhaps they don't realize that they have legal rights or legal recourse, you don't worry about the damage that that can cause?
CUCCINELLI: So, I have concerns on - in both directions. So, yes, I do have those concerns. I also have concerns about a popularly elected president acting generally within accepted realm of his authority being stymied. One of the statistics the Solicitor General rattled off this morning was of the 40, which is incredible, 40 nationwide injunctions against President Trump's administration already, 35 of them alone were in five districts.
That is not a random selection that points to the judge shopping that's going on, and it steps in the way of the executive branch. And several of the justices outside the case have expressed some frustration and concerns, left and right, by the way, about that kind of inappropriate behavior by the courts.
So, I think we're going to see by July-ish a ruling out of today's argument that is going to lay down at least some basic rules and standards that we haven't to date had in place. And I think it'll benefit America going forward. This isn't just about Donald Trump's administration. This is about America going forward beyond that time period, because we haven't had these rules in place. Presidents of both parties have asked for them. And I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will finally lay down some basic rules of the road so that everybody is playing by the same rules all the time, no matter what the underlying issue may be.
SANCHEZ: Ken Cuccinelli, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you giving us your point of view.
CUCCINELLI: Good to be with you.
SANCHEZ: Thanks.
Still to come, President Trump is in Abu Dhabi for the final leg of his Middle East tour, saying that nothing will happen between Russia and Ukraine until he sits down with Vladimir Putin. We have the latest on those negotiations.
SANCHEZ: And then later, President Trump's new pick for surgeon general, praising unproven psychedelic drugs as therapy, even though they are currently considered illegal. We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:23:49]
KEILAR: For the first time in three years, officials from Ukraine and Russia are set to meet for direct talks. In addition, President Vladimir Putin was not there today for this summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He was a no show.
In the meantime, Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he will be skipping a meeting with Russian officials tomorrow. He says he doesn't expect a breakthrough between the two countries until President Trump meets with Vladimir Putin. Echoing the President's own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, okay? And obviously he wasn't going to go. He was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn't going if I wasn't there. And I don't believe anything's going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together. But we're going to have to get it solved because too many people are dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with the former director for Russia at the National Security Council, Jeffrey Edmonds. He's also a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
Jeffrey, good to see you, as always.
Putin says let's talk in Istanbul and then he doesn't show up. I mean, is that not a bait and switch?
JEFFREY EDMONDS, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: It is in the sense that I don't think he counted necessarily on Zelenskyy saying, hey, the negotiations are great. I'll meet you there in Istanbul, really calling Putin's bluff, knowing the full time that Putin was never actually going to show up.
[15:25:05]
And Putin's not going to meet with Zelenskyy because that - Putin doesn't see him as legitimate. And if he sits across the table with him, that legitimizes Zelensky in his eyes.
KEILAR: Hard to see how a meeting between Vladimir Putin and President Trump ends up in anything but Ukraine getting the short end of the stick, right? So, what do you think about what could come of that? You know, dispel me of that notion. What do you think happens if that does happen?
EDMONDS: I don't think anything's going to come out of that. I don't think that there's really a road to meaningful negotiations right now with the way Putin views this war. I mean, any kind of - I mean, Putin will meet with Trump all day long, right? That helps Putin in the sense that it undermines that international isolation that was put in place after he invaded Ukraine. So, he'll do that.
But I think what the administration seems to consistently forget is that Ukraine has a vote in this. If we pull out completely, Ukraine still has the ability to resist for at least this year and probably, you know, for years to come.
SANCHEZ: I wonder what you make of the fact that CNN is getting reporting from folks on the ground that Russia is now amassing new forces on the eastern front. It appears that they're getting ready for a new offensive.
EDMONDS: That's right. I mean, they've - Russia has managed, despite the vast numbers of people they've wasted in this war, they've managed to keep their recruitment up. And so, it doesn't surprise me that they would be ready for another offensive. KEILAR: When you hear Trump with that refrain, which we've heard so many times, he says, we need to come to a deal. Too many people are dying. That's the thing that he relies on. Do you think that that is really his motivation here or his sole motivation?
EDMONDS: I do think it plays into his drive behind trying to get these negotiations done, but also wanting to be the dealmaker between the two and demonstrate that his personal relationship with another great leader is enough to bring the war to an end.
SANCHEZ: So, I mean, what has to happen next? What will it take to get Vladimir Putin to actually negotiate for peace in Ukraine? Is it possible?
EDMONDS: It's possible. I think he has to start losing. And that - that's why I really don't think there's - I mean, it's not a great scenario, but it's - there's really not a lot of negotiating space between the two parties right now. The way to bring him to the table is to support Ukraine and to enable Ukraine to inflict enough casualties and pain on Russia that it simply can't achieve its goals. I really think that's the only way you're going to force into the table.
SANCHEZ: Jeffrey Edmonds, appreciate the time. Thanks for joining us.
Still to come. Shoppers not shopping. What new retail sales numbers are telling us about how consumers are feeling regarding the state of the economy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)