Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
No Progress Made in Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks; Interview With Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY); Trump Threatens to Raise Tariffs; Cassie Ventura Continues Testimony. Aired 1-1:30p ET
Aired May 16, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:58]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The cross-examination of Cassie Ventura could resume this hour, as the ex-girlfriend of Sean "Diddy" Combs offers detailed testimony about their relationship and the so-called freak-offs they participated in.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The clock is ticking, President Trump warning that time is running out for 150 countries to cut a deal with the U.S. or face the threat of higher tariffs.
And cadets at West Point, the nation's oldest service academy, taking the last of their final exams, as faculty and leaders there make sweeping changes ordered by President Trump. I have got an exclusive report from West Point on how the elite service academy is preparing military leaders of the future.
And we're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
SANCHEZ: Thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. I'm Boris Sanchez, alongside Brianna Keilar, in our nation's capital.
And we have breaking news that we're following in Sean "Diddy" Combs' racketeering and sex trafficking trial. In just moments, Combs' ex- girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, is set to retake the stand and face what we expect to be her final round of questioning under cross- examination. Court currently is on a short lunch break.
But, if you recall, the judge previously said that he wanted Ventura's cross-examination to wrap up before lunch today. Prosecutors have said that Ventura, who's nearly nine months pregnant, could soon go into labor.
KEILAR: Over the last hour, the defense has been asking Ventura more about her 2018 rape allegation against Combs, Ventura's drug use, her mental health problems, and a 2014 threat that she made to a man who claimed he had seen a sexually explicit tape of her also raised in court. The defense at one point asking Ventura -- quote -- "Do you still have
love for him?" referring to Combs? And Ventura answered by saying -- quote -- "I have love for the past and what it was."
Let's bring in Court TV anchor and former prosecutor Julie Grant right now.
OK, Julie, what do you think of what you have been reading about what the defense has brought up today?
JULIE GRANT, COURT TV ANCHOR AND FORMER PROSECUTOR: Brianna and Boris, good afternoon to you both.
The defense is right when they say that Cassie Ventura is the most critical witness to this case. The defense is doing its job, because what they're trying to do is bring out that she's not a perfect person, that they're saying she might have wanted to engage in these freak-offs on more than one occasion, that she was willingly staying in this relationship with Sean Combs, even though she knew that it was an abusive one.
They're bringing out things that she said to other people that are less than flattering. All that being said, the government doesn't need to have a perfect victim. What the government has done this week, essentially, is establishing the sex trafficking crimes that they have charged Sean Combs with.
And I would argue that they are well on their way to proving these crimes. A lot of people don't realize that, with sex trafficking, you don't have to have movement anywhere. You don't have to go across state lines. A lot of times, people confuse it with human smuggling.
Here, somebody can be trafficked in their own home. All you really need is someone providing somebody else for that commercial sex act. And when I say commercial, that means anything of value, not even necessarily money to be given, by force or coercion.
And so Cassie Ventura has done her job this week for the government, and now the defense is doing its job to try to make it seem as if she wanted to be in this relationship and that what happened in those freak-offs was not coerced.
SANCHEZ: Julie, the government -- or, rather, the defense, asking her about mental health treatment that she received, this therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder, why would they go with that line of questioning? How does that benefit their defense of Combs?
GRANT: Great question, Boris.
Because it could go to her credibility and her memory's reliability. And so here they're trying to paint her out as somebody who may not be remembering all the details as they actually occurred, maybe somebody whose memory isn't all that great.
[13:05:11] They want the jury to think, well, maybe she's somewhat of a basket case after all of this, and maybe what she's telling us, we can't rely on, because maybe it's not exactly true.
So, by them wanting to go through the therapy she's been through -- there was a mention of EMDR that deals with eye movements and recalling memories -- they're going through all of that to try to make it seem as if, OK, maybe Cassie Ventura isn't emotionally stable. Maybe her mental recollection isn't quite right, and then we can argue later to the jury in closing arguments that they can't rely on that.
So that's exactly what the defense is trying to get at with those lines of questioning, Boris.
KEILAR: I wonder what you think and also how the prosecution is going to have to respond to that. We should be clear. This particular type of therapy is considered a leading therapy for veterans processing PTSD.
I remember talking to a Virginia Tech survivor. School shooting survivors use this very successfully. And Cassie Ventura testified it helps recount memories and process them. She said that, if there was a time when you were getting beat up in a room and couldn't walk out, you would reimagine it in a way that you were actually able to leave the room.
Do you see this potentially backfiring on the defense?
GRANT: Oh, Brianna, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Yes, you're exactly right. The defense needs to be really careful what they're doing here, because she is a victim. She is a victim. She has put herself out there and saying that she survived these horrific instances of rape, of other assaultive behaviors, some of which we have seen evidence of on that videotape that CNN exclusively obtained and then broadcast, and thank goodness for that.
And so, with the defense trying to go down this road, trying to attack her therapy, the government's going to get right back up there and say, well, the only reason she needed to go to therapy and seek EMDR and the other types of therapy was because of the actions of your client, Combs' attorney team.
So they're going to go right back at it and say that, had she not been so brutally traumatized, she wouldn't have had to seek therapy, and that that's a good thing. And, certainly, anybody on that jury who's ever been to therapy or knows anything about it, they're going to be thinking about how Cassie Ventura could be being traumatized right now again in having to relive all of the various questioning for days from both sides.
So you're right, Brianna. This is a slippery slope that the defense team is on right now with her.
KEILAR: Julie Grant, great to have you. Thank you so much for being with us. And, right now, President Trump is heading back to Washington after
signing a flurry of investment deals during his four-day trip to the Middle East.
SANCHEZ: And as President Trump comes home with those new deals in hand, he's now conceding that trade talks with more than 100 other countries are moving too slowly. He says he might raise tariffs on those trading partners in as soon as a couple of weeks.
CNN's Kristen Holmes joins us now live.
Kristen, tell us more about Trump's warning.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, I mean, he is essentially saying ticktock, ticktock, and it's time for these countries to make a deal.
And, as you acknowledge, he seemed to admit that it was taking a little bit too long, longer than he may have expected, but saying that, if they didn't strike a deal soon, that those countries, many of them our allies, could face even higher tariffs. Here's what he said when asked about it.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have, at the same time, 150 countries that want to make a deal, but you're not able to see that many countries. So, at a certain point over the next two to three weeks, I think Scott and Howard will be sending letters out essentially telling people -- and we would be very fair, but we will be telling people what they will be paying to do business in the United States.
It's not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HOLMES: Yes, although he did promise that he would have these trade deals within this time and that the countries would be coming forward.
Now, of course, he's referring to Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, his two secretaries, who have kind of split up the countries and have been working on various countries, each of them trying to come forward with those trade deals. And, as a reminder, I mean, the clock is ticking. It was April 9 that he paused those reciprocal tariffs for 90 days.
But it's unclear that, if they can't get any more deals, if there would be any sort of extension, at least for even some of the countries who were at the table. Right now, though, it looked like, from what he was saying, that, regardless, if there was no deal struck, they were going to be raising those tariffs, which, of course, is not going to be happy news for a lot of consumers, particularly here in America as well, who worry about the effects of those.
SANCHEZ: Kristen Holmes, live for us at the White House, thank you so much.
Just moments ago on Capitol Hill, a significant setback for President Trump's domestic agenda, five Republican hard-liners defying party leaders and the president by blocking Trump's sweeping budget and tax bill in a key committee vote.
[13:10:10]
The rejection came after these House conservatives promised to derail the bill without deeper spending cuts, stricter overhauls to Medicaid, and faster Biden energy rollbacks.
Joining us now to discuss is Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis of New York.
Congresswoman, thanks so much for being with us this afternoon.
I want to get your reaction to this bill not getting out of committee. Do you think that Speaker Johnson should have delayed this, the way that some of these members suggested that he delay the vote?
REP. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R-NY): I think it's important for them to have the vote and let the American people know exactly where their representative is.
I mean, essentially, what these members are doing is telling the country that they want to see a $4 trillion tax increase, that they don't want to see many of the provisions we passed earlier this week, which include increasing the standard deduction, increasing the child tax credit, increasing the SALT deduction, tripling that deduction, which will be beneficial to the people I represent in New York, and some of the other important provisions that are pro-growth that will help create jobs, stimulate this economy, and support small businesses and all-size businesses.
I think that it's important for the public to know where their rep stands. And with that said, I will also say that, look, this bill is going to secure the border, give the resources that we need to -- we have already secured the border. We have seen President Trump do that, but give them the resources they need.
And the other thing we did was, we successfully pushed back on New York's Medicaid from being cut, the 50 percent match that they receive. That was critical for me to make sure we did not lower that. And some of these members want to see it be lowered. And we're not going to accept that because our constituents rely, our seniors, our disabled, our children with disabilities rely on the Medicaid program.
And so we're not going to accept what they're trying to do here, which is seek steeper cuts. We were successful in that battle, and we're not going to move back on it. And, also, the issue of per capita caps, which would have hurt our hospitals, we successfully stopped that as well.
And so we have a good compromise here, and we should be moving forward. And it's unfortunate that was stalled, but I believe this will be temporary, and hopefully we will be able to get this resolved.
SANCHEZ: To that point about their desire for deeper cuts to spending, specifically on benefits like Medicaid, some 40 percent of your constituents in New York's 11th District rely on Medicaid; 89,000 of them are actually kids.
Do you have an estimate on how many of them would lose eligibility under this plan?
MALLIOTAKIS: Under the current plan, they don't lose eligibility.
I mean, again, we particularly made sure that we protected the people who Medicaid was meant for. The individuals who will have a problem are fraudsters, people in the country illegally, people who will be -- there will be work requirements imposed who refuse to adhere to working.
But if they're able-bodied and they have no dependents, then they should be contributing to society and working. So that's something that's very popular, by the way, across the country. Like, more than three-quarters of the country supports work requirements for able- bodied individuals who are of age and do not have dependents.
And so we have made very, very modest reforms that are good for the program. Actually, so, remember, the money -- Medicaid was always meant for our seniors, people with disabilities, and children with developmental disabilities. There is an expansion component to it, but the only changes there are going to be, again, the work requirements and making sure that these Medicaid dollars do not go to illegal immigrants.
Those are two very popular reforms that the American people support.
SANCHEZ: Sure. Nevertheless, the plan, by some estimates, show that millions of people are going to lose benefits. There's one estimate that shows that something like 80 percent of hospital admissions, more than 70 percent of all outpatients in your district are covered by Medicaid or Medicare.
How many of them...
MALLIOTAKIS: So, hold on a second, because...
SANCHEZ: I just wonder how many of these folks...
MALLIOTAKIS: No, hold on one second. Let me clarify.
SANCHEZ: How many of these folks do you believe are receiving benefits they shouldn't be? I just want to get an estimate of how many of these people you believe should be ineligible to receive these benefits.
MALLIOTAKIS: The estimate that has been given -- yes.
The estimate that has been provided, if you break it down, it's about 4.5 million people that will be required to work because they are able-bodied, they do not have dependents, and they are of age to be working. So, young people who have the ability to work and aren't currently will have some work requirements, which is part-time. It's part-time.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But, Congresswoman, do you have an estimate of how many people in your district will lose benefits?
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, I'm explaining to you right now.
If you're listening to me, what I'm saying is, the 4.5 million people...
[13:15:03]
SANCHEZ: Sure. You have explained that there are work requirements. You have explained...
MALLIOTAKIS: ... if they adhere to the work requirements, they keep their benefits, absolutely.
And then the 1.5 million are illegal, they will be -- they will be the ones removed. And then there's another 1.5 million who are not eligible for the program.
SANCHEZ: Do you not have a precise number for your district who you believe that are ineligible?
MALLIOTAKIS: So, people who are currently not eligible will also be removed.
Excuse me?
SANCHEZ: Do you have a precise number for your district?
Of the 80 percent...
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, I know, nationally, it's 1.5 million that are not eligible.
SANCHEZ: OK.
MALLIOTAKIS: If you're not eligible, you should not be receiving benefits. It's as simple as that. That makes you a fraudster. If you're ineligible for the program and you're still taking the benefits...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: There are questions about whether people, for example, who are institutionalized for a certain period of time can prove that they worked a certain amount of hours that are being required to work or if they can even make the appointments to show that they have eligibility.
MALLIOTAKIS: No, those individuals are not going to be...
SANCHEZ: Nevertheless, Congresswoman, I want to ask you about something else.
MALLIOTAKIS: Yes. Those individuals will not be affected. Again, it's able-bodied individuals.
SANCHEZ: It was up for debate in committee. That's why I'm asking.
MALLIOTAKIS: And there are exemptions.
No, look, it seems to me that you guys just want to try to act like Republicans are trying to kick off people who are eligible for the program. That is not the case. If you don't adhere to the work requirements for able-bodied individuals who do not have dependents, then, yes, you could lose.
If you are a fraudster, one of the 1.5 trillion taking advantage -- 1.5 million taking advantage of the program because you're not eligible for it, they will lose.
SANCHEZ: That's why I asked you for an estimate in your district, Congresswoman, to get a precise number, because there are concerns.
MALLIOTAKIS: I'm giving you the estimates nationwide.
SANCHEZ: I understand, Congresswoman.
MALLIOTAKIS: I'm giving you the estimates nationwide. I don't know how...
SANCHEZ: But just to give you an understanding of what I'm trying to do, you suggested that I'm trying to make it seem like Republicans are trying to do something. I'm trying to clarify the reason I'm asking you this question.
There are concerns that folks that may be eligible...
MALLIOTAKIS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... may be kicked off of these programs because they don't meet some of these requirements, even though, in the view of many Americans, they should be receiving some kind of help.
I do want to ask you about something else, specifically SALT deductions. I know that there has been some disagreement.
MALLIOTAKIS: But the only requirement would be a work requirement. The only requirement would be a work requirement that's vastly supported.
SANCHEZ: I believe it's 80 hours. They have to meet like a certain number of hours a week, and then they have to report it as well. And that presents difficulties for some folks.
MALLIOTAKIS: Yes, 20 hours. They're asking for part-time. SANCHEZ: There are also estimates out there that show that people that are eligible for Medicare aren't actually receiving it anyway.
MALLIOTAKIS: All right, I...
SANCHEZ: So I do wonder if you had an estimate. That's all I was asking. I wasn't trying to make it seem like you're trying to do anything. I was asking for a ballpark number for your district.
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, what I'm trying to say is, it is a -- OK. Well, you don't let me explain.
SANCHEZ: So...
MALLIOTAKIS: I'm trying to explain to you. So if you don't want to hear the answer, then don't have me on the show. But I'm trying to explain to you the situation.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: You did explain it. You did.
MALLIOTAKIS: It's like -- OK. All right, good. Let's move on.
SANCHEZ: I was seeking some clarity. You made clear that you don't have a number for your district.
So, moving on to SALT deductions, Congresswoman...
MALLIOTAKIS: I know the name -- I know that number -- I know the number nationwide, OK? I know the number nationwide.
SANCHEZ: Sure.
MALLIOTAKIS: And what I'm trying to say is, if you are eligible for the program, you don't lose benefits. If you don't adhere to the work requirements, then you may lose your benefits, because we're going to impose work requirements for people who are able-bodied.
SANCHEZ: We heard you loud and clear, Congresswoman.
Can I ask you about SALT deductions?
MALLIOTAKIS: OK, so -- sure, go ahead.
SANCHEZ: I know that there's been some consternation and some disagreement.
MALLIOTAKIS: If you let me answer the question.
SANCHEZ: Congresswoman, you said the same thing multiple times. I think our viewers got what you were trying to say.
MALLIOTAKIS: OK.
SANCHEZ: We have limited time, so I do want to ask you about the disagreement within the party and even within the SALT Caucus about the limit that you would like for state and local tax deductions.
Two sources indicated to our reporters that you were initially on board with this $30,000 cap included in the latest proposal. That's something that your New York colleagues balked at. What do you say to them?
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, first of all, as a House Ways and Means member, I worked very diligently to triple the deduction, and that would cover 98 percent of the constituents that I represent in Staten Island and Brooklyn.
So it was a big win for the people that I represent. Now, I understand that every member has to go and advocate for their particular needs in their district. And in this case, some of the other colleagues who want a higher number, it's because their counties have higher property taxes.
And so now that we have gotten this bill, which, by the way, not only increases SALT deduction, increases the standard deduction, the child tax credit, and so many other provisions that will benefit working and middle-class Americans, once we have got this now out of the committee, which we did on Wednesday morning, we can now work to see if there's a way we can adjust the number to protect some of the other districts in New York who have a higher property tax burden.
But I want to remind everyone, the reason we need SALT relief to begin with is because our mayor, our governor, the Democrats that control the state legislature and the New York City Council keep taxing them to death. That's why we are trying to do what we can to provide relief from the federal level.
But they could easily address this on the local level by capping property taxes and cutting personal income taxes, just like President Trump did in 2017.
SANCHEZ: I mean, voters could also choose to elect different leaders if that's what they wanted, right?
Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, we have to leave it there.
MALLIOTAKIS: That's absolutely true. If they're unhappy with New York, they should do that.
[13:20:00]
SANCHEZ: If they are.
Thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate you coming on CNN. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: We will be right back.
MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:24:16]
SANCHEZ: Today's highly anticipated peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have ended in Turkey with no progress, no real progress on a cease-fire.
The direct talks between the two countries were the first of their kind in three years and lasted a bit over two hours. Neither of the presidents was there, Volodymyr Zelenskyy instead meeting today with European leaders in Albania. And, later, the leaders held a phone call including President Donald Trump.
Trump's saying today that he plans to meet with President Vladimir Putin as soon as possible.
CNN chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh is live for us in Kyiv.
So, Nick, what is the feeling in the capital of Ukraine over these latest developments?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Look, I think it's a bewildering week we have just had.
I should remind everyone where we started on Saturday with the European leaders who we saw on the phone pictured in the image posted by the Ukrainian presidency talking to the U.S. president, Donald Trump. They were here in Kyiv on Saturday demanding an unconditional 30-day cease-fire, saying they had the backing for that and potentially sanctions against Russia if indeed it didn't adhere to that particular idea.
[13:25:22]
Putin responded by brushing that idea aside and suggesting these direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul that were meant to happen on Thursday, but indeed happened today. They were exceptionally short, two hours long.
And the consequence of them is something which might sound like progress, but if you start to pick away at what's really there, it's a little less impressive. Certainly, there's 1,000 prisoners on either side that are going to be exchanged in the coming days. Both sides agree on that.
There is a suggestion that there may be further talks about the two presidents, Zelenskyy and Putin, meeting. And, indeed, Zelenskyy has seized upon that as the next potential step. But, remember, that's something he proposed for Thursday already that the Kremlin declined to accept.
And then there's a suggestion from the Russian side that they'd like to (AUDIO GAP) what a cease-fire might look like in the coming weeks. Remember too, though, that Ukraine's already offered its version of a cease-fire, which is for a month and unconditional. So it sounds like the Russians are trying to look for conditions, which doesn't really match that particular idea. So, there is some momentum potentially in the idea these two sides
have finally met, but it's important to remember it is such a reduction from the high-level diplomacy that we thought might happen just days ago, and indeed that Donald Trump suggested he might interject himself into to try and make it gain more progress.
So, ultimately, it's back to Trump now. And rather than necessarily seizing upon the European idea of consequences for Moscow for not taking part in this peace process more authentically, he's now saying it's got to be him and Putin for any progress to happen. I wonder how those European leaders who felt they had -- he had their back in the past week must be feeling now -- Boris.
SANCHEZ: Yes, that's a good question.
Nick Paton Walsh, thanks so much for the reporting -- Brianna.
KEILAR: Russia is detailing its take on what came out of these talks.
For more on that, let's turn to CNN's senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen, who is in Moscow.
Fred, what's the Kremlin saying?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Kremlin is saying that they're quite satisfied actually with the way that these talks went.
One of the things that I can tell you guys right now, just a little bit of news that we just got in a couple of minutes ago, is that the Russian delegation has just taken off from Istanbul International Airport, obviously en route back here to Moscow to then brief Vladimir Putin, brief the rest of the Russian leadership about what they heard from the Ukrainians and about what the way forward could be.
Now, some of the things that Nick was just talking about were also detailed by the Russians as well. It seemed as though both sides, at least in the statements they gave afterwards, were pretty much on the same page.
The chief negotiator for the Russians, Vladimir Medinsky, also coming out and saying two sides had agreed to that prisoner swap of 1,000- for-1,000 prisoner swap. The Russians also saying that it was important for the Ukrainians to float a meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, and President Vladimir Putin.
The Russians are saying they are going to take that to Vladimir Putin and see what he thinks of that. Obviously, he has the final say in everything. And then the Russians also saying -- and I think this was really the key point for them, where they're saying both sides are going to go back, they're going to work out their cease-fire proposals and then meet once again to try and see what the way forward is going to be.
Of course, in a way, the Russians are saying that is -- that is actually a lot of progress, because the two sides, of course, were by no means on the same page when all of this started, the Ukrainians saying they wanted a cease-fire first and then talks, whereas the Russians were saying that there was not going to be an unconditional cease-fire and that they wanted talks to begin immediately.
The chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, he did come out tonight and he said, look, it's normal, he said, in wars that there's talks going on even as fighting is still going on, the Russians also answering to some of that criticism that we had heard about this delegation allegedly not being high-level enough.
The Kremlin came out and said that they were in contact with their delegation the entire time that these talks were going on, Brianna.
KEILAR: Very interesting.
Fred, thank you for that report from Moscow.
And still ahead, I have got an exclusive report from West Point, the nation's oldest service academy, where cadets are taking the last of their final exams and preparing to be military leaders of the future, as the school makes sweeping changes ordered by President Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)