Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Now: Defense Re-Questioning Ventura After Govt. Ends Redirect; House Budget CMTE Votes Down Bill with Trump's Agenda; Trump Suggests New Tariff Rates Will be Sent to 150 Countries; Russia-Ukraine Talks End with No Clear Path Forward. Aired 3-3:30p ET
Aired May 16, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: At the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, his ex-girlfriend is wrapping up her testimony after four days on the stand. She is the witness who could make or break the prosecution's case against Combs, and she just broke down into tears. We're going to take a look at where the case stands after one week.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And now or never, the President says it is time for other countries to strike new deals with the U.S., or they could face higher tariffs in the near future.
Then later, a CNN investigation - attorneys general from across the country treated to luxurious trips, including stays at five-star hotels - and it's all paid for in part by some of the same companies they are regulating.
We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
Hi there, I'm Brianna Keilar, alongside Boris Sanchez, here in Washington.
And happening now - more bombshell testimony from Sean Combs' ex- girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, who is a key witness in his criminal sex trafficking trial.
SANCHEZ: So, moments ago, the prosecution ended its redirect of Cassie Ventura, and now the defense is re-questioning her.
Joining us now is criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Paul Martin.
Paul, thanks so much for being with us.
I just want to take our viewers through a brief moment of testimony during this questioning by the prosecution, where she was asked about the lawsuit that she settled with Sean Combs back in 2023.
Ventura testified that she got $20 million in that settlement, but she says that she would give that money back if she never had to do freak- offs. She said, quote, "If I never had to have freak-offs, I would have had
agency and autonomy, and I wouldn't have to work so hard to get it back."
That is very strong testimony, Paul.
PAUL MARTIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FORMER PROSECUTOR: And that was very well prepared by the prosecution.
I mean, that question was asked prior to her coming into that witness stand, and I'm surprised it took some 18 hours on the witness stand before it came out.
You're going to have to show that she has no motive. There's no reason for her to make up any of this testimony.
Twenty million dollars is a lot of money and gives a lot of reason for her to come forth in this way.
Believe me, she has a career after this because of what took place.
So, I'm not surprised that she broke out in tears after all this testimony.
KEILAR: Paul, I wonder how you read this. And we have to be clear - we're not in the courtroom, right? We're reading about what's happening there.
But you have a better sense of how juries might respond to something like that, and it is noteworthy that in that moment, that was the defense questioning her, right?
I wonder if you are looking at some of these moments and thinking that actually some of the defense questioning may be backfiring, or do you think that they're landing with the jury?
MARTIN: Well, I think the defense is being very methodical in picking apart this relationship. You have to remember, this is a relationship that has spanned for almost ten years. So, there's a number of texts and conversations in which the witness exposes her true feelings.
And so, they are trying to raise every issue to show that her participation in these, quote unquote, "freak-offs," were not by coercion, were not by force, but that she was a willing participant. You have to walk a delicate line.
[15:05:05]
If you're going to attack a witness, and - then you do it, and - but you don't want to bring any sympathy to that person. Obviously, when this woman is pregnant - nine months pregnant - and you want to treat her with kid gloves, has - have they gone too far? Maybe.
But I can tell you this: from what you hear from being reported and what's being translated to the jury, I'm sure it's two different things. KEILAR: I do want to just correct myself on that - that was not the
defense's recross; that was the prosecution's. So, obviously, a moment for them that certainly will work in their case.
SANCHEZ: Yes, absolutely.
Just before that, the prosecution - or rather the defense - had gone to the question of her credibility. And there's been the central argument, as you sort of described, Paul, about her ability to have agency in their relationship. And it's come up over and over again - whether this was coercion or whether this was something that she wanted to happen, these staged sexual encounters involving escorts and such.
I wonder, if you're the jury, and you have to decide whether this amounts to trafficking and racketeering - how is the prosecution doing at building toward that?
MARTIN: Well, I think this is just one part of the case. She is a linchpin, but it's not the entire case. And there will be other witnesses that will come in to either corroborate her testimony. There will be other witnesses that will corroborate these freak-offs and whether force was used or not used.
But she is definitely a very compelling witness because of the relationship she had with Mr. Combs. And so, I believe that during the course of her testimony, the defense will try to show that she was not only a willing participant, but again, the drugs that were used were used at times when there was no freak-offs, that she was also a willing participant, that she was the one who went and got some of the items to be used during these freak-offs. And so, you know, it cuts both ways as this witness is presented.
The real reason is why - what is her motivation to come forth now? Why would she lie now? She already has the money. So, what is the reason for her to come forth? And the prosecution is going to say - because she's telling the truth.
KEILAR: Paul, what did you think of this moment where - because to the point of, you know, why would she buy these things for these encounters - she actually says, and has said every day, that this was like a job for her.
She testified earlier today, "I had a whole other job." And then the prosecution attorney asked what the job was. She replied, "Basically, a sex worker." The judge granted a defense motion to strike that response from the record. Why is that?
MARTIN" Because she's not in a position to say, quote unquote, "that she was a sex worker." That carries a somewhat of a legal connotation. And so, that's the reason why it was stricken.
But more importantly, here's a young lady - I think she's what, 17 years younger than Mr. Combs - and I think the defense, the prosecution, is going to argue that he had her under his control, not only financially. He was determining her career, and he was using the threat of not promoting her - the threat of not making her a star - as to be used against her to keep her in check.
I'm not so sure it was the violence. I think they were both violent towards each other. And I think he's already said to the public - and his attorneys have said - listen, this is not a case about physical abuse. It's not about domestic abuse, because - that - he concedes that. But this is a case about a RICO, and whether there's a pattern or behavior of activities that was a violence - the violence to force sex out of this young lady.
SANCHEZ: Paul Martin, thanks for the expertise. Thank you. Have a beautiful weekend.
You too.
KEILAR: You too.
SANCHEZ: Turning now to a significant development on Capitol Hill. House Republicans have set a new vote now for Sunday evening.
KEILAR: That's right - because five GOP hardliners blocked President Trump's mega tax and spending bill - the "big beautiful bill," as he calls it - in a budget committee vote earlier today. The conservative House members have signaled they'd refuse to pass the bill without bigger spending cuts and other conditions. We have CNN's Lauren Fox on the Hill on this.
Where do things stand right now, Lauren?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, this was really a remarkable move by a number of these conservative holdouts.
[15:10:05]
They've been warning over the course of the last 24 hours that they were not happy with the product that was going before the budget committee today. And yet, leadership and the budget committee chairman, Jodey Arrington, decided to move forward with this hearing.
And throughout that process, you had these members holed up in an anteroom right off of the committee, meeting with Majority Leader Steve Scalise, trying to get those members comfortable with the bill as it stands.
Now, we should just remind people back home - the budget committee is not a place where you can make any substantial changes to the bill, but they wanted assurances - future promises - that this bill would be changed.
Here's what the budget committee chairman, Jodey Arrington, said about this vote:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JODEY ARRINGTON (R-TX): Their hearts are in the right place. Their motives are pure. I share their convictions, and I share their desired outcomes of changing some of these policies and making the bill better. This is not the right venue to do it - that's what I told them. And - but they have to make those decisions themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
So, where do they go from here?
Right now, we expect that they could reconvene to have another vote in the budget committee on Sunday evening. One of those votes, Rep. Smucker, who voted no, just did so for procedural reasons - so they could bring it up later.
So right now, leadership really has to change the minds of four conservative hardliners. And they have to do so without jeopardizing the broader support from moderates in their conference to get this bill across the finish line. Speaker Mike Johnson has said repeatedly that he wants this passed out of the House by the end of next week, before a Memorial Day recess. Right now, that's looking harder and harder to accomplish, given that setback today.
KEILAR: All right, Lauren Fox on the Hill, thank you so much. We'll continue to watch here in the coming days. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: As President Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" is stalled on Capitol Hill, he appears to be ramping up another key piece of his economic agenda - his sweeping tariffs. Listen to this warning from earlier today:
(BEGIN VIDEO 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 - we'll be very fair - but we'll be telling people what they'll 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 VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Gene Sperling joins us now. He served as director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama. He was also a senior advisor to President Joe Biden.
Sir, thanks so much for being with us.
Do you perceive this threat from President Trump as being sufficient pressure on other countries to get the kinds of trade deals that benefit American exporters and consumers?
GENE SPERLING, FORMER NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR UNDER OBAMA: I'm afraid that the main effect it's going to be is to continue the sense of chaos and massive economic uncertainty - which I think we are seeing is going to have real-world negative effects.
Now first, the President really shocked a lot of the world with his Liberation Day proposals - not because it was an aggressive tariff proposal - but because it was, you know, inexplicable. I think The Economist magazine called it shambolic - you know, a mockery of policymaking.
Then you've seen, since then, the administration starts to rely more on Secretary Bessent and USTR Greer. You've seen them pull back, do 90-day pauses - and yet, you're still seeing people in the market saying things are too unpredictable to know whether to purchase an order or to start building a new factory.
And you just saw the consumer confident - the consumer sentiment numbers today from Michigan, which were stunning. It's the lowest - it's - in some areas, it's the lowest it's been since, you know, 1979 or 1980 - lower than the financial crisis, or 9/11, or the pandemic.
So, you've got this uncertainty at every level. And now, one thing that had been somewhat of a relief is that he'd said, "We're going to do a 90-day pause on reciprocal to July 9th."
Now today, he announces, well, there's too many of you, because, of course, they created a situation where you had to have 40 or 50 negotiations at once. So, we're just going to tell you what the tariff rate is in two to three weeks.
I think this will do nothing but create more (INAUDIBLE) it will lead to a couple of places rushing in, maybe giving a better - slightly better deal, as the President hopes for. But I think a lot are going to feel bullied and resist.
[15:15:04]
And I just think the thing that matters most to American families is the uncertainty matters.
You've heard Wal-Mart now say they will be raising prices. When Wal- Mart says they're raising prices specifically due to Trump tariffs, you know more is going to follow. And this will probably lead to a few wins he can announce. But I think the big picture is: more uncertainty, more supply-side disruptions, more price increases, and more harm to average families on Main Street.
SANCHEZ: So, I imagine you think that markets, which tanked after he announced these quote-unquote "reciprocal tariffs," and then floated - they jumped when he offered these negotiations - you don't - you imagine that there's going to be more volatility in markets, even though the U.S. has this framework of a deal with China, the two biggest trading partners in the world sort of have an off-ramp from this trade war?
SPERLING: Well, that's really an excellent question. I mean, if you look to, like, January 31st, when the President really started laying out some of his details - markets are still lower than they were then. But you are right that markets - the equity markets have taken a lot of solace so far in the President looking like he is retreating from the, you know, from the 145 percent tariffs on China.
He looks like someone who is - who knows he's doing too much harm to the economy, and probably to his political standing, and is looking for an off-ramp. And that has comforted equity markets significantly. And I'm sure that's what the White House would say.
I'm just saying, I'm looking at the real economy. I'm looking at Walmart raising prices. I'm looking at the uncertainty of 50, you know, countries all going to be receiving letters telling them now, weeks before they thought, that here's what the deal is.
And what does that mean? Does that mean that's it? There will be negotiations afterward?
You know, I don't want to predict markets or predict what people should do. It seems to me that maybe markets are being a little positive - overoptimistic - right now. And that if you look at the real economy, what really affects families, small businesses - that uncertainty, those price increases, those supply disruptions - are still likely to be there.
So, yes, I'm probably a tiny bit more pessimistic than equity markets are at this moment.
SANCHEZ: Gene Sperling, thanks for the analysis.
SPERLING: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Still to come, Russia and Ukraine holding their first direct talks in three years. We're going to tell you what came out of the meeting and what's next for negotiations.
KEILAR: Plus, the judge in the Idaho student murders case is demanding both sides preserve records after a trove of information made it into a "Dateline" NBC episode.
And then later, we track down attorneys general from across the country who are being treated to luxury trips funded by the corporations they regulate.
We'll have that and much coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:22:40]
SANCHEZ: Ukraine's defense minister says that the path toward a ceasefire with Russia is straightforward - a face-to-face meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The issue is that neither of them were at today's peace talks.
Today was the first time that Ukraine and Russia actually held direct talks in three years.
KEILAR: And yet it ended with no clear path forward. And the U.S. believes that can only happen if President Trump and Putin meet one- on-one. We have CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt with us.
All right, Alex, how did these talks go? ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's
talk about what was done. This was the first time that the two sides sat down together for three years. So that's progress. They each decided that they would exchange a thousand prisoners on each side. That's quite significant. And it does appear that they will continue to talk. But this did fall well short of the expectations.
Putin had proposed this summit, and then he didn't show up.
President Trump didn't show up in the end. President Zelenskyy was in Turkey. But because the Russians sent such a low-level delegation, he decided that he would not attend that meeting. He sent his defense minister.
The Ukrainians did say following the meeting that the Russians had said some unacceptable things. They didn't detail that. But the Ukrainians are now pushing for a direct meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Putin, because they say no one else can decide anything except for Putin.
That's kind of the same thing that we've heard from President Trump himself. He said that nothing's going to get done until he meets with Putin. So, there is certainly a hope that at some point in the near future, the three leaders of these countries can get together and hammer this out.
And guys, still remember - we're just talking about a ceasefire deal for now, not even a peace deal.
The Russians say, "We need to keep talking about the contours of a ceasefire." The Ukrainians are saying, "We're ready to go now."
SANCHEZ: It shows you how far apart they are. I know that Zelenskyy was able to meet with some European leaders, and then they got President Trump on the phone. How did that go?
MARQUARDT: Zelenskyy was in Albania for a European summit. He got on the phone with Trump, with the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Poland. This was a repeat of what had happened last weekend when the leaders got together.
President Zelenskyy said following that call that if the Russians fail to deliver on a ceasefire, that he accepts sanctions. That's obviously something that we've heard President Trump say recently who - President Trump musing, perhaps, that Putin was tapping him along and threatening those sanctions, which of course have not materialized.
[15:25:02]
But I think the key point here on this photo is - the Europeans and Zelenskyy are trying to keep him on their side, united, feeling like he's part of the team with president - on President Zelenskyy's side, not let him stray too far and go back to saying things that are pro- Russian - which of course he's done in the past.
KEILAR: Let's talk about Iran now, because President Trump appeared to confirm that Iran has received a nuclear deal proposal. What do we know?
MARQUARDT: And that Iran has sort of agreed to the terms? Iran has said, no, in fact, they have not gotten any proposal. And what we understand is that in the last round of negotiations - so, the fourth round, which was last weekend - that each side had prepared their own proposals. They exchanged those.
So yes, the Iranians have gotten a U.S. proposal last weekend, but not a new one.
So, the expectation is that at some point soon - we don't know when or where - the two sides will get together again and talk about the proposals that were exchanged last weekend.
But the Iranians are still being quite critical, saying that there's confusing messaging coming from the Trump administration.
And guys, the fundamental question of whether or not Iran would be allowed to enrich at all still has not been solved.
The Iranians are saying that that's a red line for them, while the Americans are saying that the Iranians will have to import fuel for their civilian energy.
SANCHEZ: Alex Marquardt, thanks so much for the update.
Coming up, a CNN investigation uncovering state attorneys general taking luxury trips paid for by the companies they regulate. Some of them didn't have much to say when we asked why. You'll see in just moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)