Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sean 'Diddy' Combs Trial Resumes; Supreme Court Allows Deportations of Venezuelans; President Biden Diagnosed With Cancer; Interview With Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor; Putin and Trump Talk. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 19, 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)

[13:00:42]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Patience may be running out, as President Donald Trump speaks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, the White House confirming their call ended just a short time ago, as the administration acknowledges that Trump is growing -- quote -- "weary and frustrated" with both Russia and Ukraine, as he tries to end the war.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: An alarming cancer diagnosis, former President Joe Biden found to have a -- quote -- "aggressive form of prostate cancer," one that has also now spread to his bones. We're going to have the latest on his prognosis ahead.

And real justice for the victims of fake images. How a new law could help put a stop to explicit deepfakes and revenge porn.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Two critical phone calls today with one goal, ending the war in Ukraine after more than three years of bloodshed.

President Donald Trump speaking today to Russia's Vladimir Putin, a U.S. official confirming their conversation just wrapped up moments ago. And as we await a readout, we should point out that, before this call, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, these conversations coming at a crucial moment in the war, because losses are mounting for Kyiv as the Kremlin intensifies its assaults.

Over the weekend, Russia launched what Ukraine describes as the largest barrage of drone attacks since the war began. Now, keep in mind, just days ago, both nations held direct talks for the first time since the war began.

Let's get the latest from the White House with CNN's Kevin Liptak, who is tracking all of this for us.

So, Kevin, we're awaiting this readout. What are you hearing from sources about the way, the tenor that these calls went this morning?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes.

And we understand that this call between Trump and Vladimir Putin clocked in at around two hours. And even if you're accounting there for the translation, that is a substantially long conversation for these two men. It's their first time talking since March.

And the White House was careful to lower expectations heading into this call. But I think it was clear, just listening to President Trump and listening as well to his vice president, J.D. Vance, earlier today, that frustrations had been growing, particularly when it comes to Putin, and particularly when it comes to his resistance to agree to an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine.

And just looking at the readout that we have been receiving from the Kremlin side of this call, it does not appear as if Putin over the course of this conversation agreed to bring the war to an end immediately. And so I think the question is how President Trump receives that information.

Does he still believe that Putin is a sort of viable arbiter for trying to reach an agreement to end this war? Or does he believe, as many European officials believe, that he's just stringing Trump along, dragging these talks out as this war proceeds?

And so we will have to see exactly how President Trump characterizes that when we receive the readout from the American side. And does the president now -- how does he move forward? Does he agree to put in new sanctions on Moscow? That's something that he's floated previously. That's something that many European leaders believe that now is the time for.

Or does he, in the hope of bringing these two sides together, agree to sort of talk further with Putin, perhaps meet face-to-face to try and bring this conflict to an end? So we will have to see how President Trump responds to this call. But, certainly, from the Kremlin side of things, it does not appear as if Vladimir Putin agreed over the course of this conversation to an immediate halt to the fighting, Boris.

DEAN: OK, more to come. Kevin Liptak there at the White House, thank you so much.

And before this morning's call, Vice President J.D. Vance offered his take on the cease-fire effort, suggesting they have hit an impasse because Putin does not have an exit strategy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, I think, honestly, that President Putin, he doesn't quite know how to get out of the war. If you think about this, he's got a million men under arms. He's reengineered his entire economy, what used to be manufacturing facilities, making products for people to use in their civilian life and now making tank shells and artillery shells and drones. And so this is a little bit of a guess, but I think the president

would agree that part of this is, I'm not sure that Vladimir Putin has a strategy himself for how to unwind the war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:05:07]

DEAN: With us now, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor. He's also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Ambassador, thanks for being here with us.

We now are waiting for President Trump to give his readout. And, hopefully, we will hear about that soon, but, again, this call lasting nearly two hours, according to a U.S. official. And I'm curious. We just heard from Vice President Vance there kind of setting the stage for today.

Do you agree with his assessment that Putin doesn't have a way out of this war?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: I do. I do, Jessica.

Putin doesn't know how to get out of it. He knows he can get out of it. I mean, he could stop tomorrow. He could have agreed with President Trump today, today, to stop this war. But he has a -- he has a lot of constraints on him, a lot of pressures on him from his right wing as well.

That's why the U.S. needs to put pressure on him. And that's why I'm hoping that we will hear from this discussion that -- on the phone today that President Trump was pretty tough on forcing President Putin to make that decision to end this war.

DEAN: And short of -- and, again, based on what Kevin's reporting, this is not what we think happened, but short of Putin saying, OK, I'm going to agree to a cease-fire, what's the best-case scenario out of this call today?

TAYLOR: Best-case scenario is, President Trump realizes that President Putin is not serious.

President Putin has clearly been dragging this out. It sounds like he may have dragged it out some more today in this phone call. President Trump understands that. When he understands that that is where Putin is, and that President Trump then is going to have to take some hard steps to put pressure on Putin to end this war.

DEAN: What would those look like?

TAYLOR: They would look like a couple things.

One is the sanctions that President Trump has talked about and the Europeans have talked about and the Europeans and President Trump have talked about. They have talked about putting real sanctions, more sanctions, existing sanctions, more forceful and less able to get around.

So, increase the pressure, the economic pressure on him. But the second thing is, make it very clear to President Putin that the military support to Ukraine continues and will continue, and Ukraine will not stop.

DEAN: We also learned today that President Trump spoke with Zelenskyy before talking to Putin. That had not previously been on the schedule, at least publicly. Let's put it that way.

Were you surprised to hear that?

TAYLOR: I was pleased to hear that. I was very pleased to hear that.

We had heard that President Trump was going to call President Zelenskyy after the discussion with Putin.

DEAN: Right.

TAYLOR: And for President Trump and President Zelenskyy to talk before, that's a good thing. That was -- that gave President Zelenskyy the ability, the opportunity to tell President Trump, this is what's really, really important if we really want to stop this war.

So I think that was a good sign.

DEAN: It is interesting to think back to the Oval Office and the kind of shouting match that got under way not that long ago, and that we're now here.

There has been an evolution, I think you could say.

TAYLOR: There has been an evolution. There's been a shift.

And, yes, there was that disaster in the Oval Office, but that was this very good shot that you all reported very well out of the Vatican at the funeral.

DEAN: With the knee-to-knee meeting, yes.

TAYLOR: Knee to knee, with no vice presidents, no special envoys, no aides, just the two of them talking for 15 minutes.

And since then, I agree, there has been a shift.

DEAN: It is really fascinating.

OK, well, we will wait to hear more details. As you note, there's a lot of important information we could be getting.

Ambassador, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

TAYLOR: Thank you.

DEAN: Boris.

SANCHEZ: We turn now to former President Biden being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, an announcement that came over the weekend, Biden's office saying the cancer was found just days ago after the 82-year-old was having increasing urinary symptoms, his team also saying that the cancer has spread to his bones.

Earlier today, Biden thanked the public for their love and support, writing in a post -- quote -- "Cancer touches us all," adding, "We are strongest in the broken places."

With us now to discuss is Dr. Elizabeth Comen. She's a medical oncologist at NYU Langone Health.

Thank you so much for being with us, Doctor.

First, as part of this announcement, Biden's team indicated that the cancer cells showed a Gleason score of nine. Help us understand what that means.

DR. ELIZABETH COMEN, MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST, NYU LANGONE HEALTH: Yes.

So, a Gleason score is how we understand the cancer in terms of how it's behaving when we look at it under the microscope. So what was described as Gleason score of nine, which tells us that the cells looked less normal. They did not look like normal prostate cells and more abnormal. And the higher the score, the more aggressive the cancer.

SANCHEZ: And with the cancer spreading to his bones, I wonder what challenges that presents for treating someone who's 82 years old.

COMEN: Yes.

Well, there are lots of treatments. And, in fact, it's not uncommon for prostate cancer to have spread to the bone. About 7 percent of prostate cancer patients are diagnosed with what we call metastatic cancer at the time of their diagnosis, which means that it's spread from their primary site, in this case the prostate, to another part of the body.

[13:10:09]

And, fortunately -- I can't comment specifically on President Biden's case, but, in many instances, we can treat this relatively easily and gently with hormonal therapy.

SANCHEZ: And, to that point, the statement indicated that the cancer is hormone-sensitive. I wonder how that is determined and how that may shift the kind of treatment that he receives, what it looks like.

COMEN: Well, what it looks like is, in many instances, we know that prostate cancer can be stimulated by the hormone testosterone. And so we have various treatments that we use to decrease the production of testosterone, as well as block the ability of testosterone to stimulate a cancer cell from growing. And the hope here is really that we pay attention to quality of life

-- you mentioned his age -- and that we try to really pay attention to how he can live well without too many toxic side effects.

SANCHEZ: I also wonder about how these diagnoses come about. This obviously comes only a few months after President Biden left office. How common is it to have such an aggressive prostate cancer go undetected until it spreads?

COMEN: Well, to give you some broader perspective, over 300,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year. There are 3.5 million men living with prostate cancer in the United States. So it is incredibly common.

And I think what's important about his being public about his diagnosis is that he had symptoms and he spoke to his doctor about them. And that's what led to this diagnosis. And so, hopefully, in this messaging, we can invite and make sure that men are talking to their doctors about any urinary symptoms that they have, any changes that they might have in their sexual function, if they have blood in their urine, and that this brings them to their doctor to have the appropriate conversations about what screening may be appropriate for them.

SANCHEZ: And to the point of screening, Doctor, I understand that U.S. health officials advise against screening for men over 70, that there are concerns about overtreatment and overdiagnoses.

Do you think that that guidance should be reconsidered?

COMEN: I think that every individual should have the opportunity to talk to their doctor about their personal risk factors. It's also about whether -- what age we start screening. So the average age we consider screening for prostate cancer is around 50.

But, in some instances, we know that we need to start screening earlier. We know that black men, for instance, have a higher incidence of prostate cancer than other ethnicities. We also know that it's incredibly important that people are aware of their family history and bring that information to their doctor, so that they can have appropriate screening based on who they are as an individual.

And that may also include talking to your doctor if you're over 70 and if it may be appropriate for you. There's no perfect guideline for an individual. It requires a conversation with your doctor.

SANCHEZ: And, Dr. Elizabeth Comen, we appreciate the perspective. Thanks for joining us.

COMEN: Thank you for having me.

SANCHEZ: Jessica.

DEAN: And we have breaking news here in the CNN. The Supreme Court will allow the White House to move forward ending deportation protections for Venezuelans. CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is joining us now.

Paula, walk us through what the judges said here.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: All right, Jess, this is a very technical opinion. But the headline is that this decision will allow the Trump administration to proceed with some parts of its sweeping deportation agenda.

So, here, the Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to roll back for some people a certain form of humanitarian relief known as temporary protected status, also known as TPS. Now, the administration went to the Supreme Court asking them to allow the Department of Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, to end this protection for some individuals.

Now, back in March, a district court in California blocked her from doing this, said she could not remove this protection from approximately 300,000 Venezuelans. The challengers argued that she was doing this in part because she was motivated by racial and political hostility.

Now, this is just the latest in a series of challenges to Trump's immigration agenda. Many of these have actually reached the Supreme Court in an expedited manner. So, this is a small-W win for the administration. So the administration can start to proceed with rolling back some of these protections. We should also expect that litigation over this question will continue.

This was a pretty short document we got from the Supreme Court. There's no longer reasoning or constitutional analysis. We do know, however, Justice Jackson would have denied this request.

DEAN: All right, Paula Reid with the very latest, thank you so much for that.

And still to come this afternoon, week two of the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial, and jurors are revisiting Combs' early 2000s reality show "Making the Band."

[13:15:00]

Plus, Louisiana officials accuse friends and family members of helping seven escaped inmates evade capture. We're going to have the latest on their escape.

And a little later, House Speaker Mike Johnson racing to push President Trump's sweeping budget and tax reform bill through the House by the end of this week, but we're learning of some major sticking points that are still unresolved.

These important stories and more all coming up this hour on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: At any moment, the former best friend of Cassie Ventura is expected to return to the witness stand in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Before the break, Kerry Morgan testified that she was best friends with Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend, for about 17 years.

[13:20:07]

She says the friendship ended after Combs allegedly assaulted her. Morgan also says that she saw Combs assault Ventura multiple times and that Ventura told her she couldn't leave Combs because -- quote -- "He controlled everything."

DEAN: Meantime, Dawn Richard, a former member of a musical group formed by Combs, was also back on the stand today. Richard testified she frequently saw Combs be violent toward Ventura and she urged Ventura to leave him.

Richard said, when Combs found out about those conversations, he would tell her to stop, or else -- quote -- "We would pay for it."

On cross-examination, Richard acknowledged that, after parting ways with Bad Boy Records and Combs back in 2011, she reached out to Combs on several occasions to work together again.

Defense attorney Misty Marris is joining us now from outside the federal courthouse in New York. We're going to pick it up there.

Misty, obviously they are back on a Monday. There was a huge week of testimony last week with Cassie Ventura, their real star witness, on the stand. How does everyone, especially the jury, marinate on what happened over the weekend and then what does that mean when they pick it up on a Monday like today?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yes, well, Cassie Ventura's testimony was absolutely disturbing, to say the least. And so the jury did have the weekend to think about what she raised on the stand, as well as the defense cross-examination.

So diving back into testimony on Monday with corroborating witnesses -- so that's Dawn Richard Kerry Morgan, who are now testifying about actually being an eyewitness to some of that violence from Combs to Cassie -- that is something that prosecutors likely were strategic about, so that you're hearing from corroborating witnesses after digesting and evaluating that very disturbing testimony from last week.

SANCHEZ: Misty, you got a chance to be in the courtroom today. I wonder what stood out to you most about the testimony that you heard.

MARRIS: So, Dawn Richard was the first witness to testify, and I found her to actually have fallen apart a bit on cross-examination.

So she did what prosecutors needed her to do. She testified about a very specific incident where she saw Diddy hit Cassie with a skillet. And then, after, and this being most important, the following day, Diddy threatened her. He said something to the effect of, when people talk, they go missing.

She perceived this as a threat. Now, that's critical to the prosecution's argument because this is all about control. And that speaks to that idea of blackmail, of cover-up, of keeping people in line that we heard about in the prosecutor's opening statement and the theme throughout Cassie Ventura's testimony.

Now, on cross-examination, though, specifically with respect to that threat, it came out that that had never come out in all of the interviews she did with prosecutors the past seven times. So why now? The defense was able to capitalize on that.

She also has a civil lawsuit that is currently pending, and the defense was able to box her in that she's looking for financial compensation. So the impeachment testimony that came out on cross, both questioning her remembering of these incidents, as well as showing that she has other motivations for what she might be saying on the stand, was really effective from a defense perspective.

DEAN: Yes.

And, Misty, you have tried a lot of cases. When you're able -- as a defense attorney, when you're able to do what you just described with the witness' testimony, how far can that go in really trying to neutralize anything they're doing for the prosecution?

MARRIS: So the goal is to impeach the credibility. And one way to do that is to talk about how somebody might be remembering something different today than back when it actually happened, and that the closest that is going to be to the truth -- and this is what a defense attorney will say to the jury -- is any record of what happened back then, because it's closer in time.

Now we're talking about conduct that's over a decade old. So the defense was able to talk about an evolving story, not only that, where there were critical facts left out of communications with prosecutors, and also the financial motivation.

But, to me, where the defense really gained points, they asked, well, when you have suppressed all of these traumatic events, how do you end up thinking about them again? How do you recall? And they said, from talking to you guys, meaning the government.

And so what the defense is going to argue is that this story has been molded. Another thing that came out during her testimony is that she actually had been reaching out to Combs as recently as 2021 to get back in business with him.

So, if this was an environment that was permeated with violence and threats, why would you do that? So the defense really scored a lot of points today on cross-examination with Richard.

SANCHEZ: And I wonder about Kerry Morgan. She is apparently back on the stand right now being questioned. She's obviously someone who was very close to Cassie Ventura. She said that she witnessed at least two direct instances that she recalls in detail where Combs hit his ex- girlfriend, though she says there were other occasions.

[13:25:10]

They since had a falling out ever since the incident with Combs back in 2018. What did you make of her testimony, how it's going so far?

MARRIS: Kerry Morgan came off as very, very credible.

First, she started her testimony by explaining her personal and close relationship with Ventura, dating back to when they lived together in 2004. She said she didn't even want to be here. She's here subject to a subpoena, because she had to be. And she did say they had a falling out. This is in 2018, when she alleges that Combs actually attacked her.

She never brought a lawsuit relating to that. But Cassie came not long afterwards, diminished what had happened between the two. And Combs ended up paying her $30,000. So, again, that's this idea of keep quiet that's coming back in front of the jury when it comes to Combs and his violent conduct.

She also described in detail, Boris, these two incidents, one at Diddy's Hollywood Hills home. The violent incident is disturbing, to say the least. But what she said happened after is really important to this aspect of control. She said that Diddy was driving around trying to find them after they fled the house in Hollywood Hills.

She also got into that 2016 tape. She said that, after that altercation at the Intercontinental, that Diddy actually came to Cassie Ventura's home and was hitting her door with a hammer. So this all speaks to that idea of control and coercion.And her testimony thus far has been really, really compelling. And she's coming off as a pretty great witness for the prosecution, corroborating Cassie Ventura's story.

DEAN: All right, so much more to come this week.

Misty Marris, thank you so much for that. We really appreciate it.

And up next: finger-pointing in Louisiana, as officials there investigate how 10 inmates, some accused of murder, managed to escape from a New Orleans jail and whether the seven who are still on the run are getting help on the outside.

SANCHEZ: Plus, a rare moment of unity in the White House, as President Trump prepares to sign a bipartisan bill.

These important stories and much more coming up this hour on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)