Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Family of Virginia Giuffre Speaks Out on Epstein Scandal; Trump Launches New Tariff Blitz Ahead of Midnight Deadline; Mamdani Walks Back Calls to Defund the Police; Sean "Diddy" Combs Takes New Shot at Full Acquittal; "Laura Coates Live" Reports Latest Update on Arkansas Murder Case. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 31, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[22:59:50]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the family of Virginia Giuffre speaking out about the Epstein scandal with questions for the president and one very direct message. Plus, it's 11 p.m. Do you know where Trump's tariffs are? We're just one hour away from that midnight deadline, and Trump is going on a new tariff blitz. I'll talk to one attorney general who says he can end it all in the courts. And later, Sean "Diddy" Combs has a request or is it an ultimatum? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Major new questions over President Trump over the Jeffrey Epstein fallout, this time from the family of Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's most prominent accusers. That's the same employee that Trump says was stolen from Mar-a-Lago by Epstein. She was 16 years old in 2000. She was working at a spa at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club as one of the attendants. Now, Giuffre said that she was approached by Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, and groomed to provide massages for Epstein. She said it led to years of sexual abuse. Sadly, she died earlier this year by suicide. She's only 41 years old.

Well, tonight, her family is speaking out about how Trump's statements deepened their hurt and leading them to ask how much he really did know.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SKY ROBERTS, BROTHER OF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: She wasn't stolen. She was preyed upon at his property, at President Trump's property. And I think it's very important that we don't treat it like -- stolen seems very impersonal. It feels very much like an object. And these survivors are not objects. Women are not objects. And it certainly makes you kind of ask the question, you know, how much he knew during that time. Right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Earlier tonight, President Trump faced that very question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You said that Jeffrey Epstein stole people from Mar-a-Lago. At the time, did you know why he was taking those young women, including Virginia, who was just 16 at the time?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I didn't know. I mean, I would -- I would figure it was ABC fake news that would ask that question, one of the worsts. But no, I don't know really why. But I said, if he has taken anybody from Mar-a-Lago, he's hiring or whatever he's doing, I didn't like it. And we threw him out. We said we don't want him, you know, at the place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But here's the thing. Now, Trump said he cut ties with Epstein in 2000. But if that's the case, then why two years later was he still praising Epstein, saying -- quote -- "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side"?

Well, then there's that Washington Post report that says they fell out four years later in, actually, 2004 during a battle over a Palm Beach mansion.

Then there's that book from the Miami Herald and "The Wall Street Journal" reporters that says that Epstein was banned from Mar-a-Lago, actually, seven years later, in 2007. Why? For hitting on another member's teenage daughter. That's a year after he was first indicted, following the investigation into whether he had sex with underage girls.

So, either time is not linear or the timeline raises questions. So, what really ended their friendship? Well, tonight, the White House is sticking with the same line that they said earlier this week, saying the fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees, which, of course, is actually different than what Trump said about poaching staff, even though he says it's maybe the same thing.

Now, to be absolutely clear, there is no evidence that Trump was connected to Epstein's sex trafficking or that he was aware of it. In fact, Giuffre said in a 2016 deposition, remember, those were under oath, that she never saw Trump and Epstein together or at any of Epstein's homes.

But her family's outrage is not only about the connection to Trump. They're also furious over any discussion of leniency for, well, Ghislaine Maxwell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: She does not get the opportunity to get out. She deserves to rot in prison where she belongs because of what she has done to my sister and so many other women. And it's absolutely a pure sense of evil.

AMANDA ROBERTS, SISTER-IN-LAW OF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: People who commit those crimes against someone deserve to feel those repercussions. They don't get to rest easy while the survivors are still trying to live their life every single day. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the administration is denying any sort of clemency is actually on the table.

[23:04:55]

A senior administration official telling CNN -- quote -- "No leniency is being given or discussed. That's just false. The president himself has said that clemency for Maxwell is not something he is even thinking about at this time."

With me now, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Aronberg, editor-in-chief and owner of All Rise News, Adam Klasfeld, and prominent women's rights attorney, Gloria Allred, who represented more than 20 alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

I'll begin with you, Gloria, because you heard from the family, the Giuffre family, and they take issue with the president's language, the word "stolen." They say that she was preyed upon. How have the survivors that you represent, how are they feeling about the president's choice of words?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, my heart goes out to the two brothers and the sisters-in-law, and they just spoke so beautifully and just honored Virginia and her courage and her suffering. And she did suffer, obviously, for many, many years, but she also was very courageous in fighting back.

I think that the victims will be very moved as well by seeing family members stand up for one of the victim survivors, for Virginia, for -- and saying that, you know, that those who speak out and say they were sexually abused as children should be believed. Now, I'm not saying everyone should be believed, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

And so, I think it was a positive for the family members to speak up and to say that they want answers. And we've always said that the victims themselves, the survivors, want answers. They want the truth. They want justice. They want accountability. And now, the family members are saying the same thing.

So, my question is, did the FBI interview the friend of Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, who was his friend, who said he was his friend for many years? And did they ask what he might have known about Jeffrey Epstein? Not because they were about to accuse Donald Trump of any wrongdoing, but just to get information. After all, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York said publicly he wanted to speak to Prince Andrew.

COATES: Yeah.

ALLRED: He wanted to set up that interview.

COATES: Yeah.

ALLRED: And Prince Andrew never agreed. But -- so, my question is, is there anything in the files where they -- where perhaps President Trump voluntarily went to law enforcement and said, I can give you some information --

COATES: Well, so far, Gloria, we don't know.

ALLRED: -- about Jeffrey Epstein, about Ghislaine Maxwell?

COATES: Yeah. We don't know anything about that. That's part of why everyone is desperate to hear from -- about the files because, again, Dave, we look at the grand jury testimony --

ALLRED: Exactly.

COATES: -- that we were told that that's two law enforcement officials. And, of course, Dave, you know that grand jury testimony --

ALLRED: Right.

COATES: -- can include law enforcement who essentially summarize even hearsay because it's a probable cause standard, not a beyond the reasonable doubt standard there. But Dave, has there been any evidence supporting the family's claim that she was actually preyed upon at Mar-a-Lago outside of the fact that, I mean, Epstein, of course, was in contact with her and we know her allegations after that?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Laura, I haven't seen any evidence that there was any preying upon Virginia Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago other than when Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago --

COATES: Which is a huge other than, right?

ARONBERG: Right, right. But people want to know if Donald Trump was involved in this, and there's no evidence that he was. I mean, Donald Trump looks like he's not guilty of any crime here. But he's sure acting guilty. He's really sensitive to this stuff. And he keeps stepping in with his comments, making things worse. Now, he has incurred the ire of Virginia Giuffre's family. That was unnecessary.

And in dangling this pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell, he's offering it to the devil's accomplice. Remember, if Jeffrey Epstein tried to pick up Virginia Giuffre, a teenager --

COATES: Hmm.

ARONBERG: -- from Mar-a-Lago, she would have probably said, get lost, you creep. You had this elegant, sophisticated woman with this British accent who spoke to her and recruited her and groomed her. So, he could not do any of this stuff without his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, the same person who apparently has the administration's ear.

COATES: And at that point and obviously also who was found guilty, Adam, the administration, though, in the form of the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, he did lend his ear to her, that we're told there was some sort of limited immunity which, frankly, is not that unheard of in order to speak with somebody who might have other criminal liability exposure.

But the fact that Trump recalled Virginia in general, Mar-a-Lago, it has been quite large, many employees over the years, to have her specifically identified by him might have raised additional eyebrows to the point that Dave is mentioning about sort of stepping in it.

[23:10:05]

If he does know more information, and I'm not accusing him of a crime, but if he does know anything that might be helpful in an investigation, is there some way the family could find out aside from waiting for the Epstein files?

ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: I think that's probably why they're speaking out now. I mean, there was a very moving statement. And in the statement, they made a very good point. Both the family and the reporter who asked Trump directly, what did he think that Jeffrey Epstein want poached in his or stole, in Trump's words, for? Jeffrey Epstein was a financier. Did he think that Virginia Giuffre, a 16-year-old spa attendant, had some accounting acumen? There was never been a real explanation.

Trump danced around that question, and that's why I think the family delivered this moving statement, putting pressure on this open question, what did Trump mean when he went out and said that Jeffrey Epstein stole his employees? Why would Jeffrey Epstein have an interest in the spa employees at Mar-a-Lago?

COATES: Stomach-turning, frankly. But while I have you, on the notion of the finances, we're told -- you know, we know that Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, Adam, is actually -- he's alleging suspicious activity reports that indicate thousands of some sort of wire transfers, a number of them to women, to underage girls. This is all in the Epstein financial documents. What do we know about the finances and is there a way that if he gets documents from the Treasury Department, the public could see those?

KLASFELD: So, it's interesting because the senator actually had a press call about this today. He's really pushing this investigation and has for years, long before this scandal exploded once again into the public eye. And I think the reason why he's pursuing this so aggressively is that there has been a history here. When his investigation started years ago, the survivors went forward to follow the money trail --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KLASFELD: -- the whole -- follow the money. They had sued JP Morgan, they sued Deutsche Bank, and used -- and there were -- there was litigation and scandals surrounding Leon Black. All of this is part of the senator's investigation, and it's why the work that has been building for years is coming to a head now.

COATES: Thank you so much, everyone. This conversation is not over. We know. Thank you. Well, it's almost midnight, the president's trade deadline, and Trump has been making changes and announcements late into the night. Here's what we know as of what? Eleven, 12 p.m.? There's a base 10% universal tariff that's going to remain in place for all goods coming into the country, but only for the countries the U.S. has a trade surplus with. If it's a country that the U.S. has a trade deficit with, well, then, their rate will be 15%.

Now, some countries, as you know, they have even higher rates, like Canada, who got hit with 35% tariffs for any goods that aren't under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, which already covers most Canadian exports. As for our neighbor to the south, Mexico is okay for the next few months, remember, because they got that 90-day pause to continue negotiating.

Well, now, the deadline is minutes away. But this will not take effect immediately tonight. They won't be implemented until next week. And those are the numbers, as we now know them this evening, and the midnight deadline quickly approaching.

But are any of these tariffs even legal? Well, that was the very question that was argued in court today. And the judges, frankly, well, they seem skeptical.

My next guest was at that hearing. It's Oregon's attorney general, Dan Rayfield, and he joins me now. He is leading a coalition of 12 states in the legal fight against the president's tariffs.

Attorney General, thank you for joining me this evening. We are close to midnight, but your timeline has been ticking for quite some time to try to arrest the development of these tariffs. You argue it's because it's not within the president's power to do so. Explain.

DAN RAYFIELD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OREGON: Really simply the way we think about it is that the president is abusing an emergency power, and it's an emergency power that no president in the history of the United States has ever used to implement tariffs.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAYFIELD: Now, you got to remember, Constitution gives Congress the ability to set tariffs solely. No one else.

[23:14:57]

Congress gave some of that power to the president under a separate set of laws specifically designed to put safeguards for our economy, our consumers, our small businesses. And that's what Trump used in the past. But he doesn't want to use those anymore. So, he's skirting that, and that's why we're having this argument, because he's passing these tariffs with the Emergency Powers Act in a way that's unpredictable, in a way that is a tax effectively on all Oregonians and all Americans.

COATES: Well, he would suggest, I'm sure, that there's that nearly $350 billion increase in the trade deficit, and that gives him the runway to be able to enact some emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Why is he wrong?

RAYFIELD: Well, have you ever heard a politician about bragging or about raising taxes on American citizens to the tune of $350 billion? I mean, it's absurd. JP Morgan, you look at Goldman Sachs, real economist, will show that 60% to 70% of that money is being paid by Americans. And if you look at, what is it, the Yale Budget Lab, they're showing $2,400 for an average household increase every year.

So, when we think about tariffs like if you're in your community, you don't think about tariffs, it seems very distant.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAYFIELD: But it's we're all paying them. And to look back at the history, this is one man in the Oval Office passing these tariffs. Taxes are something that were intended to be done in Congress and they were intended to be done with public input. He skirted all of that. And now, we're paying those things.

COATES: Does it matter if the tariffs don't have the dire financial impact that was predicted? Would that matter at all to the legal argument as to why he could or could not do that?

RAYFIELD: Absolutely not. Simply put, doesn't matter whether it's us at this table or the president of the United States, you've got to follow the Constitution, you've got to follow the laws of this land. And that's just what this is.

And he's abusing an emergency power because he doesn't want those safeguards. He wants to be able to do these things incredibly unpredictably. And he just did it, was it two days ago, with the Brazilian tariffs, right, where he has a political issue in a country, and he decides, hey, you know what? I think we're going to do another tariff on Brazil. Again, unconstitutional, not founded in law, not founded in our Constitution either.

COATES: Did you find that the judges, who seemed a little bit skeptical of the ability for him to do this very notion -- are you confident that the courts will see it your way, given that this is likely to go to the Supreme Court where there is, for many people, a lessening of the confidence and their ability to be objective?

RAYFIELD: I would say, when I became attorney general, I was never given a crystal ball.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

RAYFIELD: But when you --

COATES: It would be easier if you had one.

RAYFIELD: Oh, gosh, life would be so much easier. But right now, when you're looking at these judges, it was fascinating to hear the government's arguments. They looked at judges straight in the eye and said, you know what, you can't review anything we do, you can't review the executive orders that the president passes, and you know what, you can't review anything under these emergency powers, you're powerless. That doesn't sit well with the judicial branch, the independent judicial branch, the co-equal judicial branch.

At the same time, they looked at him and said, you know what, we can pass tariffs of any limit. So, in theory, you could pass tariffs on maple syrup because you don't like Canadian hockey, and then tariff Canadian hockey 200%. It was the absurdity of the argument, was fascinating. I think the judges picked up on that.

COATES: Deferential, but not powerless. Really important point, distinction. What they do. Dan, thank you so much for joining us. Attorney General Dan Rayfield, everyone. Thank you.

Still ahead tonight, the 2020 call to defund the police coming back to haunt Zohran Mamdani as he now faces scrutiny from all corners of the political spectrum. And later, stick around to see if Harry Enten can pass Donald Trump's newly-revived presidential fitness test. Jesus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Oh, my God!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: An emotional day in New York as a city laid to rest Officer Didarul Islam. He was gunned down this week in that shooting in Midtown. All the candidates for mayor were in attendance and all have honored the officer, of course, as a hero.

But the shooting has put a spotlight on one candidate in particular, Democrat Zohran Mamdani. His opponents, they have been quick to remind the voters of New York that Mamdani once called to defund the police. And just today, Mayor Eric Adams took a veiled shot at his rival by praising the unit Mamdani once eliminated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: I want to say thank you to the men and women of the New York City Police Department in general, but specifically to the men and women of SRG. They entered the building while the shooter was still alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Mamdani standing by his call to scrap the Strategic Response Group, saying they cost taxpayers millions in settlements because of what he sees as heavy-handed tactics. But defunding the police at large, he's walking that back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: My statements in 2020 were ones made amidst a frustration that many New Yorkers held. I am not defunding the police. I am not running to defund the police.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, John Avlon, host of the "How to Fix It" podcast on "The Bulwark" and also former Democratic candidate for Congress. Errol Louis is also here. He's a political anchor for Spectrum News and host of "Inside City Hall."

So, let's go there first, Errol, because clearly, his opponents all see an opening here. But how much of a liability do you really think his previous stance, and it now is previous, how might that be harmful to him, if at all?

[23:25:02]

ERROL LOUIS, POLITICAL ANCHOR FOR SPECTRUM NEWS, PODCAST HOST: It certainly gives talking points to his opponents, and that's not a good thing. These are statements that's worth keeping in mind from five years ago before he got elected to any office. So, it's not as if he was dictating actual government policy in any way, shape or form.

It's also worth pointing out, Laura, that when people say, defund the police, they don't mean zero out the five or six or eight-billion- dollar --

COATES: Right.

LOUIS: -- NYPD budget. They may reorganize it. They may move some of the boxes around on the org chart. They may maybe a little bit less overtime, which can run a billion dollars in some years. So, it's not at all clear what defund means, but his opponents are going to certainly beat him up for having said so five years ago.

COATES: I mean, I you to want you to listen, John, just how much his opponents are going after him. Remember, he was successful in besting even Andrew Cuomo, who many thought early on in his intro into the race would be a sure shot. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CUOMO, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: He has said that the police are a threat to public safety, that they are racists, that he would dismantle the police department.

ADAMS: When you start dismantling the pieces of the law enforcement apparatus that are specifically designed to carry out functions, that is extremely dangerous.

CURTIS SLIWA, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: He's protected by the armed NYPD, but he wants social workers for everyone else.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, again, John, Mamdani now says that he is not for defunding the police. And in a way, this discussion of defund the police, having this much power in an election, has a nostalgic quality to some from several years ago, and I do wonder if voters see it the same way then as they do now or has the electorate moved on. What do you think?

JOHN AVLON, CHAIRMAN FOR CITIZENS UNION, PODCAST HOST, FORMER DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I think crime is always a major issue in major American cities, especially New York. Right now, shootings and murders are actually been on track to record lows in New York. But I do think -- look, these -- these tweets are from 2020 --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

AVLON: -- but he was a fully-fledged adult running for the assembly, and he said the NYPD as a whole was racist and a major threat to public safety. That is a legitimate issue to raise, if only for judgment, not only a matter of public policy today. And it's going to be very difficult for him to build those bridges to the NYPD, which is critical for any effective mayor.

Basically, mayors have three jobs. If you want, I'll boil it all down. Keep crime low, quality of life high, and grow the tax base. And I'm of the school that says, you know, when tell -- people tell you what they believe, you know, who they are, what they believe, believe them.

COATES: Hmm.

AVLON: And they're going to leave a mark. This is going to be difficult, especially if he's elected mayor.

COATES: I mean, conservative media, Errol, they seem to be hooked on Mamdani. I mean, you've got Fox News talking about him nonstop. It does seem reminiscent of the AOC 2019 vibes for many. But what do you think of the collective effort by Republicans to use him not just in this discussion about defunding the police in his prior tweets and his views now, but using him to define more broadly the Democratic Party?

LOUIS: Yeah, well, look, it's a gift to a certain kind of Republican agitator. If you think about it, he actually is everything they said Barack Obama was. He actually was born in Africa, he actually is a socialist, and he actually is a Muslim.

And so, they're going back to an old playbook, and they've got the real thing this time, and they're going to try and make it seem as if every Democrat, including, you know, county commissioners in Idaho, somehow are all part of this whole thing. I don't know if that's going work. I doubt it will work in New York, for sure --

COATES: Hmm.

LOUIS: -- but there could be fallout elsewhere.

COATES: John, does the shoe fit here? AVLON: Well, I mean, Errol just made a great typically brilliant point, my friend, about sort of the specter and all the fearmongering being embodied. Look, he's a very talented communicator and politician. But make no mistake, Donald Trump wants Zohran Mamdani to be mayor of New York. Right? He wants that foil. And that's a factor to keep in mind politically as well. If Donald Trump is rooting for the Democratic socialist, you know, that -- that's -- that's worth taking into account.

COATES: John, Errol, fine points, indeed. Thank you both.

Speaking of New York, up next, Sean "Diddy" Combs with a major request to the court. Forget sentencing him on prostitution-related charges. He wants the judge to clear him completely or give him a new trial. Why? He says the First Amendment. What's the judge thinking? More next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs have a new request for the judge tonight. Either acquit Diddy of the only charges he was found guilty of or -- you know what? Give him new trial altogether.

It has been less than one month since a jury found Diddy not guilty of racketeering, the RICO charges or sex trafficking. And this new motion for acquittal has to do with the charges where Diddy was found guilty, the two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. You may have heard it referred to as the Mann Act. Well, what's his argument?

[23:34:55]

Well, for starters, they say had it not been for the RICO and sex trafficking charges, and Diddy had only been charged with the two counts of prostitution, the jury would have seen far less evidence of any violence. I mean, maybe they wouldn't have seen it at all.

They argue that Diddy actually had no commercial motive for prostitution. These weren't victims, these escorts, or they chose to participate in all of this voluntarily. And the "freak-offs," they argue, nothing more than amateur porn, writing -- quote -- "That is not prostitution, and if it is, his conviction is unconstitutional."

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson and former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson. She's also the host of the podcast "Alyse, You Heard It Here." Love it. Glad to have you both here.

Alyse, let me talk to you first. I want to break this down one by one because the defense is claiming that this would have been a very different trial had they not had the RICO or the sex trafficking and, in some ways, they are arguing that these were a way to get in prior bad acts and sort of cast as dark cloud over him more broadly. Is that going to work for this judge presentencing?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah, I don't think it's going to work for this judge. First of all, I know that they're loving to talk about this in a vacuum because now, all we do have is the Mann Act. But that was not the case that prosecutors took to trial. They did take the RICO. They did take sex trafficking. So, all of that evidence was properly admitted. So, it wasn't a dark cloud. It was necessary in an attempt to prove up those charges which prosecutors ultimately did not.

However, the defense is correct that had they just brought Mann Act charges, a lot of that evidence would have been inadmissible. But was it so overly prejudicial such that they got the conviction of the Mann Act when they shouldn't have? I don't think that that is going to hold a lot of water, and I do not think that this judge is going to toss out the case as a result.

COATES: That's a high burden. Right? They try to overturn what jurors have found in the case. And Joey, I mean, his attorneys are arguing that these convictions are actually unconstitutional, and that what he has been accused of, actually, it wasn't even prostitution. They said he didn't make any money off of this, the escorts chose to travel for these "freak-offs" voluntarily, and he didn't intend for them to have sex with him. Any merit here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do think so, without question, Laura. Look, you have a Mann Act prosecution that would not have been prosecuted independently of the other acts. And let's face it, the RICO charge was a stretch by any measure of the imagination, which allowed all of this other evidence to be brought in that should not have been brought in.

And that evidence being brought in, he's an arsonist, he's burning cars, he's dangling people off the balconies, he's doing all of these things in terms of, you know, getting these home equity loans from the mother of Cassie Ventura, none of that would have come in.

And so, if you look at just the actual Mann Act statute, there was no commercial purpose here in terms of what money he made. He wasn't doing this for a monetary purpose. He was not, in addition, enjoying or engaging in any sexual activity himself. He was in essence acting as a voyeur. And so --

COATES: Well, that voyeur --

JACKSON: -- if you put all that together --

COATES: -- voyeurism is the enjoyment, though. Hold. on. I'm not saying that I know this personally. I'm just saying to you, the enjoyment factor for voyeurs is actually watching this. That's a sexual pleasure.

JACKSON: Yes, it is. And guess what? That's not prostitution. Prostitution is the engaging in the sexual activity yourself. And many of the states upon which, right, they're charging this interstate commerce do not in and of themselves deem that to be prostitution. And so, I think they're very compelling arguments. Who knows, to Alyse's point, whether this particular judge, you know, says, hey, these are, in fact, arguments I'll accept? But I think down the line, there is a universe in which Diddy could be cleared of everything.

COATES: Alyse, we all remember in law school that one Supreme Court case where they say, I'll know porn when I see it, I'll know it when I see it. Well, the argument they're raising right now about the First Amendment is that this is really protected by the First Amendment. I guess the amateur pornography he's talking about in some way. What do you make of the fact that they're leaning into this argument now?

And keeping in mind, of course, you can bring in things in the sentencing phase that you didn't have to actually prove at trial because it wasn't your burden as the defense to prove your innocence.

ADAMSON: That's right. I mean, once again, they're making this argument in attempt to not even get to the sentencing phase.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ADAMSON: They want the acquittal. And listen, they've got to shoot their shot. Right? The defense is doing what they're supposed to be doing, which is trying to have Combs cleared of all charges.

Now, with respect to this argument, again, I think it fails with respect to this being pornography. You said amateur pornography. Amateur, anything, by definition, usually means there is not an element of payment. That's what separates amateur from professional.

[23:39:58]

And the whole issue here is that Combs did pay these escorts. Right? There is no question that there was a monetary transaction. The question is, why was there that monetary transaction? I think there are also questions. Were all of the "freak-offs" filmed. Right?

COATES: Hmm.

ADAMSON: Did the escorts know that they were being paid for their acting services rather than sex for money? Because, again, I think the evidence at trial, so these escorts were being hired to have sex with Combs's girlfriends. And so, I think there's a lot of actual questions here that are going to go into that analysis.

And, you know, I'm sure Joey would disagree with me being the defense attorney. I'm a defense attorney now, but I was a prosecutor for a long time.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ADAMSON: But I think this argument fails, but I think it is an argument to advance. And there is some case law that --

COATES: Yeah.

ADAMSON: -- says pornography is protected First Amendment activity.

COATES: Joey, do you disagree?

JACKSON: The argument -- the argument carries the day, Alyse. Here's the reason why. First of all, pornography is a thing. Right? And that thing is protected by the First Amendment. You have consenting adults who are engaging in this activity, whether you enjoy it or not enjoy it. It's certainly First Amendment protected.

They talked about Diddy in terms of he was orchestrating everything. He was making sure the lighting was there, the baby oil was there, the movements were there. That's certainly protected under the First Amendment. He has a right in terms of doing that.

And so, at the end of the day, you can make the argument as they have, I think very brilliantly, that this is a First Amendment protected issue and it should not have been prosecuted in any circumstance. And as a result of that, again, there's a universe where not this judge, but hey, maybe this judge, but if you appeal it and it goes up, the reality is that he could get off of everything.

COATES: Well, I'll wait a text from my mother about why I know what voyeurism is. I'll say thank you to both of you. Thank you both.

(LAUGHTER)

ADAMSON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, brand-new information on the man charged in the murder of an Arkansas couple. What he was doing when he was arrested and perhaps, unbelievably, this man is a teacher! A parent of one of his former students will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, it's the kind of revelation that no parent ever expects, and one they'll likely never forget, that the person trusted with caring for their child is now a murder suspect?

That's the case, frankly, for many parents tonight whose kids were taught by 28-year-old Andrew James McGann, the man now under arrest for killing an Arkansas couple while they were on a hike with their two children.

Tonight, new video shows the moment McGann was arrested. It was in a barbershop. This will say that McGann's DNA matched evidence that was left at the scene, and that he admitted to killing the two victims, Clinton and Cristen Brink. They say that he used a knife as the murder weapon.

He's also a school teacher. He had been recently hired as a candidate for the upcoming school year in Arkansas. This is his yearbook photo from when he taught fourth-grade at Donald Elementary School in Texas. That's where he taught the child of my next guest, Sierra Marcum, who joins me now.

Sierra, this is such an unbelievable and heart-wrenching story. And you told us that McGann made your son very uncomfortable when he was a student. Why?

SIERRA MARCUM, PARENT OF FORMER STUDENT TAUGHT BY ARKANSAS MURDER SUSPECT: Yes. It was just some of the things he witnessed that took place in class. And, unfortunately, it wasn't just him who noticed and who he made uncomfortable. It was several of the students in class.

COATES: Like what?

MARCUM: So, he started coming home really depressed from school. And when I finally pushed him for the details, he had told me that over the past few weeks, month, he just noticed Mr. McGann was very touchy with certain girls in the class --

COATES: Hmm.

MARCUM: -- and like to spend extra time with them. He would keep certain kids back, certain girls back at recess for just one-on-one time while the rest of the kids went out to play on the playground. And sometimes, when they'd come back from recess, the little girl would be in his lap. He would also bring certain treats and goodies for these specific girls.

And I think the thing that finally tipped my son over the edge is when he heard Mr. McGann tell one of the girls that if he -- if she was older, he would love to marry her.

COATES: Oh, my God. How long did you observe or hear about this?

MARCUM: Well, when he told me about it, that was the first I had heard of it. It all kind of just came gushing out. And he was scared at the time, you know, because he didn't want to get anyone in trouble. Some kids really loved Mr. McGann, some didn't. He was definitely one of the more laxed teachers. So, he was scared of getting him in trouble, but he knew what he saw made him feel really bad.

COATES: You know, a team did reach out to Louisville Independent School District for comment, and they told us -- quote -- "The individual was placed on administrative leave in the spring of 2023 following concerns related to classroom management, professional judgment, and student favoritism. An internal investigation found no evidence of inappropriate behavior with students. The teacher resigned from the district in May of 2023."

[23:49:55]

Let's fast forward to right now, Sierra, because your son, I understand, was the one who told you he recognized the photo, that he had been arrested for murder? What happened? Tell me about that conversation. MARCUM: Well, he was spending the night with a relative, and he called me and he told me, oh, my God, Mom, Mr. McGann was arrested for a double homicide. And at first, I did not know. I was, like, no. Like, that's crazy. But no, he sent me the article. And it was sad. His voice was shaking when he told me, kind of shook him up.

And yeah, I was -- I was shocked because even though we had had a not great experience with him as a teacher, the level of violence that was in the crime he committed was -- well, it was terrifying.

COATES: I mean, were you surprised to learn that he had gotten another teaching job after resigning from your school?

MARCUM: No, absolutely not, because he was allowed to resign without consequence. And so, I knew that, yeah, he would be able to go on teaching. That was really frustrating.

COATES: Unbelievable. How is your son now and, of course, the friend group dealing with the fact that this was their teacher?

MARCUM: They're doing okay. I think it is just kind of surreal for all of them. They all have like their little group chat going on, and they've kind of just all been talking about it all day. But luckily, there has been some years in between when, you know, he was their teacher and they've been able to put it in the past for the most part.

COATES: Well, your maternal instinct was spot on, Sierra Marcum. You couldn't have predicted this. But thank you.

MARCUM: Thank you so much.

COATES: Still ahead, Donald Trump is bringing back the presidential fitness test for kids. Remember that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ENTEN: Where's the magic wall? That's far easier than this is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Oh, God. Can our own Harry Enten pass the six-year-old version of the test? Find out next!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, everyone, it's coming back. It's the worst. Maybe your best day in gym class. I'm talking about the Presidential Fitness Test. You remember the sit and stretch when you were flexible, the curl ups, the push-ups, the flexed arm hang, the mile run. It all started back in 1966 until President Obama replaced it with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program in 2012. But President Trump, he's bringing the other one back. What got us thinking? How would our own Harry Enten fair against the average male 6-year-old

squares -- scores? Well, we put him to the test.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ENTEN: All right, apparently, we're bringing back the Presidential Fitness Test. So, I've decided, can I actually beat the median sixth- grader from all the way back in 1985?

So, this is the first time that I've been to gym since about 1985. I have to run a quarter of a mile and get this, about two minutes and 11 seconds, I think it is, or two, one. Someone time me? I'm going to make it. I will make it. I did it. Now, how do I shut this thing off? I'm a mean, mean running machine.

So, now, I'm in the be sit and reach part. This is supposedly testing flexibility. This looks basically impossible, but we have the tape measure there. And, apparently, in order to get to the 50th percentile for a 6-year-old, I got to reach to the 16 mark. That's -- ahh!

So, next up is some curl-ups. I got to do 22 of these, 22 in a minute. I'm not quite sure I'm going to be able to do it as I can barely get this yoga mat out. One, 21, 22. I did it! I did it! Look at this. I had a full minute, and I did it in a little bit under 51 seconds. Booyah, baby!

So, now, comes the part I dread most, which is I have to do seven push-ups. My arms are not exactly my strength, despite all my wonderful working out that I've been putting in, all those seconds in the gym up till now. We're going to go down for one, and then two. Oh, my God! It's a miracle! I did it!

So, it has all come down to this. For those of you who don't know what the shuttle run is --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Ready, set, go!

ENTEN: Two markings. Thirty feet apart. I got to go down, pick up one of the blocks as being a Diet Coke, bring it back, place it down, then go back, pick the other one up, and run through the finish line. I did it in 12.59 seconds. I beat it by just less than a second. But you know what? Close to failing is not failing, it's a pass.

All right, so I managed to get four out of five on the presidential fitness test. President Trump, I say bring on the Presidential Fitness Test because you ain't got nothing on me. Cheers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[00:00:04]

COATES: Does Harry have sneakers? Did he have on loafers just now? Okay, cheers, Harry Enten. And thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next. Will he do it?