Phil Holloway

Well, I think the arguments raised by Diddy's lawyers are based on pretty thin tea.

Look, the trial judge has already rejected this exact First Amendment defense prior to the sentencing.

Considering that this did not come up very much, if at all, in the oral arguments, I think speaks to the fact that everyone, the lawyers, and I'm sure the judges understand that this is probably the weaker of the arguments.

So the limited time on oral argument would be better spent from the defense perspective on the arguments that may be stronger.

But it's important to remember that even if these encounters were filmed, the trial evidence, including the testimony,

describe them as part of a pattern involving control, drugs, and pressure on these women.

And you can't use the First Amendment as a shield to get away with underlying conduct that is in and of itself a crime.

The defense would like the court to make some kind of finding that the judge considered specific conduct in his sentencing for which

Did he was acquitted.

He was not convicted of course, of all of the charges.

He was convicted of these man act violations, but the judge.

just like the jurors sat through every day of the trial.

And the judge is not required, nor is he expected to ignore the totality of the evidence in the case when it comes to how he exercises his sentencing discretion.

And on the question of whether Combs could win early release, don't bet on it.

The argument that the sentence is excessive is not going to fly either because the trial judge is vested with broad discretion here.

And

As long as the sentence that was handed down by the judge fits within the statutory sentencing scheme authorized by Congress, the judge is on very solid ground.

In the absence of some strong compelling evidence of abuse of that discretion, the sentence will not be overturned.

And you think it will actually help extend a dog's life?

How long?