Sean Kent

Part of a journalistic process is to reach out to the other side, just so they have their chance to defend themselves or to explain their side of things. If you don't go out for comment, it just kind of creates a one-sided narrative, which as journalists, we don't want that ever.

Part of a journalistic process is to reach out to the other side, just so they have their chance to defend themselves or to explain their side of things. If you don't go out for comment, it just kind of creates a one-sided narrative, which as journalists, we don't want that ever.

So, Phil Pines was an executive assistant for Diddy from 2019 to December 2021. So, it's well after, you know, the video of Diddy attacking Cassie, which he called his low point. And Phil kind of gives the biggest insight into what Diddy's day-to-day life looked like at this period. And Phil alleges that it was drug-fueled, it was...

So, Phil Pines was an executive assistant for Diddy from 2019 to December 2021. So, it's well after, you know, the video of Diddy attacking Cassie, which he called his low point. And Phil kind of gives the biggest insight into what Diddy's day-to-day life looked like at this period. And Phil alleges that it was drug-fueled, it was...

massive partying all the time, women coming and going constantly. I think Phil says that in his two years of intimately working around the clock with Diddy, he maybe saw him sleep alone seven or eight times. And he says that to kind of give us a window into maybe Diddy's mind frame or just what it was like to be around this person. He provided a lot of video or audio notes and

massive partying all the time, women coming and going constantly. I think Phil says that in his two years of intimately working around the clock with Diddy, he maybe saw him sleep alone seven or eight times. And he says that to kind of give us a window into maybe Diddy's mind frame or just what it was like to be around this person. He provided a lot of video or audio notes and

And it's just Diddy constantly requesting Xanax or Adderall or mushroom capsules. Phil says that he was asked to procure drugs and to deliver them to him. A big part of Phil's story were these nights that were called Wild King Nights. And if it sounds similar to Freak Offs, It is similar, but it's a little bit different.

And it's just Diddy constantly requesting Xanax or Adderall or mushroom capsules. Phil says that he was asked to procure drugs and to deliver them to him. A big part of Phil's story were these nights that were called Wild King Nights. And if it sounds similar to Freak Offs, It is similar, but it's a little bit different.

And so Phil kind of explains what he understood was, it was about a month or so in for working for Diddy, and he claims that he got an instruction that he needs baby oil, he needs astroglide, he needs red lights, he needs all these kinds of, I guess, things to set this mood for what would be called wild king nights.

And so Phil kind of explains what he understood was, it was about a month or so in for working for Diddy, and he claims that he got an instruction that he needs baby oil, he needs astroglide, he needs red lights, he needs all these kinds of, I guess, things to set this mood for what would be called wild king nights.

And then afterwards, Phil says he was charged with cleaning up the rooms, and he describes them as complete chaos. Ich glaube, er hat gesagt, es gab Babyöl auf dem Boden, so viel, dass man es aufschlagen konnte, dass es nicht genutzt wurde, dreckige Schuhe mit Urin und körperlichen Füßen und manchmal sogar Blut.

And then afterwards, Phil says he was charged with cleaning up the rooms, and he describes them as complete chaos. Ich glaube, er hat gesagt, es gab Babyöl auf dem Boden, so viel, dass man es aufschlagen konnte, dass es nicht genutzt wurde, dreckige Schuhe mit Urin und körperlichen Füßen und manchmal sogar Blut.

Und er hat gesagt, es war sehr demoralisierend, und man musste für Stunden da rein gehen und dieses Verbrechen sauber machen. Und er hat gesagt, dieser ganze Punkt war, um... was in diesem Raum passiert war.

Und er hat gesagt, es war sehr demoralisierend, und man musste für Stunden da rein gehen und dieses Verbrechen sauber machen. Und er hat gesagt, dieser ganze Punkt war, um... was in diesem Raum passiert war.

Er beurteilt nicht, dass er versteht, dass etwas Unverschämtes geschehen ist, aber er spricht von dem Fakt, dass diese Räume so beschädigt waren, dass es auf ihn ging, und dass er versuchte, die Anzahl der Zerstörung, die in diesem Raum stattfand, zu beurteilen.

Er beurteilt nicht, dass er versteht, dass etwas Unverschämtes geschehen ist, aber er spricht von dem Fakt, dass diese Räume so beschädigt waren, dass es auf ihn ging, und dass er versuchte, die Anzahl der Zerstörung, die in diesem Raum stattfand, zu beurteilen.

Und er macht auch eine wirklich zerstörungsvolle Angelegenheit darüber, wie er sieht, dass diese Partien öffnen und für Tage und Stunden gehen. Phil kündigt einen Fall mit Diddy vor seinem 51. Geburtstag in Turks and Caicos im November 2020. Und Phil sagt, dass Diddy ihn gefragt hat, die roten Lichter aufzusetzen, die er wusste als Code für Wild King Nights.

Und er macht auch eine wirklich zerstörungsvolle Angelegenheit darüber, wie er sieht, dass diese Partien öffnen und für Tage und Stunden gehen. Phil kündigt einen Fall mit Diddy vor seinem 51. Geburtstag in Turks and Caicos im November 2020. Und Phil sagt, dass Diddy ihn gefragt hat, die roten Lichter aufzusetzen, die er wusste als Code für Wild King Nights.

Und er setzt den Raum auf und sagt, dass Diddy den ganzen Tag partiert. Er sagt, dass er ziemlich trank oder ziemlich intoxiziert ist, was er trinkt oder trinkt. And he kind of encourages Phil to take a shot with him, he says. And then Phil's kind of like, it's not that unusual, but it's a little bit unusual. I took the shot. I went downstairs. I sat in the office.

Und er setzt den Raum auf und sagt, dass Diddy den ganzen Tag partiert. Er sagt, dass er ziemlich trank oder ziemlich intoxiziert ist, was er trinkt oder trinkt. And he kind of encourages Phil to take a shot with him, he says. And then Phil's kind of like, it's not that unusual, but it's a little bit unusual. I took the shot. I went downstairs. I sat in the office.

I'm summoned up again to the room. And Phil says he goes up, up to the room. He's encouraged to take another shot. And then Phil alleges that Diddy says, prove your loyalty to me, King. And Phil says that Diddy kind of massages his shoulders as a coach would give a pat on the back to like a player and pushes him towards a woman that was there, a guest.

I'm summoned up again to the room. And Phil says he goes up, up to the room. He's encouraged to take another shot. And then Phil alleges that Diddy says, prove your loyalty to me, King. And Phil says that Diddy kind of massages his shoulders as a coach would give a pat on the back to like a player and pushes him towards a woman that was there, a guest.

Phil sagt, dass er in Angst geflogen war. Das war sein Boss. Er klingt, als hätte er in den letzten Fällen gehört, wo Diddy offensichtlich andere Mitarbeiter getötet hat. Er wusste über Diddys Angst. Und so sagt Phil, dass er aus Angst verabschiedet war. Und er sagt, dass er die Frau sichergestellt hat, dass sie okay war. He engaged for a little bit.

Phil sagt, dass er in Angst geflogen war. Das war sein Boss. Er klingt, als hätte er in den letzten Fällen gehört, wo Diddy offensichtlich andere Mitarbeiter getötet hat. Er wusste über Diddys Angst. Und so sagt Phil, dass er aus Angst verabschiedet war. Und er sagt, dass er die Frau sichergestellt hat, dass sie okay war. He engaged for a little bit.

And then Phil says as soon as he felt it was safe to leave, he didn't see Diddy somehow, that he got out of the room. And he says he ended up leaving in December of 2021. This past December, he filed a lawsuit against Diddy with those same allegations. And so we'll see his case play out. And it's also important to say that Phil has testified for the grand jury.

And then Phil says as soon as he felt it was safe to leave, he didn't see Diddy somehow, that he got out of the room. And he says he ended up leaving in December of 2021. This past December, he filed a lawsuit against Diddy with those same allegations. And so we'll see his case play out. And it's also important to say that Phil has testified for the grand jury.

He has said that in October he was part of this second secret grand jury proceedings that have been going on, which some people believe that could lead to a second indictment with possibly either more charges brought against Diddy or even co-conspirators being named and charged in this whole kind of Racketeering Act. Now, you put these to Diddy's team.

He has said that in October he was part of this second secret grand jury proceedings that have been going on, which some people believe that could lead to a second indictment with possibly either more charges brought against Diddy or even co-conspirators being named and charged in this whole kind of Racketeering Act. Now, you put these to Diddy's team.

What did they respond to you specifically about Phil? Diddy's team said in response to Phil's lawsuit that, you know, he denies any accusations of sexual assault, that he's never assaulted anyone. And they say anyone could file a lawsuit. So they are kind of denying, blanket denying that Diddy ever assaulted anyone or coerced anyone into anything.

What did they respond to you specifically about Phil? Diddy's team said in response to Phil's lawsuit that, you know, he denies any accusations of sexual assault, that he's never assaulted anyone. And they say anyone could file a lawsuit. So they are kind of denying, blanket denying that Diddy ever assaulted anyone or coerced anyone into anything.

Ja, also eine Ex-Frau von Diddy kommt zum ersten Mal vor. Eine ist seine Ex-Frau Kat Pachione. Und sie hatte eine Auf-und-Auf-Verhältnis mit Diddy. Sie sagt, dass sie ihn in Los Angeles um 2016 getroffen hat, aber sie würden bis 2018 nicht wirklich verbunden sein. Sie sagt, sie würde weiterhin diese Beziehung haben. In 2019 waren sie immer zusammen, unvergleichbar, sagt sie.

Ja, also eine Ex-Frau von Diddy kommt zum ersten Mal vor. Eine ist seine Ex-Frau Kat Pachione. Und sie hatte eine Auf-und-Auf-Verhältnis mit Diddy. Sie sagt, dass sie ihn in Los Angeles um 2016 getroffen hat, aber sie würden bis 2018 nicht wirklich verbunden sein. Sie sagt, sie würde weiterhin diese Beziehung haben. In 2019 waren sie immer zusammen, unvergleichbar, sagt sie.

Grace sagt, dass sie ein Stewardess auf diesem Super-Jagd war. Ich glaube, dass die Zertifizierungen manchmal für eine Million Dollar pro Woche laufen. Also dieses sehr luxuriöse Super-Jagd, das Diddy für eine Zeit über die Weihnachten im Jahr 2022 zertifiziert hat. Auf Instagram, ich denke, haben wir alle einige der Posts von Diddy gesehen.

Grace sagt, dass sie ein Stewardess auf diesem Super-Jagd war. Ich glaube, dass die Zertifizierungen manchmal für eine Million Dollar pro Woche laufen. Also dieses sehr luxuriöse Super-Jagd, das Diddy für eine Zeit über die Weihnachten im Jahr 2022 zertifiziert hat. Auf Instagram, ich denke, haben wir alle einige der Posts von Diddy gesehen.

An diesem Zeitpunkt ist er mit seiner neugierigen Tochter in Liebe. Alle seine Kinder sind da, sie skizzen. Er denkt, er sei ein schwarzer Santa. Es ist eine Art dieser lustigen, heiligen Familienreise. Aber Grace beurteilt, dass dieser Charter tatsächlich ein Hellscape war. Sie beurteilt, dass es Sexarbeiter gab, die sich unbewusst um die Yacht herum verletzten.

An diesem Zeitpunkt ist er mit seiner neugierigen Tochter in Liebe. Alle seine Kinder sind da, sie skizzen. Er denkt, er sei ein schwarzer Santa. Es ist eine Art dieser lustigen, heiligen Familienreise. Aber Grace beurteilt, dass dieser Charter tatsächlich ein Hellscape war. Sie beurteilt, dass es Sexarbeiter gab, die sich unbewusst um die Yacht herum verletzten.

Sie sagt, dass sie glaubt, dass einige von den Menschen gedrückt wurden, weil sie nach einem einzigen Schuss oder einem gemischten Trinken, dass diese Frauen überfallen und paniken würden. Und nur zu diesem wirklich chaotischen Umfeld zu sprechen, sie beurteilt, dass es eine Zeit gab, in der eine Frau war,

Sie sagt, dass sie glaubt, dass einige von den Menschen gedrückt wurden, weil sie nach einem einzigen Schuss oder einem gemischten Trinken, dass diese Frauen überfallen und paniken würden. Und nur zu diesem wirklich chaotischen Umfeld zu sprechen, sie beurteilt, dass es eine Zeit gab, in der eine Frau war,

who was a guest on the boat, was crying and locked herself in a room and staffers had to escort her off the boat because the woman allegedly said she wasn't feeling safe there. So this whole charter just sounds like an absolute just mayhem. And Grace alleges that one night that she was, she believes she was drugged and that Christian Combs Und Christian Combs ist Diddys Sohn.

who was a guest on the boat, was crying and locked herself in a room and staffers had to escort her off the boat because the woman allegedly said she wasn't feeling safe there. So this whole charter just sounds like an absolute just mayhem. And Grace alleges that one night that she was, she believes she was drugged and that Christian Combs Und Christian Combs ist Diddys Sohn.

Yes, I spoke with a crew member who corroborated aspects of Grace's story, speaking to the environment on the boat, the crying woman that had to leave, and also knowing about Grace's accusation at the time. Diddy's team haven't formally filed a response to Grace's lawsuit, but in the past their lawyer said that the claims were meritless and that they would be filing a motion to dismiss.

Yes, I spoke with a crew member who corroborated aspects of Grace's story, speaking to the environment on the boat, the crying woman that had to leave, and also knowing about Grace's accusation at the time. Diddy's team haven't formally filed a response to Grace's lawsuit, but in the past their lawyer said that the claims were meritless and that they would be filing a motion to dismiss.

That hasn't happened yet.

That hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, I reached out to both Diddy and Christian Combs and their attorney had previously said that that lawsuit was meritless and that they would be filing a motion to dismiss that hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, I reached out to both Diddy and Christian Combs and their attorney had previously said that that lawsuit was meritless and that they would be filing a motion to dismiss that hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, so Nathan is a sex worker who claims that he was hired for multiple freak-offs with Diddy and Diddy's female guest. He claimed that Diddy would be taking a lot of drugs during these encounters. And I think that's similar to what Phil Pine says of when he was being asked to procure these substances for Diddy and then having to clean them up.

Yeah, so Nathan is a sex worker who claims that he was hired for multiple freak-offs with Diddy and Diddy's female guest. He claimed that Diddy would be taking a lot of drugs during these encounters. And I think that's similar to what Phil Pine says of when he was being asked to procure these substances for Diddy and then having to clean them up.

Nathan provides a window of what was actually happening in that room. And he says... dass Diddy Ecstasy, Ketamin nehmen würde. Und er glaubt, dass Diddy manchmal während dieser Begegnungen sogar schwarz wird, dass er zwischen 2.000 und 5.000 Dollar bezahlt wurde. Und Nathan glaubt, dass... The whole encounters were a little bit staged or very kind of meticulously planned by Diddy.

Nathan provides a window of what was actually happening in that room. And he says... dass Diddy Ecstasy, Ketamin nehmen würde. Und er glaubt, dass Diddy manchmal während dieser Begegnungen sogar schwarz wird, dass er zwischen 2.000 und 5.000 Dollar bezahlt wurde. Und Nathan glaubt, dass... The whole encounters were a little bit staged or very kind of meticulously planned by Diddy.

He claims that Diddy would be positioning them or having instructions of how he should be with the woman. And he claims that Diddy almost acted as a warrior and he would pretend to leave the room and then kind of sneak back in and Und so ist es einfach ein bisschen ein bizarres Fenster, was vielleicht in diesen Wild King Nights oder diesen Freak-Offs passiert ist, so Nathan.

He claims that Diddy would be positioning them or having instructions of how he should be with the woman. And he claims that Diddy almost acted as a warrior and he would pretend to leave the room and then kind of sneak back in and Und so ist es einfach ein bisschen ein bizarres Fenster, was vielleicht in diesen Wild King Nights oder diesen Freak-Offs passiert ist, so Nathan.

Und es gab einige rote Flagge, die das Jahr entlang kamen. Die Pandemie ist passiert und dann kam sie. reconnected with Diddy around 2021. So 2021 is when Diddy is starting his love era. And I think we've seen the Love Off The Grid album. And, you know, he has all these red lights around him.

Und es gab einige rote Flagge, die das Jahr entlang kamen. Die Pandemie ist passiert und dann kam sie. reconnected with Diddy around 2021. So 2021 is when Diddy is starting his love era. And I think we've seen the Love Off The Grid album. And, you know, he has all these red lights around him.

Ja, es gibt jetzt mehrere Menschen, die über Didi's Drogenverwendung sprechen. Und Didi und sein eigenes Team haben bemerkt, dass Didi, besonders im Jahr 2016, dass es ein Drogenproblem gab und er zur Reha ging und Therapie besucht hat, um diese Probleme zu beantworten, was hervorragend ist.

Ja, es gibt jetzt mehrere Menschen, die über Didi's Drogenverwendung sprechen. Und Didi und sein eigenes Team haben bemerkt, dass Didi, besonders im Jahr 2016, dass es ein Drogenproblem gab und er zur Reha ging und Therapie besucht hat, um diese Probleme zu beantworten, was hervorragend ist.

dass, ja, vielleicht ging er zur Reha und er bekam Betreuung, aber Jahre nach dem Jahr 2016, glauben sie, dass er immer noch mit mächtigen Drogen gearbeitet hat, die seinen Verhalten beeinflusst hatten.

dass, ja, vielleicht ging er zur Reha und er bekam Betreuung, aber Jahre nach dem Jahr 2016, glauben sie, dass er immer noch mit mächtigen Drogen gearbeitet hat, die seinen Verhalten beeinflusst hatten.

Sie antworteten nicht auf den Rekord zu Nathans Angelegenheiten, aber sie haben vorhin beurteilt, dass Sean Combs jemanden sexuell verabschiedet hat. Und ich muss noch dazu sagen, dass Diddy's Attorney gesagt hat, dass, weißt du, also was, wenn sein Sexleben ungewöhnlich ist? Diese sind alle verabschiedete Ärzte in diesen Räumen.

Sie antworteten nicht auf den Rekord zu Nathans Angelegenheiten, aber sie haben vorhin beurteilt, dass Sean Combs jemanden sexuell verabschiedet hat. Und ich muss noch dazu sagen, dass Diddy's Attorney gesagt hat, dass, weißt du, also was, wenn sein Sexleben ungewöhnlich ist? Diese sind alle verabschiedete Ärzte in diesen Räumen.

Und die Regierung sollte nicht in die Wohnzimmer der Menschen blicken und sie auf das, was sie wollen, verurteilen, wenn jeder legal ist.

Und die Regierung sollte nicht in die Wohnzimmer der Menschen blicken und sie auf das, was sie wollen, verurteilen, wenn jeder legal ist.

Was hat Nicole, die sie erlebt hat, erlebt? Nicole claims that she was in a relationship with Diddy from 2020, kind of right up until his arrest. And in fact, she says, you know, the weekend he was arrested, hours before he was arrested, he had been contacting her, she says, and trying to convince her to come to New York City so that they could talk.

Was hat Nicole, die sie erlebt hat, erlebt? Nicole claims that she was in a relationship with Diddy from 2020, kind of right up until his arrest. And in fact, she says, you know, the weekend he was arrested, hours before he was arrested, he had been contacting her, she says, and trying to convince her to come to New York City so that they could talk.

Und sie sagt, dass die letzte Zeit, als sie Diddy gesehen hat, war im Juli 2024 in seinem Haus in Miami. Und das ist nach den Raiden auf seinem Haus. Das sind Monate, bevor er verhaftet wurde. Und sie sagt, dass sie zu seinem Haus kam. Er hat zwei unbekannte Pillen in den Brust gelegt oder sie hat sie einfach diese Pillen genommen. Und sie glaubt, dass sie verblüfft ist.

Und sie sagt, dass die letzte Zeit, als sie Diddy gesehen hat, war im Juli 2024 in seinem Haus in Miami. Und das ist nach den Raiden auf seinem Haus. Das sind Monate, bevor er verhaftet wurde. Und sie sagt, dass sie zu seinem Haus kam. Er hat zwei unbekannte Pillen in den Brust gelegt oder sie hat sie einfach diese Pillen genommen. Und sie glaubt, dass sie verblüfft ist.

Sie hat nichts an dieser Nacht in Erinnerung. Außer an einigen Stellen in Erinnerung, wo sie glaubt hat, dass Diddy sie allgemein gefragt hat, einen anderen Mann in die Beziehung zu bringen oder eine andere Person in die Beziehung zu bringen. Und sie glaubt, das ist wirklich alles, was sie an dieser Nacht erinnert. Und sie sagt, das ist die letzte Zeit, als sie ihn gesehen hat.

Sie hat nichts an dieser Nacht in Erinnerung. Außer an einigen Stellen in Erinnerung, wo sie glaubt hat, dass Diddy sie allgemein gefragt hat, einen anderen Mann in die Beziehung zu bringen oder eine andere Person in die Beziehung zu bringen. Und sie glaubt, das ist wirklich alles, was sie an dieser Nacht erinnert. Und sie sagt, das ist die letzte Zeit, als sie ihn gesehen hat.

Bis, du weißt, bevor er verhaftet wurde. Sie glaubt, dass er auf sie aufmerksam war und versucht hat, sie nach New York zu bringen. Ich sollte noch sagen, dass eine Woche danach, als er verhaftet wurde... Nicole filed her own lawsuit alleging sexual battery, sexual assault, among other accusations. Was she filed as a Jane Doe?

Bis, du weißt, bevor er verhaftet wurde. Sie glaubt, dass er auf sie aufmerksam war und versucht hat, sie nach New York zu bringen. Ich sollte noch sagen, dass eine Woche danach, als er verhaftet wurde... Nicole filed her own lawsuit alleging sexual battery, sexual assault, among other accusations. Was she filed as a Jane Doe?

We did not receive an on the record response from Diddy's team regarding Nicole's accusation. However, he has adamantly denied in the past that he's ever sexually assaulted or abused anyone.

We did not receive an on the record response from Diddy's team regarding Nicole's accusation. However, he has adamantly denied in the past that he's ever sexually assaulted or abused anyone.

And Kat says that she was actually there for when he was first kind of putting the wheels on the truck of what would be the love album. And she says this was summer 2021. They were in Malibu in this like amazing mansion and working on this music and she claims that Diddy started doing a drug called 2C. It's a combination frequently of ketamine and ecstasy.

And Kat says that she was actually there for when he was first kind of putting the wheels on the truck of what would be the love album. And she says this was summer 2021. They were in Malibu in this like amazing mansion and working on this music and she claims that Diddy started doing a drug called 2C. It's a combination frequently of ketamine and ecstasy.

It's pink, it's powdery, sometimes called pink cocaine, but Kat says that he was taking it all that last night she was there. And she claims that she went to bed, he continued on partying, and then he came looking for her. She just describes that it wasn't consensual. There was diary entries that she writes that he turned into a monster, that he wouldn't listen to my no.

It's pink, it's powdery, sometimes called pink cocaine, but Kat says that he was taking it all that last night she was there. And she claims that she went to bed, he continued on partying, and then he came looking for her. She just describes that it wasn't consensual. There was diary entries that she writes that he turned into a monster, that he wouldn't listen to my no.

And I think we all get the gist of what she means by that. So this is a really harrowing encounter she describes where, yeah, she says it's non-consensual and that she vowed to never see him again afterward.

And I think we all get the gist of what she means by that. So this is a really harrowing encounter she describes where, yeah, she says it's non-consensual and that she vowed to never see him again afterward.

Not to my knowledge, no. I think he gave kind of a blanket denial that his team keep using, which says that he has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone. They say man, woman, adult or minor. So across the board, they deny that Diddy has ever sexually assaulted anyone.

Not to my knowledge, no. I think he gave kind of a blanket denial that his team keep using, which says that he has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone. They say man, woman, adult or minor. So across the board, they deny that Diddy has ever sexually assaulted anyone.

Ja, in den Diary-Einträgen schreibt Kat von diesem Zeitpunkt, im Juni 2021, was sie in diesem Moment gefühlt hat. Und dann sagt sie tatsächlich zwei Wochen später, und sie dokumentiert das auch in ihrem Diary, dass sie einen Anruf von einem Teamleiter von Diddy bekommen hat. Und Diddy springt auf den Telefon und er bedroht sie und sagt, dass er sie zurück nach Kanada deportieren könnte.

Ja, in den Diary-Einträgen schreibt Kat von diesem Zeitpunkt, im Juni 2021, was sie in diesem Moment gefühlt hat. Und dann sagt sie tatsächlich zwei Wochen später, und sie dokumentiert das auch in ihrem Diary, dass sie einen Anruf von einem Teamleiter von Diddy bekommen hat. Und Diddy springt auf den Telefon und er bedroht sie und sagt, dass er sie zurück nach Kanada deportieren könnte.

Und auf die Länge, wenn du nicht weißt, mit wem du redest. Und so sind all diese Dinge in ihrem Journal dargestellt, die sie als eine Art Korroboration für ihre Geschichte zeigt.

Und auf die Länge, wenn du nicht weißt, mit wem du redest. Und so sind all diese Dinge in ihrem Journal dargestellt, die sie als eine Art Korroboration für ihre Geschichte zeigt.

Who is Ariel? Courtney is described as a fringe player in the hip-hop media space. He has emerged as part of this Diddy universe as claiming that he was the one who was given Kim Porters, Diddy's late ex-partner, her diary. If you remember from earlier episodes, this diary caused A lot of headlines. There's a ton of uncorroborated salacious claims in it.

Who is Ariel? Courtney is described as a fringe player in the hip-hop media space. He has emerged as part of this Diddy universe as claiming that he was the one who was given Kim Porters, Diddy's late ex-partner, her diary. If you remember from earlier episodes, this diary caused A lot of headlines. There's a ton of uncorroborated salacious claims in it.

And Courtney has emerged in saying that he was kind of part of the group or the person that actually had these, you know, quote unquote, lost files of Kim. So that is who he is. And then the fall, uh, Courtney pops up with his attorney in New York City, saying that he had a subpoena and that he was going to testify for this grand jury.

And Courtney has emerged in saying that he was kind of part of the group or the person that actually had these, you know, quote unquote, lost files of Kim. So that is who he is. And then the fall, uh, Courtney pops up with his attorney in New York City, saying that he had a subpoena and that he was going to testify for this grand jury.

The reason why that is odd is because grand juries are supposed to be completely secret. And then you have a supposed witness standing up outside the courtroom with cameras in his face saying, I just testified. And he also claimed to have alleged videos of Diddy allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with people.

The reason why that is odd is because grand juries are supposed to be completely secret. And then you have a supposed witness standing up outside the courtroom with cameras in his face saying, I just testified. And he also claimed to have alleged videos of Diddy allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with people.

So it's a really bombshell claim and it hasn't, to my knowledge, hasn't been corroborated. And Ariel Mitchell-Kidd ist sein Anwalt, der mit ihm dort im Gerichtssaal darüber gesprochen hat, über diese verhandelten Videos.

So it's a really bombshell claim and it hasn't, to my knowledge, hasn't been corroborated. And Ariel Mitchell-Kidd ist sein Anwalt, der mit ihm dort im Gerichtssaal darüber gesprochen hat, über diese verhandelten Videos.

Aber sie repräsentiert auch noch einen Diddy-Angeber, Ashley Parham, die in einem Peacock-Dokumentarium vorgegangen ist, über ihre verhandelte Erfahrung mit Diddy im Jahr 2018 in der San Francisco-Region.

Aber sie repräsentiert auch noch einen Diddy-Angeber, Ashley Parham, die in einem Peacock-Dokumentarium vorgegangen ist, über ihre verhandelte Erfahrung mit Diddy im Jahr 2018 in der San Francisco-Region.

Nathan glaubt, dass die ganzen Begegnungen von Diddy unvermeidbar geplant wurden. Er glaubt, dass Diddy fast als Krieger geschehen wäre. Und dass er sich verliebt hätte, um in den Raum zu gehen und sich auf seine Hände und Füße zu schlagen, als ob er etwas sieht, was er vielleicht nicht sehen sollte.

Nathan glaubt, dass die ganzen Begegnungen von Diddy unvermeidbar geplant wurden. Er glaubt, dass Diddy fast als Krieger geschehen wäre. Und dass er sich verliebt hätte, um in den Raum zu gehen und sich auf seine Hände und Füße zu schlagen, als ob er etwas sieht, was er vielleicht nicht sehen sollte.

And you're exactly right, and I'm glad Cheyenne said that because a class action is different because that's the whole class of people getting together and saying, we have a uniform goal. This is our goal. This is if we're suing an oil company or something like that, and we get a big pot of money and we all split it. The problem with this is these are all separate lawsuits.

And you're exactly right, and I'm glad Cheyenne said that because a class action is different because that's the whole class of people getting together and saying, we have a uniform goal. This is our goal. This is if we're suing an oil company or something like that, and we get a big pot of money and we all split it. The problem with this is these are all separate lawsuits.

They all have separate voices. They all have a separate right to be heard. And so when you're bringing them each individually— they each have their own day in court. And so I think that's kind of why he's leaking them out the way. And again, I'm not saying anything. It's a phenomenal law firm. They do an amazing job.

They all have separate voices. They all have a separate right to be heard. And so when you're bringing them each individually— they each have their own day in court. And so I think that's kind of why he's leaking them out the way. And again, I'm not saying anything. It's a phenomenal law firm. They do an amazing job.

But the problem is each person's individual story is getting sunk in the other person's story.

But the problem is each person's individual story is getting sunk in the other person's story.

We do this all the time as lawyers. Those are called demands. I mean, I've sent the same demands out. It says, before I file this lawsuit, would you like to settle this case? And so that's going to be his argument. It's not extortion if I'm coming to you and saying, I'm going to file it, but if you want to settle it beforehand, this is the amount.

We do this all the time as lawyers. Those are called demands. I mean, I've sent the same demands out. It says, before I file this lawsuit, would you like to settle this case? And so that's going to be his argument. It's not extortion if I'm coming to you and saying, I'm going to file it, but if you want to settle it beforehand, this is the amount.

All lawyers do that, and all good lawyers do that, because we don't want to bog down the civil system with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Most lawsuits in America settle. Most criminal cases plea. Everything's not a trial. Everything's not sensational. Everything's not the trial of a century. People work out cases. And that could be what's happening.

All lawyers do that, and all good lawyers do that, because we don't want to bog down the civil system with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Most lawsuits in America settle. Most criminal cases plea. Everything's not a trial. Everything's not sensational. Everything's not the trial of a century. People work out cases. And that could be what's happening.

Just like, look, I sent you a settlement offer. You don't want it? Fine. I'll file my lawsuit.

Just like, look, I sent you a settlement offer. You don't want it? Fine. I'll file my lawsuit.

My advice would have been to keep his mouth shut. I am never a fan of clients talking early because what ends up happening is we go back in history and we look at the Cassie video. I never assaulted her. I never did anything. I never did anything wrong. And then he catches himself doing what? Apologizing, saying, I'm sorry. This is the worst moment of my life.

My advice would have been to keep his mouth shut. I am never a fan of clients talking early because what ends up happening is we go back in history and we look at the Cassie video. I never assaulted her. I never did anything. I never did anything wrong. And then he catches himself doing what? Apologizing, saying, I'm sorry. This is the worst moment of my life.

And that's a publicist team who came to his rescue. Nobody believed the statement. Nobody believed what he said. And as the criminal defense lawyer, If he chooses to take the stand that now can be used against him, you have lied. You lied to the public. You lied to everybody about your involvement. And had the video not came out, you would have kept lying. What else are you going to lie about?

And that's a publicist team who came to his rescue. Nobody believed the statement. Nobody believed what he said. And as the criminal defense lawyer, If he chooses to take the stand that now can be used against him, you have lied. You lied to the public. You lied to everybody about your involvement. And had the video not came out, you would have kept lying. What else are you going to lie about?

That's one of the major reasons. I just don't like clients saying anything whatsoever.

That's one of the major reasons. I just don't like clients saying anything whatsoever.

My gut reaction is no. For this reason, one, because these are still judges, they are still humans. And so for the judge to say yes, he basically would have to say that the other two judges were wrong, who said no. I thought the best argument that the defense team made was referencing the Michael Jeffries case and the Bail Reform Act. I thought that was the best argument they made.

My gut reaction is no. For this reason, one, because these are still judges, they are still humans. And so for the judge to say yes, he basically would have to say that the other two judges were wrong, who said no. I thought the best argument that the defense team made was referencing the Michael Jeffries case and the Bail Reform Act. I thought that was the best argument they made.

In our United States, it's very simple. All defendants are to be treated the same. Period. Whether you like him, whether you don't like him. If you looked at the Michael Jeffries Abercrombie case, he was given a $10 million bond and they agreed to it right down the road in New York and allowed him to turn himself in. And we can nitpick it all we want, but the allegations are strikingly similar.

In our United States, it's very simple. All defendants are to be treated the same. Period. Whether you like him, whether you don't like him. If you looked at the Michael Jeffries Abercrombie case, he was given a $10 million bond and they agreed to it right down the road in New York and allowed him to turn himself in. And we can nitpick it all we want, but the allegations are strikingly similar.

The big difference is this. The 80-year-old Mike Jeffrey, former CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, was accused of sex trafficking or being currently accused of sex trafficking much in the similar way that Mr. Combs is. They're saying that he used his money and coercion to coerce young models to come across the seas and go into all of these shoots to engage in for his sexual appetite.

The big difference is this. The 80-year-old Mike Jeffrey, former CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, was accused of sex trafficking or being currently accused of sex trafficking much in the similar way that Mr. Combs is. They're saying that he used his money and coercion to coerce young models to come across the seas and go into all of these shoots to engage in for his sexual appetite.

Basically the same exact thing they're alleging against Combs. which is going to be the central defense in both of these cases, coercion. Were these people actually coerced, or was it more of a quid pro quo saying, I got something for something, and now I'm upset about it 20 years down the road?

Basically the same exact thing they're alleging against Combs. which is going to be the central defense in both of these cases, coercion. Were these people actually coerced, or was it more of a quid pro quo saying, I got something for something, and now I'm upset about it 20 years down the road?

The difference is, one, they're saying the allegations against Mr. Jeffries were quite some time ago, and he hasn't been engaged in this criminal enterprise for some years. They're saying Mr. Combs was still engaged in it earlier this year. Two, they're saying he did not resort to violence or threats or anything of that nature.

The difference is, one, they're saying the allegations against Mr. Jeffries were quite some time ago, and he hasn't been engaged in this criminal enterprise for some years. They're saying Mr. Combs was still engaged in it earlier this year. Two, they're saying he did not resort to violence or threats or anything of that nature.

They're saying Mr. Combs and all of this stuff he does with violence and threats and intimidating people. And probably the scarier part is when they raided Combs' house, they found a bunch of guns with obliterated serial numbers. And they're saying this guy just wants to be a gangster. So, yes, the cases are similar, but the underlying background facts are much different.

They're saying Mr. Combs and all of this stuff he does with violence and threats and intimidating people. And probably the scarier part is when they raided Combs' house, they found a bunch of guns with obliterated serial numbers. And they're saying this guy just wants to be a gangster. So, yes, the cases are similar, but the underlying background facts are much different.

The question I have is that I've been hearing all over my social media posts and from others is, was Sean Puff Daddy's daddy, Sean Puff Daddy's daddy, was he friends with the notorious Harlem gangster Frank Lucas played by Denzel Washington in American Gangster, one of the great movies? Is that fact or is that fiction?

The question I have is that I've been hearing all over my social media posts and from others is, was Sean Puff Daddy's daddy, Sean Puff Daddy's daddy, was he friends with the notorious Harlem gangster Frank Lucas played by Denzel Washington in American Gangster, one of the great movies? Is that fact or is that fiction?

Goodbye. Thank you so much for having me again.

Goodbye. Thank you so much for having me again.

Gosh, I never thought I would answer that question, but yeah, sadly it has. Overwhelmed by the Diddy saga, if you will.

Gosh, I never thought I would answer that question, but yeah, sadly it has. Overwhelmed by the Diddy saga, if you will.

I can't even sit here and say that it was a pre-planned situation. I was sitting in my office one early morning. I read the indictment. I think I just happened to be one of the first people to read the indictment, as I do a lot of times. You know, these indictments are just stories. And so you read the story, and all of a sudden as I'm reading it, I had to read it a couple of times.

I can't even sit here and say that it was a pre-planned situation. I was sitting in my office one early morning. I read the indictment. I think I just happened to be one of the first people to read the indictment, as I do a lot of times. You know, these indictments are just stories. And so you read the story, and all of a sudden as I'm reading it, I had to read it a couple of times.

I'm like, did I just say baby oil? Wait, that just said baby oil. And then I just made a quick story, not thinking anything about it. And after making it, it just blew up. Because I think for a lot of people, we have to demystify the criminal procedure because it is exciting. But there still is a procedure that we go through.

I'm like, did I just say baby oil? Wait, that just said baby oil. And then I just made a quick story, not thinking anything about it. And after making it, it just blew up. Because I think for a lot of people, we have to demystify the criminal procedure because it is exciting. But there still is a procedure that we go through.

And I said, let me just try to explain not the sensational aspects, but the legal aspects of what's actually going on. And it's just taken off.

And I said, let me just try to explain not the sensational aspects, but the legal aspects of what's actually going on. And it's just taken off.

Don't forget, he still is innocent. I know we have heard all of these awful allegations against him, but he still is innocent. And our Constitution is very strong on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. And what people mistake is the Constitution actually says it suggests that

Don't forget, he still is innocent. I know we have heard all of these awful allegations against him, but he still is innocent. And our Constitution is very strong on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. And what people mistake is the Constitution actually says it suggests that

you should get a bond and you should get a personal recognizance bond, which means you're supposed to be allowed out on your own recognizance because we don't want a system in which the government can come and just lock everybody up and say, ha ha, you stay in there because you'd have a system in which our leaders could go after their political rivals, their criminal rivals, and just lock people up.

you should get a bond and you should get a personal recognizance bond, which means you're supposed to be allowed out on your own recognizance because we don't want a system in which the government can come and just lock everybody up and say, ha ha, you stay in there because you'd have a system in which our leaders could go after their political rivals, their criminal rivals, and just lock people up.

And so we created a system that says everybody is presumed to get a bond unless you are a danger to the community and a risk of flight. And that's what I think the government has done a really good job of. But what they have shown is since he's been incarcerated, he ain't following the rules.

And so we created a system that says everybody is presumed to get a bond unless you are a danger to the community and a risk of flight. And that's what I think the government has done a really good job of. But what they have shown is since he's been incarcerated, he ain't following the rules.

And they're like, if he's not following the rules while he's in jail, what the heck makes you think he's going to follow the rules if we let him out? And if he's not going to follow the rules while he's out, you put him on Old Star Island, he's beating feet and he's taking off. And that's what the judge said. I'm not putting this dude on an island next to water where he can take off. So...

And they're like, if he's not following the rules while he's in jail, what the heck makes you think he's going to follow the rules if we let him out? And if he's not going to follow the rules while he's out, you put him on Old Star Island, he's beating feet and he's taking off. And that's what the judge said. I'm not putting this dude on an island next to water where he can take off. So...

Risk of flight is the big one. And then the next and the government filings have been replete from examples. And Cheyenne, correct me, I think they went back to like 1990 something talking about his history of violence and the things that he has done over and over and over. And I said, this is a violent human being. Don't let him out.

Risk of flight is the big one. And then the next and the government filings have been replete from examples. And Cheyenne, correct me, I think they went back to like 1990 something talking about his history of violence and the things that he has done over and over and over. And I said, this is a violent human being. Don't let him out.

I think it's more damaging to his trial experience. than it is to his bond. I know that sounds weird to say, but I think it is much more damaging to his trial than it is to his bond. People don't like the way it sounds, but that's why the defense is saying he's not a danger to the community.

I think it's more damaging to his trial experience. than it is to his bond. I know that sounds weird to say, but I think it is much more damaging to his trial than it is to his bond. People don't like the way it sounds, but that's why the defense is saying he's not a danger to the community.

He's a danger to Cassie, you know, and their loving relationship, and they're no longer in that relationship anymore. The danger to the community is him contacting the witnesses, you know, him talking to the witnesses, him intimidating people who are going to testify. Whether you believe the Busby lawsuits or don't believe the Busby lawsuits,

He's a danger to Cassie, you know, and their loving relationship, and they're no longer in that relationship anymore. The danger to the community is him contacting the witnesses, you know, him talking to the witnesses, him intimidating people who are going to testify. Whether you believe the Busby lawsuits or don't believe the Busby lawsuits,

Some folks who come out and say, we feel better coming out and telling our story now that his tail is locked up. And if he is out, we probably wouldn't have told our story. So I think that's a situation that, and I hate, and I'm not knocking the Cassie video whatsoever, But their allegation is, this happened in an awful relationship. This is not a butt-naked baby or a freak-off party.

Some folks who come out and say, we feel better coming out and telling our story now that his tail is locked up. And if he is out, we probably wouldn't have told our story. So I think that's a situation that, and I hate, and I'm not knocking the Cassie video whatsoever, But their allegation is, this happened in an awful relationship. This is not a butt-naked baby or a freak-off party.

This is two people who have an awful relationship that it's like a song. You know, don't you hate the way we fight? They're fighting each other. That's their allegation. I don't know if it's strong in public opinion, but for a judge, and that's why the judge is like... It kind of got a point there. I think what hurts more though on that video is the fact that he lied about it.

This is two people who have an awful relationship that it's like a song. You know, don't you hate the way we fight? They're fighting each other. That's their allegation. I don't know if it's strong in public opinion, but for a judge, and that's why the judge is like... It kind of got a point there. I think what hurts more though on that video is the fact that he lied about it.

Let's make that clear. His history of lying about the video, it's not that he came out immediately. Remember, he called Cassie a liar, everything from a son of God, and said, she's a liar, she's a liar, she's a liar. The video came out and he's like, I'm so sorry, I apologize. I think that hurt some more. Here's the best example.

Let's make that clear. His history of lying about the video, it's not that he came out immediately. Remember, he called Cassie a liar, everything from a son of God, and said, she's a liar, she's a liar, she's a liar. The video came out and he's like, I'm so sorry, I apologize. I think that hurt some more. Here's the best example.

He went into court and said, I won't contact any witnesses, and then contacted witnesses. Now, he may have a legal right to contact witnesses, but if you tell a court I'm not going to do something and then you do it, how can I trust you not to do anything there? If you are going to lie about the simple, how do I know you're not going to lie about the complicated?

He went into court and said, I won't contact any witnesses, and then contacted witnesses. Now, he may have a legal right to contact witnesses, but if you tell a court I'm not going to do something and then you do it, how can I trust you not to do anything there? If you are going to lie about the simple, how do I know you're not going to lie about the complicated?

That's the problem, and that's the problem his lawyers have with him is they can't control him.

That's the problem, and that's the problem his lawyers have with him is they can't control him.

Yeah, I mean, the simplest way is the federal cases are about your freedom. The civil cases are about finances and about money. These civil folks feel as though that they were wronged, that they were wronged to the point that they have been psychologically, emotionally, and physically harmed by one person and his cohorts and his employees.

Yeah, I mean, the simplest way is the federal cases are about your freedom. The civil cases are about finances and about money. These civil folks feel as though that they were wronged, that they were wronged to the point that they have been psychologically, emotionally, and physically harmed by one person and his cohorts and his employees.

company and his business holdings and we need to be financially taken care of. The worst example I can say is almost like Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall and he fell and you can't put him back together. He's always going to have cracks. These people have said this has been years since this has happened, but the harm that he has done to us has caused such cracks in us.

company and his business holdings and we need to be financially taken care of. The worst example I can say is almost like Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall and he fell and you can't put him back together. He's always going to have cracks. These people have said this has been years since this has happened, but the harm that he has done to us has caused such cracks in us.

We want to be financially taken care of.

We want to be financially taken care of.

So according to the Epstein list, I think there's a chance that this list is never going to exist and never going to see the light of day. And I'm not saying any of these names have anything to do with it. Let's just say Kermit the Frog is a celebrity and Kermit the Frog went to a ditty party and left at 10 p.m. And then there's a video of him leaving the party.

So according to the Epstein list, I think there's a chance that this list is never going to exist and never going to see the light of day. And I'm not saying any of these names have anything to do with it. Let's just say Kermit the Frog is a celebrity and Kermit the Frog went to a ditty party and left at 10 p.m. And then there's a video of him leaving the party.

Of course, Kermit's thinking and his publicist is thinking, good God, if I'm even mentioned, I'm going to be destroyed. Look at all the names that are just randomly mentioned. And they're like, What do we do? And so Busby, by saying this, and I think potentially by sending these letters to these celebrities and say, pay us and we won't mention you, I think it's right on the line of extortion.

Of course, Kermit's thinking and his publicist is thinking, good God, if I'm even mentioned, I'm going to be destroyed. Look at all the names that are just randomly mentioned. And they're like, What do we do? And so Busby, by saying this, and I think potentially by sending these letters to these celebrities and say, pay us and we won't mention you, I think it's right on the line of extortion.

You better have some strong, strong facts for the suggestion they actually had something to do with this.

You better have some strong, strong facts for the suggestion they actually had something to do with this.

So if I'm a legitimate victim who's bringing these claims and I'm seeing my lawyer stumble his way around something that simple, it gives me pause. If I'm a jury watching this, it gives me pause. If I'm Diddy's lawyers, it gives me pause. It's just a bad look.

So if I'm a legitimate victim who's bringing these claims and I'm seeing my lawyer stumble his way around something that simple, it gives me pause. If I'm a jury watching this, it gives me pause. If I'm Diddy's lawyers, it gives me pause. It's just a bad look.

Absolutely. I think what has ended up happening and this is the danger of going against somebody with the power and financial resources of Jay-Z. What ended up happening is I'm sure his legal team looked for every possible mistake there was. And probably Busby has done this a million times. It's not that big of a deal. Probably other lawyers don't catch it.

Absolutely. I think what has ended up happening and this is the danger of going against somebody with the power and financial resources of Jay-Z. What ended up happening is I'm sure his legal team looked for every possible mistake there was. And probably Busby has done this a million times. It's not that big of a deal. Probably other lawyers don't catch it.

They're like and it's I guarantee you is exactly what Busby said. I'm licensed in New York. I'm licensed in Eastern District of New York. I'm going to end up licensed in Southern District of New York. It's not that big of a deal. And probably most folks won't count it. But when you're probably paying millions in legal fees, they found the smallest detail.

They're like and it's I guarantee you is exactly what Busby said. I'm licensed in New York. I'm licensed in Eastern District of New York. I'm going to end up licensed in Southern District of New York. It's not that big of a deal. And probably most folks won't count it. But when you're probably paying millions in legal fees, they found the smallest detail.

They drove a truck through it and it has affected him. Probably there's an assistant or somebody in his office currently getting cursed out because they didn't get that small little detail done. And yes, there's no doubt in my mind this detail will affect all of his other cases. Because of a credibility issue.

They drove a truck through it and it has affected him. Probably there's an assistant or somebody in his office currently getting cursed out because they didn't get that small little detail done. And yes, there's no doubt in my mind this detail will affect all of his other cases. Because of a credibility issue.

And that's the problem with making yourself the face of these lawsuits and making this 1-800 number and making it about me rather than making it about the individual victims. Because all of their credibility, whether they said a word or not, is all now getting called into question.

And that's the problem with making yourself the face of these lawsuits and making this 1-800 number and making it about me rather than making it about the individual victims. Because all of their credibility, whether they said a word or not, is all now getting called into question.

And that is not me using some fancy accent. That is literally pro hoc vice. It is a Latin phrase for for this matter only is just to be used if you are not licensed or not allowed to practice in an area. You just get someone permission just to say, you know what? Come on over for this matter only because you are allowed to have any attorney you want. You know, as a person, pick who you want.

And that is not me using some fancy accent. That is literally pro hoc vice. It is a Latin phrase for for this matter only is just to be used if you are not licensed or not allowed to practice in an area. You just get someone permission just to say, you know what? Come on over for this matter only because you are allowed to have any attorney you want. You know, as a person, pick who you want.

You shouldn't be forced. And so that's the point of this function is allow somebody to come in for that specific matter only. And the court has basically signaled that they're not happy with it.

You shouldn't be forced. And so that's the point of this function is allow somebody to come in for that specific matter only. And the court has basically signaled that they're not happy with it.

Remember what I said? It's for this matter only. So that's what it is for this matter. So he would have to technically for each of those cases file a pro hoc motion because remember, Jay-Z's motion didn't throw all the cases out. It was just about his case. And so technically, you would have to tell the court each case you want to appear on and why. And he filed out none for any of them.

Remember what I said? It's for this matter only. So that's what it is for this matter. So he would have to technically for each of those cases file a pro hoc motion because remember, Jay-Z's motion didn't throw all the cases out. It was just about his case. And so technically, you would have to tell the court each case you want to appear on and why. And he filed out none for any of them.

Do I believe it's realistic? Probably not. Mostly based upon her statement. Because her statement is very, a very, very strong denial. And if the prosecutors were going to meet with her and put her on the stand, you would assume her statement would have been so bold as I've never done anything wrong whatsoever because it was open her up for cross examinations. And why did you lie in the statement?

Do I believe it's realistic? Probably not. Mostly based upon her statement. Because her statement is very, a very, very strong denial. And if the prosecutors were going to meet with her and put her on the stand, you would assume her statement would have been so bold as I've never done anything wrong whatsoever because it was open her up for cross examinations. And why did you lie in the statement?

And now you're lying on the stand. I don't. I mean, and that's just my gut reaction.

And now you're lying on the stand. I don't. I mean, and that's just my gut reaction.

Yes and no, because remember, anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can make allegations that they want to. And so they are in a way corroborating each other's lawsuit by facts. But there is no independent evidence corroborating what they're saying. So it'd be like I could bring a lawsuit today and say she did the same thing to me and Diddy's did the same thing.

Yes and no, because remember, anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can make allegations that they want to. And so they are in a way corroborating each other's lawsuit by facts. But there is no independent evidence corroborating what they're saying. So it'd be like I could bring a lawsuit today and say she did the same thing to me and Diddy's did the same thing.

So technically it's corroborating, but it's just me. It could also be me just parroting things that other people have said.

So technically it's corroborating, but it's just me. It could also be me just parroting things that other people have said.

That is such a great question because there's a difference between state system and federal system. And in the state system, you can claim ignorance. But in the federal system, there's something called willful blindness, which means if you willfully do this and are hiding, they can still prosecute you for it. So if you like exactly what you said, you can.

That is such a great question because there's a difference between state system and federal system. And in the state system, you can claim ignorance. But in the federal system, there's something called willful blindness, which means if you willfully do this and are hiding, they can still prosecute you for it. So if you like exactly what you said, you can.

She willfully blinds herself, and that's something that the federal prosecutors will tell the jury that, nah, she knew what was going on or knew or should have known what's going on. So, yeah, she can't extricate herself from the situation and think that absolves all liability. She still would be in trouble if they chose to charge her under that scenario.

She willfully blinds herself, and that's something that the federal prosecutors will tell the jury that, nah, she knew what was going on or knew or should have known what's going on. So, yeah, she can't extricate herself from the situation and think that absolves all liability. She still would be in trouble if they chose to charge her under that scenario.

One would think, and that's something that people need to understand is a lot of times, and I was a prosecutor, what we end up doing is, and maybe this is just assumptions, maybe they met with her, maybe they talked to her, and then they said, you know what, we cannot prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the civil standard, which is more likely than not. Both things.

One would think, and that's something that people need to understand is a lot of times, and I was a prosecutor, what we end up doing is, and maybe this is just assumptions, maybe they met with her, maybe they talked to her, and then they said, you know what, we cannot prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the civil standard, which is more likely than not. Both things.

So a lot of folks are saying, well, they didn't go after a criminal, which means her civil case isn't true. Well, both things can be independently true. A civil case is brought if it's more likely than not that something happened. To prosecute her criminally or make her a co-conspirator, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So a lot of folks are saying, well, they didn't go after a criminal, which means her civil case isn't true. Well, both things can be independently true. A civil case is brought if it's more likely than not that something happened. To prosecute her criminally or make her a co-conspirator, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And prosecutors possibly could have met with her, maybe believed her story. Maybe they thought the willful blindness claim would have been too hard to prosecute and said, we're not going after her. Possibly. Or possibly they think she didn't do anything or they couldn't prove it. There's so many things that could have gone into. But that is a very strong denial.

And prosecutors possibly could have met with her, maybe believed her story. Maybe they thought the willful blindness claim would have been too hard to prosecute and said, we're not going after her. Possibly. Or possibly they think she didn't do anything or they couldn't prove it. There's so many things that could have gone into. But that is a very strong denial.

And that's why I don't believe she is going to be a witness based upon that denial and that denial alone.

And that's why I don't believe she is going to be a witness based upon that denial and that denial alone.

Yeah, we can read into it. She's not stupid. You know, that's something you don't want to go out on that ledge and make the government that angry with you. And that would be going out to a very strong ledge. And at some point in time, if she has any representation, they're saying you need to worry about yourself.

Yeah, we can read into it. She's not stupid. You know, that's something you don't want to go out on that ledge and make the government that angry with you. And that would be going out to a very strong ledge. And at some point in time, if she has any representation, they're saying you need to worry about yourself.

Do not go out on the ledge for anybody else because, you know, your words come back in on you. Let's say he gets convicted. Then all of a sudden, for the rest of time, there's a statement of you saying Diddy's innocent and the people don't want to deal with you at all. So, yeah, I would have advised her not to talk about him in the slightest.

Do not go out on the ledge for anybody else because, you know, your words come back in on you. Let's say he gets convicted. Then all of a sudden, for the rest of time, there's a statement of you saying Diddy's innocent and the people don't want to deal with you at all. So, yeah, I would have advised her not to talk about him in the slightest.

It's not a crime, but it's so damn stupid. It should be the easiest way to describe it. Like, so people get confused just because you're licensed to practice law in America. You can't practice law in every state. We've got different states, different laws, different jurisdictions. So they're all different. So once you take the bar, you are licensed to be.

It's not a crime, but it's so damn stupid. It should be the easiest way to describe it. Like, so people get confused just because you're licensed to practice law in America. You can't practice law in every state. We've got different states, different laws, different jurisdictions. So they're all different. So once you take the bar, you are licensed to be.

a lawyer, then you can practice in a state where you take the bar. Then after you've taken the bar in that state and you practice, let's say, and it happens to us a lot, let's say a buddy of yours calls you in Jordan and says, I want you to try this case with me or help me with this case.

a lawyer, then you can practice in a state where you take the bar. Then after you've taken the bar in that state and you practice, let's say, and it happens to us a lot, let's say a buddy of yours calls you in Jordan and says, I want you to try this case with me or help me with this case.

Well, you don't want to take the bar exam again because it's an incredibly hard, arduous test that you don't want to do again. But what you can do is do what's called pro hoc vici. All that means is for this matter only. That is literally the definition of it. Pro hoc vici means for this matter. And it is a minstrel function. You fill out a piece of paper.

Well, you don't want to take the bar exam again because it's an incredibly hard, arduous test that you don't want to do again. But what you can do is do what's called pro hoc vici. All that means is for this matter only. That is literally the definition of it. Pro hoc vici means for this matter. And it is a minstrel function. You fill out a piece of paper.

You get your buddy who's a lawyer in that jurisdiction and say, I vouch for Mr. Kent to practice law with me in Georgia. He knows the laws. You give that application to a clerk or to the judge. The judge simply asks you in some way, there is application, there is on purpose. Have you read the law? Do you understand the law? Can you practice law here and not embarrass yourself? Yes.

You get your buddy who's a lawyer in that jurisdiction and say, I vouch for Mr. Kent to practice law with me in Georgia. He knows the laws. You give that application to a clerk or to the judge. The judge simply asks you in some way, there is application, there is on purpose. Have you read the law? Do you understand the law? Can you practice law here and not embarrass yourself? Yes.

And then the judge signs off on it. That is literally as simple as Busby would have had to do to be licensed. And his would have been easier because he's already licensed in the state of New York. So he has his license there. This is just like a subset of New York. And he's already licensed also in the Eastern District of New York, if I'm not mistaken.

And then the judge signs off on it. That is literally as simple as Busby would have had to do to be licensed. And his would have been easier because he's already licensed in the state of New York. So he has his license there. This is just like a subset of New York. And he's already licensed also in the Eastern District of New York, if I'm not mistaken.

And so it would have been so easy to easily fill out an application. What this is the equivalent of is everybody in the courtroom is just mad because he didn't follow the simplest step possible.

And so it would have been so easy to easily fill out an application. What this is the equivalent of is everybody in the courtroom is just mad because he didn't follow the simplest step possible.

Okay, because here's the other thing that makes it ridiculous. Like, he makes this big, big, big press conference or release that says, I'm withdrawing from the representation of this individual. And I think even the court sent a little stamp on the thing that said... How can you withdraw for something you were not representing to begin with?

Okay, because here's the other thing that makes it ridiculous. Like, he makes this big, big, big press conference or release that says, I'm withdrawing from the representation of this individual. And I think even the court sent a little stamp on the thing that said... How can you withdraw for something you were not representing to begin with?

That's like me saying I am now withdrawing from being the president of the United States. Well, Mr. Ken, you are never the president of the United States. There's no need to withdraw. I think when you and Cheyenne originally talked way back in the day, I said I had a problem with him bringing all of these lawsuits.

That's like me saying I am now withdrawing from being the president of the United States. Well, Mr. Ken, you are never the president of the United States. There's no need to withdraw. I think when you and Cheyenne originally talked way back in the day, I said I had a problem with him bringing all of these lawsuits.

He sits next to Diddy, you know, during the hearing. They're talking, they're laughing. So they seem to have kind of a more personal relationship maybe than with, you know, Diddy's other lead defense attorneys who are kind of the ones up in front of the judge. And this past week, he just suddenly files a motion saying that he's withdrawing from the case.

He sits next to Diddy, you know, during the hearing. They're talking, they're laughing. So they seem to have kind of a more personal relationship maybe than with, you know, Diddy's other lead defense attorneys who are kind of the ones up in front of the judge. And this past week, he just suddenly files a motion saying that he's withdrawing from the case.

I was going to add Rico's name was left off of this filing. So his name was not part of this motion to dismiss this count. And I guess like the other thing to point what Sean said is that other people have been prosecuted under the Mann Act. And, you know, Ghislaine Maxwell, you have R. Kelly, you have a lot of people that have actually been convicted in or arrested under this act.

I was going to add Rico's name was left off of this filing. So his name was not part of this motion to dismiss this count. And I guess like the other thing to point what Sean said is that other people have been prosecuted under the Mann Act. And, you know, Ghislaine Maxwell, you have R. Kelly, you have a lot of people that have actually been convicted in or arrested under this act.

And I think the other layer to this, which is kind of missing from this, is that he's claiming no other black man has been, charge, or at least that we know of in a big kind of high profile sense of hiring male escorts, because these other cases have to do with minors or women.

And I think the other layer to this, which is kind of missing from this, is that he's claiming no other black man has been, charge, or at least that we know of in a big kind of high profile sense of hiring male escorts, because these other cases have to do with minors or women.

And he is kind of making the connection of I'm hiring male escorts, and I haven't seen anyone else being charged for this in this Male escort service is really popular. A lot of people know about it. Why am I the only one being charged with using this site? And I think he says, you know, it's very common practice in American culture to bring in a third person to the relationship.

And he is kind of making the connection of I'm hiring male escorts, and I haven't seen anyone else being charged for this in this Male escort service is really popular. A lot of people know about it. Why am I the only one being charged with using this site? And I think he says, you know, it's very common practice in American culture to bring in a third person to the relationship.

So there's a kind of a lot of leaps and things kind of being all connected together. That's one of the points that I felt like people are kind of missing of what he's claiming is. that he's being charged with that he hasn't seen. It's not just the Mann Act, it's the who he was hiring under the prostitution charge.

So there's a kind of a lot of leaps and things kind of being all connected together. That's one of the points that I felt like people are kind of missing of what he's claiming is. that he's being charged with that he hasn't seen. It's not just the Mann Act, it's the who he was hiring under the prostitution charge.

And there is not too much detail given, but clearly there was a fork in the road about, you know, something having to do with this case. And he says, you know, like you heard that under no circumstances can he effectively serve as his defense counsel.

And there is not too much detail given, but clearly there was a fork in the road about, you know, something having to do with this case. And he says, you know, like you heard that under no circumstances can he effectively serve as his defense counsel.

With the Man Act, too, its purpose and its inception was for there was a moral panic in the 1910s and the progressive era. And it actually was more designed to protect, I think, you know, at the time they were saying white women who were moving from rural cities or rural communities into cities.

With the Man Act, too, its purpose and its inception was for there was a moral panic in the 1910s and the progressive era. And it actually was more designed to protect, I think, you know, at the time they were saying white women who were moving from rural cities or rural communities into cities.

And they were saying, you know, these kind of lurky, shady figures were kind of trafficking or transportation of the women, white women. into brothels and to be prostitutes. It was almost to safeguard what they said, white women.

And they were saying, you know, these kind of lurky, shady figures were kind of trafficking or transportation of the women, white women. into brothels and to be prostitutes. It was almost to safeguard what they said, white women.

Yeah, so Didi's team filed a motion about some of the search warrants that happened on Didi's properties back in March of 2024. He is making an argument that those search warrants were extremely broad and they're wanting to suppress some of that evidence at trial. They say that prosecutors kind of withheld some information about some things they gathered, specifically victim one.

Yeah, so Didi's team filed a motion about some of the search warrants that happened on Didi's properties back in March of 2024. He is making an argument that those search warrants were extremely broad and they're wanting to suppress some of that evidence at trial. They say that prosecutors kind of withheld some information about some things they gathered, specifically victim one.

I think they're trying to argue that, you know, they didn't make clear that they've already seen or possessed some of the videotapes that victim one had. And they're kind of. calling into question the credibility of some of the victims and witnesses that the prosecutors used in order to obtain these search warrants.

I think they're trying to argue that, you know, they didn't make clear that they've already seen or possessed some of the videotapes that victim one had. And they're kind of. calling into question the credibility of some of the victims and witnesses that the prosecutors used in order to obtain these search warrants.

I think it looks people have taken it as bad. You know, when a top attorney quits your case in the language used under no circumstance can I continue. I think people are just pointing at that and say, oh, oh, he can't defend him, you know, in making their own assumptions from there.

I think it looks people have taken it as bad. You know, when a top attorney quits your case in the language used under no circumstance can I continue. I think people are just pointing at that and say, oh, oh, he can't defend him, you know, in making their own assumptions from there.

There have been kind of reports circulating kind of to what Sean said was that it seemed like there was a breakdown between Diddy's attorneys about going to trial in May and that, you know, Mr. Rico wanted to kind of postpone it because there is so much information here. So that's kind of been the kind of. The attitude that a lot of people think this looks bad for Diddy.

There have been kind of reports circulating kind of to what Sean said was that it seemed like there was a breakdown between Diddy's attorneys about going to trial in May and that, you know, Mr. Rico wanted to kind of postpone it because there is so much information here. So that's kind of been the kind of. The attitude that a lot of people think this looks bad for Diddy.

They think it's like almost an omission of guilt from some of the things that I've seen, which, of course, is not the case.

They think it's like almost an omission of guilt from some of the things that I've seen, which, of course, is not the case.

I think he called it a day of victory because he's been adamant since he was, before he was even publicly named, that he was going to bat for himself, his reputation, for this awful, awful allegation. And it's something to note that Diddy's team, I asked for a comment about this, and they said,

I think he called it a day of victory because he's been adamant since he was, before he was even publicly named, that he was going to bat for himself, his reputation, for this awful, awful allegation. And it's something to note that Diddy's team, I asked for a comment about this, and they said,

there was no settlement reached because sometimes things like this, when cases are dismissed with prejudice, sometimes you think, okay, backdoor, maybe he did pay her to take the case away. And Diddy's team said there was no settlement. So something happened behind the scenes that, you know, the woman, the Jane Doe, decided to withdraw and not to bring the case again.

there was no settlement reached because sometimes things like this, when cases are dismissed with prejudice, sometimes you think, okay, backdoor, maybe he did pay her to take the case away. And Diddy's team said there was no settlement. So something happened behind the scenes that, you know, the woman, the Jane Doe, decided to withdraw and not to bring the case again.

So Jay-Z sees this as an absolute victory lap, but it doesn't mean that he's necessarily done with the woman's lawyer, Tony Busby. If you remember, he's... filed a lawsuit for extortion and defamation against Tony Busby about this case, saying that he made defamatory comments while pursuing this case. And that case is still moving ahead.

So Jay-Z sees this as an absolute victory lap, but it doesn't mean that he's necessarily done with the woman's lawyer, Tony Busby. If you remember, he's... filed a lawsuit for extortion and defamation against Tony Busby about this case, saying that he made defamatory comments while pursuing this case. And that case is still moving ahead.

So this isn't entirely just over because this one case was dismissed. So I think Jay-Z has said Tony Busby and Diddy has said the same thing, that he is this attorney that's looking for the spotlight. And they keep calling him a 1-800 lawyer, you know, trying to kind of disbarge or make, you know, the idea that he's out just to collect all these victims and to make a big show of things.

So this isn't entirely just over because this one case was dismissed. So I think Jay-Z has said Tony Busby and Diddy has said the same thing, that he is this attorney that's looking for the spotlight. And they keep calling him a 1-800 lawyer, you know, trying to kind of disbarge or make, you know, the idea that he's out just to collect all these victims and to make a big show of things.

So Anthony Rico has been part of Diddy's defense team since September. So he appeared in court with Diddy when he was first arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges. And Anthony has been kind of this almost public kind of support figure for Diddy as his lawyer. In court, he stands up and points out that Diddy's You know, children have traveled long distances to be there.

So Anthony Rico has been part of Diddy's defense team since September. So he appeared in court with Diddy when he was first arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges. And Anthony has been kind of this almost public kind of support figure for Diddy as his lawyer. In court, he stands up and points out that Diddy's You know, children have traveled long distances to be there.

Jay-Z said, you know, he named me in this lawsuit right before my daughter, Blue Ivy, has this really big moment for herself. And he kind of accuses him of just, you know, trying to capitalize on that moment for maximum PR, you know, nightmare.

Jay-Z said, you know, he named me in this lawsuit right before my daughter, Blue Ivy, has this really big moment for herself. And he kind of accuses him of just, you know, trying to capitalize on that moment for maximum PR, you know, nightmare.

And remember, they haven't seen it yet, so they don't know. And it's one of those, you don't know what you don't know. And I've had cases where I've asked for the outtakes And what will end up happening, you'd be shocked. You'll see sometimes somebody on camera is crying, emotional, they cut. And then they're laughing and giggling with the crew.

And remember, they haven't seen it yet, so they don't know. And it's one of those, you don't know what you don't know. And I've had cases where I've asked for the outtakes And what will end up happening, you'd be shocked. You'll see sometimes somebody on camera is crying, emotional, they cut. And then they're laughing and giggling with the crew.

And you want to be able to show that for cross-examination. You know, we're doing a podcast now. We all know when the camera's off, people say and do completely different things than when the camera's on. And so that's what his team is trying to do is look for anything that's different.

And you want to be able to show that for cross-examination. You know, we're doing a podcast now. We all know when the camera's off, people say and do completely different things than when the camera's on. And so that's what his team is trying to do is look for anything that's different.

Now, what is presented to the jury, because if they're just presented what the television shows and what you see when you tune in and not when the cameras are off, you're not getting a full presentation. And anything that can help Diddy Cross examine these folks and say, these guys are lying. They're in it for the money. They're just emotional when the cameras are on.

Now, what is presented to the jury, because if they're just presented what the television shows and what you see when you tune in and not when the cameras are off, you're not getting a full presentation. And anything that can help Diddy Cross examine these folks and say, these guys are lying. They're in it for the money. They're just emotional when the cameras are on.

These are the jokes that he was saying. This is a camera crew telling him how to act. If you have to do this scene over and over and over again, let's do that again. We didn't get the emotions out. All that helps his cross-examination, I believe. And I think that's why they want it.

These are the jokes that he was saying. This is a camera crew telling him how to act. If you have to do this scene over and over and over again, let's do that again. We didn't get the emotions out. All that helps his cross-examination, I believe. And I think that's why they want it.

Now, let's not forget, it's not like this is a motion to say, I want to be allowed to use it. This is a motion that says, I want to be able to see it. And he might see it and might not have nothing there. But I think he's dotting his I's and crossing his T's. But here's the problem. I think they made these motions in anticipation of getting the continuance. So be careful what you ask for.

Now, let's not forget, it's not like this is a motion to say, I want to be allowed to use it. This is a motion that says, I want to be able to see it. And he might see it and might not have nothing there. But I think he's dotting his I's and crossing his T's. But here's the problem. I think they made these motions in anticipation of getting the continuance. So be careful what you ask for.

You're more in this realm than I am. Outtakes can be a lot. There can be a lot of information to go through. And it's sort of like we have a month now to go through this stuff that may not help us at all. That's going to be the wild part.

You're more in this realm than I am. Outtakes can be a lot. There can be a lot of information to go through. And it's sort of like we have a month now to go through this stuff that may not help us at all. That's going to be the wild part.

You're not wrong. But, you know, for me, looking at the other side, the way that I would say it is Diddy's on trial for his life, whether we like him or don't like him, but he is fighting for his life and I'm fighting for his life. He wants every avenue possible. These accusations are coming. But from a journalist standpoint, I'd be like, wait a minute.

You're not wrong. But, you know, for me, looking at the other side, the way that I would say it is Diddy's on trial for his life, whether we like him or don't like him, but he is fighting for his life and I'm fighting for his life. He wants every avenue possible. These accusations are coming. But from a journalist standpoint, I'd be like, wait a minute.

These outtakes, that damages the process that we can't get people to be genuine because they're worried about what's going to happen in a cross-examination. And as a journalist, I think I'm sure you understand getting somebody comfortable off camera is one of the hardest things to do. And we have to do certain things to get them off camera.

These outtakes, that damages the process that we can't get people to be genuine because they're worried about what's going to happen in a cross-examination. And as a journalist, I think I'm sure you understand getting somebody comfortable off camera is one of the hardest things to do. And we have to do certain things to get them off camera.

And we shouldn't have that used against someone on the stand. It goes both ways.

And we shouldn't have that used against someone on the stand. It goes both ways.

And I've done it myself and I've used it. And so if I ever choose to see you guys, can I have your outtakes, please?

And I've done it myself and I've used it. And so if I ever choose to see you guys, can I have your outtakes, please?

What's going on with victim five? Victim five to me is the most interesting. We just randomly throw in victim five. Let's not mention her again, her or him or whoever it is.

What's going on with victim five? Victim five to me is the most interesting. We just randomly throw in victim five. Let's not mention her again, her or him or whoever it is.

They're just going to give them protection. And it is like their name will not be used. Their name will not be said in court. And so the court will say you can't report a name, but a name not reported in court. But as I mentioned, let's say somebody in the courtroom knows who they are. How do you stop that person from just leaving the courtroom and say, you know, that was Tina from Jersey?

They're just going to give them protection. And it is like their name will not be used. Their name will not be said in court. And so the court will say you can't report a name, but a name not reported in court. But as I mentioned, let's say somebody in the courtroom knows who they are. How do you stop that person from just leaving the courtroom and say, you know, that was Tina from Jersey?

Yep, it's called redaction. It's up to the government and for the defense to go through a redaction method and redact it to the point that the jury will not know the name. Because that's all that matters is the jury knowing the name. It's the trial to the jury. It's nobody else.

Yep, it's called redaction. It's up to the government and for the defense to go through a redaction method and redact it to the point that the jury will not know the name. Because that's all that matters is the jury knowing the name. It's the trial to the jury. It's nobody else.

And so the government will redact if there is a name somewhere mentioned or if somebody says somebody's name in one of those butt-naked baby oil freak-out parties and they say, Tina from Jersey, bring the Jersey Mike subs. If somebody says her name, then they have to redact that out. Mm-hmm. Well, these guys got to be working day and night. I am in shock.

And so the government will redact if there is a name somewhere mentioned or if somebody says somebody's name in one of those butt-naked baby oil freak-out parties and they say, Tina from Jersey, bring the Jersey Mike subs. If somebody says her name, then they have to redact that out. Mm-hmm. Well, these guys got to be working day and night. I am in shock.

I'm not in shock that they asked for the continuance. I'm very shocked they didn't get it because this is so much information. And you just highlighted one of the small things people don't think, little things like the redaction. They have to go through all these videos and make sure there's not one mistake. And don't forget. If one mistake is made, something small, that can cause a new trial.

I'm not in shock that they asked for the continuance. I'm very shocked they didn't get it because this is so much information. And you just highlighted one of the small things people don't think, little things like the redaction. They have to go through all these videos and make sure there's not one mistake. And don't forget. If one mistake is made, something small, that can cause a new trial.

It sounds crazy, but it's. Pretty darn accurate. The president has basically pardon powers over federal crimes, not over state crimes. And, you know, we have individual states. But if something is a federal crime, the president can, with the stroke of a pen, and you may call it the magic wand, he can sign a pardon after somebody is convicted. That is in our United States Constitution.

It sounds crazy, but it's. Pretty darn accurate. The president has basically pardon powers over federal crimes, not over state crimes. And, you know, we have individual states. But if something is a federal crime, the president can, with the stroke of a pen, and you may call it the magic wand, he can sign a pardon after somebody is convicted. That is in our United States Constitution.

It is allowed. So. If there is a conviction and if Donald Trump wanted to pardon Diddy and just say, you are pardoned from this, you are free, he could. Willie? No. But he could.

It is allowed. So. If there is a conviction and if Donald Trump wanted to pardon Diddy and just say, you are pardoned from this, you are free, he could. Willie? No. But he could.

If there is a hung jury and it is through no fault of the United States of America, the case could be retried. And that would be if one jury, and it only takes one, who cannot vote and cannot make a decision of guilt. It just takes one.

If there is a hung jury and it is through no fault of the United States of America, the case could be retried. And that would be if one jury, and it only takes one, who cannot vote and cannot make a decision of guilt. It just takes one.

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

You've got to tell him no. I did.

You've got to tell him no. I did.

Hey, how are you doing?

Hey, how are you doing?

Technically, a lawsuit is just a filing of a lawsuit. It's a complaint. It's one party saying something that has happened. The other party gets a chance to respond, which is called an answer. That answer is filed out and filled in court. Now, in his answer to the court, he cannot respond to her name. But to John Q. Public, he can do whatever he wants until a court specifically tells him no.

Technically, a lawsuit is just a filing of a lawsuit. It's a complaint. It's one party saying something that has happened. The other party gets a chance to respond, which is called an answer. That answer is filed out and filled in court. Now, in his answer to the court, he cannot respond to her name. But to John Q. Public, he can do whatever he wants until a court specifically tells him no.

And no court has ordered him not to. So it would be the equivalent of if I knew her name or her cousin knew her name or anybody who knew her name and went on C-SPAN and just said, I want to talk about her. So there's nothing to stop it. Most people don't do it, but there's no court order stopping it right now. It's rare and it's wild. And I thought it was interesting.

And no court has ordered him not to. So it would be the equivalent of if I knew her name or her cousin knew her name or anybody who knew her name and went on C-SPAN and just said, I want to talk about her. So there's nothing to stop it. Most people don't do it, but there's no court order stopping it right now. It's rare and it's wild. And I thought it was interesting.

Absolutely. And that's the thing that people forget. It may not be illegal, but it is frowned upon. Like we'll call them in and say, you know what you're doing. You're trying to intimidate. You're trying to harass. This is not proper. And Shannon's response is going to be what we've been talking about all the time. She sought to bring the lawsuit. She should not be allowed to be had anonymity.

Absolutely. And that's the thing that people forget. It may not be illegal, but it is frowned upon. Like we'll call them in and say, you know what you're doing. You're trying to intimidate. You're trying to harass. This is not proper. And Shannon's response is going to be what we've been talking about all the time. She sought to bring the lawsuit. She should not be allowed to be had anonymity.

And so they're going to go back and forth on that. But, yeah, it's going to annoy the court 100 percent.

And so they're going to go back and forth on that. But, yeah, it's going to annoy the court 100 percent.

We met Brian Steele. We've known each other probably going on about a decade. We met each other in a federal case that we had down here in South Carolina. He was brought along to help a co-defendant. So we spent about a month together in steamy Columbia, South Carolina.

We met Brian Steele. We've known each other probably going on about a decade. We met each other in a federal case that we had down here in South Carolina. He was brought along to help a co-defendant. So we spent about a month together in steamy Columbia, South Carolina.

I am wearing a couple of organizations, some high-profile organizations throughout the country together, American Board of Criminal Lawyers to be one. I consider Brian the best of the best. He is a quality trial lawyer. He's a quality lawyer. He is a great person. The best way to describe it, he's known for being incredibly polished. He is well thought out. He is meticulous.

I am wearing a couple of organizations, some high-profile organizations throughout the country together, American Board of Criminal Lawyers to be one. I consider Brian the best of the best. He is a quality trial lawyer. He's a quality lawyer. He is a great person. The best way to describe it, he's known for being incredibly polished. He is well thought out. He is meticulous.

He's just a hard worker. And he is a lawyer's lawyer. He is a really, really good lawyer. And I don't like to give anyone compliments that's not named Sean Kent. So for me to give him a compliment, I'm at good of a lawyer.

He's just a hard worker. And he is a lawyer's lawyer. He is a really, really good lawyer. And I don't like to give anyone compliments that's not named Sean Kent. So for me to give him a compliment, I'm at good of a lawyer.

Can we get this case continued? But if I know Brian the way that I know him and the amount, and let's not forget, this is a terabyte of information, which basically means you can stretch each paper around the world. That's how much information there is. Knowing Brian, he said, I'd love to be a part of the team. One, what do y'all envision me doing?

Can we get this case continued? But if I know Brian the way that I know him and the amount, and let's not forget, this is a terabyte of information, which basically means you can stretch each paper around the world. That's how much information there is. Knowing Brian, he said, I'd love to be a part of the team. One, what do y'all envision me doing?

And two, most importantly, do I have enough time to get what I need to get done? So I bet you they told him that we will be asking for a continuance. My assumption is that they said, we believe we will be getting the continuance. And then it didn't happen. And so everybody's regrouping now.

And two, most importantly, do I have enough time to get what I need to get done? So I bet you they told him that we will be asking for a continuance. My assumption is that they said, we believe we will be getting the continuance. And then it didn't happen. And so everybody's regrouping now.

I understand the logic now. But at the time, the thought process is you try to give the benefit of a doubt to a defendant, because if he is convicted and you make an error of law or an error of some sort, then there's always a chance that it could be an appeal. And we could be doing this whole thing all over again.

I understand the logic now. But at the time, the thought process is you try to give the benefit of a doubt to a defendant, because if he is convicted and you make an error of law or an error of some sort, then there's always a chance that it could be an appeal. And we could be doing this whole thing all over again.

Like if a higher court says you should have given him more time, then I always find that judges are just like, look, we've never asked for one. Let's go. Well, the protection this judge had is, and I said this earlier, those idiots asked for a speedy trial. And when you ask for a speedy trial, a judge can say you wanted it, you got it, let's go.

Like if a higher court says you should have given him more time, then I always find that judges are just like, look, we've never asked for one. Let's go. Well, the protection this judge had is, and I said this earlier, those idiots asked for a speedy trial. And when you ask for a speedy trial, a judge can say you wanted it, you got it, let's go.

And number two, you waited way too long or too close to the trial to ask for a continued. So I think the judge's logic was perfect.

And number two, you waited way too long or too close to the trial to ask for a continued. So I think the judge's logic was perfect.

You got it. You 100% have it. His prior bad acts that show that he has conformity with his current accusations.

You got it. You 100% have it. His prior bad acts that show that he has conformity with his current accusations.

That's the part that's crazy. Victim 5 clearly has got some smoke against old Diddy. And so you have to read in between the lines, it's got to be, it's the prior bad act of Diddy against Victim 5. So it's something that he has done in his history or his past or something crazy. relating specifically to victim number five, but it's something that Diddy has done.

That's the part that's crazy. Victim 5 clearly has got some smoke against old Diddy. And so you have to read in between the lines, it's got to be, it's the prior bad act of Diddy against Victim 5. So it's something that he has done in his history or his past or something crazy. relating specifically to victim number five, but it's something that Diddy has done.

We don't know what they are, but the court clearly knows what they are. And the court in reading this motion says, yeah, that's relevant. That's coming in. So for a judge to deny him part and tell me the part that he granted is massive. I don't know who victim number five is.

We don't know what they are, but the court clearly knows what they are. And the court in reading this motion says, yeah, that's relevant. That's coming in. So for a judge to deny him part and tell me the part that he granted is massive. I don't know who victim number five is.

I don't know what the testimony is, but there's something about the path between her, him, them, and Diddy that's going to be a bombshell.

I don't know what the testimony is, but there's something about the path between her, him, them, and Diddy that's going to be a bombshell.

None of it's come in. And when we talk about prior bad acts and stuff of that nature, a lot of judges believe this. If your case needs prior bad acts to make your case, then you don't have a case. Your case should stand on its own on its face.

None of it's come in. And when we talk about prior bad acts and stuff of that nature, a lot of judges believe this. If your case needs prior bad acts to make your case, then you don't have a case. Your case should stand on its own on its face.

You shouldn't have unrelated stuff to prove somebody's innocence or guilt because just because somebody was a bad person in 1992 doesn't mean you're a bad person today. And that's what they were trying to do. And now they're saying, no, I don't care how bad he was in the early 90s. Tell me about what he did in 2000 blank to 2025.

You shouldn't have unrelated stuff to prove somebody's innocence or guilt because just because somebody was a bad person in 1992 doesn't mean you're a bad person today. And that's what they were trying to do. And now they're saying, no, I don't care how bad he was in the early 90s. Tell me about what he did in 2000 blank to 2025.

And if you go through all of these motions we're going to talk about, they all come to a central rule called the rule of completeness. And it's... It ain't complicated. It's common sense. If... You and I are in the middle of a massive text thread. Massive. That is seven months long.

And if you go through all of these motions we're going to talk about, they all come to a central rule called the rule of completeness. And it's... It ain't complicated. It's common sense. If... You and I are in the middle of a massive text thread. Massive. That is seven months long.

And one portion of the text thread, I catch you talking about your boss, but if it's taken out of context, it doesn't make sense. The rule of completeness says, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you bring in one portion, the other side can bring in everything so they can bring a full presentation as to what actually happened. And so if you look at all these motions, what the judge said was,

And one portion of the text thread, I catch you talking about your boss, but if it's taken out of context, it doesn't make sense. The rule of completeness says, no, no, no, no, no, no. If you bring in one portion, the other side can bring in everything so they can bring a full presentation as to what actually happened. And so if you look at all these motions, what the judge said was,

outtakes, prior drafts, that's information that's necessary because why were there changes? Who made these changes? What was this information? You need to give it all because the defense has a right to make a full presentation of the full view. I don't know what the prior drafts are, but maybe.

outtakes, prior drafts, that's information that's necessary because why were there changes? Who made these changes? What was this information? You need to give it all because the defense has a right to make a full presentation of the full view. I don't know what the prior drafts are, but maybe.

Some publisher, some editor came in and said something to the effect of, you need to take this out because it doesn't sound scandalous enough or it sounds too scandalous. So Diddy's team wants the rule of completeness. We don't want you to tell this one small memoir with a part. We want it all in. And so the rule of completeness, I think, is what controls all of these other motions being granted.

Some publisher, some editor came in and said something to the effect of, you need to take this out because it doesn't sound scandalous enough or it sounds too scandalous. So Diddy's team wants the rule of completeness. We don't want you to tell this one small memoir with a part. We want it all in. And so the rule of completeness, I think, is what controls all of these other motions being granted.

I believe zero to 20 years is his best possibility, his best chance. But that comes from cooperation. The government believing your cooperation is helpful, your cooperation taking down potentially a bigger fish than you, if you will. He could cooperate against some lower people and just get a little time cut off the top.

I believe zero to 20 years is his best possibility, his best chance. But that comes from cooperation. The government believing your cooperation is helpful, your cooperation taking down potentially a bigger fish than you, if you will. He could cooperate against some lower people and just get a little time cut off the top.

I think the Enterprise letter is when you're going to start hearing other names. I don't think the names are going to be as interesting as people think. I think they're going to be inner circle names. I don't think it's going to be these great, interesting names that people are expecting to hear. But that, I could be wrong.

I think the Enterprise letter is when you're going to start hearing other names. I don't think the names are going to be as interesting as people think. I think they're going to be inner circle names. I don't think it's going to be these great, interesting names that people are expecting to hear. But that, I could be wrong.

Great question. Can they? Yes. Again, and I'm being made to look wrong. I just believe that superseding indictment is coming. If it's coming, it's going to be before March. At that point in time, if they try to supersede this in case, I got to do my math in February, March, April. If they try to do it in like April, the judge is going to be like, no, we're not.

Great question. Can they? Yes. Again, and I'm being made to look wrong. I just believe that superseding indictment is coming. If it's coming, it's going to be before March. At that point in time, if they try to supersede this in case, I got to do my math in February, March, April. If they try to do it in like April, the judge is going to be like, no, we're not.

He's not going to say, no, they can't do it. He's going to say, we're not going to trial in May. Yeah. If they supersede that quick, something of that nature. But yeah, I believe they're right. I think, I still think the superseding is coming, but if it does come, it would come before the enterprise level.

He's not going to say, no, they can't do it. He's going to say, we're not going to trial in May. Yeah. If they supersede that quick, something of that nature. But yeah, I believe they're right. I think, I still think the superseding is coming, but if it does come, it would come before the enterprise level.

Great question, but remember, these individuals aren't charged with anything. So there's not bond conditions that would say that you can't leave, and that happens all the time. If you are not formally charged, the government has no control to tell you what you can and what you can't do. So if you think you might be a witness and take off, you're welcome to do that. Could it possibly hurt his case?

Great question, but remember, these individuals aren't charged with anything. So there's not bond conditions that would say that you can't leave, and that happens all the time. If you are not formally charged, the government has no control to tell you what you can and what you can't do. So if you think you might be a witness and take off, you're welcome to do that. Could it possibly hurt his case?

Absolutely. Yeah, you can't stop somebody from leaving and saying, I'm going on vacation and I'm not coming back. You can put a subpoena in their hand. You know, you can subpoena them for court, but that's the interesting part. You can't subpoena somebody outside the United States.

Absolutely. Yeah, you can't stop somebody from leaving and saying, I'm going on vacation and I'm not coming back. You can put a subpoena in their hand. You know, you can subpoena them for court, but that's the interesting part. You can't subpoena somebody outside the United States.

They're saying they're drugged. Don't forget, it's easy to prove the court a public opinion, but when you get into an actual court, the federal government has approved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And someone just getting on the stand and saying, I was drugged? The defense can ask a very simple question. Where's the drug test? Where's the proof? You just saying it now.

They're saying they're drugged. Don't forget, it's easy to prove the court a public opinion, but when you get into an actual court, the federal government has approved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And someone just getting on the stand and saying, I was drugged? The defense can ask a very simple question. Where's the drug test? Where's the proof? You just saying it now.

There's a difference between a witness and somebody being accused. I've seen judges say to them, it is not my fault you have lost your witness. It is your job to prove your case. Stop complaining. You should have had this ready beforehand. Now, if the person is a potential co-defendant, that's where the judge says, FBI, Secret Service, U.S.

There's a difference between a witness and somebody being accused. I've seen judges say to them, it is not my fault you have lost your witness. It is your job to prove your case. Stop complaining. You should have had this ready beforehand. Now, if the person is a potential co-defendant, that's where the judge says, FBI, Secret Service, U.S.

Marshals, go find them and go get them and bring them back. I mean, that's where we start talking about non-extradition countries and things of that nature. And then it's hard to get those people. So there's a difference between a witness and a defendant. If you're a witness, you can go anywhere you want. The government cannot stop your movement. You can go where you need to go.

Marshals, go find them and go get them and bring them back. I mean, that's where we start talking about non-extradition countries and things of that nature. And then it's hard to get those people. So there's a difference between a witness and a defendant. If you're a witness, you can go anywhere you want. The government cannot stop your movement. You can go where you need to go.

Thank you so much for having me. I very much appreciate y'all.

Thank you so much for having me. I very much appreciate y'all.

Like, there's a lot that's going to happen. And I understand where the defense is going. There's like, this is consent. And if it is consensual, butt naked baby old freak off parties aren't illegal. What's illegal is the sex trafficking aspect of this case. And they're saying there is no sex trafficking. Always was going to be the defense. Always.

Like, there's a lot that's going to happen. And I understand where the defense is going. There's like, this is consent. And if it is consensual, butt naked baby old freak off parties aren't illegal. What's illegal is the sex trafficking aspect of this case. And they're saying there is no sex trafficking. Always was going to be the defense. Always.

Well, don't forget, here's the great thing about it. We're innocent until proven guilty. It's not how do they prove it, it's how does the government disprove it. So if you're the defense and you're showing the video, they're just like, well, look at the video. The cross-examination is going to be And by that, I mean from the defense.

Well, don't forget, here's the great thing about it. We're innocent until proven guilty. It's not how do they prove it, it's how does the government disprove it. So if you're the defense and you're showing the video, they're just like, well, look at the video. The cross-examination is going to be And by that, I mean from the defense.

Because, of course, what's going to happen is the prosecution gets to put their witness on first, whoever it may be. And this female who had the relationship with Mr. Combs is going to get on the stand. I guarantee you she's going to be emotional. She is going to cry. She's going to talk about this relationship.

Because, of course, what's going to happen is the prosecution gets to put their witness on first, whoever it may be. And this female who had the relationship with Mr. Combs is going to get on the stand. I guarantee you she's going to be emotional. She is going to cry. She's going to talk about this relationship.

She's going to talk about the fact that she was forced to do things she didn't want to do. She is going to say this in a very good way. That's evident. The cross-examination is going to be withering. It is going to take this video frame by frame. This is you with a smile on your face. In this video, anywhere whatsoever, do you say no. In this video, you are seen walking in this way.

She's going to talk about the fact that she was forced to do things she didn't want to do. She is going to say this in a very good way. That's evident. The cross-examination is going to be withering. It is going to take this video frame by frame. This is you with a smile on your face. In this video, anywhere whatsoever, do you say no. In this video, you are seen walking in this way.

It doesn't appear that you were on drugs at any point in time. The cross-examination is going to be withering. And so everybody who was just reading, it's one thing to read evidence that we have half and half of it, but it's another thing to have a witness on the stand who is going to talk about the fights in the relationship, the money that she got, the things that she got.

It doesn't appear that you were on drugs at any point in time. The cross-examination is going to be withering. And so everybody who was just reading, it's one thing to read evidence that we have half and half of it, but it's another thing to have a witness on the stand who is going to talk about the fights in the relationship, the money that she got, the things that she got.

When we define cases, when we do case initiative, what we always say is a witness's credibility takes the stand with them. So this person's credibility is going to take the stand. And so the biggest question I think that's going to happen is the following.

When we define cases, when we do case initiative, what we always say is a witness's credibility takes the stand with them. So this person's credibility is going to take the stand. And so the biggest question I think that's going to happen is the following.

If Mr. Combs is this most disgusting, abhorrent human being, if he is the monster that you and the government has said that he is, why did you stay with him?

If Mr. Combs is this most disgusting, abhorrent human being, if he is the monster that you and the government has said that he is, why did you stay with him?

They would, and I prosecuted it, and what ends up happening is You have to be careful when you are preparing a witness. There's not a lot of evidence. There's videos and so forth, but the evidence is going to come from the stand from the person's mouth. And so when you are preparing a witness to testify, especially of the government, it is the hardest thing to do. Why?

They would, and I prosecuted it, and what ends up happening is You have to be careful when you are preparing a witness. There's not a lot of evidence. There's videos and so forth, but the evidence is going to come from the stand from the person's mouth. And so when you are preparing a witness to testify, especially of the government, it is the hardest thing to do. Why?

Because you're not allowed what's called lead. You're not allowed to suggest the answer. So really what you're doing is you're trying to get a witness simply to tell their story. So you would say witness one. Realistically, you say, what happened? And then you say, what happened next? That's how we're taught as prosecutors, as a former prosecutor, to get a witness to tell the story.

Because you're not allowed what's called lead. You're not allowed to suggest the answer. So really what you're doing is you're trying to get a witness simply to tell their story. So you would say witness one. Realistically, you say, what happened? And then you say, what happened next? That's how we're taught as prosecutors, as a former prosecutor, to get a witness to tell the story.

And so what you want to do is you want to balance something. You can prepare this witness too much because if she comes across too much, if she comes across rehearsed, if she comes across polished, then she comes across as unbelievable.

And so what you want to do is you want to balance something. You can prepare this witness too much because if she comes across too much, if she comes across rehearsed, if she comes across polished, then she comes across as unbelievable.

And if you prepare somebody entirely too much, and I've made this mistake as a young prosecutor, when you want to meet with a witness over and over and over again, and what ends up happening is you meet them with them five or six times and they keep crying. They keep crying because they're emotional about this event.

And if you prepare somebody entirely too much, and I've made this mistake as a young prosecutor, when you want to meet with a witness over and over and over again, and what ends up happening is you meet them with them five or six times and they keep crying. They keep crying because they're emotional about this event.

Well, by the 10th and 11th time, they become desensitized to it and it's not emotional to them and they can't cry anymore. And so, yeah, they're preparing her, but they can't over-prepare her because they don't want her to seem too polished. And she's got what we call is warts. She has warts in this case because she has problems that they can't get past.

Well, by the 10th and 11th time, they become desensitized to it and it's not emotional to them and they can't cry anymore. And so, yeah, they're preparing her, but they can't over-prepare her because they don't want her to seem too polished. And she's got what we call is warts. She has warts in this case because she has problems that they can't get past.

You can only prepare somebody so much for the fact that, ma'am, according to this, you are with this monster and presumably you are also a criminal. Because if what the government is alleging is true, if Mr. Combs has engaged in this abhorrent behavior and you were by his side, who did you call? What law enforcement did you contact? What person did you warn? So she's got two options.

You can only prepare somebody so much for the fact that, ma'am, according to this, you are with this monster and presumably you are also a criminal. Because if what the government is alleging is true, if Mr. Combs has engaged in this abhorrent behavior and you were by his side, who did you call? What law enforcement did you contact? What person did you warn? So she's got two options.

Either she didn't see anything, and she didn't see anything, guess what? That goes along with Mr. Combs' defense, or she saw something and didn't do anything, and then that hurts her credibility. That's why I was like, don't be so quick to assume that the prosecution's cadence is the greatest case in the world because the cross-examine of her is going to be withery.

Either she didn't see anything, and she didn't see anything, guess what? That goes along with Mr. Combs' defense, or she saw something and didn't do anything, and then that hurts her credibility. That's why I was like, don't be so quick to assume that the prosecution's cadence is the greatest case in the world because the cross-examine of her is going to be withery.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And that was weird to me. You're not the only one asking that same question. I'm just like, uh, you already have this via discovery. You already have all of this evidence. So that was something that was wild to me also.

And that was weird to me. You're not the only one asking that same question. I'm just like, uh, you already have this via discovery. You already have all of this evidence. So that was something that was wild to me also.

But a lot of times what we have in the federal system is what's called a protective order, which says we will give this evidence to the lawyers, but don't you dare share it or leave a copy. Specifically, don't leave a copy with the defendant. We don't want him to have a copy while he's incarcerated.

But a lot of times what we have in the federal system is what's called a protective order, which says we will give this evidence to the lawyers, but don't you dare share it or leave a copy. Specifically, don't leave a copy with the defendant. We don't want him to have a copy while he's incarcerated.

And so that might be really what they're saying is we need a tangible copy so we can give Mr. Combs so he can go through it line by line. I'm sorry, frame by frame and go through it in full detail. That's my assumption is that he is not allowed to have a copy because that's usually the protective order or judge rules on these high profile cases or almost all federal cases.

And so that might be really what they're saying is we need a tangible copy so we can give Mr. Combs so he can go through it line by line. I'm sorry, frame by frame and go through it in full detail. That's my assumption is that he is not allowed to have a copy because that's usually the protective order or judge rules on these high profile cases or almost all federal cases.

Protect any victims, any potential victims. That's usually why they do the protective order, not even to make it that specific. Federal judges are very scared of releasing evidence to protect victims. And that happens a lot, Doc.

Protect any victims, any potential victims. That's usually why they do the protective order, not even to make it that specific. Federal judges are very scared of releasing evidence to protect victims. And that happens a lot, Doc.

And if you notice, they filed a letter and immediately the prosecution came back and was like, what the heck are you doing? The only reason they filed that letter was to prejudice the pool so that we're doing exactly what we're doing. Everybody on social media are talking about those tapes because clearly the court of public defending is against Diddy. It 100% is.

And if you notice, they filed a letter and immediately the prosecution came back and was like, what the heck are you doing? The only reason they filed that letter was to prejudice the pool so that we're doing exactly what we're doing. Everybody on social media are talking about those tapes because clearly the court of public defending is against Diddy. It 100% is.

So that filed that letter, I believe, in hopes of prejudice. But the second they filed it, you saw completely what ended up happening. The prosecution came and filed a secondary letter and said, whoa, there's entirely too much information in here. Can't happen.

So that filed that letter, I believe, in hopes of prejudice. But the second they filed it, you saw completely what ended up happening. The prosecution came and filed a secondary letter and said, whoa, there's entirely too much information in here. Can't happen.

100% in court, in front of a room of people. And so that's the other thing that's awful. They are going to be watching basically porn for hours on end in front of people. So in front of victim one, whoever it may be, there's going to be porno played in the federal courtroom.

100% in court, in front of a room of people. And so that's the other thing that's awful. They are going to be watching basically porn for hours on end in front of people. So in front of victim one, whoever it may be, there's going to be porno played in the federal courtroom.

Oh, 100%. She's probably being told right now, like, this is going to be played in open court. Your sex history, your sex life is going to be talked about in open court. All of this.

Oh, 100%. She's probably being told right now, like, this is going to be played in open court. Your sex history, your sex life is going to be talked about in open court. All of this.

Well, don't forget this. It doesn't matter if she does or she doesn't. This isn't a civil case. This is the criminal case. So she could flat out tell the federal government, I don't want to participate. And they can say, we don't care. This is a crime. Crimes are against the United States. Not against them. Keep calling her victim one, but don't forget, she's a witness to a crime.

Well, don't forget this. It doesn't matter if she does or she doesn't. This isn't a civil case. This is the criminal case. So she could flat out tell the federal government, I don't want to participate. And they can say, we don't care. This is a crime. Crimes are against the United States. Not against them. Keep calling her victim one, but don't forget, she's a witness to a crime.

So it doesn't matter if she went to them today and said, I'm not participating. Their response? We don't care. Get your ass on the stand.

So it doesn't matter if she went to them today and said, I'm not participating. Their response? We don't care. Get your ass on the stand.

Well, you're exactly right. They don't prepare you for that because you understand every case is different. So you read about cases like, I think this Diddy case is going to be studied forever. You know, I think it's going to be studied in law school, but that's the way that we learn is because of what happens with cases is how you learn things that could happen.

Well, you're exactly right. They don't prepare you for that because you understand every case is different. So you read about cases like, I think this Diddy case is going to be studied forever. You know, I think it's going to be studied in law school, but that's the way that we learn is because of what happens with cases is how you learn things that could happen.

Like when I was in law school, we studied the OJ Simpson case because that was a case that had happened. But anybody before OJ wouldn't have known about these cases. We wouldn't have known about court TV and things of that nature because it didn't happen.

Like when I was in law school, we studied the OJ Simpson case because that was a case that had happened. But anybody before OJ wouldn't have known about these cases. We wouldn't have known about court TV and things of that nature because it didn't happen.

Yeah, they haven't had it yet, but what they have is exactly what you want. Usually what ends up happening is the defense could file what's called a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars in the federal system is exactly what it sounds like. It's basically, here's a bill.

Yeah, they haven't had it yet, but what they have is exactly what you want. Usually what ends up happening is the defense could file what's called a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars in the federal system is exactly what it sounds like. It's basically, here's a bill.

Or, like, if you go into a restaurant and you order food and all of a sudden the waiter gives you a bill and it just has a total on it, $75, like, well, what the heck is this for? Break this down for me because you just gave me a bill. Well, the indictment is just the bill against Diddy. Tell me exactly what I ate and exactly what I paid for to get to this $75.

Or, like, if you go into a restaurant and you order food and all of a sudden the waiter gives you a bill and it just has a total on it, $75, like, well, what the heck is this for? Break this down for me because you just gave me a bill. Well, the indictment is just the bill against Diddy. Tell me exactly what I ate and exactly what I paid for to get to this $75.

The bill in particular says federal government break down the charges, the dates, the time, the people, because you've made this allegation And you haven't broken it down. Well, that's why the government said, you don't have to file your bill of particulars, Mr. Combs.

The bill in particular says federal government break down the charges, the dates, the time, the people, because you've made this allegation And you haven't broken it down. Well, that's why the government said, you don't have to file your bill of particulars, Mr. Combs.

I would guess we're 80% back, so we're back on TikTok. We're up, but who knows how long it's going to last. It sounds like we've got at least a 90-day reprieve from the executioner, so we'll see how much longer that lasts. But we're back for now.

I would guess we're 80% back, so we're back on TikTok. We're up, but who knows how long it's going to last. It sounds like we've got at least a 90-day reprieve from the executioner, so we'll see how much longer that lasts. But we're back for now.

We're going to give you an enterprise letter where we break down our times, our dates, our allegations, who we think is involved, the other parties, all of the people here. That being said, we're not going to give it to you until March or whatever the date is. Here's our letter. Ha ha. You got two months to prepare.

We're going to give you an enterprise letter where we break down our times, our dates, our allegations, who we think is involved, the other parties, all of the people here. That being said, we're not going to give it to you until March or whatever the date is. Here's our letter. Ha ha. You got two months to prepare.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. But in the grand scheme of things, the judge is going to say, are you guys ready? You're the ones who wanted the speedy trial. Don't forget, this was the defense who was saying, we want this trial ASAP. The government is not doing anything untoward, if you will. Because their argument is we don't want to give this enterprise letter a day sooner.

Yes. But in the grand scheme of things, the judge is going to say, are you guys ready? You're the ones who wanted the speedy trial. Don't forget, this was the defense who was saying, we want this trial ASAP. The government is not doing anything untoward, if you will. Because their argument is we don't want to give this enterprise letter a day sooner.

What he shouldn't be concerned about is possibly the reason the government is waiting so long is there's going to be some people on that list who are in his inner circle who he does not know.

What he shouldn't be concerned about is possibly the reason the government is waiting so long is there's going to be some people on that list who are in his inner circle who he does not know.

Great question. We're all waiting for that, and you are not wrong on that, because in the history of the world, I've never seen a RICO charge with one person. By definition, you can't have a corrupt organization with one person.

Great question. We're all waiting for that, and you are not wrong on that, because in the history of the world, I've never seen a RICO charge with one person. By definition, you can't have a corrupt organization with one person.

There have never been a Rico of one. By definition, you can't have it. Rico says two or more. So, yes, other names are coming, and it probably, not probably, it 1,000% is going to come with that enterprise label. So they can say, this is who you're dealing with specifically.

There have never been a Rico of one. By definition, you can't have it. Rico says two or more. So, yes, other names are coming, and it probably, not probably, it 1,000% is going to come with that enterprise label. So they can say, this is who you're dealing with specifically.

Yes and no, because here's potentially, and of course, assumption based upon experience, they already know who they are. They've already struck their deals. They're already ready to testify. So they've all already been talked to. They know what's coming. They're not going to be surprised on March 8th. They already know all of this stuff is coming.

Yes and no, because here's potentially, and of course, assumption based upon experience, they already know who they are. They've already struck their deals. They're already ready to testify. So they've all already been talked to. They know what's coming. They're not going to be surprised on March 8th. They already know all of this stuff is coming.

And probably a lot of them are going to be witnesses. And so that happens also that these people will get on the stand And they will testify. They'll say, I was there. I was there with Combs. He directed me this. He was doing this, this, this, and this. Now, the cross-examination of them is going to write itself. How much time were you looking at? You were looking at 20 years.

And probably a lot of them are going to be witnesses. And so that happens also that these people will get on the stand And they will testify. They'll say, I was there. I was there with Combs. He directed me this. He was doing this, this, this, and this. Now, the cross-examination of them is going to write itself. How much time were you looking at? You were looking at 20 years.

The government came to you. They never listed you in this RICO charge. So this entire time behind the scenes, you were working to save your own life. That's why you're testifying to this now. If you thought this was such a bad crime, if you thought this was so crazy, if you thought this was so intense, How many times did you go to law enforcement? Who did you warn? Who did you help with a lawsuit?

The government came to you. They never listed you in this RICO charge. So this entire time behind the scenes, you were working to save your own life. That's why you're testifying to this now. If you thought this was such a bad crime, if you thought this was so crazy, if you thought this was so intense, How many times did you go to law enforcement? Who did you warn? Who did you help with a lawsuit?

The cross-examination is going to write itself for these people if they knew that these charges were coming and they've done nothing about it. So they all have lawyers already.

The cross-examination is going to write itself for these people if they knew that these charges were coming and they've done nothing about it. So they all have lawyers already.

So what the defense has done is they're taking an interesting tack, and I think the legal analysis is becoming fascinating. And they're saying, if you look at these videos, this shows a consensual relationship. The great thing for them, for their defense about that, is that's in the past. All the folks on social media and so forth are saying, well, these people are drugged.

So what the defense has done is they're taking an interesting tack, and I think the legal analysis is becoming fascinating. And they're saying, if you look at these videos, this shows a consensual relationship. The great thing for them, for their defense about that, is that's in the past. All the folks on social media and so forth are saying, well, these people are drugged.

I don't see a not guilty. I just don't. I could be wrong. To me, I believe the best possible outcome is he cooperates. And that time may have already passed. I believe that if he would cooperate against other individuals, he would get what's called a 5K, basically a reduction in potential sentence. If he could talk the government into dismissing some of the charges against him,

I don't see a not guilty. I just don't. I could be wrong. To me, I believe the best possible outcome is he cooperates. And that time may have already passed. I believe that if he would cooperate against other individuals, he would get what's called a 5K, basically a reduction in potential sentence. If he could talk the government into dismissing some of the charges against him,

The easy thing would have been, I'll take a paid vacation and go. That's wrong. I don't... I've worked too hard and lived my life... The Police Commission is meeting this week to decide next steps, so we'll keep you updated.

The easy thing would have been, I'll take a paid vacation and go. That's wrong. I don't... I've worked too hard and lived my life... The Police Commission is meeting this week to decide next steps, so we'll keep you updated.

And it's hard to serve somebody who's in the Department of Corrections. It's really hard because you can't get to him. You just can't go in there and talk to Diddy and say, hey, man, I want to go see Diddy and see what he's doing. Can I give him some paperwork? It's harder than people think.

And it's hard to serve somebody who's in the Department of Corrections. It's really hard because you can't get to him. You just can't go in there and talk to Diddy and say, hey, man, I want to go see Diddy and see what he's doing. Can I give him some paperwork? It's harder than people think.

Correct. So that means the original lawsuit was filed on October 15th, 2024. And then on February 6th, 2025, asked the court permission to amend. And in their February 6th filing, they said, we have done more investigation and we need to add stuff to our complaint to make it more accurate.

Correct. So that means the original lawsuit was filed on October 15th, 2024. And then on February 6th, 2025, asked the court permission to amend. And in their February 6th filing, they said, we have done more investigation and we need to add stuff to our complaint to make it more accurate.

It is, and trust me, I've looked at a lot of lawsuits. 87 pages is... insane. It just is. It's a very lengthy lawsuit. That's how they chose to file their lawsuit. But the language is oddly specific and you usually don't see that. And it's not necessary. It's just additional for sensationalism. What does it help prove or not prove? So, no, I'm not used to seeing stuff like that in the lawsuit.

It is, and trust me, I've looked at a lot of lawsuits. 87 pages is... insane. It just is. It's a very lengthy lawsuit. That's how they chose to file their lawsuit. But the language is oddly specific and you usually don't see that. And it's not necessary. It's just additional for sensationalism. What does it help prove or not prove? So, no, I'm not used to seeing stuff like that in the lawsuit.

Normally, like I would be guessing, but in this situation, I agree that they would have been blindsided. Then if you look at the online filings, our federal system requires everything to be filed specifically online. There's nowhere in the federal filings that show that either of these two individuals have been served or given a copy of the actual lawsuit or answered the actual lawsuit.

Normally, like I would be guessing, but in this situation, I agree that they would have been blindsided. Then if you look at the online filings, our federal system requires everything to be filed specifically online. There's nowhere in the federal filings that show that either of these two individuals have been served or given a copy of the actual lawsuit or answered the actual lawsuit.

So I'm assuming they found out when everybody else found out, which is crazy if you think about it.

So I'm assuming they found out when everybody else found out, which is crazy if you think about it.

What's interesting about that is, like I said, when I was doing my research and looking at it, like the, I want to make sure I say their names right, the contra, whatever, that police department specifically said, we looked into it and there was no merit to this situation. So this goes into a different type of level of potential coverup. That's wild.

What's interesting about that is, like I said, when I was doing my research and looking at it, like the, I want to make sure I say their names right, the contra, whatever, that police department specifically said, we looked into it and there was no merit to this situation. So this goes into a different type of level of potential coverup. That's wild.

Just based upon these allegations, I'm not saying they're true or not true, but the Contra Police Department said we did get this allegation. We did look into it and we discounted it and said there was nothing there. Do you know how strong that is for a police department to come in and say that a rape did not happen when someone says it did?

Just based upon these allegations, I'm not saying they're true or not true, but the Contra Police Department said we did get this allegation. We did look into it and we discounted it and said there was nothing there. Do you know how strong that is for a police department to come in and say that a rape did not happen when someone says it did?

So that's fascinating to me because usually police departments don't do that.

So that's fascinating to me because usually police departments don't do that.

It is huge, and I'm glad you brought it up because people do get confused because the civil allegation in here is similar to the federal criminal allegations against Diddy. It's the same one as RICO, and people get confused at, wait, what do you mean you can have a RICO civil charge and a RICO criminal charge? But that's exactly what they've alleged.

It is huge, and I'm glad you brought it up because people do get confused because the civil allegation in here is similar to the federal criminal allegations against Diddy. It's the same one as RICO, and people get confused at, wait, what do you mean you can have a RICO civil charge and a RICO criminal charge? But that's exactly what they've alleged.

Using this corrupt organization to cover up the allegations, cover up Diddy's actions, that he is the leader of this RICO organization, and these two... Jane and John Doe's are saying that this organization is created to be the cover up this cavalcade of indiscretions that Diddy is doing. And that's the whole point of this organization. And that's the lawsuit. So it's wild if you think about it.

Using this corrupt organization to cover up the allegations, cover up Diddy's actions, that he is the leader of this RICO organization, and these two... Jane and John Doe's are saying that this organization is created to be the cover up this cavalcade of indiscretions that Diddy is doing. And that's the whole point of this organization. And that's the lawsuit. So it's wild if you think about it.

You can bring a lawsuit for anything, any reason you want. Usually the phrase that we use is upon information and belief. And there's two types of evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, actual facts, DNA, things of that nature. That's direct evidence. This person saying that they saw something would be direct evidence.

You can bring a lawsuit for anything, any reason you want. Usually the phrase that we use is upon information and belief. And there's two types of evidence. There's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, actual facts, DNA, things of that nature. That's direct evidence. This person saying that they saw something would be direct evidence.

I believe, I think it's circumstantial evidence. but it ain't coming into court. So the entire reason it is is to make this complaint completely more sensational because it's not necessary, as mentioned. When you look at these lawsuits, what ends up happening is when they get a copy of it, you have to answer it. And when you answer a lawsuit, you can only do really three things.

I believe, I think it's circumstantial evidence. but it ain't coming into court. So the entire reason it is is to make this complaint completely more sensational because it's not necessary, as mentioned. When you look at these lawsuits, what ends up happening is when they get a copy of it, you have to answer it. And when you answer a lawsuit, you can only do really three things.

So they can go through and admit each line of the paragraph. They can say, I admit that Drewski was there. They can admit it. They can deny it. Or they can say, we have no knowledge. That's it. It's admit, deny, without knowledge. So you don't have to explain. So that's why a lot of this lawsuit doesn't make any sense.

So they can go through and admit each line of the paragraph. They can say, I admit that Drewski was there. They can admit it. They can deny it. Or they can say, we have no knowledge. That's it. It's admit, deny, without knowledge. So you don't have to explain. So that's why a lot of this lawsuit doesn't make any sense.

So when Diddy is answering this lawsuit, a lot of it's going to be deny it or without knowledge. Deny or without knowledge. I don't know if he sued Michael Jackson without knowledge. So it's a weird lawsuit.

So when Diddy is answering this lawsuit, a lot of it's going to be deny it or without knowledge. Deny or without knowledge. I don't know if he sued Michael Jackson without knowledge. So it's a weird lawsuit.

He has not been served. So like the kids say, you've been served. And that's where it comes from. You have to be served with a lawsuit, which basically means just like you see on television, a process server goes and knocks on your door and says, Mr. Combs, you've been served. Here's a copy of the lawsuit. And then they come back and they write a piece of paper.

He has not been served. So like the kids say, you've been served. And that's where it comes from. You have to be served with a lawsuit, which basically means just like you see on television, a process server goes and knocks on your door and says, Mr. Combs, you've been served. Here's a copy of the lawsuit. And then they come back and they write a piece of paper.

They put down an affidavit that we served Sean Combs at the Manhattan Department of Correction. At this point in time, I gave him a copy of it or I gave it to somebody at his residence who's allowed to accept service. As I mentioned to you earlier, our online federal filings show specifically when someone has been served or when they have answered. He hasn't been served yet.

They put down an affidavit that we served Sean Combs at the Manhattan Department of Correction. At this point in time, I gave him a copy of it or I gave it to somebody at his residence who's allowed to accept service. As I mentioned to you earlier, our online federal filings show specifically when someone has been served or when they have answered. He hasn't been served yet.

When you file a lawsuit in America, as an attorney, you must have a good faith belief on while you're filing the lawsuit. You must. Busby better hope he has a good faith belief on while he's filing this lawsuit or a federal judge will destroy him. This is a bill that cannot be unwronged. Now that the name is mentioned, it's never going to go away.

When you file a lawsuit in America, as an attorney, you must have a good faith belief on while you're filing the lawsuit. You must. Busby better hope he has a good faith belief on while he's filing this lawsuit or a federal judge will destroy him. This is a bill that cannot be unwronged. Now that the name is mentioned, it's never going to go away.

Absolutely. But Jay-Z said it himself. I mean, this is a guy who grew up differently than everybody else. He grew up in the streets and he's just like, you want to make these allegations against me, a bunch of kids? I'm going to fight back. This is a guy who is self-made, who is not used to people bullying him, extorting him. I mean, this is a drug dealer from the streets.

Absolutely. But Jay-Z said it himself. I mean, this is a guy who grew up differently than everybody else. He grew up in the streets and he's just like, you want to make these allegations against me, a bunch of kids? I'm going to fight back. This is a guy who is self-made, who is not used to people bullying him, extorting him. I mean, this is a drug dealer from the streets.

Let's not forget where he started. This is not something that he's like, I'm not going to play your suit and tie games. He's street.

Let's not forget where he started. This is not something that he's like, I'm not going to play your suit and tie games. He's street.

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

I was in the bed eating chicken wings and they were delicious. And all of a sudden my phone just started text messages and messages from TikTok. So I started doing my own research and I had grease all over my fingers typing on the iPad. And I was just like, well, here we go. It's about to blow up.

I was in the bed eating chicken wings and they were delicious. And all of a sudden my phone just started text messages and messages from TikTok. So I started doing my own research and I had grease all over my fingers typing on the iPad. And I was just like, well, here we go. It's about to blow up.

Listen to his lawyers. And some of the things that they said that were pretty interesting is he's not a target. He's not a probe or things of this of the criminal investigation, because if he was a target, he would have received a target letter from the federal authorities saying, you come and sit down and talk to us.

Listen to his lawyers. And some of the things that they said that were pretty interesting is he's not a target. He's not a probe or things of this of the criminal investigation, because if he was a target, he would have received a target letter from the federal authorities saying, you come and sit down and talk to us.

So his lawyer said without saying the federal government on this RICO allegations have never talked to Jay-Z without saying it. That's basically him saying, I already know nobody's looking at me criminally.

So his lawyer said without saying the federal government on this RICO allegations have never talked to Jay-Z without saying it. That's basically him saying, I already know nobody's looking at me criminally.

Yes and no. We have a statute that allows when you're talking about sexual assault, you can file as a jingdo or you don't have to name a person if you don't want to. One, Jay-Z's lawyers, that they're so angry, they're saying, how dare you send a demand? Well, that's the way lawsuits work. If you want to file a lawsuit, you send a demand. Is it normal? No, but the law allows it.

Yes and no. We have a statute that allows when you're talking about sexual assault, you can file as a jingdo or you don't have to name a person if you don't want to. One, Jay-Z's lawyers, that they're so angry, they're saying, how dare you send a demand? Well, that's the way lawsuits work. If you want to file a lawsuit, you send a demand. Is it normal? No, but the law allows it.

So, you know, normally that does not happen. Now... One of the things that I think came out yesterday is Jay-Z's statement that flat out said, fair is fair. You're suing me. Let me know who my accuser is. Stop being anonymous. Show your damn face. Because in America, we are allowed to face our accusers. And so you have filed a suit against me anonymously. The damage is done.

So, you know, normally that does not happen. Now... One of the things that I think came out yesterday is Jay-Z's statement that flat out said, fair is fair. You're suing me. Let me know who my accuser is. Stop being anonymous. Show your damn face. Because in America, we are allowed to face our accusers. And so you have filed a suit against me anonymously. The damage is done.

Everybody is talking about my reputation. I need to now know who you are. And I think that's fair. I really do. Because he should be allowed to do his research. Was this 13-year-old girl actually at the party? Was he there at the same time at the party? Where the heck were this person's parents? How can I fight these allegations if I don't know who you are? So is it normal? Yes. Is it rare?

Everybody is talking about my reputation. I need to now know who you are. And I think that's fair. I really do. Because he should be allowed to do his research. Was this 13-year-old girl actually at the party? Was he there at the same time at the party? Where the heck were this person's parents? How can I fight these allegations if I don't know who you are? So is it normal? Yes. Is it rare?

Extremely. But sexual assault cases are different.

Extremely. But sexual assault cases are different.

Because they sent him a demand letter and they basically said, look, we're naming you in this lawsuit. We are suing you. If you want to keep your name out, pay us. And then Jay-Z, I'm assuming, sent him a letter back and said, I ain't paying y'all. What was the phrase? One red penny. One red penny.

Because they sent him a demand letter and they basically said, look, we're naming you in this lawsuit. We are suing you. If you want to keep your name out, pay us. And then Jay-Z, I'm assuming, sent him a letter back and said, I ain't paying y'all. What was the phrase? One red penny. One red penny.

Well, Jay-Z said, I'm not paying you, which means the settlement broke down is the easiest way to describe it. We tried to settle. It broke down. So I'm naming you in this lawsuit.

Well, Jay-Z said, I'm not paying you, which means the settlement broke down is the easiest way to describe it. We tried to settle. It broke down. So I'm naming you in this lawsuit.

Correct. A confidential mediation. They wanted to sit down together. They wanted to have a confidential mediation to see if they could settle.

Correct. A confidential mediation. They wanted to sit down together. They wanted to have a confidential mediation to see if they could settle.

In some states, it's not even that you want it, it's required. Like in our state, when we file a lawsuit, before you can get in front of a jury, you must tell the judge that we attempted to mediate and attempted to work this case out. You must do it.

In some states, it's not even that you want it, it's required. Like in our state, when we file a lawsuit, before you can get in front of a jury, you must tell the judge that we attempted to mediate and attempted to work this case out. You must do it.

No.

No.

What a great question, right? And that's one of his allegations as he's coming back for. If there's merit to this case, why didn't they come after me criminally? So I think that tips to Jay-Z's favor that they're not looking at this. Or are they? They may be. I don't know. And maybe they haven't talked to the victim yet. There's a lot we don't know.

What a great question, right? And that's one of his allegations as he's coming back for. If there's merit to this case, why didn't they come after me criminally? So I think that tips to Jay-Z's favor that they're not looking at this. Or are they? They may be. I don't know. And maybe they haven't talked to the victim yet. There's a lot we don't know.

Well, here's what I'm going to shock you as, as a former prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney. And I'm embarrassed to say this, but a lot of times people go into police stations and they're not believed. And if she went, a 13-year-old goes to law enforcement and says, I was just raped by Puff Daddy and Jay-Z back in the height of their popularity.

Well, here's what I'm going to shock you as, as a former prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney. And I'm embarrassed to say this, but a lot of times people go into police stations and they're not believed. And if she went, a 13-year-old goes to law enforcement and says, I was just raped by Puff Daddy and Jay-Z back in the height of their popularity.

I can see a police officer saying, we don't believe you. And as a victim, when you're told you're not believed and subconsciously, sometimes victims are like, who's going to believe me? I'm not going to come forward.

I can see a police officer saying, we don't believe you. And as a victim, when you're told you're not believed and subconsciously, sometimes victims are like, who's going to believe me? I'm not going to come forward.

I love when somebody comes to a full-throated defense of themselves. I'm always very cautious as the criminal defense attorney. I'm like, be careful on saying things that are that specific because he's all in.

I love when somebody comes to a full-throated defense of themselves. I'm always very cautious as the criminal defense attorney. I'm like, be careful on saying things that are that specific because he's all in.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

Any other defense attorney, I promise you would have asked for a continuance. I think Combs is running the train. He's like, I don't want a continuance. I want to go forward. I'm tired of being in jail. Let's do this. Any other defense attorney would have asked for a continuance. And the government, I promise you, would have consented to it. They're like, OK, it's wild. We're this quick.

Any other defense attorney, I promise you would have asked for a continuance. I think Combs is running the train. He's like, I don't want a continuance. I want to go forward. I'm tired of being in jail. Let's do this. Any other defense attorney would have asked for a continuance. And the government, I promise you, would have consented to it. They're like, OK, it's wild. We're this quick.

That's a lot to unpack. One, a lot of states don't have a quote unquote good Samaritan law, which requires you to report a crime. There's no duty. I mean, as much as we say we want you to report and do something about a crime, there's nothing to say that you don't have to just walk away when you see a crime has occurred.

That's a lot to unpack. One, a lot of states don't have a quote unquote good Samaritan law, which requires you to report a crime. There's no duty. I mean, as much as we say we want you to report and do something about a crime, there's nothing to say that you don't have to just walk away when you see a crime has occurred.

Naming these specific witnesses is for one reason and one reason only sensationalism. And it's kind of disgusting because if you read lawsuits, you don't mention witnesses. You say a witness. I mean, it's very easy just to mention a witness saw blank, a witness saw blank. So putting these names out there is for one reason, one reason alone. It's for sensationalism.

Naming these specific witnesses is for one reason and one reason only sensationalism. And it's kind of disgusting because if you read lawsuits, you don't mention witnesses. You say a witness. I mean, it's very easy just to mention a witness saw blank, a witness saw blank. So putting these names out there is for one reason, one reason alone. It's for sensationalism.

And similarly, as we have said, you don't use specifics when giving statements. Public reading it just like that belies common sense. And sometimes you just have to be careful. There are just so many problems. And that's one of the things I hate about the U.S. justice system. Anyone can bring a lawsuit. And there's no rules on how you write your lawsuit.

And similarly, as we have said, you don't use specifics when giving statements. Public reading it just like that belies common sense. And sometimes you just have to be careful. There are just so many problems. And that's one of the things I hate about the U.S. justice system. Anyone can bring a lawsuit. And there's no rules on how you write your lawsuit.

You know, I can write a lawsuit however I want right now and mention specifics in it. And it's going to get looks and get clicks when I file it publicly.

You know, I can write a lawsuit however I want right now and mention specifics in it. And it's going to get looks and get clicks when I file it publicly.

Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.

Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.

And this is where I start law dorking out, because I think this is fascinating analysis is what's ended up happening. Since day one, I have said that neither side is ready to go to trial. Because there's terabytes of information, but both of them are playing a game of chicken. Nobody wants to be the one that says they're not ready.

And this is where I start law dorking out, because I think this is fascinating analysis is what's ended up happening. Since day one, I have said that neither side is ready to go to trial. Because there's terabytes of information, but both of them are playing a game of chicken. Nobody wants to be the one that says they're not ready.

And when this ends up happening, you find out stuff over and over and over again. You remember at the beginning when we first talked, I said, get ready for a slew of superseding indictments. There's three possibilities. Possibility one, the government is trying to figure out a creative way to get other information in.

And when this ends up happening, you find out stuff over and over and over again. You remember at the beginning when we first talked, I said, get ready for a slew of superseding indictments. There's three possibilities. Possibility one, the government is trying to figure out a creative way to get other information in.

Possibility two is also they have been interviewing and sat down and met with victim two and said, man, she's really credible. This is some great information. we want this stuff directly in front of the jury and then there's possibility three We're not ready. Let's put some other information out there so the defense is the one who is asking for the continuance.

Possibility two is also they have been interviewing and sat down and met with victim two and said, man, she's really credible. This is some great information. we want this stuff directly in front of the jury and then there's possibility three We're not ready. Let's put some other information out there so the defense is the one who is asking for the continuance.

And if you read the defense's motions, they're all but saying, how can you get ready for all of this? How can you be prepared for all of this? They're giving us this information on the eve of trial. I think in their language, they flat out say, this ain't fair. And we've been preparing for this stuff since you gave us that enterprise letter back in February.

And if you read the defense's motions, they're all but saying, how can you get ready for all of this? How can you be prepared for all of this? They're giving us this information on the eve of trial. I think in their language, they flat out say, this ain't fair. And we've been preparing for this stuff since you gave us that enterprise letter back in February.

And now on the eve of trial, you're giving me this stuff now? How can we get ready? And maybe the government's not ready. And they're like, hmm. Your turn to tell everybody you're not ready and it's not us. You can see I'm getting a little excited. I'm sorry, I'm a law dork. And it's a fascinating chess match that is happening right now.

And now on the eve of trial, you're giving me this stuff now? How can we get ready? And maybe the government's not ready. And they're like, hmm. Your turn to tell everybody you're not ready and it's not us. You can see I'm getting a little excited. I'm sorry, I'm a law dork. And it's a fascinating chess match that is happening right now.

They're probably still investigating. No one said the grand jury is done necessarily. This is just them going forward. And that's why I've always said I thought many more superseding indictments are going to be coming forward. You just don't know.

They're probably still investigating. No one said the grand jury is done necessarily. This is just them going forward. And that's why I've always said I thought many more superseding indictments are going to be coming forward. You just don't know.

The best way to describe it, the simplest way is Victim 2 before was a bit player in this movie. Now Victim 2 has their own spinoff and they're talking specifically about Victim 2 now. And so she's got her own series. So it ain't just going to be that she's going to be on the stand because before she would just testify about her story. and get off the stand. Well, now they've got to substantiate.

The best way to describe it, the simplest way is Victim 2 before was a bit player in this movie. Now Victim 2 has their own spinoff and they're talking specifically about Victim 2 now. And so she's got her own series. So it ain't just going to be that she's going to be on the stand because before she would just testify about her story. and get off the stand. Well, now they've got to substantiate.

They've got to prove her story. They've got to corroborate her story. They've got to bring other witnesses about her story. So hers is its own trial. Remember that whole two-week trial? I hope you've got your hotel set for a little bit longer because that, by its count, just added to the trial.

They've got to prove her story. They've got to corroborate her story. They've got to bring other witnesses about her story. So hers is its own trial. Remember that whole two-week trial? I hope you've got your hotel set for a little bit longer because that, by its count, just added to the trial.

One hundred percent. The thing that's interesting is if you read the indictment, they specifically reference U.S. Code 1591 E2, which is the definition of coercion. And when you talk about coercion, it says two things. One coercion is you took the hell out of somebody and says, I'm making you do it. The other coercion is the much more subtle, the mental coercion.

One hundred percent. The thing that's interesting is if you read the indictment, they specifically reference U.S. Code 1591 E2, which is the definition of coercion. And when you talk about coercion, it says two things. One coercion is you took the hell out of somebody and says, I'm making you do it. The other coercion is the much more subtle, the mental coercion.

But there is a possibility that both sides could be telling the truth. In a weird, unique situation that in Diddy's mind, I wasn't coercion anybody. This is how my relationships are. She enjoyed this rough relationship, if you will, and enjoyed the benefits of the relationship. She enjoyed the thing she was getting because maybe that's the way I was raised. That's the relationship I have.

But there is a possibility that both sides could be telling the truth. In a weird, unique situation that in Diddy's mind, I wasn't coercion anybody. This is how my relationships are. She enjoyed this rough relationship, if you will, and enjoyed the benefits of the relationship. She enjoyed the thing she was getting because maybe that's the way I was raised. That's the relationship I have.

And she never complained about it. That's what I thought. She could be saying, I never told him that. But in my mind, I knew if I didn't do these things, he would cut me off. I'd be out of the relationship. I'd be gone from the relationship. So in a weird way, they both could be telling the truth. The difference is Diddy's way is still against the law.

And she never complained about it. That's what I thought. She could be saying, I never told him that. But in my mind, I knew if I didn't do these things, he would cut me off. I'd be out of the relationship. I'd be gone from the relationship. So in a weird way, they both could be telling the truth. The difference is Diddy's way is still against the law.

One hundred percent. I have a problem with it from both perspectives. As a former prosecutor, the reason you either want everybody wanting to use pseudonyms or nobody, because if I'm on a juror, I'm just like, well, wait a minute. Why do we have this person's real name and not these three? Focus on the witness when they take the stand, the psychology of nobody knows what I'm saying.

One hundred percent. I have a problem with it from both perspectives. As a former prosecutor, the reason you either want everybody wanting to use pseudonyms or nobody, because if I'm on a juror, I'm just like, well, wait a minute. Why do we have this person's real name and not these three? Focus on the witness when they take the stand, the psychology of nobody knows what I'm saying.

Nobody knows me. I'm much more free and relaxed to say everything I possibly want to say. When you've got that blank face in front of you and nobody knows who you are, you feel a little more free. A lot of times that's when we do, when we have minor victims, we're like, we don't want anyone to see your face so you're more comfortable testifying.

Nobody knows me. I'm much more free and relaxed to say everything I possibly want to say. When you've got that blank face in front of you and nobody knows who you are, you feel a little more free. A lot of times that's when we do, when we have minor victims, we're like, we don't want anyone to see your face so you're more comfortable testifying.

From the defense standpoint, I don't want you comfortable. You're on this stand accusing somebody of a crime that can have them spend the rest of their life in prison. I don't want you comfortable on the stand. I don't want you feeling that you can say whatever you want without repercussions. I want the opposite. So it's not necessarily from the jury standpoint.

From the defense standpoint, I don't want you comfortable. You're on this stand accusing somebody of a crime that can have them spend the rest of their life in prison. I don't want you comfortable on the stand. I don't want you feeling that you can say whatever you want without repercussions. I want the opposite. So it's not necessarily from the jury standpoint.

It's from Diddy's standpoint and the cross-examination. You want that fidgeting. You want that uncomfortable. You want the person looking around. You don't want them comfortable because if they're comfortable, they testify more comfortable. They testify more believable. And the jury's like, oh, I believed her. I felt bad for her.

It's from Diddy's standpoint and the cross-examination. You want that fidgeting. You want that uncomfortable. You want the person looking around. You don't want them comfortable because if they're comfortable, they testify more comfortable. They testify more believable. And the jury's like, oh, I believed her. I felt bad for her.

And two, going back the other way, when they're protected in their name and identity, it almost shows the jury that we're protecting that person, meaning we believe what they said before they ever got on the stand. Because why would you protect somebody's identity if you don't believe them?

And two, going back the other way, when they're protected in their name and identity, it almost shows the jury that we're protecting that person, meaning we believe what they said before they ever got on the stand. Because why would you protect somebody's identity if you don't believe them?

What they would have to come up with is they'd have to come up with some past background fact goes specifically to the defense. Where you worked is specific for the jury to know. What your name is, if you were tied into another witness, you know, something that it has to be so specific and it's just not there.

What they would have to come up with is they'd have to come up with some past background fact goes specifically to the defense. Where you worked is specific for the jury to know. What your name is, if you were tied into another witness, you know, something that it has to be so specific and it's just not there.

So what I just gave you is the argument that's going to be made and the argument that's going to be shut down because it's the argument that's always made and it's always shut down.

So what I just gave you is the argument that's going to be made and the argument that's going to be shut down because it's the argument that's always made and it's always shut down.

You'll hear it a lot as it gets closer to the trial. You hear the judge has got to do a probative versus prejudicial balancing test. And it literally is a balancing test. And what he's trying to figure out is probative, meaning does the jury need to have it to reach a decision versus how prejudicial that information could be.

You'll hear it a lot as it gets closer to the trial. You hear the judge has got to do a probative versus prejudicial balancing test. And it literally is a balancing test. And what he's trying to figure out is probative, meaning does the jury need to have it to reach a decision versus how prejudicial that information could be.

So it might be necessary because everything's necessary because you want to show every part of who Sean Combs is. Every part, because it's a trial. But showing some of his stuff is so prejudiced, the jury will not be able to unhear it. And that's what the defense is saying. Their argument is going to be he's just not a good person. That's it.

So it might be necessary because everything's necessary because you want to show every part of who Sean Combs is. Every part, because it's a trial. But showing some of his stuff is so prejudiced, the jury will not be able to unhear it. And that's what the defense is saying. Their argument is going to be he's just not a good person. That's it.

Whatever we want to believe it or not, that is the prosecution's case in a nutshell. And how much do we get to he cheated on his third grade math test? That might be probative because he's a cheater. But how prejudicial is that to bring something up like that? And the judge is like, well, that's not that big of a deal.

Whatever we want to believe it or not, that is the prosecution's case in a nutshell. And how much do we get to he cheated on his third grade math test? That might be probative because he's a cheater. But how prejudicial is that to bring something up like that? And the judge is like, well, that's not that big of a deal.

Well, if the allegations are that he sexually assaulted a girl in the fifth grade, Man, that could be probative, but that's so prejudicial because it has nothing to do with these charges. And that's what the defense is saying. The defense is saying he's not charged with sexual assault. Why are you bringing all this sexual assault information?

Well, if the allegations are that he sexually assaulted a girl in the fifth grade, Man, that could be probative, but that's so prejudicial because it has nothing to do with these charges. And that's what the defense is saying. The defense is saying he's not charged with sexual assault. Why are you bringing all this sexual assault information?

I don't think the court's going to let them to get into all of this information. I just think they will. And that's kind of what the defense is doing, the little sly thing the defense is saying is like, hey, judge, you let this in, we're going to be here a while. And Judges are people too. A lot of judges will say that. Why do you need it? There's a difference between wanting it and needing it.

I don't think the court's going to let them to get into all of this information. I just think they will. And that's kind of what the defense is doing, the little sly thing the defense is saying is like, hey, judge, you let this in, we're going to be here a while. And Judges are people too. A lot of judges will say that. Why do you need it? There's a difference between wanting it and needing it.

Hey, how are you doing? How's everybody?

Hey, how are you doing? How's everybody?

And if they're allowed to spend six of these eight weeks, notice I said eight weeks, six of these eight weeks talking about how awful of a human being Mr. Combs is and all the awful stuff that he has done. At some point in time, when the jury starts hearing the other information, it's like, I don't care if he did this, but he's done so much other stuff, it's time for him to go. And they do that.

And if they're allowed to spend six of these eight weeks, notice I said eight weeks, six of these eight weeks talking about how awful of a human being Mr. Combs is and all the awful stuff that he has done. At some point in time, when the jury starts hearing the other information, it's like, I don't care if he did this, but he's done so much other stuff, it's time for him to go. And they do that.

Juries are people who do that.

Juries are people who do that.

Hey, how are you guys doing?

Hey, how are you guys doing?

I've got a potential death penalty matter that I'm working up, up towards the Rock Hill, York County area in South Carolina, and then got some meetings. Got a little busy day going on.

I've got a potential death penalty matter that I'm working up, up towards the Rock Hill, York County area in South Carolina, and then got some meetings. Got a little busy day going on.

Yes. I think the easiest way to describe it initially, yes, he can. It is in his powers as the president of the United States. It's guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The president of the United States has powers, and it's his. It's his and alone. He don't got to ask permission. He don't got to go to his mom and him. He can go to whoever.

Yes. I think the easiest way to describe it initially, yes, he can. It is in his powers as the president of the United States. It's guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The president of the United States has powers, and it's his. It's his and alone. He don't got to ask permission. He don't got to go to his mom and him. He can go to whoever.

On his own, he can sit there and say, because the federal constitution guarantees it, He can pardon individuals who have been convicted, not just accused, convicted of crimes federally. You cannot get in early and say, I'm going to pardon you so there can be no conviction. If he wanted to, technically he could go in because this is a federal offense.

On his own, he can sit there and say, because the federal constitution guarantees it, He can pardon individuals who have been convicted, not just accused, convicted of crimes federally. You cannot get in early and say, I'm going to pardon you so there can be no conviction. If he wanted to, technically he could go in because this is a federal offense.

As a power of the president guaranteed from the United States Constitution, he could come in and just say, I think this conviction should not stand and could use his power to pardon him. Do I think it's going to happen? 0.0 chance.

As a power of the president guaranteed from the United States Constitution, he could come in and just say, I think this conviction should not stand and could use his power to pardon him. Do I think it's going to happen? 0.0 chance.

Well, it's happened right now. Joe Biden actually pardoned his son. So if you looked at the fact that Hunter Biden was looking at federal charges, he was looking at tax charges, gun charges, he was recently convicted, and the President of the United States... Our current president, Joe Biden, came along and pardoned his son.

Well, it's happened right now. Joe Biden actually pardoned his son. So if you looked at the fact that Hunter Biden was looking at federal charges, he was looking at tax charges, gun charges, he was recently convicted, and the President of the United States... Our current president, Joe Biden, came along and pardoned his son.

If you look at it one step further, it is expected that once Donald Trump takes office, he's going to actually pardon all individuals who weren't engaged in violence dealing with the January 6th offenses for storming our Capitol some four years ago. Those are federal offenses. It's expected he's going to just, with a stroke of a pen, cut all of those folks loose. So not only...

If you look at it one step further, it is expected that once Donald Trump takes office, he's going to actually pardon all individuals who weren't engaged in violence dealing with the January 6th offenses for storming our Capitol some four years ago. Those are federal offenses. It's expected he's going to just, with a stroke of a pen, cut all of those folks loose. So not only...

Has it happened before? It almost always happens with the president of the United States.

Has it happened before? It almost always happens with the president of the United States.

Technically, yes, if it's a federal charge, because make sure, usually our murder charges are handled by the state, our individual states, South Carolina, Mississippi, all of our individual states. The president has no power whatsoever on a state conviction, and that's usually where murders happen. That's up to the governor.

Technically, yes, if it's a federal charge, because make sure, usually our murder charges are handled by the state, our individual states, South Carolina, Mississippi, all of our individual states. The president has no power whatsoever on a state conviction, and that's usually where murders happen. That's up to the governor.

Now, if there is a federal murder charge, which is very rare, if you look at it, there's currently... Three individuals, I think, in the United States, maybe four, who are looking at death penalty cases or federal situations. If there's a conviction, could it happen? Yes.

Now, if there is a federal murder charge, which is very rare, if you look at it, there's currently... Three individuals, I think, in the United States, maybe four, who are looking at death penalty cases or federal situations. If there's a conviction, could it happen? Yes.

And as a matter of fact, Joe Biden, our president, commuted the sentences of some 20 or 30 people who are looking at death penalty type charges. So, yeah, it could actually happen. You look at the Luigi Mangione case. That's a murder charge. The president, technically, if there's a conviction, could get involved in that case.

And as a matter of fact, Joe Biden, our president, commuted the sentences of some 20 or 30 people who are looking at death penalty type charges. So, yeah, it could actually happen. You look at the Luigi Mangione case. That's a murder charge. The president, technically, if there's a conviction, could get involved in that case.

Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.

Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.

Prosecution is trying to say this is why we're going to win. Defense is trying to say this is why you should like me and listen.

Prosecution is trying to say this is why we're going to win. Defense is trying to say this is why you should like me and listen.

One hundred percent. Like one of the things that people don't understand is if you've ever been in an argument with a loved one, the person who gets the first word and the person who gets the last word in an argument, some people always assume they win. The government gets the first word in the trial and in the federal trial, they get the last word.

One hundred percent. Like one of the things that people don't understand is if you've ever been in an argument with a loved one, the person who gets the first word and the person who gets the last word in an argument, some people always assume they win. The government gets the first word in the trial and in the federal trial, they get the last word.

So you can imagine if they're going first and they're going last, if you are boring and uninspiring in the middle, the jury checks out. They are just not listening anymore because the government's getting the last word. So I always say the defense has got to be much more entertaining, much more flamboyant, and make that jury listen.

So you can imagine if they're going first and they're going last, if you are boring and uninspiring in the middle, the jury checks out. They are just not listening anymore because the government's getting the last word. So I always say the defense has got to be much more entertaining, much more flamboyant, and make that jury listen.

You can do it significantly more in closing arguments because a closing argument is just that it is. I'm going to tell you everything. I'm going to tell you why that guy is wrong. You know, saying, look, guys, everything they said is a load of bull. And let me tell you why. Let me tell you all the awful stuff that the United States of America is about to do during this trial.

You can do it significantly more in closing arguments because a closing argument is just that it is. I'm going to tell you everything. I'm going to tell you why that guy is wrong. You know, saying, look, guys, everything they said is a load of bull. And let me tell you why. Let me tell you all the awful stuff that the United States of America is about to do during this trial.

That's the point of opening. You're trying to get that jury on your side, believe it or not, just to listen.

That's the point of opening. You're trying to get that jury on your side, believe it or not, just to listen.

You'll be shocked. The biggest one I find are people relying on notes. And you say, oh, why would you say, why would they not have notes? The example I give when we teach is I ask, I'll go in a group of people and I say, how many of you are married? Hands raised. And I said, how many of you, when you propose or got proposed to, your significant other used notes? And everybody's hands down.

You'll be shocked. The biggest one I find are people relying on notes. And you say, oh, why would you say, why would they not have notes? The example I give when we teach is I ask, I'll go in a group of people and I say, how many of you are married? Hands raised. And I said, how many of you, when you propose or got proposed to, your significant other used notes? And everybody's hands down.

I'm like, well, why didn't they use notes? And everybody will say the same thing. Well, because it was an important day to me. And I said, exactly. If this is the most important day of your life, you don't need notes because you believe in this scenario. The same respect, if a defense attorney is reading from notes, he's telling the jury, I don't believe in this case. I'm just reading my notes.

I'm like, well, why didn't they use notes? And everybody will say the same thing. Well, because it was an important day to me. And I said, exactly. If this is the most important day of your life, you don't need notes because you believe in this scenario. The same respect, if a defense attorney is reading from notes, he's telling the jury, I don't believe in this case. I'm just reading my notes.

And you can't make sustained eye contact. If it's not too long and it's about 30 minutes and this is your passion, this is how you feel about your client, then you don't need notes. You're telling a story to somebody. So that's the biggest one is I see way too much reliance on notes. And you don't need notes if you believe in this person.

And you can't make sustained eye contact. If it's not too long and it's about 30 minutes and this is your passion, this is how you feel about your client, then you don't need notes. You're telling a story to somebody. So that's the biggest one is I see way too much reliance on notes. And you don't need notes if you believe in this person.

Absolutely. Act in some cases. Absolutely. It is 100%. If they like them, if they believe in them, if they are listening to them, then they're going to give the client a benefit of a doubt. You understand? If the jury hates the lawyer and thinks the lawyer is a jackass and they're not going to listen and they start...

Absolutely. Act in some cases. Absolutely. It is 100%. If they like them, if they believe in them, if they are listening to them, then they're going to give the client a benefit of a doubt. You understand? If the jury hates the lawyer and thinks the lawyer is a jackass and they're not going to listen and they start...

doing their hands like this because they're saying stuff that they cannot believe in, then all of a sudden, they don't like your client.

doing their hands like this because they're saying stuff that they cannot believe in, then all of a sudden, they don't like your client.

You are so right on that. And that's why a lot of times most trials, anytime we try a case, you have what's called a first chair and a second chair. You probably have seen that in the filings. He is the first chair of the case. All the first chair does is they sit in the first spot. The second chair lawyer or the paralegals behind them are watching the jury.

You are so right on that. And that's why a lot of times most trials, anytime we try a case, you have what's called a first chair and a second chair. You probably have seen that in the filings. He is the first chair of the case. All the first chair does is they sit in the first spot. The second chair lawyer or the paralegals behind them are watching the jury.

And at the end of the day, they're saying, look, you remember the firefighter on the first row? He didn't like when you insulted Donald Trump. He's clearly a conservative and you went too far. Or the woman in the third row. Those are the things that we are doing. And good lawyers have people watching all of these things.

And at the end of the day, they're saying, look, you remember the firefighter on the first row? He didn't like when you insulted Donald Trump. He's clearly a conservative and you went too far. Or the woman in the third row. Those are the things that we are doing. And good lawyers have people watching all of these things.

No.

No.

Not only can they, they 100 percent will. But generally, it's like this is what happened. This is what and they can't say this is a fact. Remember, they can say this is what we believe the evidence will show and what we will prove. But go ahead. Let's hear Madam Prosecutor.

Not only can they, they 100 percent will. But generally, it's like this is what happened. This is what and they can't say this is a fact. Remember, they can say this is what we believe the evidence will show and what we will prove. But go ahead. Let's hear Madam Prosecutor.

I like the first three. The fourth one, even though it's good, I would say that for closing argument, because this is what they've showed you. And just because he's a good person doesn't mean good people don't commit crimes. And we have showed you evidence that he will. Two, prosecutors will say, we believe the evidence will show, okay?

I like the first three. The fourth one, even though it's good, I would say that for closing argument, because this is what they've showed you. And just because he's a good person doesn't mean good people don't commit crimes. And we have showed you evidence that he will. Two, prosecutors will say, we believe the evidence will show, okay?

Because remember at opening statement, no evidence has come in yet. So they cannot say this happened, this happened. Even though we all know it, they will say, you know, through the course of this trial, what we are gonna do is we're gonna present you evidence of the following. And let me tell you who Mr. Combs is. And this is what we believe the evidence will show. We will show you a video.

Because remember at opening statement, no evidence has come in yet. So they cannot say this happened, this happened. Even though we all know it, they will say, you know, through the course of this trial, what we are gonna do is we're gonna present you evidence of the following. And let me tell you who Mr. Combs is. And this is what we believe the evidence will show. We will show you a video.

We will do this. And they'll be very methodical in that opening statement. And then they'll go through the law because they want to make sure the jury understands. Mr. Combs is accused of RICO. And they probably won't call him Mr. Combs. They'll probably call him the defendant. And that's a lot of times what the prosecution does. They'll say the defendant is accused of the following.

We will do this. And they'll be very methodical in that opening statement. And then they'll go through the law because they want to make sure the jury understands. Mr. Combs is accused of RICO. And they probably won't call him Mr. Combs. They'll probably call him the defendant. And that's a lot of times what the prosecution does. They'll say the defendant is accused of the following.

And they will be very methodical and go through it.

And they will be very methodical and go through it.

That's the rumor. Yeah.

That's the rumor. Yeah.

I love one and three. I hate two and four. And let me tell you why. One and three are flawless. And that's what a good defense attorney will do because they'll come out there and they'll specifically, we call it the eight mile defense. Have you ever watched eight mile with Eminem at the penultimate scene? He comes out and he's like, tell these people something you don't know about me.