Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - P. Diddy Wants 'Racist' Prostitution Charge Thrown Out

Episode Date: February 19, 2025

Sean "Diddy" Combs has asked Judge Subramanian to dismiss the transportation to engage in prostitution charge in his superseding indictment. Combs' attorneys claim the 1910-era charge is rooted in racism. He also claims no white person has been the target of a similar prosecution. Federal prosecutors have denied a racial bias in prosecuting Combs. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through Combs' motion in the episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Jonna Spilbor https://www.instagram.com/jonna_spilbor/CRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Sean Combs asked the judge in his federal case to throw out one of the charges. He says he's being targeted because he's a black man and the charge is rooted in racism. I look at Combs' argument and his chances of success. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Sean Diddy Combs wants one of the counts in his federal superseding indictment thrown out. Combs argues he's basically being singled out by federal

prosecutors because of his race and his success in business. The charge he wants the judge to toss is count three, transportation to engage in prostitution. I'll get into Combs' argument about why he says the charge should be thrown out shortly, but first, just a little bit of background on the case. Combs is locked up in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn as he awaits trial on federal charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Homeland Security agents took Combs into custody last September. At that time, the charges seemed to focus on one victim, Combs' ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. Ventura had filed a civil lawsuit

against Combs in November of 2023, claiming Combs subjected her to years of physical and emotional abuse. Combs settled that lawsuit years of physical and emotional abuse. Combs settled that lawsuit the following day while admitting to no wrongdoing. Then in March of 2024, federal agents raided Combs' homes in California and Miami. A few months later, the video of Combs chasing after Ventura in a hotel hallway and stomping on her made headlines around the world. Then in September of 2024, he was taken into custody, as I mentioned. As alleged, Combs used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sexual performances with male commercial sex workers, some of whom he transported or caused

to be transported over state lines. Combs allegedly planned and controlled the sex performances, which he called freak-offs, and he often electronically recorded them. The freak-offs sometimes lasted days at a time, involved multiple commercial sex workers, and often involved a variety of narcotics, such as ketamine, ecstasy, and GHB, which Combs distributed to the victims to keep them obedient and compliant. As alleged, when Combs didn't get his way, he was violent and he subjected victims of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so that they would participate in the freak-offs and that Combs hit, kicked,

threw objects at, and dragged victims at times by their hair. Now, Combs' attorney, Mark Agnifilo, has said from the very beginning that Combs has not committed any crimes. His resolve is the same. He believes he's innocent. I believe he's innocent, and we're going to fight this case with all of our might until we don't have to fight any longer. As I mentioned, the case initially seemed to focus on revelations from Cassie Ventura's civil lawsuit, including claims that Combs used his business to cover up years of crimes, including arson and kidnapping. Then last month, as expected, federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment. It revealed that there are two new accusers, identified as Victim 2 and Victim 3 in the indictment,

and there was some new information about the government's case and the timeline of the alleged crimes. Initially, the government claimed the crimes occurred in or about 2008, where the superseding indictment alleges the crimes began even earlier, in or about 2008, where the superseding indictment alleges the crimes began even earlier, in or about 2004, and even adds through in or about 2024. Now to victim two and victim three. We don't know their identities, but Combs' team claims they're exes. The government alleges that the women were lured into trafficking under the pretense of a romantic relationship. They write, Combs then used force, threats of force and coercion to cause the victims, including but not limited to, the three female victims, victim one, victim two, and victim three, to engage in commercial sex acts. In connection with the commercial sex acts,

Combs provided the victims with, among other things, monetary payments, career opportunities, and payment of rent and housing expenses. And prosecutors say Combs provided medical care to the victims. The superseding indictment also goes into further detail about that March 2016 assault on Cassie Ventura, officially confirming that Combs, with the help of his associates, paid $100,000 to hotel security for the surveillance footage. Combs and his enterprise are also accused of other crimes, including arson and multiple instances of kidnapping, where Combs is accused of using a firearm. At one point, prosecutors said Combs dangled a victim over an apartment balcony. I want to tell you about an app I've tried. It's called Upside, and it's a free app

that will give you actual cash back on things that you use each day, like gas, groceries, and takeout. Upside will give you real money that you can transfer right from the app straight into your bank account. When I pump gas or go to Dunkin' Donuts for a drink, I use Upside.

I've even used it when grabbing an ice cream cone. Download the app, claim an offer for whatever you're buying on Upside, pay as usual using a debit or credit card, and follow the steps and get paid. To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description to download Upside or scan the QR code that's on your screen and use our promo code CRIMEFIX to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. That's promo code Crime Fix for an extra 25 cents back on your first gallon of gas. Combs has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges. Now back to count three, transportation to engage in prostitution, and Combs asking the judge to dismiss that count. It has to do with transporting a person across state

lines. Sean Combs calls the law racist. Why? Well, here's a little history lesson for you. The transportation to engage in prostitution law is also called the Mann Act. It's named for the congressman who wrote it, James Robert Mann. At first, the Mann Act was called the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. Combs' attorneys cite writings from the time in arguing that the Mann Act has roots in racism. They write, one of the bill's backers described how he had read about, quote, a Negro who had purchased a white wife when she was offered for sale in Chicago, and he claimed that American-born girls from good homes were being tricked into prostitution, Cones' attorneys argue that black men have largely been prosecuted using the Mann Act over the years.

Cones' attorneys write, This case is unprecedented in many ways, but perhaps most notably and most disturbingly, no white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution. They go on to argue that the sex acts that Combs engaged in with the victims and the sex workers was completely consensual. The government has concocted a criminal case based primarily on allegations that Mr. Combs and two of his longtime girlfriends sometimes brought a third party, a male escort, into their sexual relationship.

Combs' lawyers continue, like many other celebrities, Mr. Combs has had complicated relationships with significant others, as well as with alcohol and drugs throughout his time in the spotlight, but that doesn't make him a racketeer or a sex trafficker. The attorneys also argue that Combs is not guilty of running a RICO enterprise. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York accuses him of being the kingpin of a RICO enterprise, essentially defined as Mr. Combs himself, and claims the purpose of this faux enterprise is to conduct his personal sex life with his girlfriends. Combs' lawyers also argue a charge can be invalid if it's determined the charging decision was based on race. The lawyers write, to show discriminatory effect, a defendant must show

that similarly situated individuals of a different classification were not charged. In this case, that is easy. High-profile white men, including former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, have engaged in similar conduct but were never charged under the act. Many couples, including wealthy high-profile couples, involve third parties in their sexual relationships, sometimes for implicit or explicit remuneration. Such conduct has never previously triggered Man Act liability. Spitzer admitted to paying prostitutes for sex, some of whom traveled across state lines to meet him during his time as Attorney General and Governor of New York. Spitzer was never charged. I want to bring in Jonna Spilbor. She is a criminal defense attorney who practices in New York. Jonna, you know, this is a federal case. When this landed in my inbox,

I was kind of reading through it. And this is an argument that Sean Combs' lawyers have been making since the very beginning, that this prosecution has targeted a successful Black man. So they've said this many times in court and in court documents. Now they're saying it with regard to this transportation for the purpose of engaging in prostitution charge. So what's your first reaction to that argument that they make in this motion to dismiss? So I don't think playing the race card in this case is useful or helpful or even relevant, if you ask me. Look, this is an unusual case in the sense that, yes, it involves Pete Diddy, an Uber celebrity. It's also unusual because he was not granted bail and is still sitting behind bars while this is going on. It's also unusual because

one of the reasons why he has been indicted, aside from the actual allegations, and let's just be truthful here, has nothing to do with his race and has everything to do with the video that we all saw of him stopping his ex-girlfriend in a hotel hallway while wearing a towel after one of his so-called freak-offs or whatever he referred to them as. That image is blazoned in our brains and we can't get rid of that. That has nothing to do with his race. That just has everything to do with his character. So his defense attorneys, they have a job to do. We have a job to do. It's not always easy. And when you make these pretrial motions, particularly to dismiss, which are very, it's a very high bar, very hard to have them granted.

You have to include every single argument that could possibly pertain, which is my guess as to why they keep playing this race card when it's not resonating. I don't think it's going to resonate with the judge. Certainly isn't resonating in the court of public opinion. Their better argument, and we can talk about it, is the consent argument. But but again, that's a question for the jury, not for a pretrial motion. Yeah, it's it seems very difficult to get a count dismissed from an indictment. I mean, these are questions for the jury.

And I often think that when people look to or ask to get a charge dismissed from an indictment, the judge will often say, well, these are questions for the jury to answer. And a grand jury returned this indictment. So this goes to the jury and the jury can decideitution. And they're saying, look, the defense is saying, we have proof that this was all consensual, that they agreed to bring these sex workers into the relationship on occasion. This is just something they did. And you might not like it, but it's something they did. And so there are other people who've done this and have never been prosecuted for it. And they bring up Elliot Spitzer, who I guess transported somebody.

Client number nine. Yeah. Client number nine. The minute I read Elliot Spitzer, I feel like I'll never forget client number nine. Remember, the minute I read them referencing Elliot Spitzer in here, that he transported a sex worker across state lines, they're saying he was never prosecuted for this and he did this. So how do they square that? I mean, they're citing that as a reason why argument, which does have a basis pre-trial, but it's very hard. How do you show just because somebody and Elliot Spitzer, that case has got to be a long, like over 20 years old. I could be dating myself. For the people who may not remember, former governor of New York got tangled up in some stuff and then ended up resigning.

He was like the attorney general first. And he was all over the news. He was cleaning up Wall Street. He was Mr. Tough Guy. Then he becomes the governor. And then the scandal hits. And then he's kaput. So just a little history lesson for those who don't know.

Ultimate hypocrite. But it feels like a million years ago that that happened. So to juxtapose that case and say, well, he was white, and he didn't get prosecuted, and I'm Black, and I'm getting prosecuted, that to me is really a stretch if you're trying to make the selective prosecution argument. But factually, and again, not for this judge, but for the jury, to, look, you know, when you think of transporting people across state lines for sex trafficking, you think, oh my God, somebody's, putting a bag over someone's head, tying them up, throwing in the trunk, getting them across state. That's not what happened here. He was sending out invitations to his freak office and people

were coming and you can make the argument and he might successfully do it in front of a jury that this was completely consensual and that everybody who's involved in testifying against him also has a civil suit. So they're in it for the payday. They're biased. They're motivated by money. And that argument may work and nail him an acquittal, maybe. But at this level, at the motion to dismiss level, I just don't see a judge deciding in his favor. You know, they also talk about how his attorneys talk about how he employed this company and the name of the company is redacted. But they're like, look, this company advertises on X. They have an X account. They talk about how, you know, this company's been featured in news magazines and they talk about how they have different locations all over

the place. And so, you know, this is kind of like out there and nobody's going after this company who is an escort service, who sends people all over the place to hang out with customers and do whatever. So, you know, that is an interesting argument, but maybe it is an argument for the jury. Maybe they're dotting their I's and crossing all of their T's and making these arguments to the judge and doing their due diligence to get this thrown out and creating a record. Or maybe this is like really, really you know making for a good news story too and getting that out there and kind of sprinkling it into the jury pool i i think that's exactly right and like i said earlier you have to make these arguments to preserve the record

on appeal in case there is an appeal in this case and sometimes you make them and you know as a defense attorney sometimes you know you're going to lose, but you got to do it anyway. And that is a very interesting argument. And the other element here, which is going to be difficult when they're selecting a jury, assuming they get to that point, is, you know, this is also about high, high celebrity. Like, I don't know if, you know, you are a celebrity, but I know that you're not having freak offs

and inviting people to come from far and wide to, you know, you're a celebrity mom. P. Diddy's next level, right? The things that he was doing, freak off is an understatement. So is a jury gonna be able to relate to that lifestyle and forgive it, legally speaking? To me, I can't wait to see how that's going to go. You know, it's interesting to me because, you know, to date, you know, with all of these civil

suits we've seen, Jonna, with people claiming they were assaulted by him as minors. He's denied all of that. Everything we're seeing pertaining to this case, the federal criminal case, involves former significant others of Sean Combs and these freak-offs, these threesome-type, sex-party-type things. I don't know. It's just really interesting to me. So they are totally going for, this was all consensual stuff. And for whatever reason, the feds decided this was an organized crime case and that our guy is just a horrible guy. And they're almost making it sound like, you know, they went after him and they wanted to scalp and they're just looking to take the guy down. Do you see that possibly resonating with a jury?

It could. It depends on what the defense is going to be able to put forth in front of that jury. Like the big question is when you describe it that way, the big question is, okay, and a jury is going to want to know why. Why did they go out? Why did they just pick him to go after him and make him the scapegoat? Why did they do that? And I keep going back, and I know it's related, but not. I keep going back to that video. I close my eyes, and I see him kicking and stomping his girlfriend on the hotel floor. And I don't know if that just set off prosecutors and they wanted to delve deeper. I don't know how many people came forward

and said, this guy's a bad guy and you should know it. But I do know that it is difficult when you are a celebrity and you have this type of criminal case going that everybody has their handout for a payday. And that does, maybe because I'm a lawyer, it does make me suspect of the true motive. How many people might be lying or embellishing

to say they were victimized when they weren't because they want to get a check? And I'm not saying that he's innocent at all. I don't know. Innocent, guilty, I don't know. But you have to bring that forward when you are representing a person in P. Diddy's position. Well, it's going to be interesting to see this at trial because

the testimony of these women, we don't know who two of them are, but we know Cassie Ventura, obviously. We know her. She was in the video. It was horrible, horrible, her getting beaten up by Sean Combs. You know, she's going to be a very powerful witness. She will be subject to cross-examination. She may say, yeah, she's going to say she was coerced into all of this and that he had power over her because of her recording career. She's going to say this wasn't consensual. She was coerced into doing this. And I assume the other two women will say the same. So that, that will be powerful testimony. And then he apparently is, he's going to testify and he's

going to get up there and tell his story. This is going to be, and he, he will be cast as the one with, he's going to be the powerful person in these relationships. And they're going to be the more, you know, the subservient ones in the relationship, the ones who didn't have any power. Can we bring up one more quick thing on that note? Remember, before the criminal case was indicted, he settled, P. Diddy settled with lightning speed the civil suit brought by his ex-girlfriend. I think the people were still warm, right, when he wrote a check. And he probably did that with the hope that there would never be a criminal case. I mean, he settled it with lightning speed. Now, how will that serve him though? Because when this goes to trial and I think it's going to,

he's going to be able to say, or his people are going to be able to say, look, she was in it for the money too. And she got it. I wrote her a check. I don't know. We don't know how much she got, but that could detract from her credibility when she makes that argument, which I think is a legitimate argument for her to make, but that might be how they try to detract from her credibility. Yeah. It all started with Cassie and it sounds like it was in the neighborhood of $30 million. So that's a lot of money. Right. Johnna Spilbor, thank you so much. I appreciate it as always. Always a pleasure. Thank you.

Another way that Combs' attorneys claim this case differs from others, they say there's no accusation that any of the victims were minors or that Combs raped the victims, although he is accused of coercing them into taking part in sex trafficking. Federal prosecutors will respond to the Combs motion in writing. They have denied in prior hearings any racial bias in prosecuting Sean Combs. At this point, it's not clear whether any of the associates referenced in the superseding indictment are cooperating with the government in the case against Combs. Combs has asked twice to be released on bail, but those

requests have been denied. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ian Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.