Higher Learning with Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay - The Fourth of July Delivers the End of Diddy’s Trial and Trump’s Big “Beautiful” Bill | Higher Learning | The Ringer

Episode Date: July 4, 2025

Let’s “celebrate” the Fourth with a two-topic episode: the Diddy trial and Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” For today’s episode we bring in Yodit Tewolde to talk about the results from the Diddy trial, and Stephen Neukam to talk about how the country will be affected by Trump’s new bill. 00:00 - Welcome! 00:24 - Reaction to the Diddy Trial Results 37:08 - Celeb Reactions 39:30 - Yodit Tewolde Joins Us! 1:40:42- Stephen Neukam Joins Us! 1:56:46 - Breakdown of the Bill 2:05:00 - It’s OK to Admit That You’re Wrong Thanks for Watching! Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Guests: Stephen Neukam and Yodit Tewolde Producers: Donnie Beacham and Ashleigh Smith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yo, yo, yo, thought warriors. What is up? Howe learning is on? Is I been Lacey Jr.? And it's me, Rachel and Lindsay. Interesting show today, Rachel. It's a lot going on. A lot of stuff happening.

A lot of stuff happening. There are only two topics in the show today. For adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms, every choice matters. Trimfaya offers self-injection or intravenous infusion from the start. Tramphia is administered as injections under the skin or infusions through a vein every four weeks,

followed by injections under the skin every four or eight weeks. If your doctor decides that you can self-inject tremfaya, proper training is required. Tramphia is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, serious allergic reactions, increased risk of infections or lower ability to fight them,

and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, get checked for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or need a vaccine. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Trimfaya today. Call 1-800-526-7736 to learn more or visit Trimfair Radio.com.

The playoffs are here, and you can predict the action all the way to the final with Fandul Predict. predict the spread, total points, and even the game winner. Sign up and get a $25 bonus. Offered by Fandual Prediction Markets LLC, a registered futures commission merchant, 18 plus. Bonus is non-withdrawable and expires seven days after receipt. Trading derivatives involve significant risk and may not be suitable for all investors.

Manage your activity with our consumer protection tool. Restrictions apply. See terms at fandual.com slash predict slash bonus dash offer dash terms. One is one Sean Diddy Cohn's. who was convicted on two or five counts. But if you're being honest about it, it seems like he's skating. I mean, I think he would say that.

He fell to his knees crying when the verdict was read. These were the lowest charges. He was not guilty on the highest charges. A win for D. The one's the most caught witnesses. A win for D. So let's just get into it right now. So, Dedy was facing five counts, or five different, help me out legally. He was, he was facing five counts, sex trafficking of Cassie, sex trafficking of the Jane Doe, and then O'Rico.

He was found not guilty on all three of those charges. Those charges had by far the most serious penalties. and even more so than the most serious penalties. Those charges also had the most serious cultural ramifications for dating.

It wasn't just that those charges carried the most serious penalties in court or in the legal system. Being convicted of a rico, being a sex trafficker, that matters in a different way to people

than transportation for the purposes of prostitution. 100%. It would have been different. Those two charges that violations of the Man Act, he has been found guilty of. He is awaiting citizen. He was denied bail. And now each charge there carries, I think,

a maximum of 10 years. That's correct. means there's a possibility that Diddy could get 20 years in prison, which would make him 75 when he got out. But that is not going to happen. He is not going to get 10 years on each charge. Rachel, what do you think will happen? No, they will probably, well, one, there are federal sentencing guidelines. I don't know what they are particularly to these charges, but there are federal sentencing guidelines that federal judges follow.

and they do not equate to 20 years, especially the first time that somebody's being charged with this. I would estimate that he's probably, if let's just say if the federal sentencing guideline is five years, I think the judge would give him five years. And the reason I say that is, because when you listen to people talk about this case, it's 10 years and 10 years for each charge, max,

those are going to run, they're going to put those together. They're going to put them together. So it's 10 years. That's the first thing I would think. And then I would say that it was probably half that time. So it's probably five years. And obviously this is up to the judge's discretion. But seeing how the judge has handled Diddy's request or the defense's request for Bell,

and particularly this last time to be released, particularly after the jury found him not guilty on the lesser charges, and he still denied him getting released. I think this judge who has more information than we have because he presided over this case is factoring in letters from the victims, letters from the attorneys on both sides, all the evidence that he heard in the case. He has said he feels like he is a danger to society and he's locked him up until October 3rd for the sentencing. I think he'll give him five years. The defense thinks that it's going to be two years.

And he's time served. He's time served. By the time October hits, time served is a little over a year. So if the defense is right, he'll get like a couple of months. I mean, not a couple months. Like several months.

He'll probably get two years total because, well, look, this is just, I'm regurgitating what I hear from other people. We're guessing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's going to get credit for time served. So you're going to

you're going to get some credit for time served. Then, you know, it's fed time so he could do like a drug or alcohol program and then get some time for that. If he's, if he gets into that, you'd think that he would want to get into that. If he can get into that, he can get that. It's going to be something like 30 months. But look, here's the, here's the main deal here. What does this mean?

this has been such a whiplash, a whiplash. Since the verdicts come out. Well, no, even before then, right? As the government's case started to fall apart, and it did. As the government's case started to fall apart, you started to see a reaction from people

that they were pre-habilitating Diddy, not re-abilitating. They were pre-eabilitating. who was. Fibilitating Diddy. Different people who have it in their hearts

to be on the side of Diff. Let me ask you something, ma'am. Sure. You say the prosecution's case fell apart. Yeah. Are you saying that

because of the verdict that came out or because of what you witnessed during this trial? Because I'm going to argue that their case did not fall apart. Give it to me. This is the fucking jury. And of course, everything that we're saying, we have not heard a juror speak.

We don't know anything. But this is my opinion. I truly believe, and we're going to bring Yodidon to talk about this, but I truly believe that they laid out, Rico, I'll give you that. I'll give you Rico. Fine. RICO, I'm not going to talk about that. I'm talking specifically about sex trafficking.

I feel like between the evidence, which of course I didn't see every single thing that was presented and the testimony that was given, I believe that over weeks the prosecution fully laid out their case for sex trafficking. And the jury chose not to believe the testimony of those women. there was nothing more that the prosecution could do to prove the elements of that case, that jury of eight men and four women listened, watched the testimony of those women and said, I don't think you were forced. I don't think you were coerced. I don't think you were threatened. That's what they said.

And I think the prosecution did a fantastic job of laying that out. There was nothing more that they could show. Okay. So I'll tell you this. I'm not going to argue with the legal eagle, but nobody agrees with you. That's not true. I listen to people talk about this today.

Lawyers. Like, even the most conservative people are saying that there were mistakes made by the prosecution, even the way they got, okay, so, for example. And we'll bring Yodd on to talk about it, because she's the true legal eagle.

Like, for example, example, there was the testimony of the women, right, that were on the same. And then there was the words that the women had typed out to Diddy and talked to Diddy about and all of that stuff. This is the problem. Go for it. This is a problem. This is why this is, this infuriates me. Okay. So in, like, this really makes me Matt because I, I, To your point, the jury could not separate what the women were saying versus what a text message that said, I love you, or a text message that said you're my best friend. And this is where I can- Or text message that said, I want to do a freak-off. There is a deep misunderstanding of what consent is, consent, and then taking it back, and then coercion. So in the closing arguments, Diddy's attorney said,

that Cassie Ventura was the winner in this case. And he's making that statement because she walked away with a $30 million settlement. I mean, a settlement. That statement alone infuriates me. And it makes me so upset because to say that Cassie is the winner minimizes and ignores everything that this woman endured. And that kind of statement, the jury obviously believed that, which is why they found him not guilty when it came to sex trafficking. That statement erases her testimony of years of physical abuse, psychological abuse, and fear. And when he made that statement in his closing arguments,

he opened the door and planted a seed for this jury of eight men and four women to discredit her testimony and to correlate it that it wasn't that she suffered any type of coercion or that she felt threatened or that she felt or there was any type of force. They correlated it more to this was something that she desired, whether it was for fame, whether it was for money, or whether it was some type of association to the power and the person that Diddy is.

And as these charges came out, or I'm sorry, the verdict came out, I kept thinking about that conversation that we had about the Me Too movement and whether the Me Too movement had any kind of impact. And when you asked me about it, I was like, no, I think that it did. You know, because I was like, oh, it gave a voice to women who have been abused and they felt more empowered. And then they took down people and brought out truths of big people like a Harvey Weinstein or a Diddy,

who were known perpetrators within the community. but when somebody like a Cassie or other women who are public figures come out, it allows other women to speak out about how they suffered at the hands of these monsters as well. But when I listen to a jury deny the rights, I feel like of these women who testified, I feel like it makes me feel like maybe the Me Too movement, to your point, didn't have the impact that I did. Because the whole part of it was to bring awareness and to combat sexual,

violence that women endured. And for a ditty to get off on some of these major charges, and I'll take Rico out of it, but sex trafficking, it means that once again, you did not believe these women. It means that you think that they wanted the things that they testified to. They wanted the abuse. They wanted this humiliation. And it lets me know, again, that they don't understand consent or that consent changes. They don't understand that these women were subordinates and these women felt pressure to do the things that they want, that they were doing, whether it was fear of their life, fear of their career, or even fear of their reputation. And they ignored all of that. And I honestly believe this because they could not get past their subconscious bias and judgment. I am telling you,

I am having conversations with friends in person and through group chats, men and women, I am shocked at the things that they are saying, like, how could these women go back? How could these women? She really did love him. This was love. If I was in this situation, that would never be me. That's not the way that you should be looking at this. And if you say those things to me, that is you judging Cassie, judging the Jane Doe, and that's your subconscious bias coming out.

I feel that, like I said, that the prosecution did a really good job. of laying out the elements when it comes to sex trafficking. And I believe that the testimony of these women further corroborated it, but a jury decided to, they decided otherwise, and they looked at these victims, and they said, they subjected themselves to this. And I feel like we're once again looking at a system that does not honor the truth and the stories of women.

And you see people, you see people like a ditty who are a, who are powerful men that get away with the abuse of women. And at the end of the day, they're going to be praised and even celebrated for it, which is what we saw happen outside of the courtroom. To me, I just can't see it any other way. And I know people are going to disagree with me. But when I heard you say that you're listening to experts talk and they're bringing up the text messages, I don't think that that's the prosecution mishandling the case.

I think that that is a misunderstanding of society, not understanding that the pressure or threat or force or coercion that these women felt at the hands of a ditty and like that they had no other choice. I just don't, I don't think people can see past it. Okay. And I'm sorry if that was redundant. No, I think it was fantastic. So let's put all our cars on the table here. I think that Diddy is a sex trafficker.

I don't know enough about RICO to know how that sort of reconciles itself. Well, they never have any co-conspirators testify and I think that that's probably what hurt them there. I don't know about RICO in this case, but I do know about RICO in other cases. Like, for example,

if you look at a RICO charge against a Jongadi or a mob boss or something, like that. Then what you're looking at is someone who is in charge of a criminal enterprise and being in charge of that enterprise. People are doing stuff because they're either order to do it or in furtherance of that enterprise. When you have these testimonies or these RICO cases involving mob bosses, you have two

things normally, normally. you have direct testimony from somebody who was involved, like a Sammy the Bull who says straight up, I killed this many people and John Gotti told me to do it. Right? You have him. And if you believe him, because he's saying, and normally you do, because he's saying,

I believed these people, or he's saying, I killed these people, shall I say, and you're believing that he killed these people. He's killed these people for John Gotti. But then also in those RICO cases, you have wiretaps. You have wiretaps of people acting in the way that the witnesses say that they act. You have wiretaps.

You have somebody saying, hey, go take care of this. Hey, go take care of that. Hey, go take care of it is. And then you can normally put these situations together and say, well, it's likely that Sammy the Bull or Henry Hill or whomever else is telling the truth because we see this person acting in this way.

In this potential case, the reason why I say the prosecution that fell apart is because I think they got ambitious in the charging of the case, and they probably overcharged the case. And then secondly, I think they

overestimated, or to your point, underestimated, how impactful the testimony would be. And the reason why I'm saying that is because if what you're saying is true, then there's no way that Diddy could ever be convicted of this stuff. That you'd have to have it on paper. That you'd have to have someone saying, hey, Diddy, I don't want to do this.

Stop making me do this. Which I think so. I could argue and do argue that you do have. You have Cassie saying, hey, our freakoffs are great. When we both want it. you have people saying that Jane Doe testifying that she thought that she was going

for a nice hotel room sensual session with Diddy and all of a sudden there's a guy there for a freak off and she doesn't want to do it. I think what fell apart was that the jury

looked at what was happening between Diddy and these women as essentially a bad relationship. Which is how the defense presented it, yeah. Right, which is, which is, it's like, hey, I like it this time, I don't like it that time. Or, for example, but just listen to what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm listening. Listen to what I'm saying.

Like, if you were in a relationship with someone and throw a sexual thing out there, there. Whatever. Like, you're in a, let's, something tame so the audience doesn't go all crazy. But you don't like giving a blowjob. You're a woman. You don't like giving head. You don't like doing something like this. And you're doing it to make that person happy. You're doing it because that person is your everything. It's a difference between that and doing it because you think that person will kill you. Now, if you are saying that you are doing it because you think that that person will kill you, then it is going to be damaging, Rachel. I'm just being honest. It is going to be damaging. Well, you know, it doesn't have to just be killed. Killed, take away, whatever. Whatever

the reason why you think that you're doing it, right? Like, whatever the, if, like, if you are doing it, Because you, not, because there's fear, it is going to be damaging if someone can produce communication from you at a certain point with you not expressing that. With you, it, it, hold on for a second, hold on for a second. You and I are in the same boat as it relates to Diddy. I've already seen people that have completely crawfished and come back to this. And if I'm so disappointed by so many people I see that are ready to open their arms up and let Puff back into the culture. Puff is an abusive, manipulative, evil motherfucker. That's the end of it.

That's a fact. I'm telling you guys this. That's a fact. There's no ambiguity there for me. However, if we're looking at this, if I'm being objective in looking at this. Sure. I could see how people would have difficulty convicting somebody

in this type of situation where they're saying that they felt one way and then there's evidence or different evidence that they felt a different type of way. You're right. I'm not going to disagree with you. I can totally see how that can confuse

someone, right? And my question to Yody, when she comes on, would be, did they present an expert to testify in regards to the psychological abuse, a toll that this can take on someone, to talk about Stockholm syndrome, to talk about how victims do continue to go back to their abusers? That is an actual thing. And I would wonder if that type of evidence was presented. And even, you know, this is where I'm putting my knowledge in. I wouldn't need somebody to say that to me for me to know that. But I guess if I'm looking, if I'm taking evidence, for example, the video, right? The video of him beating Cassie in that hotel hallway is, is the most damaging, in my opinion, a piece of evidence. and her testimony was that she was at Afrika.

She was in California. She did not want to be in there. She was running away. And he beat her down to drag her back in there to have sex. Now, how do you watch that and not say that that person wasn't forced to go in there and to commit acts that they didn't want to do? That person wasn't threatened. That person wasn't coerced to go back in there and do some shit that they didn't want to do.

Now, help me reason that. That's the kind of stuff that I don't understand. Now, when you take all of it into consideration that she was 17 at best when she met Diddy, and this man dangled her entire career, reputation, life in front of her, I don't know how fucked up I would be at 17 if that was my life. And then I thought I was in love with this person and I had the world and then it all changed. Yeah, I'm sure. That's like, think about what someone's mindset is at 17 and how easily they can be manipulated

and they don't understand what love is and they get confused as to what love is. And they, yeah, like, to me, I think it just comes down to, like, if I'm just talking about the hotel incident alone, that is an entire act of somebody being forced to commit a sexual act that they didn't want to do. And if you, for you to rule not guilty, and I'll just use Cassie because that's the video that we saw, that means you didn't believe. that she was forced to do those things. That means you believe she wanted to do it.

That means that that's what you believe. And the defense said that they were a great American love story. For you to rule not guilty, or I'm sorry, to give a not guilty verdict. You believe that. You believe that this was just domestic violence. You believe Cassie wanted this. But this is a jury who took an oath. And when you take an oath or when you're questioned in voir dire, you are asked questions.

about your personal bias, right? And so the hope, the swiped juries suck. This is why the defense would never have picked a trial by judge, right? Because what the hope is, is that they'll ask questions, like if this was, you know, a murder case or something, they're going to ask you if you've had a family member who has been, let's say it was a murder case with a police officer, who's been shot by the police, who's had run-ins with the police.

Do you feel a certain way? Because they're trying to take your subconscious bias, or not even subconscious bias, just your bias and judgment out of it. So the hope is that the questions that you're presenting are natural for us to have. The hope is that a jury can throw that out

as a juror. Asking a jury these questions, by the way. The attorneys and Boydire, voir dire, they're asking the question at the beginning. So the whole, so the process, just the defense of the prosecution too. Both, both do. And then they pick, they'll say like,

I don't want six because of this. I don't want whatever. Like, so, So the prosecution picked the jury. They both do. But like it's a win-lose situation. The defense will get some people that they want. The jury, you don't all, you're not going to all agree.

You settle, right? Like you're not like those were exactly the 12 people that I wanted on that jury. But my point being is that you hope, because you ask these questions, that a jury doesn't come in with any bias, that they take exactly what's in front of them and they make a decision. So I'm saying that to say to answer your questions of, you're right. of course, naturally, you're like, then why would you keep going back? Why would you do this?

The hope is that the jurors didn't do that. And they really took what was in front of them and they made a decision. My belief is that I believe the prosecution laid it out in a way where it was obvious to me that these women did not want to do that. The jury said otherwise. And my belief, and of course I don't know this, is that the jury said otherwise because they

could not get past some of the questions that you're presenting. And I've come to that conclusion talking to people that I really respect, that I am shocked who are saying things like, well, why did she go back? Well, if that was me, I wouldn't do it. How fuck do you know that? You have no idea what you would do in that type of situation. And to your point, maybe that was too hard. This was too hard. I still think that they should have gone through with it and that they should not have not pursued this case based off of how hard it may be for people to put their personal bias to the side. But I think at the end of the day, people couldn't.

And I say that because of how people are talking right now. I think people just cannot get past that Cassie was in this situation for over a decade. I think this comes from, I think the conversation that we're having right now comes from the way that we look at things. I'm horrified and shocked and completely aware of the realities of sexual Congress culturally. I'm still always surprised, though. Do you know I could not imagine in any way, shape, or form having a sexual experience with somebody just to make my day easier? But I could not imagine doing that.

Like, I exhibit, like, being a man or being told is, like, not doing anything you don't want to do. The moment you do something you don't want to do, somebody is, then you sacrifice a certain degree of machismo, masculinity or whatever. So if I don't want to do it, I just don't want to do it. And I'm not even talking about sex. I'm talking about going to a party. Like I'll, like if I get up, if I feel like I have to do something and I don't really want to do it, I feel like I lose a little piece of myself every time I do something like that. So I don't do things that I don't want to do, right?

Even the way that we look, even the way that we look at some of this stuff, in terms of when somebody is consenting to something, when someone is doing something that they want to do, how somebody can do some... It's never cut and dry. It's never, ever, ever cut and dry. It's never cut and dry. It's sometimes transactional.

It's sometimes short term. And the ability to separate... What we're talking about right here is not actually even sex. We're talking about agency. and the ability to to determine when somebody has agency when someone shows agency it's hard

and if the government was going to base their case around that and I'm very upset with the government and how they put their case together I'm very upset that they lost and the reason why I'm so upset that they lost is because and I would rather have them shoulders

to blame than have the jury's shoulder to blame because the jury are just average everyday people, supposedly, right? The reason why that bothers me so much is because this case wasn't just litigating or investigating biddy as a person or as a criminal.

It was asking questions about the behavior. It was asking questions about the hierarchy. Correct. It was asking questions about whether or not this stuff is all of this is okay. Right? And we have a really, particularly in the black community, we have a really interesting relationship. let me not say the black community, let me just use me.

We have a really interesting relationship to criminality because some of my favorite people in the world were criminals. Criminality and public figures. I think that there's an interesting relationship. And sorry, I'll let me interrupt you, keep going. No, it's fine. It's good. We have in a conversation.

It's like criminality and public figures, but see, I... The ditty part of it is one thing. but the people that I know and the stories and the accounts that I've heard, they're not from famous people and these niggas not famous. Well, I think that I really do think that part of the Diddy being Who Diddy as a public figure factored into what they thought was threat, coercion, coercion or force in this case. I absolutely think that as a society, we, and I put this on my

social media and I said this at the top of this conversation, we really need to have a deeper conversation of understanding what is consent, what does it mean to consent and change your mind, and what does it mean to force? And that goes towards the agency. Force, a woman might feel a certain way. And this could be men too. Let me not just make this just about women, but a person can feel a certain way of that they have no choice

because that person has control of them financially, of them professionally, of their reputation. This is even uncomfortable, uncomfortable for me right now. It, like, super duper uncomfortable. And the reason why is because, like, I, like, I'm going to be honest with you. I am kind of getting a little tired or worn out with the fact that every single thing has to do with this unconscious bias and this weird unsaid unspoken thing. Because that to me is, it does two things.

one, it takes people off the hook that are supposed to be doing their jobs, right? Like, if, so Kamala Harris is black. True story. Hard to elect a black woman. True story. They could have run that campaign in a way to where it wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

Joe Biden could have got out. They could have had a primary. They could have done all of that stuff. So rather than actually deal with the process, of what it takes to make the best actual candidate in that type of situation. We talk about the fact, straight up, they don't want to elect a black woman.

And maybe they don't. Maybe they don't want to elect a black woman. I actually think that that's probably true, right? It's undoubtedly true. But at the same time, we did not put the black woman in the best position to succeed. And the reason why we didn't do this is because of hubris,

is because of Joe Biden is because of the Democratic Party. It's because of all of these things that could have been done differently so that we actually had a chance to win. And when I look at this case and I look at what this means, I'm looking at a group of smart people

who should be able to anticipate and who should know and who are, to your point, picking the jury that is going to make decisions based off of this testimony. And they still put people up on the jury that made decisions that apparently they couldn't anticipate things that they couldn't see. And now we're all left with the fact that an abuser and a creep is going to be let into our mists.

And it's like there's no guardrails. There's nothing we could have done about it. As soon as it got back to the jury, it didn't matter what the jury, it didn't matter what was said. The jury was going to convict because they're rotten. But how many times have you seen that happen? Jurors get cases wrong all the time, which is why I'm in a little bit more of defense of the prosecution because you put it in the hands of the jury and you do the best that you can do. but you can't anticipate every single thing. You can't know if a jury told you the truth

when you were questioning them prior to choosing them to sit in that box. You don't know if it triggered a memory from the past. You don't know. You're literally putting your case in the hands of 12 strangers. They brought the case, though. There was going to be no case. Of course.

They have a, no, no, no. They have a level of responsibility. I just think I'm listening to you and I'm listening to the way you're talking about jurors. And I'm like, how often do jurors get this ship? They get stuff wrong. Or I should say it like this. A jury is unpredictable.

A jury is unpredictable. You can go back in time when these jurors acquitted, these police officers, when it was clear as day with what they did was so wrong. And the prosecution and the defense had both, chose who got to go in that box and they have to settle on different individuals, but at the end of the day, the jury is unpredictable and they make a decision that shocks everybody. You just don't know. So to fully say, yes, the prosecution lost this case. Yes, maybe they reached when it came to the RICO.

You know, I'm on record saying I didn't think so, but I can see, I can concede and see that yes, maybe they did. You can't put it all and say, they messed this up and they got it. wrong because juries are unpredictable. There's a whole movement where people hate the system when it comes to jurors. Because if you really don't know, you do the best that you can do and you leave it in the hands of 12 people with no legal experience. What's the alternative system? I mean, you could do it by judge.

Not saying a judge isn't bias either, but the defense gets to choose trial by jury or judge. And why would Diddy's team have chosen trial by a judge? They would have never done that. This episode is brought to by WeatherTech. Everyone knows winter is the MVP and making a mess. You don't need WeatherTech floor liners in the summer, unless you hit the beach or go camping. Then you'd want a cargo liner.

Or a road trip goes sideways, ketchup goes rogue, ice cream drips. Yeah, you'd be pretty happy about those WeatherTech seat protectors. So just to be clear as the mud, you're inevitably going to step into the summer. You don't need weather tech unless you plan on doing summer. Visit weathertech.com today. This episode is brought to you by Sweetgreen. The day doesn't ask for permission. Lunch window?

Gone before you saw it coming. You deserve a break that actually satisfies. Sweet Green's new wraps have got you. Real ingredients? Zero shortcuts. Everything you love in one hand. Think green goddess chicken. Garlic aoli.

Crumbled bacon. Corn salsa. 40 grams of food. Protein. Made to keep up with whatever comes next. New sweet green wraps hit different. Order now at order.com. The reactions to this were kind of all over the place. Not really. Aubrey O'Day said this makes me physically ill. I'm going to vomit. If he were to walk free, he's coming after everybody. Young Miami posted a video of Justin Bieber clapping his fingers. Lulnell said, nobody, and I mean, no one cares what men do to women is sad as fuck to me. Tiny hair is. says people want to charge you so bad for being freaky. It's nasty work. It's interesting.

Exactly. Boosey and 50 Cent, kind of this. Boosey obviously loves being on the wrong side of history. That's where he lives. So it's a great day of hip-hop. I'm tired of seeing us black moguls get took down like that. Judge Mathis said being denied bail is it fair? And there were a lot of people that were saying that,

that being denied bail in this case for Diddy isn't fair. What do you think? I don't understand. I mean, he was found guilty on two charges. Okay? Letters were submitted by the victims and both from the prosecution and the defense. Just because he was found not guilty on the most serious charges doesn't mean he gets a get out of jail free card. It is up to a judge to weigh all that's in front of him.

And yeah, maybe he's not a flight risk in the same way. But to now give sympathy to Diddy and say he deserves to sleep at home with his family just because he was found not guilty on the most serious charges. It is already a win for the defense that he will not go to jail for life. But to now, as you said earlier, you're seeing people turn the tide when it comes to did he. We're not, we don't need to be granting him everything. The judge said he's denied it. I think that that is fair. Let's not forget all the things. At the end of the day, at the end of the day, he might have been found not guilty on those charges, but he is still an

abuser. He is still violent. And his own defense team said that. So why the fuck does he get to get out now? They conceded to that. The judge said, hey, you already told me this guy's violent. Like, why would I let him out? Yeah. Like, everything. Everybody agreed to that. Yody, we are having a conversation. Diddy, you said there were going to be two out of five that you thought they would get them on. Were these the two out of five that you thought?

Yes. Okay. Why didn't you think that the jury was going to come back with guilty counts on both sex trafficking counts and the RICO? Okay. The RICO was the hardest charged. for the prosecution to prove, only because they needed to establish that Diddy was the head of this criminal enterprise. And so I think that the jurors weren't convinced that this one man created or was the entire criminal organization. They alleged that there were other employees,

like bodyguards, foot soldiers, high-ranking employees, but where were they? Why didn't they testify? Why weren't his co-conspirators charged? All we were. is one man. We can't believe that all his companies, all of his companies, corporations, was a criminal enterprise. We're committing crimes and covering them up. So I think the idea of Diddy running this criminal organization and being charged with Rico, which is notoriously known to go after criminal mafia's criminal organizations of that kind, that this was a person who He wasn't, yeah, he wasn't the greatest person. He was probably doing some real foul shit,

but he was doing it on his own personal time. It had nothing to do with his corporation. So it was already a reach for a lot of legal experts to wrap their minds around the prosecution getting over that hurdle. I am very shocked that they didn't come back with the guilty verdict for sex trafficking as to Cassie. I thought Jane was not a good, Jane is the other ex

who was testifying under the pseudonym of Jane. I don't think her testimony helped. Cassie, however, had that video where she is being abused physically and dragged by the hair to go to a freak off that she was trying

to leave. How they didn't see that, especially when the prosecution made it very clear in their closing, all you have to find is one instance where Cassie was involved in these freakoffs and she was forced. We're not asking you to believe that she was forced every single time.

We're asking you to believe that she was forced at least one time. And if you can find that she was coerced one time, then that is a guilty for sex trafficking. And I thought that that would have been, that would have hit home for them. And so I am very surprised about that. I'm not surprised about the racketeering. even though I believe the prosecution proved their case on that.

But I'm a lawyer. These are individuals who are not. They come into the courtroom with different experiences. So they obviously view the evidence differently. Yeah, we've really been having this conversation about how well the prosecution presented their case or did the defense maybe just do a better job and then versus juries and how they come in.

And I did not realize until the verdict came out that it was eight men and four women. Yeah. What does that mean to you? What does that mean to you instantly? Because I've heard chatter like, oh, my God, eight men. That means ditties walking. Not true. Not true.

Okay. What do you? Because, see, to me, I don't like that. I don't like that set up. So tell me why that's not true. So there are studies, and from my own experiences of being a trial lawyer, women are the harshest towards you. Towards women.

They are the ones that are the most judgmental. So the fact that there was eight men on this jury wasn't a guarantee that Dittie was going to walk. They're actually more sympathetic to women. I'm more concerned about their occupation. A lot of them had degrees. And where you have jurors who have multiple degrees, they're more inclined to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

They're able to think critically in that way, and be very, very picky about the evidence. So that is more of the concern. I'm not sure how that played a role at all. But I will say that just because there were more men on the jury didn't mean that that that was going to mean that didn't he was going to walk at all. That didn't even faze me whatsoever. If you thought that the prosecution proved their case,

why didn't you think that they would, then why did you say two out of five? Did you think the jury? I said the transportation to engage in prostitution. That was the least severe of the charges. And it was the charge that they proved over and over and over again. Let me tell you what it is again. It is transporting individuals across state lines to engage in commercial sex. And commercial sex is sex for money.

And they had already proven that. Cassie and Jane went to multiple states, cities, L.A., New York. Miami, Turks and Caicos. You had entertainers coming to the courtroom and testify. I had sex with Cassie. I had sex with Jane. For money, they were paid between $1,500 and $6,000. They had proven that.

That's easy. That was the easy church. So what you said was you thought it was going to be two for sure. Too for sure. And then the other ones you kind of expected that there would be one with Cassie, but not so much of Jane. Why do, okay. I don't want to put you in the minds of things.

the jurors. Because what the back and forth me and Rachel have been having is the people I've been talked to that I've been talking to have said that the prosecution's case kind of fell apart that they did not present a great case and which is the reason. And I agree with you. I agree with you. I'm like, I think they did

a fantastic job. Juries are unpredictable. And it's so easy to say that when you actually know the verdict, right? To pick apart what they did, didn't do, should have done. I will say the only thing that didn't make sense to me was for them to put on their expert to explain why women stay, why they would actually...

They did do that. They present... Yes. But they... I said I didn't... Rachel, they presented her... They presented her after Cassie's testimony. Why not tie this thing up and present her at the very end?

Because they were cross-examining Jane and asking her questions about why this and why that. And she's like, I'm still trying to understand why I stayed. I'm still going through therapy and trying to understand this, that, and the other. Well, an expert would have been nice after Jane's testimony, after everything was said and done, to then present her. I will say this. This is what I really am irritated by. And I heard Diddy's attorneys, one of them, Tenny Garago saying this, that the jury found that Diddy didn't commit the sex trafficking, that Diddy wasn't guilty of racketeering, that he didn't have an enterprise, that he, this never happened.

and I hate that. Because what an acquittal means or what a not guilty means, that is just a legal determination. It is not indicative that someone is actually innocent, if that makes any sense. All they're saying is,

the prosecution failed to prove Diddy's guilt? We are instructed to follow the law and the facts. We may feel like he's, we may feel that he's guilty. but you just haven't proven that beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubt that the defense planted in the minds of these jurors, the prosecution couldn't get beyond. There was another alternative for them.

There was another explanation, especially with regards to sex trafficking, the question of consent. They were conflicted with their testimony, with their text messages. You have them enthusiastic, even planning some of these free buffs. So they don't understand how they were coerced when you're also planning, when you're enthusiastic, when you're, and so did, and if you weren't comfortable with the freakoffs, did you let, did he know? And I thought that there was text messages that indicated that. You saw that from both Jane and Cassie. I don't want to do this anymore.

So I don't, I don't know. I don't know how they came to their verdict. And I honestly thought when they said that they had their minds made up when they were unanimous on the four out of five. And the one that they couldn't come to a verdict on was the racketeering, which was a no-brainer. I was like, oh, oh, oh, my God. This isn't looking good because. I thought they had them all. Had them all.

And you know why? The transportation to engage in prostitution and the sex trafficking were also the underlying acts under the RICO. Remember, I told you all in the other conversation we had before, they only needed to prove two predicate acts, two. So if they found Denny guilty of sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution, there's your two. So I'm thinking, okay, the majority might be in favor of convicting all racketeering, but the minority is not. Well, clearly that's not the case. I'm dying to know what the divide is,

but clearly when they went back to deliberate, because the judge was like, y'all got to do some more deliberations, clearly the minority was for conviction. And the majority was to acquit because they clearly folded. They came back with a verdicts before 10 a.m.

After just, what, two days? So it's very, very interesting. And I don't know if any of them are going to speak. I wouldn't. They're allowed to. But it would be very interesting to see what the divide is on or what the divide was on these counts. Yeah, Van and I were having a back and forth literally talking for an hour because the most troubling thing to me, and I brought up what one of Diddy's attorney said in closing argument, is that Cassie was the real winner. Was the winner, yep. And it's this whole mindset in planting this seed of

These women, when it comes to a public figure, they wanted this. They wanted the association. They wanted to be attached for it. And Van and I were kind of having this back and forth, back and forth. And you talked a little bit about it of should they maybe have even pursued this case? Because that type of thinking is so embedded in the minds of clearly men and women here when it comes to, and I put this up on social media and you know, I kind of chat a little bit about it when it comes to consent and then consent and then changing your mind versus coercion or threat or force when it comes to that. Do you think that it was always impossible because of bias or judgment that people have when it comes to, I guess, the acts that these women were

doing? No, no, not impossible. I will say this. The prosecution made it a point to make sure that the judge included in the instructions before the jury deliberated. Two things. One was that a victim can, a person can still be a victim even though they won a monetary judgment. That those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

They wanted to make that very clear that just because Cassie got paid out doesn't mean that she wasn't a victim. And the other thing was you mentioned it earlier, the consent. Just because someone gives consent one time doesn't mean that they can't withdraw that consent. They made those two things very, very clear in the instructions.

So I had to just point that out. Do I think it's impossible to, or do I think it's, it's harder? You already know that with sexual assaults, he say, she say, those are hard cases, period. you're going to get questions as to if a woman goes the civil route she just wants money if a woman goes the criminal route

well why did you wait this long or why are you trying to take down a powerful man black man there's always a reason or a question about someone who believes they've been victimized and wants to speak truth

So I don't know how the prosecution felt. I think that with the Southern District of New York, they rarely ever lose cases, trials. They rarely ever lose racketeering cases. I think that they truly believe that they had this. But even if they didn't, sometimes you go forward because you want to give these individuals, these alleged victims, an opportunity to have their day in court. It was important. I think even Cassie felt, I think through her attorney,

he said that she was happy that people came forward. She was pretty much the reason why all of this even happened. And I think he addressed the winner statement that Diddy's attorney. Listen, at the end of the day, his attorneys are going to do what they need to do, right? They've got to zealously defend their client. So they're going to create a narrative. and that narrative was she's sitting on $30 million, I think she's won. When clearly Cassie testifying, the prosecution asked if she could give that money back

and none of these freakoffs would have ever occurred, she would have taken that. She would have given every single dollar back. So for him to say that in closing, I don't even think that that was even the convincing aspect for the jurors. I just think that they felt that the prosecution failed to meet their burden. there was just an alternative explanation that was reasonable to them, that he was doing these things on his own personal time. There was no criminal organization. The sex trafficking, he was in consenting relationships.

There's some stickiness there in terms of the consent. We saw evidence, text message evidence, where they actually wanted to do these things. So there were conflicting narratives, and they went with the one that they believed, and that was what the defense was. offering up. Why do you think they did that? That's a hard question because I'm not in their, I'm not in their minds. I think, I think what jurors have to do is take their own experiences.

I think they might question, and this is what women do when it comes to a female victim. Well, why did you stay? Because if, if I were in that situation, I was there, I'm telling you, this is what they're asking themselves. And they're thinking, you could have left. but instead you stay because you're getting perks. Now, I don't know what the men are thinking, but I can tell you that that's what some women do think. And so what they're asking, how they're judging this case is by how they would actually behave

in that same scenario. And then they'll take the law and try to like tailor it to their own narrative, their own belief and make it fit, if that makes any sense. So I mean, that's all I can really... Which they're not supposed to do. Which they're not...

Yeah, well... Yeah. What was the racial makeup of the jury? Do we know? I want to say someone actually... I don't remember who... Where I read this, I think... I don't know the racial makeup of the men,

but I think the women were white. Interesting. Yeah. So, you know... White women for... Diddy. Now, listen, this bail, this bail, let me tell you what is convincing me to this day that Diddy has no remorse.

The bail issue, you know, he was denied bail initially. Did not get bail. He did not get bail. He didn't get bail because of severity of the charges. He wasn't granted bail because he was actually engaging in criminal activity while under investigation. And he, while being detained. was reaching out to witnesses.

So he had this disregard for the law. Then when he was acquitted of the severe charges, his attorneys go, okay, well now he's been acquitted of these severe charges. He should be able to go home while he awaits sentencing. And the judge goes, I don't see why my decision initially needs to change now. Because you all throughout this,

entire trial have conceded that your client is violent, that he is violence. And he has been shown to be in a complete and utter disregard of the law. And then he also got letters from Cassie. He got letters from some of the witnesses that testified saying, please keep him detained. And so he detained him. And the sketch artist who's been releasing some of these photos, these sketches from court, show what did he look like when he was denied bail. And he had his eyes bugged out, his mouth wide open. He really believed he was going to walk out of that courtroom a free man, at least in the meantime. And that tells me that this man has never, ever really been held accountable.

That's what that tells me, because he was shocked. And I don't know if it was his lawyers not managing his expectations. Maybe they told him it was, you know, a really good shot of him leaving. but this man is not remorseful in the least. And I think the judge knows it. And I don't think the judge can unhear what he heard for seven weeks. Yeah. He just can't.

Yeah. So, oh, go ahead. Where do you think that we stand with sentencing? Yeah. Now, each of those charges carries a maximum of 10 years. So there have been reports that say, you know, he's looking at a, at a particular. potentially a 20-year sentence. And that's if they're stacked. And a judge usually doesn't stack cases, meaning one, he'll serve the 10 years, and then the 10 years, the other second 10-year

sentence then kicks in. They usually run concurrently, so at the same time. So max 10 years. The prosecution told the judge in arguing to detain, keep getting detained, that they were going to go for about 51 to 63 months. That's about 4 to 5 years. and the defense goes, well, we're going to go after a sentencing of 21 to 27. That's about one and a half to two and a half years, somewhere in there. And then he gets credit for the 10 months that he's already served. So what they're now looking at when you have somebody who's convicted of a felony, of a felony, they do a pre-sentencing report.

And a pre-sentencing report is you're interviewing him, you're interviewing people that are involved in the case. You're even interviewing individuals who work in the detention center. You're trying to gather as much information as possible in terms of his propensity for violence, his background, his childhood, is upbringing, all that stuff. And then you have witness statements and victim statements and all those things put into this report for the judge to go over in order for him to better decide what the sentence should be. And so they have that scheduled, the sentencing in October.

which I thought was like, that's a little too wrong. I mean, he's being detained until October for a sentencing. So they're trying to speed this up. I know that the defense is saying that they are willing to waive the pre-sentencing report in order to speed things up. And the prosecution is saying that they don't want to waive that. They think that the court needs more information in order to really give the most fair sentence. So they're going to have a hearing next week.

to decide when they're actually going to sentence Ditty because both sides are in agreement that they do want to expedite the sentencing. So I'm thinking that the judge is going to go harsher than more lenient in terms of what both sides want. Is he going to look for, are we going to see double digits? No, we're not seeing 10 years. We're not even going to see anywhere close to 10 years.

I think he's going to go somewhere in the middle. Is that a win for Diddy? Absolutely. This was probably, next to being acquitted on all charges, this was the next best thing. That's why he was on his hands and knees. He expected to be convicted of the prostitution charge. The heavy hitter, the heaviest, most severe charges he was acquitted of.

So that was the next best. Well, actually, you know, I take that back. The best case scenario for Ditty is an acquittal across the board. The next best scenario was a mistrial. And then this outcome here. So,

yeah, he's gonna be out. He still has life to live. I don't even know how old Ditty is. Is he like 50s? 50 something. So he serves, what, five years? He's out, 60. He won't serve five years. And he won't serve five years. I don't know how to do the mathematical life. I don't think he's gonna I think Diddy is, I think no matter what, he's home at the end of the year.

Really? So you're, wait, wait. So you're saying, because he's only served 10 months. So you're saying he's going to be sentenced to about what, a year and get credit for 10? No, no, no, no. Okay, so. I'm saying that Donald Trump is going to commute the sentence. Oh, here we go with that.

I'm telling you guys right now, book it, mark it. Okay, so let me tell you. Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. If Diddy would have been convicted on two sex trafficking cases with Arico, the politics of it would have looked really bad, right? You are now letting a convicted sex trafficker out for Donald Trump. This is different. This is a guy who they said has engaged in some prostitution across state lines. who in D.C. can't relate to that.

Okay. So you don't think, so you think that he's strictly going off of what he was convicted of instead of what actually came out in court? Absolutely. Because it's, it's my belief that

Diddy is way too shiny, a political toy for Donald Trump to let stay in jail when he could activate Diddy and get him out of jail. There will be, I really do believe this.

So I could get on board with the idea that he would, that he would pardon Diddy for financial reasons because I think pardons are for sale. I don't think that politically Diddy helps. But, you know,

aside from all of that, because I just don't think that it helps him. He's already in his second term. Well, I do think it helps. Okay. And see, I just think that he has the money to buy a pardon. And clearly Trump is in the business of making money. I think, I think, so to your point, I think the buying of the pardon is on the table.

Yeah. But also, I do think it helps. The reason why I think it helps is the same reason you would pardon Kodak Black or the same reason you would get involved in AACRocke's situation. But didn't he do that when he was campaigning? Because I can understand time-wise. If he was campaigning and this was all happening, I totally would be on your silence.

What does the black man vote mean to him right now? Why does that even matter? It's not the black man vote. Trump doesn't, Trump does it for votes, but Trump does it for cultural cachet and for likes. Okay. It's the black man adulation.

It's the black man worship. Perhaps. It's the black, the culturally codified. And by the way, not just black man, black people. Trump wants to, and also he wants his movement to continue. I think Trump, to be honest with you, would like for Donald Trump Jr. Or for Barron Trump or for the rest of the Trump family brand to have a soft political

bed to lay in with America. And I think they've already asked them about this. right? They said, they asked him, he said, look, if I thought that he was treated unfairly, yeah, I would. And I just don't think he, I, I can't believe I'm saying this. I think that there's, I'm not going to say it. I feel like there is a line that I don't think Donald Trump is really, oh, no, you shouldn't have said it. You shouldn't have said it. You shouldn't have said it. Not for a black man. I just, I don't think it's right. I don't think he is. cares that way.

I don't. I feel like he thinks that he's already gotten the adoration from Black Coke. I don't think he feels like he's got to do any more work when it comes to that. I really, I think that when it comes to Ditty, I just don't think he's willing to go to back for him on that. I just

don't. Not with the facts that came out. I just, I'd like to believe that. Now, I even felt bad saying it. I really did, because I feel like I'm going to eat my words later, but we'll bring you back to talk about it. We'll bring you back to talk about this when Donald Trump pardons Diddy.

The moment that Diddy got, that these, he didn't get, he just can't do it with the sex trafficking, but the moment those were out the window and the Rico was out the window, I'm like Donald Trump is partnering Diddy. Even with the video of him beating Cassie, even with that being out there. Yep. I mean, there's a tape of him too.

Not the same level, but I'm just saying. Well, of admitting to assaults. Talking dirty, but then actually seeing somebody actually beating the living life out of a woman. Yeah. We're talking about two monsters here. Two monsters. I know.

I know. I know. But I think that he thinks he's the better of the monster. Monsters. Yeah. I really do things. We'll see what happens with this. I don't even want that coming out.

It's in there. It's in there. What do you think about the people who think that it's unfair that Diddy isn't getting bail? Like Judge Mathis, your friend. Do I think it is unfair that Diddy isn't getting bail? He's a convicted felon. What are we talking about here? He's been convicted of a felony.

He's not now accused. He is a convict. He is a convict. guilty. And honestly, here's, here's a thing. I'm not willing to, if I were the judge and the judge, I think this is where he's coming from here. First of all, imagine the battery that's been put on Ditties back. He's charged up at this point. He's literally beaten the Southern District of New York. Yeah. And then on top of that, because he's been saying he's going to walk out of that courthouse, a free man. To allow that to even happen,

this man already doesn't understand the rule of law. He already believes he's above the law. So then to allow him to be convicted and then to walk out and then to ask to be housed in his Miami mansion. Are you in sex? I think they would have at least said, you know what, we'll stay right around the corner from the courthouse. What you think you, oh, you want to get,

he wanted to stay in his Miami mansion have limited travel to L.A., New Jersey, New York. You got to be out of your mind. I probably pissed the judge, y'all. He said, you know what? That's probably why I got denied. And here's the thing. I think there's specific deterrence,

meaning I want to sentence this individual in order to make sure I'm deterring this specific person from committing this crime again. And then there's general deterrence. I am going to sentence this individual to make sure that the public right understands what the message is here.

And I think, he's sending a very loud and clear message to Diddy, that just because you wiggled your way out of this doesn't mean that now I'm going to allow you to sit comfortably to await your sentencing. Because guess what? There are other people that are involved in this case. I don't think the judge is willing to risk allowing this man to leave free when he's got so many loyal individuals. because he doesn't have to go and intimidate anybody personally. He can send his minions, though. He can send people.

And he's got way, the judge that is, has way too many individuals who are concerned for their own safety. And I think he is making a decision for the public. And so I think he's making a smart decision. I didn't listen to the specifics of Judge Mathis's reasoning for allowing him to be granted bail. Is it because he was acquitted? Well, because he was acquitted on the most dangerous crimes. Yeah. Yeah, but do we not see that video?

Yeah. I mean... What are we talking about here? We know what we're talking about. No. If you're Dittie's lawyers and he has all of these civil suits that are still outstanding. Oh, yeah. He's not done.

Yeah. Do you make quick deals to settle as many civil suits as possible? I know that his money isn't endless. He has a shit ton of money, but I know it's not endless. Or do you fight these out and go through the whole deal? Do you just want to get rid of everything quickly since the biggest criminal hurdle is over? Or do you treat these basically the same way that you would have rather, whether or not the criminal stuff had ever happened?

People have to understand that there's a difference, there's a different level of proof required in criminal. court and civil. Just because Diddy was acquitted of these crimes in criminal court, where the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest burden

there is, it's not the same burden of proof in civil court. So there have been a number of cases. OJ is the biggest one, right? He was acquitted of murder, but then found civilly liable for

those deaths of his wife and her lover. So was he his lover? Her lover? I don't know. I'm sure if I said that out of context. Ronald Goldman. Okay. Okay. Her boyfriend. Yeah. So, so Diddy could be easily found guilty.

Liable, that is. In civil court. So is it best to settle? Probably. Yeah. They want to quiet these accusations. Now, I think, I don't think it gets worse than what we've heard coming out of, you know, his trial. in the Southern District of New York. But at the end of the day,

he's got a slew of civil cases waiting for him. And you're right, his money isn't endless. So it's probably best to settle. I'm not sure if that's the route they're going to take, but it would be smart because I can see him being held civilly liable for a number of these suits. Just because he was acquitted criminally does not mean he's not going to be having to pay

a bunch of money to a lot. Don Richards is one of them. I don't even know. There's several people who, Don Richard stands out because she's the one that actually testified. There's a bunch of suits out there. It's just a bunch of suits. It's going to make, yeah, he's going to go broke.

There are people that are talking about his sons possibly facing from all charges as well. I don't know anything about that, but the way his trial, Diddy's trial went down. I think that that is a roadmap. for his sons, if that were even to be a reality for them, if they were facing charges as well,

I don't think anybody wants to go down that route, especially if they're being accused of the same things as their dad. And this is how it turned out, right? So, and it would look like, it would look vindictive on the part of, you know, the prosecution. It really would. That they're going after this family. So I don't know how true all of that is, but,

Is there any chance that DDC's prosecution from the state level or from a different district federally? Yeah, I don't think, I don't think so. Normally when you're facing federal charges and are exposed to state charges, they usually are happening. At the same time. At the same time. And one is deciding to go before the other. And you're dealing with if he was ever exposed to state charges, they're probably, they've probably ran out of, their statute out. The statute of limitations have probably run.

The reason why the prosecutors in federal court were able to get in all this, all of these offenses and bad acts that happened years, decades ago is because of RICO. So any state charges that he would be exposed to have timed out, I think that they would have been charged if they weren't. I think he's done in terms of criminal charges. You can't get any more severe than, well, I guess murder, but racketeering, sex trafficking, which carries a maximum of life in prison. So I think he's done with regards to that,

but he's not done seeing the inside of a courtroom. You legal types Let me ask you guys something Why is there a statute Of limitation For one year On that domestic violence thing We have it on camera

Should they change that Shouldn't there be It's a relic of a time Where we couldn't prove something Like back at it, we have it on camera That he beat her up It's a one year statute of limitations on that type of crime, why would that exist?

Like, she got beat up, and we can see that she got beat up, but there's nothing that anyone can do about it just because he was able to pay off the people at the hotel. Well, there's a number of reasons why, even if you have the proof that someone was beat up, I had domestic violence cases all the time as a prosecutor, and sometimes the, no, a lot of times,

the victims didn't want to proceed. I can't force. someone to proceed on a case, even though I have the evidence I need. The most important evidence is the victim. And Cassie was engaged. Do you see what just happened to your camera?

Mark? Yeah, it focused in on her. When you said the victim, do you have some kind of AI camera that's working? No. Well, I have this iPad and he does like kind of zoom in while I'm moving, but what did do? I was dramatic.

Because of what you were talking about. Okay, let me, let me, Because it zoomed out. You went the victim. And it's zoomed out and zoomed back in. What the fuck? I think when I leaned in, it kind of like, okay, well, thank you for letting me know because I don't want that to happen.

So, no, no. So let's just say that they wanted to pursue. So are you suggesting that because they have footage of her being assaulted, that they could bring a charge like today? I'm saying that the rule should be whenever. Because earlier when you said he's a convicted felon, I was on my, I'm cool with convicted felons and, you know, worth rises. Shout out to Bianca Tylic and, you know,

we got to look at the bail system and all of that stuff like that. But then there's also the put them in jail part of my brain. It's where I'm like, if we got the evidence of you beating on a lady, we should be able to put you in jail whenever we get around to it. But the reasons, well, the reason why statuical limitations are in place is because evidence gets old. memories fade. It's not fair to bring somebody 10 years.

What should you nodding your head for? Because that's from the old school that like we, we got, we got camera phones. Like that, that's what you're talking about. That's for the 1940s. Okay. But now we got the camera phone. We know, you get it.

We've seen it. We got the phone. But van, what if you don't have a cooperating witness? So let's just say we've got that video released two years after it happened. Cassie is still. and did he? Yeah. Are we going to yank her into court

enforcing or testify because we have this video of him being your ass? No, she's got to want to do it. And she was with him for 10 more years or five more years after. But I'm with Van. I think that there should be something carved out where it's like, fine.

I get why statute of limitations exist. It's a part of fairness. But if there's video evidence, there should be something carved out, like, well, if we have a video, we can still pursue you even though the statute of limitations is up. Is that what you're saying, man?

I want him in the slammer. Why do you think so many people, especially our people don't want to see him in the slamer? I don't know. I don't know. It is. I'm going to get it. You say it this time.

Who? I'm already. You're the Donald Trump thing. I'm not saying no more. You know what? I'm already right. Okay, okay, all right. So let me put it.

Okay, let's just say it. Let's just, let's speak plainly about, fuck it. Like, speak plainly about it. So this is the deal. If I don't really know the ends and outs of sex trafficking and RICO and all that stuff. I don't know the ins and outs of it, right? Like, I could see how the jury made their decision because I think the prosecution wasn't up on their job.

like they should have been, but whatever, right? But when I see what happened to her, I want something to happen. Yeah. Like, it is, and, and, you know, knowing that we can see it and nothing can happen, and now nothing kind of will happen, it's just like a kick in my nuts.

You know, we're living in this weird society where the bad guys just went. And I'm fucking sorry. I'm sick. I'm fucking sorry. I look, I'm straight up right now. Everybody knows it. I did a movie with Puff.

Puff was like coming to like have me. He wanted me to work at his company. The whole nine. I knew Puff the whole thing. Puff is a bad guy. He's one of the bad guys. And that's just the bottom line. It don't matter.

He's one of the bad guys. He's one of the bad guys. If we're talking about the people in society that we would have to deal with in order to like make a new society, that's what you're talking about. You're talking about him. Yeah. Yeah.

And it's one of the bad guys. And that's it. He'll be like I'm telling you he'll be home by Christmas. Okay, so is it not enough? I mean, he's spent 10 months in jail. He's going to spend some more time in prison. I think it's going to be longer. I think it's going to be years.

What about the fact that he's coming back to a career that's basically been destroyed? That's not true. It's not true? Yeah, we're already seeing people turn. You're already seeing people say, because there's a thing where you know how this is. I'm not going to compare it to OJ, but it's like, well, he was found not. It's the same thing you're saying.

You said if they find you not guilty, it doesn't mean that you didn't do it. Right. It just means that they didn't prove their case. I don't think that's how the public perceives it. He's not guilty. He got off. He didn't do it. At A.

They know, he did it. But he wasn't found guilty. They know he killed his wife. But we also live in a society where people forget. They forget. They move on to the next thing. And of course, they're not going to forget that Diddy went to court or trial for these things, but it will get softened over the years.

People will water it down over time. I can get softened over the years. Less than that. Less than that. But they will soften up on him. I don't know. What world are you all living? It wasn't that.

No, I'm agreeing with you. I agree with you. It's going to happen. I don't really. Like, look, you were talking about. list of celebrities that are already big up again. We were talking about Donald Trump earlier, right? He did he see Camboosie badass.

He's an idiot. Are we talking about him? He's not the only idiot. Are we talking about tiny? I don't give a damn. You know that bad. But look. You know I was in Bad Ruz right? Oh, did you? Yes. I was stutter. What?

It just unlocked a whole new thing for him. What? We got to talk. We got to talk about line. Where was this? What the fuck is going on with that? How in the world did we never talk about that? I mean, because you always come out the gate, try to clown. That's why.

You were to Southern law? I don't know. Yes. Yeah, it was a cow. Yeah, from 2006 and 2009. Came out in 2009. And then I stayed until 2011 because I clerked with a judge in Ban Rouge. What judge? Judge Trudy White.

Okay, I don't know her. I thought it was going to be either Janice Clark or... Oh, I know. Janice Clark, she right next to our office. Yeah. Shout out to Janice Clark. My mom used to work for her back in the day. So Janice and my judge were not friendly. They were like, yeah.

So anyway. He wasn't too friendly with my mom. Okay. I can say that, though. I could go with Janice. So I guess. Hmm. Yeah, I was saying let's not credit celebrities like Boosie, like tiny.

Who else came out to good work? But listen to what I'm saying. Go back to the Donald Trump thing. Let's take the Tate brothers. Andrew Tate. His brother Jimmy Tate, or whatever the fuck his name is.

I was like, is that his name? No, Andrew Tate is the guy. No, we got Andrew. I know. I can't remember the brother's name. He a little nigger. These guys are wanted for sex trafficking.

All over the world. They got sex trafficking case Romania. They got sex trafficking case fucking the UK. Trump administration, different people, let them come in. These types of barriers don't exist anymore. Like, it's going to be people. Did he go party next summer? And niggas going to be at the party.

I'm telling you. That's true. Did he go party next summer? Now, you know where he's dead? these did corporately because here's the thing about Diddy. Diddy was getting corporate money. He had gone totally corporate, right?

He wasn't really selling music anymore. Revolt was a network that had corporate backing and stuff like that. He had the liquor. The liquor was a corporate thing with him and Diageo and Sorok. He was made him about 90, 100 million a year. He was corporate. A lot of that money was corporate. He was a cultural translator.

from the boardrooms. It's like, how do we make the niggas make it hot? The reason why we went and got Diddy to be on Two Dish and Strangers, the movie that we did, so I had a relationship with him. And also because he could make things culturally relevant. So if we're in an Oscar race and we need the movie to be black and we need black tastemakers to care,

he's the guy that you will go get. That was a corporate thing. They understood that. That part is gone because he's too much of a liability for, any people that that part is gone. However, right now he come out YouTube channel, we're doing the Diddy and Sons podcast. That's going up. That's true. And not only is it going up because people are going to go on there. Some of these Christian people in these Christian churches, they're going to bring him up there. He's going to sweat. They're going to do the whole nine. And it's going to be, I'm telling you,

it's actually in a weird way. this whole thing is going to be his new wave. I will say he is very good marketing. He's a marketing genius. I know he could probably market the hell out of this whole thing. But I just feel like the people that actually have some sense and the people that he would want to engage with business-wise wouldn't want to touch him.

Wouldn't want to be extraded. You see what I'm saying? So, yeah, you could have a podcast and have the likes of whoever. you were mentioning. She'd Boosy. You can have T.I. on there if you want to. Tiny.

Whatever. And you can remove those names too. But I don't think he is going to go near the likes of those at, say, the Rock Nation brunch, right? The Jay Zs. That brush is dead. He killed it.

Yeah. They have the fanatics party now. Okay. Whatever. What are they're calling it now? I just don't think that. he is going to be at that caliber anymore. I don't think he is going to

be able to surround himself with that anymore. All right. Who would risk that? Do you think that puff would be persona non grata at like the BET Awards? Yes. I don't think he would be.

I think he would be. No, that's corporate. There's no way that they are inviting him to, there's no way that they're inviting him to the BET Award. No way. No way. Y'all going to be so disqual. disappointed. Like, like,

like, like in the back, how does he show up? Yeah. Like he, like, no one's got to know he's there. Right?

How does, if he comes, how does he show up? Is it similar to what, like, like when Will Smith came with the mountain and brought out Kirk Franklin?

Is that what you think is going to happen? You don't, I'll say this in a very serious way. He's not going to be a, I'll say this in a very serious way. Okay. By the way,

this is not a diss at the BET Awards. When I say the BET Awards, that's more of an amorphous cultural thing. I'll say this in a very difficult. So the conversation around this is going to be so taxing, so hurtful to so many people for a long time. I mean, Rachel, I had a conversation here. Yeah. I'm sure there'll be some people that are upset about some of the things that were said. But this is going to be a

tough time for a lot of people. It's going to be a tough time for victims. It's going to be a tough time for a lot of people who want to see us do better. Because there are so many different forces at play here one is that now that he has been acquitted of the most serious charges, there are going to be people that are going to say that this was a witch hunt from the beginning and that this was all a part of the white power structures want to take down a black mogul. Right.

There are other people that are going to say, you know what? He's been so for black people. He's been so anti-Trump and this is another thing. There are also other people going to say, you know what? He reminds me of my uncle, my cousin, my brother, whoever, and everybody deserves a second chance, right? And what they're not going to understand is what they're actually talking about. I am from a very, you know where I'm from,

and you know how I grew up, and you know how the brother's there have to sometimes stumble before they get going. I get that. what we're talking about with Puff right now is 30 plus years of intimidation, violence, and abuse. Those kind of guys, those type of guys, don't get a shot at redemption to me. They get a shot at redemption between them and God. They get a shot at redemption between them and their maker. but you have lost your ability

to function in culture. And by the way, I'm not talking about a one-off. I'm talking about blowing up this man's fucking car. I'm talking about beating up Drake. I'm talking about beating up stout. I'm talking about 1999 in the thing. This guy is fucking dangerous. And to be honest with you, fuck me

because I was still, oh, my God, it's puff. Oh, my God. That same thing is the whole nine. It was the whole thing. It was a part of what we've kind of accepted. from, to be honest with you, some of our cultural deities. We've accepted some of this. We've accepted that these guys are a little dangerous.

We've accepted that these guys are a little bit off that we like it a little bit. But there's a cost. And I believe that because the government basically said that he is not as dangerous as you thought that he was, that he goes back to the level of danger that we understood. That right away he goes back. He wouldn't be the first abuser we said yes to. he wouldn't be the first sexual abuser we said yes to none of that matters

Puff will party again and if I'm wrong on this one I'm telling I'm not wrong Listen he was having freakoffs when he was under investigation So the parties I feel like will they'll continue But you said he would show up at the BET Awards And I just don't think he's going to be readily accepted in that way I just don't

If he ever were to be accepted it's going to be be down the line. It's going to be years down the line. But he's got to do some serious work on himself and really show that he's trying to be redeemed, that he's trying to ask for folks to give, because I'm all about giving someone a second chance. But that second chance comes with understanding and taking some accountability for your actions. And I just don't think he's there, even through this entire trial, and really facing the possibility of going away to prison. for life and never seen your kids. I still don't think that that switch went off in his head,

just based on his demeanor throughout the trial. His surprise that the judge wouldn't give a bail, just the entitlement. So I just don't think that BET or the NWACP or any of these black, you know, black. The functions, right? Yeah.

are going to invite him back, given the fact that we know that he was abusive towards black women. Right. Now, what everybody else is talking about online, that's all I'm talking about. And you're right.

I think that they're corporate. They're not going to showcase highlight ditty. It's just not going to happen. I, and this is the last thing I'll say on this. I would hope that we are better as a society, but also as a community.

where we don't put him back on the pedestal that we wrongfully put him on before. But I don't feel confident in that when I see people dancing outside of a courtroom and wearing t-shirts and throwing baby oil on themselves, when I see people backtracking with public platforms who, based off of what the verdict was, I'm all of that, people are doing all of that. And, you know, celebrities, whether you like them, a fan of them or not, are also supporting him. And so everything that you're saying is true.

We've seen on display in a grand way the violence, the abuse, the disregard for women, the nastiness, all of it. And yet we're still seeing people turn a corner because of the verdict. And all I'll say is I feel we've done, we've spent two hours, over two hours today on this podcast, litigating about this case, whether it's the court of public opinion or you giving your legal expertise. And I just, I have to say, I am so sorry for all the victims in this case that have to be subjected to another disappointing verdict who once again see a system fail them and not honor their stories and who are forced to see another powerful man get away with the abuse of women.

and I said this earlier to be praised and celebrated for it. I have to acknowledge the victims because I know it is so hard for them to hear us talk about this, to see this all over the media, social media, and to see this monster, get away with it. He got away with it, but he got bruised up. And I'm happy for that. And I'm glad that all of it came out. I'm not happy about the verdict. And this is precisely why victims don't come forward.

They're questioned about why they don't. And this is precisely the reason why, right? Because even when I do, and I have video footage of me being abused, you still don't believe me. So I appreciate you saying that, though, Rachel, because I can only imagine what Cassie and Jane are feeling like, especially because Cassie has kids, that transcript and her testimony and articles written about. this trial are going to live forever. It was embarrassing. It was humiliating for her to admit to a lot of the things that she had to endure. And to do that and still be spanned by our community.

And I always want to respect the verdict of a jury. It's hard work. I think they did what they were supposed to do. I feel like I have to say I have to respect their verdict. But it was a kick in the face. for Jane and for Cassie. Yeah. I don't know if this would have panned out the same way

if the defendant was different. If the defendant, not dissing. I thought that earlier. I had this celebrity in the... I completely agree. Yeah. Yeah. You know, last thing I'll say,

these RICO's taking some losses, man. Should they stop with the RICO shit? Ryan Still. What do you mean? What do you mean? worked for R. Kelly. They worked for what Gleine Max. Oh, R. Kelly was a RICO? Rkelly was a RICO. I didn't know that.

It seemed like recently they tried to get Young Doug with the RICO. Same attorney. Yeah, he got brought on. Yeah, same attorney. Yeah, that was just a horrible. I think that's a horrible, that was a horrible example. That was just a horrible trial in general. They, the SD and the Southern District of New York has such a, a reputation for winning,

they win cases. They don't go to trial unless they win. They have a very high conviction rate. So I don't think that they're losing in the Rapporteuring Department. I think that this was just a difficult case on its own. There's never a slam dunk of a case,

no matter how much evidence you may think you have. And then they're also dealing with the celebrity of Puff. I think that that was already a hurdle for them. I mean, shit, they had to boot a juror who wasn't even being honest about some of the statements he was making this jury, juror questionnaire. It might have been a fan. Just to find a jury that can be fair and impartial in judgment of someone like him in the state of New York, where he's from, where he just got the keys to the city. You know, it's just So I think that they had an uphill battle

From the very beginning with the charges And the celebrity of Denny And this is a kick in their face Because they don't take loss You know, no one does They don't, you know, no one likes to lose But they lost, they really did lose And so if I were then, I don't even know why they're talking about five

I'd be shooting for the absolute max knowing that he wouldn't get it, but that's what I'd be shooting for. And for them to be asking for five, you already know the judge is probably going to come down on that. To try to meet in the middle between what they want and what the defense wants. But I do think he's going to spend some years in jail, whether it's two or three or four, I do not think he's going to be getting out by the end of the year. I just don't see this judge doing that. We'll see.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, robust conversation there. Puff, not out of the woods yet. No. According to Yodi Toldi. Thank you. Where can they see you on, was it, Hot Bench? Hot Bench. Hot Bench, baby.

Hot Bench is not a term that we just came up with because we think we're hot. I swear people say that. Hot bench is a legal term. Okay, it is when a judge is shooting off a bunch of questions to lawyers, and that's what we do on the show. You've got three judges who shoot spit, fire, a whole bunch of questions to the litigants. Also, it happened to be hot. And I just happen to be hot. That's okay.

That's okay. I mean, I know. But yeah, no, it's a weekday, Monday, do Friday, check your local listings. High bench. New season's coming up in September. So we're shooting the season now. new season, a hot bench. Okay, thank you for joining us.

Bye-bye. For adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms, every choice matters. Tramphia offers self-injection or intravenous infusion from the start. Tramphia is administered as injections under the skin or infusions through a vein every four weeks, followed by injections under the skin every four or eight weeks. If your doctor decides that you can self-inject Trimfaya, proper training is. required. Tremfaya is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Serious

allergic reactions, increased risk of infections or lower ability to fight them, and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, get checked for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or need a vaccine. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Tramphia today. Call 1-800-526-7. 736 to learn more or visit trimfire radio.com. This episode is brought to you by Spectrum Business. Fast, reliable internet means everything for your business. And even this podcast, that's why I trust Spectrum Business.

They keep companies of all sizes connected with internet, advanced Wi-Fi, phone, TV, mobile services, plus 24-7 U.S.-based support. Millions of business owners already trust Spectrum business. So visit Spectrum.com slash business to learn more. restrictions apply. Services not available in all areas. All right, guys, we are not going to waste any time. We have to talk about the fact that the House has passed the big, beautiful bill.

It took something eggling by Trump. It didn't look like it had the strongest momentum in the House to pass, but it has, in fact, passed. And it is now a reality. We have Stephen Nucca joining us today. Wow. blinged out. He is a congressional reporter at Axios. I'm loving the fact that you didn't come in here with a suit and the old nine. You came here ready to do your thing. We have so many questions about this because this is a very consequential piece of legislation. Some people say that it is just another reconciliation bill that is, you know, for whatever its merits would be, another piece of legislation pushed through by our president. Others say it fundamentally reshapes presidential power and the economic realities of America. Is this business as usual in Washington, or is this a huge, huge, huge, huge sea change in how things are going to go for at least the next four to ten years?

Well, I think, as with everything else in Washington, the truth is somewhere in the middle of those two sort of polls. I mean, I would say, look, the aspects of this bill that I think Americans will feel the most, first and foremost, are the tax cuts, right? I mean, the Trump tax cuts that they did years ago were about to expire. And, you know, a reality for Democrats with that if they didn't do this bill, taxes were going to be raised for certain folks in the middle class. So folks won't see those tax increases that were expected to come in. But on the flip side of this bill is massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, food assistance programs. So folks who rely on those programs to survive are really going to feel this bill. So I think in terms of where, you know, how big of an impact does this have, I think Republicans

hope it will have a positive impact on the economy and drive growth and things like that. But on the flip side, there's a lot of people who are going to lose insurance coverage, access to food programs, deep slashes to things like food stamps. And I think that's where this bill is going to be felt the most. So how do they expect it to help the economy? Because the one thing that I'm struggling with is, okay, I'm hearing all the negative. things that this bill will bring about, which obviously I believe. But, you know, I was watching Mike Johnson and he was saying, oh, we're going to pass this bill as soon as Hakeem Jeffrey

stopped speaking and we're going to show how this is going to impact the American people. And I thought, wow, this is an interesting choice of words because everything that I'm hearing, yes, it is going to impact them, but it seems like it's going to do that in the most negative way. They believe it will help the economy. How specific. are these tax breaks going to help the economy? And is there any benefit other than the wages, the no taxing on the tips, which AOC and other people have already pointed out that that really doesn't help those people in that bracket anyway? What are the benefits, if any, from this bill? And can you talk about how it's supposed to help the economy? Yeah, sure. I mean, you know,

the Republican Party still largely believes in this idea of Reaganomics, right? that tax breaks for folks at the top will trickle down and help folks at the bottom. And I think the ethos of that idea is that when you put taxes on folks who own businesses, small businesses as well, they have more available resources to hire people, produce more goods, and that it's all around good for the economy. Of course, the data on that since the 80s at this point, when Reagan was in office is spotty. Obviously, Democrats would argue to you that it doesn't work. So I think that that's, again, sort of the ethos of their argument, this idea of a free market,

sort of taking back and scaling back regulations, which was, you know, they did as much as they could in this bill as well. Tax credits for industry, you know, a lot of different ways that they're trying to supercharge. certain industries, not just with this bill, but they've been, you know, they did a big AI bill last year. You know, so politically they think that the payoff will be that this drives more growth. Of course, we won't know if that's the case, you know, not even until next year, right? I mean, we know that there's lagging indicators for the economy, and sometimes it takes a really long time for decisions that are made in 2025 to, you know, come into play, not until 2028, 2029. Yeah, Reaganomics has been widely debunked. You give them a tax because they

hoard the money. Question for you, the peril that Medicare and Medicaid will be in. When will people start feeling that? They'll start feeling it pretty immediately. I mean, these cuts and the effects of the bill are, you know, if not this fiscal year, then next fiscal year. The reason that they had to make these cuts, of course, is because when you cut taxes, you have to some way balance that because of the lost tax revenue. So to be able to cut these taxes and extend and make the Trump tax cuts of 2017 permanent, they had to balance their books and.

you know, like you said, the program that took the biggest hit was Medicaid. I mean, hundreds of billions of dollars and cuts to Medicaid. And there's really no way for states at this point to buffer the costs of that as well because states work differently than the federal government. I mean, the federal government can borrow money and spend their way with deficits and state budgets and just don't work that way. So because of that dynamic, the effect is going to be. pretty immediate. Jeez. You know, there was, Stephen, there was, I mean, we all knew we would get here, right?

We knew with the pressure that Trump, Mike Johnson, were putting on the Republicans in the House that this is where we would end up. But there was a time yesterday where we thought maybe, maybe there's some holdout and they won't get the numbers that they need for this to go through. And you saw the Democrats bragging about this. Do you know what was promised to some of these Republicans in the House to get them to change their vote from a no to a yes? Well, I think just broadly before the specifics of this situation, I think you have to realize that the folks, the ace in the hole that Mike Johnson has is that he has the president in his back pocket to sort of come in and put pressure on these usually concerns. who in every other aspect, you know, in some ways, worship the president and and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, he looked like they were ready to vote against this bill. Um, and, uh, who was, uh, uh, uh, president

Trump has been going at pretty intensely on social media for voting or saying he would vote no on this bill, asked the president last night right before voting on a procedural motion and switching his vote from a no to a yes, asking the president to please stop attacking him and he would be willing to support this. So I think it's, you know, those are the dynamics. The president also gave conservatives agreement that he would work with them on face. out green energy tax credits. So I think they got some answers that they wanted from the president. But also, like you said, we were always going to end up in this place just because of the power that the president has over his party.

Those congressmen that were able to negotiate with the president, they negotiated things that they wanted. Did they get anything for their constituents in terms of, were they able to get some type of promise from the president that he would offset the emissoration that they would face through Medicaid, from Medicaid or Medicare. Was there anything else that they got for the people that they represent, or was it just for the people who donate money to their campaigns? Not that we know of.

And I would say internally, the discussions within Republicans, they would say, at least the, and the argument that they make publicly is that, you know, the hundreds of billions of dollars that they slashed from Medicaid is just going after waste, fraud, and abuse. And they can't really publicly sort of raise those concerns all that much and also safe face saying, oh, we were just going after waste, fraud, and abuse. So I think that it was more, you know, political agreement to to stop attacking some of these folks. And also, I think a big part is these green energy tax credits, which was such a big part of the Biden administration. I mean, the Inflation Reduction Act,

some of the build back better program, billions and trillions of dollars of federal spending, went in to these green energy programs. And Republicans, particularly conservatives, want them phased out very aggressively. So I think other than that, the reporting hasn't indicated that they secured anything else from the president. Clean energy tax cuts were already in the big beautiful bill. Were they not, though? They were. So they just wanted more on top of that.

They wanted more aggressive, the person that didn't even more aggressive in kind of getting that out of there. One follow up for me. Yeah. So explain no tax on tips to people because this is something that is going to sunset pretty quickly. And they're, like Rachel said before,

there's a debate right now on how substantive this move actually is. Some people say, hey, it's going to be an extra, X amount of money into your pocket. Others say this is kind of cosmetic. What's the actual answer? Yeah, again, I think somewhere in the middle there, coming from, like, I served tables for, you know, six, seven years before I, you know, got into journalism, went through school and doing what I do now. So I sort of, I understand the no tax on tip, tips conversation. I think that this was one, you have to remember a promise that the president made in the campaign. And it was, you know, probably part of the reason why he won the state of Nevada with Las Vegas there.

So this is something that he felt like he needed to follow through on. Like you said, we'll sunset pretty quickly. But, you know, presidents have these policies that are sort of. of pet policies of theirs. And they champion and run up the flagpole, but that they don't really do anything. I think, you know, no tax on tips probably polls pretty well with a good amount of voters. But the reality is, you know, the financial offset of, you know, the tax on tips. It just isn't that big of a reprieve for folks who are working in the service industry.

So we know that reporting has shown that this bill is not really popular with the American citizens. And although these Republicans in the House and in the Senate were cowards and couldn't stand up to Trump, they're eventually going to have to face their constituents who were not supporting this bill. What reporting are you seeing or maybe you can speak to this of what's going to be the fallout for this bill? because as you already, when you answered Vans' question, you said they'll start feeling with regards to health insurance, they'll start filling it pretty quickly. Van also pointed out, and I believe as well,

that reganomics is not a thing. And so, and even, let's just say if it was, it would take a while for the money to trickle down for them to even fill anything. So what can you speak to about how the American citizens are feeling now that this bill is actually going to be passed? Yeah. Well, you're right.

polling is not good for the bill. A lot of the public polling shows that it's deeply unpopular. I mean, just the idea, I think Americans, you know, are weary of the message of tax cuts, meaning wealth and health for everybody, right? I mean, because this is sort of a formula that's been followed since the 70s and 80s, Democrats who I talk to, and I primarily cover Senate Democrats, are in some ways rubbing their hands together and licking their lips politically because of how much of a disaster that they think this bill will be for Republicans at the ballot box in November 26. Republican Senator Tom Tillis, who voted against this bill and in the midst of everything else also announced that he would not run for re-election next year. He was going to be one of the

the Republicans up in the hardest election in North Carolina and the Senate, went to the Senate floor this week and said that Republicans were making a political mistake that they will pay for in elections to come. So it's not just Democrats who feel that way. It is also some Republicans who feel that way. That's the reason some of them voted against it in the Senate. And, you know, the dynamics are different in the House. But the The challenge for Democrats is what is your message and how do you get that out to voters before November 26? And there is after the 2024 election, a lot of consternation within the Democratic Party

about the sort of performance of its leaders, Hakeem Jeffries and the House, Chuck Schumer in the Senate. And it's up to them in their campaign teams and the folks that they have around them to try to claw back a majority at least in the House. I mean, if they can't get a majority back in the House next year, then, you know, the Democratic Party is going to have to have a really serious conversation about its leadership. The Senate is a far way away. It would take a minor miracle for them to win back the majority, but at least in the House, with the environment that we see right now, this bill, it's unpopularity, Trump's unpopularity. The cards are stacked for them to

to perform well and it's up to the leadership to make sure that that happens. Steven, thank you for joining us on higher learning, man. Appreciate you. Yeah, appreciate you. Yeah, appreciate you guys.

Yeah, thank you. So just so people know, before we move on from the bill, this is how the money breaks down in the bill. About $4.5 trillion dollars in tax cut extensions. That's an extension of the Trump-air tax cuts from before. $150 billion in new defense spending.

Okay. $129 billion in border spending. ICE has become the biggest, the most flush with cash of all of the entities of the federal government. I think I saw something like this. Donnie, looked this up. $130 billion to ICE. Lots of money, new money flowing into ICE.

Now, the savings over 10 years, savings meaning things that are cut, about a trillion dollars out of Medicaid. That's $930 billion out of Medicaid. $488 billion out of clean energy. These are where they're going to save money in the bill. And about $300 billion in food benefits. So Medicaid, the environment, and start. starving people, lost, lost, so that the richest people in the country could get a tax break. The military could get an extra $150 billion.

And ICE could get an extra $130 billion. So Donald Trump's priorities, the Republican Party's priorities. We got to stop saying Donald Trump is the Republican Party. Their priorities are rich people, the military, and border security. That's what they care about. Deportations. Your health,

the environment, and your hunger all got shorted. Those are the facts. Those are the facts. That's the money. That all got shorter. Those are the facts.

All right. What you got? Nothing. Nothing. I just, I honestly, don't even know. how to talk about this. I don't because it is everything that you just lay down. This is what it is. This is what it isn't. I have yet to hear any Republicans speak to what the benefits, truly what the benefits are of this bill, other than the fact that they are just bending the knee and bowing down to whatever it is that Donald Trump wants. So it's hard for me to talk about when you constantly hear

the Republicans talk about the deficit. I can't talk about it because everything they say means absolutely nothing. It is rooted in anything. They might say this one day, an hour later, they're going to change it in the name of Donald Trump. And that's really what it comes down to. Everything that they do is in the name of Donald Trump. And at this point, not that I was ever really had faith in political leaders, but it's really up to the American people to pay attention to what's going on.

What I hope is this bill is going to pass. And as humans, it is so easy for us to forget what happens and move on to the next thing. And what this administration has been very successful in doing is pounding us with so many different things that we forget what's happening over here. And I think it is our duty as public figures or people with platforms and microphones to continue to talk about not just the fact that this bill has passed, but how many people are going to be impacted by it. for the rest of their life. I mean, as far as we know at this point, you know, we don't know what's going to change if it ever will change.

And I think it's important that we continue to talk about it and not let this disappear and focus on the next thing that Donald Trump is going to do because he's not done. My mom sent me something that's called a Project 2025 Tracker. It is one-third of the way completed,

six months in. They have completed one-third of the things that they said that they're going to do. We got to keep. keep our eye on and do we got to keep talking about it. And that's really all I can say. I mean, in my opinion, there has to be branding around this.

That sounds weird. Did you say branding? Branding, yeah. You have to brand the dysfunction that is going to come from this. And part of that branding is to make sure to connect it to the people that are responsible for it. Now, it would be awesome if there was an opposition

that knew how to communicate and talk to the American people in ways that stuck with them. We actually have that in the Democratic Party. There are actually people who can do it, but they keep getting their asses kicked by the good old boy's

network of the party who doesn't want anybody else to come in and have a say. I saw that Hakeem Jeffries did a filibuster. Stut up and did a filibuster. Philibustered it.

Bussing it up. And I'm sure that was a great workout for him, but I doubt that it has any significance to anyone at all. Now, people are going to be immiscerated from this. People are going to be hurt. We can't just use this to poo-poo the other side. We have to be willing to help people. So I don't have the answers of how we're going to do that. But if in fact people have problems getting to the doctor or seeing doctors, we are going to, as a society, as a group of people who care, have to figure out a way for people to get the care that they need.

And when we're talking about people who are hungry, as it relates to food benefits with SNAP and things like that, we're going to have to go harder on food banks. We're going to have to go harder on the mutual. aid, we're going to have to go harder to make sure people, particularly people who didn't sign up for this, so that they have something to eat because this type of dysfunction shows itself in other places. The people that are hungry, a lot of them aren't just going to elect to starve. We talked about this a little bit before. They're going to find a way to go out

to get what they need. Yes. And when you're talking about people and, And Medicaid, you know, I think about people in my family recently who depend on Medicaid, like unforeseen things, people that depend on Medicaid in Louisiana, a state that has a high percentage of people using Medicaid. These cuts are going to mean something. They're going to affect people. So we have to both brand this dysfunction for what it is and make sure we lay it at the feet of the people who cost it. At the same time, we're not going to be able to turn our back on the people who need help because of all of this stuff that's going on. What were you about to say?

You look like you're about to say something. Oh, no, no. When you were just talking about helping people get to hospitals, just the thought popped up that there are hospitals that are literally in rural areas or medical facilities already shutting down. They're going to shut down. They're already doing. Or nursing homes for the disabled and the elderly already shutting down. So I wasn't against what you were saying. I was just adding to it thinking it's not even about like these people,

even that they're going to get to these places, these places won't even be there for them to go to. Yeah. So, you know, we do what we can at the same time. It seems like the other side is doing what they want. And that's a weird situation to be in. We got to get out of here. Before we do, I want to play something real quick.

This is from one of my favorite podcasters. I have nothing to say about it because she's, says at all. This is Mona from the Don't Call Me White Girl podcast. She's talking about a story that she saw. And I could describe this,

but I'm just going to jack the content because this is amazing. Donnie played this. I watched a little girl on TikTok 19 or 20. Tell a story about her father is terminally ill. The doctor gave her father six wants to live and ICE came to get her father and locked his ass up. She said,

that's no way it's for a person to die. She needs help. She wants to be with a rally behind her to help get her father out. And she finishes off her speech with, It really hurts worse knowing that I voted for Donald Trunk. At least she was honest. Listen, hey, hey, Esmeralda. I appreciate you being honest, babe. And I'm so sorry for your dad.

But that bitch is going to die in there. He done. What you need to do is get you a plot and try to make out a deal to get that body. Because they might spark his ass up and chop him. into a taco. You know they're eating them now. Sucks to be you as Marelda. Fuck you. Bitch. We told you not to do that. You know why? Because you bitches are selfish. You men and women are selfish, soulless motherfuckers. Because even if you did fall for the lie, I can understand that.

You fought for a lot of this president say he's going to get out the bad ones, right? But the fact that you secretly judge some of your brothers and sisters that come over that motherfucking same gate you came over, bitch. It's the crazy part. You know your cousin, Hector got a DUI, bitch. What about that? You wouldn't worry about Hector was you? Fuck you. I don't want to laugh That's funny

Fuck it, bro That's funny, bro That's funny What about Hector? What about Hector? That's funny That when I say When I say stuff that

That's actually funny to me That's funny I watch that video Probably 15, 20 times That's funny Breakbeat Media Don't call me white girls this is the podcast.

At don't call me white girl, please, please. You'll never, there's one clip on there where one of her friends, she had a jersey on. And she had a jersey on. And she goes, do you know what my jersey is? And, oh, you don't have a number on it. And one of her co-hosts went, it's a lineman. And then she goes, wait, no, I want him off the show.

He just called me a lineman. The jersey is Jimon Shee. You just called me a lineman. I wanted him to get off the show. It was hysterical. It's hysterical. She's funny. She's funny.

You got anything else to say before we go? No. We get out of here. No. No. I'm done with Diddy. I really hope we don't have to talk about him again until the sentencing. Oh, no, no, no, no, like I said.

I just don't have any faith anymore. No more faith. No more faith. I'm out of faith. I get it. So, but I will say this, though. Of course. I see it.

It's okay to admit that you were wrong. It's okay to admit that you were wrong about somebody. You looked up to someone, you thought they were a big deal, a big part of your culture. You had all of these aspirations that were similar to the person that you saw. Like, succeed. Like, you wanted to be shining. You wanted to be on Jets. You wanted to have cultural control.

You wanted to have a big company. You wanted to have people that you employed. You wanted to have a bunch of stuff that America tells you that the winners have. And you didn't know sometimes what someone was doing. It's okay to say, hey, I was wrong about that guy. It's okay to say that. It only matters if you don't say that. That's the only time it matters.

We all, it only matters when you don't say that. The only matter is when you accept certain things from certain people because of things that are completely arbitrary, like how much money someone has or who they were able to produce or how many records they've sold or something like that. You're making a choice about the type of person that you are when you're accepting certain things. And we all struggle with it. I struggle with it. Sure. Other people struggle with it. I struggle with it.

Yeah. Like how much, how much, how much, how much, how much, how much, how much, how much. how much. If you saw that video and you still fuck with that nigga, I can't fuck with you. And I'm not normally the type of person to say that.

But come on, man. Come on. All right. Take thing caps off, but do not stop learning. I'm Van Lathen, Jr. I'm Rachel and Lindsay. Hi, guys.