Julian Dorey Podcast - #320 - Diddy Insider EXPOSES How He Got Away with it | Law & Crime’s Jesse Weber

Episode Date: July 16, 2025

SPONSORS: 1) Get $10 Off @ BRUNT with code JULIAN at https://bruntworkwear.com/JULIAN #bruntpod WATCH JESSE WEBER'S FIRST PODCAST WITH JULIAN: https://youtu.be/Hn09JVA9-cs (***TIMESTAMPS in description below) ~ Jesse Cord Weber is a host, anchor, attorney, and legal analyst. He anchors for the Law & Crime Network and hosts the nationally syndicated true crime show Prime Crime. Jesse co-hosts Always In Fashion on 710 WOR and major podcast platforms, and is a freelance radio host on SiriusXM POTUS. He has appeared as a legal analyst on Fox News, CNN, CBS, CNBC, NewsNation, and more. His past work includes hosting for HLN, Crime Watch Daily with Chris Hansen, and The Jam in Chicago.  @LawAndCrime  PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey JESSE'S LINKS - YT: https://www.youtube.com/@LawAndCrime - X: https://x.com/jessecordweber?lang=en - WEBSITE: https://www.jessecordweber.com/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 - Intro 01:41 - Brian McMonagle, Diddy Trial (NY Zero Cameras), Using AI to Recreate Trail (Law & Crime) 09:05 - Downside of Recording & Releasing Yesterday, Johnny Depp & Amber Heard AI & Transcripts, Diddy Case Smoking Gun (Punching) 19:35 - Diddy’s 5 Charges, Proving Racketering & Failed, Diddy Misinfo Online, Beating Cassie & Freak Off & Jury’s Statement 32:01 - Diddy’s Lawyer’s Closing Statement (Wow), Diddy Not Charged w/ Domestic Abuse, Key Testimonies from Industry Witnesses, Power Dynamics and Celebrity Bystanders, How Witnesses Added Credibility to Cassies Claims, Cross-examination Strategies and Limitations, Why the Jury May Have Missed Key Emotional Cues 40:51 - News Cycles of Diddy & Epstein, 7 Week Trial & What Diddy was Guilty of, Shawn Combs Eviserated Witness Tossing Off Building 51:45 - Freak Offs but Witnesses Getting Paid by Shawn Combes, Breakdown of Underlying Crimes and Legal Hurdles, Civil vs Criminal Court, 3rd Witness Missing 56:26 - Diddy’s Jane Doe’’s Testimony (Pros & Cons), Statue of Limitations of Sex Trafficking 01:01:06 - Diddy’s Court Trial (Day by Day) Reporting, Inside Diddy’s Court Room (Family, Jury, and Friends) 01:08:56 - Judge Reprimands Diddy, Defiant Ones Series & Diddy’s Interview, Not Convicted of Cassie’s Tape 01:17:41 - Diddy’s Reaction to No Bail, Prisoners were Celebrating Beating System, Sex Trafficking Blurry Lines, 01:23:31 - Bryan McMonagle Breaking Down Case 01:25:27 - Julian Getting Waterboarded, Tommy G & Crew Orchestrating w/ Bustamante Torture  01:43:29 - 5 Days of Jury Selection, 1 of the Juries Refused to Follow Instructions,  01:50:15 - Kohberger Case (Idaho Murders) 01:57:05 - Professor Serial Killer Speciality Interview  02:03:41 - Diddy’s Jury Selection Process 02:09:41 - Cassie’s Testifying & Charges She Made Up 02:14:08 - Kid Cudi’s Key Testimony, Freak Off When Arrested (Firearms), Cristina Corner (Co-Conspriator) Not Called as Witness 02:22:35 - Immediate Trial, No Minors in Case, Cassie’s Truth or Lies 02:27:05 - Text Messages of Cassie, 2 People Who Jumped In 02:32:39 - The Punishers Testimonies, Diddy’s Defense Team, Kanye West 02:38:04 - Espionage Angle, Diddy’s Aftermath 02:42:23 - Epstein Legal Breakdown CREDITS: - Host & Producer: Julian Dorey - Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 320 - Jesse Weber Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The whole Diddy trial we knew was gonna be big. 90% of the case was about racketeering conspiracy. It was s***s trafficking of his girlfriends by using force, fraud, or coercion. So Kid Cudi was a great witness for the prosecution. I've never seen anybody show up in court as cool as this guy. He's wearing a leather jacket, he's smoking a cig,

and he testifies that his car was firebombed by Sean Combs. Who else would have done it at that time when Sean Combs was allegedly upset that Cassie was dating kid Cuddy now Cassie Ventura was the main In this case she claims that this happened at the LA Intercontinental Hotel one of the many locations that she was Transported to to have sex with male prostitutes. She was leaving a freak off these events were for long Episodes, but he goes on that tape He beats her and he drags her back in the direction of the room.

That checked off for me all of the elements of s*** traffic. And by the way, I have to tell you, there was a woman who testified. Sean Combs held her off a 17-story balcony. Fascinating testimony. She claims... Hey guys, if you're not following me on Spotify, please hit that follow button and leave a five-star review.

They're both a huge huge huge help. Thank you So I was with Brian McMonicle my guy a couple weeks ago I love him and I was like, you know, I just had Jesse Weber on he's like no shit You did. Yes fucking awesome. He goes I gotta tell you that guy you would think he was your trial attorney He's truly. Let me he is so good. His breakdowns are incredible. I love that I think the last time I was on with you I was talking about how much yes We try to have him on long crime as much as possible. He's great. He is Amazing he goes above and beyond. Like, it's funny.

When you're in this business, you speak with a lot of experts. And you can tell, like, who knows the things to say to get through a segment. And then you could tell the ones who, like, really, really know him. He is exceptional. We had him a lot on in the past two months. Yeah.

All ditty stuff. By the way, every time I come on here, like I said, I've been on here a lot. I was here one more time, which I love. It's one of my favorite interviews I ever did. I always look at all the things you have. Okay. Post Malone. Uh-huh.

Tupac. Uh-huh. So that's, um, Godfather. Uh-huh. Is that George Costanza? It is. Yes. I knew it was George Costanza.

You got the other two on the end. Who are the other two? These two right here. Yeah, who are they? It is, yes. I knew it was George Costanza. You got the other two on the end? Who are the other two? These two right here. Yeah, who are they? Joel Embiid. Okay. Of the Sixers, and Princess Diana.

That's great. Yeah, got a little culture across the board. You really do, you're covering all the, oh, what's the middle one? What's that thing? That's from Scarface, The World Is Yours. That's right! Yes, you're the actor, come on now.

I know. You're the big Pacino guy. I got George Costanza. Yeah, I had her. It was a running joke because when I worked on Wall Street, I accidentally bought my grandma the Funco IPO, long story. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And my boss had a heart attack when that happened.

And so we bought a bunch of Funcos because of that, and now they're in the studio. It's phenomenal. Yeah, I think she still owns that stock. Yeah, I don't know how well it's doing. I don't think in the studio. It's phenomenal. Yeah, I think she still owns that stock. Yeah, I don't know how well it's doing. I don't think it is either. It's fine.

That's why I quit that job, you're gonna see I'm much better here. This is your calling. Yes, I think so. This is your calling. Well, thanks so much for having me back. I loved being on last time. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone loved that episode. Your breakdowns are great also because you're so objective about it. These are high, you cover the most high profile controversial cases, because that's what you're going to do when you're covering court cases that people care about. And it's really hard to not get caught up in it, especially when it's nasty crimes. You know what I mean? Whether you're talking like grisly murders or what Diddy was accused of and everything.

But obviously, shortly after you were here in April, this trial begins in May. One of your many shows that you do, you do a lot of, I can't keep it all straight, you do a lot of different shows, but one of your many shows, it was Sidebar, I think, was number two in America during this trial. Congratulations on that. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

It was actually crazy to see. So YouTube, so a little fun fact, YouTube now ranks podcasts because podcasts are, everybody's putting podcasts on YouTube. I feel like you can't have a podcast now unless it's a visual component as well. It should.

So it ranks it. And when we were in the heart of the Ditty trial, you said number two, I appreciate it. We were actually number five. Number five, Rogan was like number two. I saw you. Oh, you were number two, I appreciate it. We were actually number five. Number five, Rogan was like number two. I saw you, oh, you were number two on Spotify one time. We were number, I have another show called Prime Crime that was actually number one on Spotify.

You took down the rogue star? Well, we were number one on Spotify. We were number one on Spotify for True Crime Podcast, and we were number three in all of podcasts, like right behind Rogan. So it was crazy. There's an interest. But look, it's a ditty, ditty.

I mean, the whole ditty trial, we knew was going to be big. And one of the reasons we knew it was going to be big, and why a lot of pressure was on us to get it right, is there's no cameras. There's no cameras in federal court. Big problem in my eyes. It's a huge problem. I've talked about it last time. I get the idea of why not to.

You know, that might affect the jury. That might affect the witnesses, particularly when you're dealing with sensitive topics like this. It might affect the lawyers. They might be grandstanding. But in a case that was this high profile and high interest in dealing with important subject matter and complicated charges like racketeering conspiracy

and sex trafficking, I think when the world is paying attention, you should have at least, at least had audio. You don't want it live? Okay, record it, release it the next day. Supreme court does that very simple. They sometimes record the audio of oral arguments. Oh, they do?

Yeah, now I will tell you, we did something interesting at Law and Crime. What was that? We experimented. What did we do? We took the transcripts that we got from the Diddy trial, which we'd get every night, or actually the next morning,

and we used AI to recreate, if you want, you can put it up right now, we recreated what the scene was like. So what Diddy looked like in the courtroom? Cassie testifying, closing arguments. If you go to YouTube, you go to Law and Crime. This was the first... Nobody ever did this.

It was like the first we did it. Was this your idea? It wasn't my idea. You go to Law and Crime. You're supposed to say yes, Jesse. Just take credit. We're all about honesty here. This is honesty. I'm not, you know... It was totally my idea. I said AI, it's gonna be great.

You know, you look at it, you say, I can tell it's fake or not. But frankly, it was my idea. And I said, okay, so go to long crime. Go to long crime. Just go, no, hit the low, yeah, long crime, that's fine. Okay, go to, go down a little bit. Go down a little bit more, a little bit more.

Ah. Oh, AI general. Holy. Pick whichever one you want. a little bit go down a little bit more a little bit more ah I generally whichever one you want now we put a watch that is the audio up the audio I can put on right now if I want to get a copyright strike from your friends or this is this is interesting all right just help me out I'll ask the deputy come on yes your honor there's you would think we've received a note from the jury at 9.52 AM. The note reads, we have reached a verdict on all counts. We'll make this a court exhibit.

Yo, this is pretty good. Not bad, right? Considering you didn't have any video. Yes, your honor. Anything from the defense? No, thank you, your honor. All right. That actually looks semi like his attorney.

And that sounds like him too. Both of you who are in the courtroom and in the overflow rooms is to maintain order while the verdict is. Yeah. I mean... All right, this is perfect. That's good right there. Thanks, man. I mean, that's not bad considering we're at the start of AI in this room. Yes. So we did this, but it was very important for us to get it right because a lot of people,

there was misinformation. And one of the things that we did every day for two months, plus two months, because it was, we were also doing it during jury selection, is we did live shows. We first did it for an hour, hour and a half, and then when it was like closing arguments and verdict, we did it for like a full eight hours. And we would take viewer questions about the case.

People were submitting actually super chat questions, paid questions, it was all on YouTube. The level of interest in this case, the amount of smart questions people were asking, it kind of stumped us at times. It kind of stumped the legal analysts at times that we had on, but there was just a tremendous amount of misinformation, misunderstanding about the law, misunderstanding about the case, but also people just wanted to learn a little bit more about it and what exactly was he charged with why isn't being charged with this how could he not be found guilty how could he be found guilty so it was important for us in that time to really explain it. Well you guys did a great job obviously and the ratings reflect that they were great,

but you know what one question I've always had. You have a lot of questions about this. Is, and like you said, we talked about it last time, but I should have asked this. When you're talking about federal court or in the case of like New York State Court, which in that state has the same rule where there's no video cameras in the courtroom, what would be the downside to having the whole thing taped?

And you alluded to this when you're talking about the audio, having the whole thing taped on camera you alluded to this when you were talking about the audio, having the whole thing taped on camera, and then after the trial's over, released to the public for records? It doesn't matter if you release it in real time. It doesn't matter if it goes live. The same concern, I don't buy into this concern,

but I'm telling you what the concern is. If they know they're being taped, and they know they're gonna be recorded, right? Like our interview right now, people the world is gonna see it, right? Like our interview right now, people the world is gonna see it. That could change how witnesses behave, that could change how the attorneys behave, particularly defense attorneys when they're representing a defendant. They have to be focused on the case, not how they're gonna be looking to the world. And

the other concern, of course, is the jurors, the jurors. Um, I think they're concerned about it as well. And even though they're not going to be shown on tape, but I just think that you want to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in a criminal case when so much is at stake. But I don't believe in it. I've covered a number of trials that are videotaped.

You see great lawyering on both sides. I don't think the cameras in the courtroom have affected the decision of any jury in my opinion. But it is a concern. And sometimes it's a little bit of an older mentality that's hard to get past, but there are no cameras allowed in federal court. It's a problem. But again, they're concerned about what the effect would be. How would you even go about changing that? Is that, I don't know if this is like a Captain Obvious question, but is that something you gotta like put through Congress or... There has to be agreement amongst the federal courts,

and there has to be agreement among judges, and I think there needs to be a larger conversation. Actually, you're right. Maybe it would be worth a congressional hearing on. Maybe it's the more high-profile cases. And then I start to testify, and I'll speak at Congress about why I think it's necessary. But the truth of the matter is there is a tremendous interest in our legal system. I think particularly in the last 20 years, whether you say we've had high profile cases,

whether you say look at everything that's been going on with President Trump, even before he was president, people are interested in it. And to put a shield on it and expect people just to get their information from news reports or, you know, transcripts, you expect them to read everything, it's a problem. Now it is a Catch-22. I said this to you before I'll say it to you again.

We covered the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial. That was fully... You were in there. I was in there for six weeks. We covered every aspect of it. It was fully televised. Here's the problem. This is the other way of looking at it.

See, I'm a lawyer. Play both sides. -♪ BOTH LAUGHINGan People took clips from Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, and they spliced them together and created fake videos. They made Amber Heard's side look a lot worse than they were. They made them look like they were incompetent, which they weren't. That's the downside. And particularly, particularly in AI day,

what can people do with the videos that make it look worse than they actually are? And that's a problem. And you don't want that in the middle of a trial. Jury sees that. Yeah. That's a problem. AI, I mean, you just showed us an example

of what you guys were doing. So this is in May and June. AI right now is moving at literally, I think Elon tweeted this the other day, and he seems to be 100% right in my book. It's moving at the speed of light. Yeah, I'm not real right now is moving it literally. I think Elon tweeted this the other day, and he seems to be 100% right in my book. It's moving at the speed of light. Yeah, I'm not real right now. You're right, you're not even here.

I'm not real either. You think this hair is real? You're crazy. That hair is very real. That hair is, I just want to tell people I pulled on it, it's real. Like, it's obviously very expensive hair, but... In less than two years, if we do this again at a federal trial trial it's gonna look

you won't be able to tell the difference it's gonna be scary man as most of you know i live here in hoboken right across from new york city and as many of you who listen to the show also probably know i like to walk places joe you also like walking everywhere right sure do you ever walked in some brunt boots i haven't we're gonna have to get them for you So whenever I know I'm gonna have to walk a long distance You know I'm bringing the brunts because my feet are gonna be comfortable the whole time I'm not gonna get blisters and it's gonna feel as good when I'm taking them off way later as when I put them on at The beginning without mentioning the name of some of the other brands I wear They're great to put on but not great to walk now these that I just pointed out are the brunt Marron boots

They're lightweight, waterproof, slip and oil resistant, heat resistant, and for you guys working on some tough work sites, electrical hazard rated. So whether you're a walker like me or someone building the skyline I get to take in every day, these are the boots for you. They're gonna make for durable work boots

that are as comfortable as your sneakers. And right now you can join over 500,000 other Brunt customers, get access to free shipping, and try your boots on the job. That's right. If you don't like them, Brunt will take them back. Brunt just isn't about work boots either. They offer a full range of high performance gear

for the toughest jobs. From heavy duty work pants to weather resistant jackets, Brunt designs durable, reliable workwear to keep you protected and productive in any condition. For a limited time, our listeners are gonna get $10 off any order at bruntworkwear.com, link in description below, when you use code Julian at checkout.

Once again, just head to bruntworkwear.com, use the code Julian, and you're good to go. And after you order, they're gonna ask you where you heard about Brunt, so do me a favor and tell them Julian Dory sent you. Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them

throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions.

19 plus to wagerager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. But you know, I think if we're looking at it honestly, social media itself, like you mentioned the splicing videos together and everything, social media itself doesn't help at all

because you have all these people throwing out opinions, the algorithm's gonna take things that are 145 characters that people are clicking on the most and make it go viral regardless of what sourcing it's coming from. It could be from a blank account. We see that all the time. And you alluded to the misinformation in the case that you had to cover throughout. So before we get to like the case and people, we're going to do our best to like go in order

today with everything. But before we even get there, what were the biggest things like throughout the process that you would describe as like, yo, whatever's being reported to the public or whatever's filtering to the public, this is just straight up wrong. There was one big aspect that I had to keep repeating throughout the case. This wasn't gonna be,

oh my gosh, every celebrity is gonna testify. J.Lo's getting on the stand. Every white party's gonna be discussed. Justin Bieber's gonna be discussed. Justin Bieber's gonna be discussed. We did a sidebar episode where we actually took every single one of the fake headlines, videos, AI-generated content that people were creating during the course of the trial.

They made it look like The Rock testified. They made it look like Tom Cruise testified. They made it look like Ben Affleck testified. People were putting that stuff out there. So the biggest misconception I think people had that was the extreme. But the biggest misconception was Diddy's federal trial is going to expose every single allegation he has ever faced. He's facing over 66 lawsuits.

It wasn't about that. It was a very, very specific prosecution. It was about two main victims. It was about sex trafficking, alleged sex trafficking of those two victims. And it was about a criminal enterprise, racketeering. It wasn't about, you know, what he was engaged in in a period of 30 years. It was much more specific and isolated. And I think people had a misconception about what the case was gonna be.

And by the way, I think that's one of the reasons it got a lot of popularity. People were looking at like Epstein. Oh, the list is gonna be revealed. Hey, he's gonna name it. Oh, the list that doesn't exist? The list that doesn't exist. You never saw that.

It's not real. Um, but I think people thought that it was gonna be a reckoning for everybody. And it's the same thing with Epstein in the sense people might have partied with Diddy, it doesn't mean that they were involved. That's right. And doesn't mean they didn't see certain things.

That's right. No, but I think there was a misconception about what the trial was gonna be like and it just wasn't like that. It's one of those things where all you had to do was be associated with it and people are always gonna be like, were you?

Well, yeah, he was toxic. He was toxic. You know what I mean? Like, cause now it's like, did you know? But I used the example before, I'm like, if you just look at math, I'm making up numbers right here. But if Diddy throws 50 parties a year, right?

Maybe all of them at 1 a.m. when most people have left, the freaky stuff does happen every time. And maybe all of them at 1 a.m. when most people have left, the freaky stuff does happen every time. And maybe some people sometimes are always the celebrity sting. But maybe only five of them are where they're actually doing it the whole time. So if you're celebrity X and you show up to five of these parties or something,

and it's not the five where they were doing that, and you roll in at nine, you check out at 11.30, but there's pictures of you at the party, people are gonna be like, what were you doing? And you may legitimately have no fucking idea. You might have thought, all right, that is a little weird, but you know, you're like, it's Diddy. You know what's crazy?

Not once, for my recollection of this trial, was it ever like, there was a big party, and there was a celebrity here, and one of the victims and sex workers. It was never that. It was Diddy, the alleged victim, and sex workers. Or male performers. That was it. That was it. There was one episode that was very important.

There was one episode from one of the witnesses, Dawn Rashard, former Danity Kane band member. Okay, she testified that she observed Sean Combs punch Cassie Ventura, who was the main victim in this case, in front of Usher and Neo and Jimmy Iovine. Now, why is that important? A, it's important for,

A, it establishes corroboration that she was physically abused, which is an element of sex trafficking. But also what I always said, and I was wondering if the jury was gonna come to this conclusion, if they believe that, that he could do that in front of high-powered people

and nobody stepped in and nobody did anything, then that shows you Cassie could never have really left. It's that power dynamic. It's the idea of what did you really expect her to do? He beats her up in front of these people. You expect her to run away. You expect her to fight back. I thought that was something that maybe should

have been explored by the prosecution a little bit more. I don't think that they did it. I don't think they articulated it maybe in a way that they needed to. I also don't know if that would have affected the verdict. But for me, when you talk about celebrities, that was, sure, celebrities' names came up here and there, but it was never that celebrities were somehow allegedly involved in this.

Yeah. So, and we'll talk about, like, because Kid Cudi was the guy who did testify. Huge witness. Yeah. So, and we'll get there. That was, I think, like, a couple weeks into the trial. But maybe at the start, there were five final counts on the final indictment that came down And I believe if I remember correctly they along the way

They threw out three counts. They threw out like kidnapping. Am I remembering this correctly? So let me let me clarify if I can I'll let me set the charges. I think it's really important Why you're here Jesse. Here we go There were five charges that he went to trial with now when he originally was indicted I think there were only three. They upped it to five. But it really, what you're dealing with is this. Racketeering conspiracy, which I'll explain in a minute.

Two counts of sex trafficking. So one was with respect to Cassie Ventura Fine. The other was with respect to Jane, who was an unidentified victim. And then two counts, and these are the ones he was convicted of, transportation to engage in prostitution. We call it the Mann Act violations. I've said from the beginning of this case, those are the easiest charges to convict him of, and I think within a few days of the trial,

I was convinced he was gonna be convicted. Yes. Okay. Cause literally all they had to prove was, did he transport men? He didn't even, they didn't have to prove was did he transport men? He didn't even have to prove it was sex workers, men across state lines and Jane and Cassie for the purposes of sex work. That's it. And when you look at the travel receipts, you look at the messages from Sean

Combs himself, the testimony of his assistance, even voice notes from Sean Combs. It was so clear that he was involved in all of this. He was involved in transporting them, getting them paid, all of it. Very simple. Everybody knew he was gonna get... They had voice notes in Discovery that was played for the jury?

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like where he was basically directing about how they get paid and drunk. Hey, come across that. It was a clear cut case. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the jury probably decided that very early on. Now, put those to the side. The complicated charges were the ones he was ultimately acquitted of.

Okay. Let's start with racketeering conspiracy, because one of the big questions that we got throughout the trial for eight weeks was, what is Rico? Like, what, what are we talking about? Traditionally, when we talk about racketeering or Rico or Rico conspiracy is yeah, is the mob. Okay, so it's simple. There's a mob boss. You have the officers. They're all trying to benefit the family. They're doing all this criminal activity

to benefit the family. Drug trafficking, murder. We don't do drugs. Okay, yeah. Well, you keep it in a certain area. You keep it in a certain area. I don't want it near schools. I don't want it so the children yeah. Well, you keep it in a certain area. You keep it in a certain area. I don't want near schools. I don't want to insult the children.

That's an infamity. That's good. I'm not going to go to the other line because that's kind of racist. Yeah. Money laundering, gambling, all of that. All of these underlying crimes to benefit the family, to benefit a criminal enterprise. That's essentially what it's been used for in the past. This was a little different.

You're not charging all the members of the mafia. You're charging one person, Sean Combs, with racketeering conspiracy. The theory was is that he operated a criminal enterprise for years, that he used his assistants, his bodyguards, his staff to engage in a pattern of abusing women, manipulating women, exploiting women to benefit himself. And if he benefits, if he's getting his sexual desires fulfilled, it benefits everybody else. The business is doing well, he's doing it.

So all of these assistants, all of his underlings, were basically engaging in a pattern of crimes and covering them up. Now, in order to prove racketeering conspiracy, there are two parts. One, as I said, you have to establish there was a criminal enterprise. You have to establish conspiracy. That means that there was an agreement that he and at least one other co-conspirator agreed to do this together, agreed to engage in a pattern of illegal activity. If you move past, if the jury accepts that there was a criminal enterprise

and there was a criminal agreement, then you move on to the second half. And I believe that that first half was the problem. I don't think the jury ever accepted that he was the leader of this criminal enterprise. What I do think that they figured out, and this was easy, once you establish there's a criminal enterprise, there's a criminal agreement, the second part is the prosecution has to prove at least two underlying crimes. Kidnapping, arson, sex trafficking, drug distribution, obstruction, okay? Arson. They only had to prove two. The reason you thought that they dropped some charges is a misnomer.

It was a misnomer. It was a misnomer. It was misinformation, and it's not your fault. It was bad reporting on it. On the eve of going into, I think it was closing arguments, at least going into, yeah, going into closing arguments, there was reporting, oh, prosecutions dropping, kidnapping, and arson. Oh my gosh, their case is weak. That wasn't what happened.

For each of those underlying crimes, there were different theories. The jury could say, I think Sean Combs engaged in kidnapping. I think that's one of the underlying crimes. No. Or I think he engaged in aiding and abetting kidnapping or attempted kidnapping. There were all of these mint, there were all of these underlying theories for each one of those crimes. So if they said, I think he engaged in conspiracy to commit kidnapping, but I don't think he

actually committed kidnapping himself. Or I think he committed kidnapping, but I don't really think he engaged in aiding and abetting kidnapping. It's very complicated. So what did the prosecution do? They just removed a couple of the theories for kidnapping and arson. They moved. Um, I think it was attempted kidnapping and arson, but they didn't remove kidnapping and arson. They said, no, no, he committed these crimes

or he engaged in conspiracy to commit kidnapping and arson or aiding and abetting kidnapping and arson. So there was misnomers. A lot of people thought that those kidnapping and arson were removed from the racketeering count. Wasn't the case. So the jury had a big task. I think they spent a lot of time in this. A, did he engage in a criminal enterprise, a criminal agreement, and were there at least two underlying crimes that the prosecution proved? 90% of the case was about racketeering conspiracy. Sex trafficking.

What's sex trafficking? It's not like taken. It's not always like taken. Right. Where you have a shadowy organization that kidnaps young girls ships them out. That is an easily digestible and explainable sex trafficking concept. Here what they were saying is it was sex trafficking of his girlfriends that he used force fraud or coercion to transport them across state lines for the purposes of commercial sex work that he was forcing them.

Commercial sex work. Right, meaning that they were, excuse me, meaning that he was forcing them to engage in sex acts with prostitutes or male performers by using force, fraud, or coercion. Force is easy to understand. He was using physical violence or threats of physical violence.

Or he was maintaining control over them, maintaining control over their careers, their finances, that pressure, that power dynamic. Maybe he was using fraud. He was lying about the relationship. He was lying about certain things to get what he wanted. Now I will tell you, there were certain aspects of this case where I think the prosecution checked off a number of those boxes, but, they'd improve it beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a difference between checking them out.

I see, I get how they're doing it. And I can list out some of them where I think for each one of them, I actually thought that he was, I thought it was 50-50 if he was going to get convicted of racketeering conspiracy for what I said. But I did believe that there was a strong chance he was going to get convicted of sex trafficking of Cassie. There were three incidents, in my opinion, that were demonstrated that was one of them the infamous video that shows him just beating the shit out of her. Why? Why? That's how the prosecution started their case. Yes, they literally played the video on the opening argument. That's what they got to do. That's what they

have to do opening statement. Why do they show it? It wasn't just him beating her this he's not he's not he's not charged with domestic violence. He's not charged with assault She claims that this happened at the LA Intercontinental Hotel. Okay. So first of all sex trafficking It's one of the many locations that she was transported to to have sex with male prostitutes Okay, so you travel element connect done She claims she was leaving a freak off, okay? A freak off is this, you know, experience with a male prostitute. So now you have the commercial sex element.

He goes on that tape, he beats her, and he drags her back in the direction of the room. That's right. That checked off for me all of the elements of sex trafficking. Okay? The jury didn't believe it. Another one. And this one I don't think was talked about nearly enough.

Okay? She claims that she was on a plane with Sean Combs, okay? And they're coming back, I think, from Cannes. He sits next to her. He shows her a video that he recorded of her engaging in sex acts, threatened to release them. So now you have a travel component, you have a threat component. They land, he demands a freak off, he gets a freak off. Travel, threat, right, coercion, and commercial sex act. That's another check right there. And by the way, I have to tell you, before the jury came back with their verdict, and

by the way, there was another, Daniel Phillip, who was one of the male performers, he testified that he observed Sean Combs, at least heard him slapping her, dragging her. wasn't he like the first witness to the first witnesses they had like the security guard and him that they want right so those three episodes before they even went into deliberations I said to myself and I said to the viewers there's a strong chance he'll be convicted of sex trafficking because the prosecution was key they said you only need to find one episode of sex trafficking, that's it. Yes, he had a lot of sexual encounters with Cassie Vintera fine.

Not saying all of them were sex trafficking, we're not saying that. A lot of it was consensual. Just need to find one, one episode. There were at least for me three that they could have found. Right before the jury came back with their verdict, and let's talk about what happened. Right before they came back with their verdict,

they said, can we get a read back of the testimony of those three episodes and then a few hours later They come back with that remember what happened They said we have come to a verdict on sex trafficking and transportation to engage your prostitution We're hung right now in racketeering conspiracy. I went on air and I said they've convicted I know they've convicted him of transportation to engage in prostitution. I Believe that they've convicted him of Cassie Why would they ask for a read back of all those three specific? Episodes and then come back with a verdict of Cassie sex traffic. Yeah, I'm like of clearly Clearly now they didn't ask for a read back of Jane which to me

I was like there's he was found not guilty of her because Jane was I think the more problematic with Jean Testified to show she testified she testified think, the more problematic witness. Did Jane testify, too? Oh, she testified. She testified, but she was a problematic witness for them. I don't mean she wasn't telling the truth. Let's be clear. I don't think, I'm not even saying Cassie wasn't telling the truth.

I think that what the problem was is what they recounted just didn't fit into the elements of sex trafficking because of all the text messages that came out where they were encouraging these sexual episodes, they were setting them up, fit into the elements of sex trafficking because of all the text messages that came out where they were encouraging these sexual episodes. They were setting them up. They were staying in contact with him. They were talking about how much they love Sean Combs.

That's the power dynamic between an alleged victim and an abuser is very complicated, but it was probably hard for the jury to say beyond the reasonable doubt, were they really sex traffic? That becomes the question. It gets uncomfortable to even talk about, for example, and just one of many examples you can talk about here, when you have someone like Cassie, who was in a long-term relationship with him, obviously, it was abusive. We have that on video.

Yeah. But she did stay in it, and I she coerced to stay in it? Certainly can make the argument there. And did appear to, I mean, if you look at some of the text messages and her setting stuff up, there were aspects of the relationship besides the actual abuse where she enjoyed it.

So when you have someone like that then also claiming, oh, he raped me, it gets weird when you're in a relationship too. It's like, all right, you know, you're not married, but how, it's not that that's impossible, that does happen, but I'm just thinking as like a juror or something when you're hearing that, you gotta be so confused with what the semantics are.

The counterargument to that is someone can agree nine times out of ten, the one time that they don't could be a crime. Of course. Now, I think Mark Agnifilo, who is one of Sean Combs' many defense attorneys, made a great argument and closing argument. I actually bolded it. I made it in bold, set it on air. I said, this is key. He goes, I'm paraphrasing, but basically he said, let me get this straight. So 75 of his sexual encounters are good.

And then episode 76, that's sex trafficking. What a leap that is. Whoa. And I said, that's a great argument. That's a great argument. Like, he goes, use your common sense. And they admitted it. The first day, they go, he engaged in domestic violence.

Yes. They admitted that before the trial. But we're owning up to it. He engaged in domestic violence. If he He engaged, we were- They admitted that before the trial. But we're owning up to it. He engaged in domestic violence. If he went to trial, he'd plead guilty, because he, you know, on state charges, there's no defense for what he did. But it's not racketeering, it's not sex trafficking.

It just doesn't fit the elements, and clearly they won. Why were, that was, this is another very basic legal question, but for people out there who aren't legal experts, why if the statute of limitations had passed on the domestic violence charge and therefore he was not charged with that, why was that admissible in court?

Couldn't that sway a jury, like I guess with your constitutional rights, if that makes sense? Okay, here's great question question a couple of things. The question was how do you hold Sean Combs accountable? Statue limitations on state charges like the 2016 episode they couldn't charge him with assault or battery I don't know what it is in California for that they couldn't charge him. So how do you transform it into a federal trial? How do you transform into a federal case? Well, there are certain federal domestic violence charges out there. They don't apply to the facts of the case. I looked them up. They don't apply. Now, racketeering is interesting. Why is

racketeering a favorite of prosecutors? Because you can include so much. You can include so much evidence. That's why we hate it in Jersey. Yeah, so much old evidence. So much to build up that case. You can include elements of things that you can no longer charge them with at a state level as evidence of sex trafficking as well. And that was the advantage. But the disadvantage is, does it amount to those charges?

Does it amount, does it check off the elements? And they're free to use it. The defense would always try to get it blocked out. They would say it's too prejudicial, but they didn't succeed. And obviously they were going in with really, that was a really bad video. It changed the whole game, but the prosecution was free to use it as evidence of him engaging in a long pattern of abusing women, using his resources to cover up his abuse of Cassie, buying the videotape, evidence of him using force to, you know, get her to engage in a commercial sex act.

That's how they framed it. That's how they styled the narrative, but they were freely allowed to use it. Yeah. Now, this next point is, I'll even call it out before I ask it. It's actually almost hypocritical for me to ask this, and I'll explain why. But the marketing from the prosecution. The reason I say this is hypocritical is because I've talked about this a lot in the past with when Preet Bharara was in charge of the Southern District in New York, and particularly my

friend Raj Rajaratnam's case. They tried, but he had a PR team of like six people or some shit who were like planting everything in the media at all times. Everyone was like a movie star who was trying this big, bad hedge fund guy, and he was convicted in the media before he was convicted in court. Introducing TurboTax Business,

a brand new way to file your own T2 return, all while getting help from an expert who actually knows small businesses. Got a tattoo studio? Toy store? Tiny but mighty taco stand? We've got someone who gets small business taxes inside and out. Experts are standing by to help and review while you file, so you know your return's

done right. Intuit TurboTax Business, new from TurboTax Canada. Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax business. New from TurboTax Canada. Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax.ca slash business tax. It's me, your brain. And I, your mouth. I act on logic. I act on taste. For me, Pizza Hut's Nashville Hot Chicken Pizza with Spicy Fried Chicken, Pickles, and Creamy Ranch Drizzle is confusing. To me it sounds good. Pickles on pizza? Amazing.

It shouldn't work, but it's so good. Try the Nashville hot lineup at Pizza Hut. Your mouth will get it. And I've argued that something like that shouldn't be allowed. You should not be able to, as a government, have a PR team, he literally had a PR team, to go out and like litigate the

facts of the case in public to sway public opinion and sway potential juries and sway the overall vibe of the case. That said, they do do that. And it felt like of all the cases where you would ever do that, if you're allowed to do that as the government, when you're trying one of the biggest music moguls of the 21st century, I feel like I would know every prosecutor's name. They'd be on the front of every single newspaper,

well, now online. You know, they'd be on the front of every TV report. They'd be out there on the pulpit every day after trials, screaming this, this, and that. And I'm not saying they didn't do any of that, but it didn't seem like they did a lot of that. It felt like they were a lot of that. It felt like they were very quiet.

Why did they make that decision? They were very serious about this prosecution. And particularly after, by the way, it was an all female prosecution team, which I think is important in a, basically a sexual violence case. I think it was important there, logistics there, but also optics there, I should say.

But also I think it was very serious. We're not gonna try this case in the media. We don't wanna give Sean Combs anything that he can use in an appeal. Oh, the prosecutors went out, they tainted the jury pool because they were very confident in their case. They thought they were going to convict him. And the last thing that they want is to give him any ammunition to challenge that conviction. I don't blame them. They shouldn't. Now I think there was one other thing that happened too. At the very start of this case, when Sean Combs was arrested and indicted, the then

United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, who's no longer there, he held a press conference. He held a press conference. Now, it's not unusual. I've seen attorneys, I've seen prosecutors hold press conferences when there is a big charge. They did it with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. I don't blame them for doing it. It's a case, a very important case. They thank the investigators that are a part of it. It's a matter of public interest.

They explain the indictment, but they didn't, even if you look at the press, he wouldn't go into more details about the evidence. He basically just refer to what's in the indictment, refer what's into the indictment. Having said that, I recall that the defense, at least in one filing, had made a mention of what Damian Williams did. And they said it wasn't right what he did,

a prejudice to potential jury. I don't think the prosecutors moving forward said, we don't wanna do anything like that. We don't wanna give Sean Combs anything that he can use to appeal his conviction successfully. Okay. All right. That makes sense. It's just like... man, the public sway was already so strong against him, and he's a powerful guy, and he's a connected guy,

so, again, not that you should look at it this way, you have to look at court objectively, but you would think there would be some wiggle room with something like that, meaning a judge, no judge, because they are all human beings, wants to be the dude that on like a small, you know, small detail that's very subjective decides to thwart the case against Diddy.

Yeah. You know what I mean? This judge was awesome, by the way. He was like down the book. He was really fair, smart guy. You know who became stars now? Diddy's defense team. They held a press conference after the verdict because it's a win for them. He got acquitted of the most serious charges. But the attorneys that we read about each and every day,

when they came out there, they were getting applause. I mean, one of them is Brian Steele. He was, um, he was young, young thugs attorney. He's a, he's a superstar. Mark Agnifilo is now a superstar. Nicole Westmoreland who's really tiny. She's a superstar. Um, you look at Tenny Garagos, who's Mark Garagos, his daughter. She's now a superstar. This was the, they call it the dream team. He hired an incredible, incredible defense team who put on exceptional cross-examination. They didn't even have to put on a case. They didn't even have to put it. They didn't call one witness and I have to say they didn't call one witness.

They didn't call one witness. All they did was introduce a few more text messages and called it a day because they figured they raised enough reasonable doubt in cross-examination, which they did. Well, you were, you were one of the guys that talked to a few different people before this case was going on, who was like, yo, don't be surprised if this isn't a home run for the government. Like, like we have to find, you were saying you have to find out what the final indictment is going to look like. Number one, number two, as much as you know, the public, we in the public want to convict the guy for being a scumbag, it is technically not a crime to be a scumbag. You have to be

a scumbag that officially, provably, demonstrably broke the law or the laws that you're accused of breaking. And that's effectively what we saw here. One thing I'll add mention, and I forgot who told this to me, but it stuck with me. You have victims in this case. Of course. Even if he was acquitted across the board, they're still victims. They're victims of either what would have been state charges,

or they're victims at the very general sense of a toxic, toxic, abusive relationship. But it doesn't mean that he should be convicted of racketeering or sex trafficking. Yes. And here's the other thing, that it's the 500-pound elephant in the room, and I gotta bring this up, because I keep seeing this movie play out over and over again,

and it's not to be just, like, conspiratorial about all of it. Yeah. But, Galeen Maxwell found guilty on December 20th, Wednesday, December 29th, 2021. In fact, it was during COVID, and the jurors for the holiday wanted to go home and take a break and the judge said, fuck you, you're staying in here, get this done. So she's found guilty during one of the deadest media weeks of the year, where New Year's Eve falls on a Friday,

New Year's Day is a Saturday, by Monday, that news is old. In fact, oh, Gile Maxwell didn't traffic people to anybody. Who even heard that? Then you have, you go back to when Epstein offed himself, huge air quotes right there. It was a Saturday morning, early in August, the deadest news month of the year. Everyone's on fucking vacation. It's over by Monday morning when the news cycle starts again that's already dead to begin with.

Jean-Luc Brunel, who was his trafficker, Epstein's trafficker in Europe, in France and around the world. He kills himself on Saturday morning of President's Day weekend, early on Saturday morning of President's Day weekend in America, news cycles dead by Tuesday, nobody's talking about it. Sean Diddy Combs goes through this whole month long trial which had plenty of coverage from guys like you. Two months, yeah. Yeah, yeah, two months, exactly. Plenty of coverage from guys from guys like you yeah yeah two months exactly plenty of coverage from guys like you independent media covered it mainstream

media seemed to cover it a lot less than I thought they were going to which is interesting he is found guilty during a year when July 4th falls on a Friday many public companies literally gave their employees off for the week he's found guilty on Wednesday the second very similar to Gian Maxwell here. It is Friday, it's already old news. Monday, people are groggily getting back to work and people are like, oh yeah, is something happening with Diddy?

So point being, it seems to me that there's a little bit of a pattern here where very powerful people get put on trial and the timing of when these trials wrap up, regardless of what their actual outcome is, is quite, quite pristine. Well, I can't talk about the consistency in when they're happening, but what I can tell you is don't let anyone tell you that a holiday doesn't affect jury deliberations. Now, here's what happened.

We were all betting when the jury was going to come back. I thought it was going to...if this started on Monday and there was a full week and there was no holiday, I actually thought the jury was going to take the full week. I didn't think that they would come back with a verdict till Friday. We even put up a poll on law and crime on our YouTube show, and it was majority people said it's going to take two plus days. Now, one of the things the jury didn't know was that if they didn't come back with a verdict on Wednesday, typically court would be closed July 3rd on that Thursday. It's a court holiday.

However, the judge was going to allow them to deliberate. The judge said, should I tell them this? And the defenses don't tell them this yet. Because if you tell them this, they might feel the need to come back with a decision immediately. They don't want to put the court up. So they were going to be given the option to deliberate on Thursday.

They came back before the holiday weekend. You have to imagine they sat through an eight-week trial, seven-week trial, saw sex tapes, violence, the most disgusting stuff. I mean, no one's denying what Diddy liked. I mean, I'm not even going to repeat half the stuff that he liked. They sat through all that. You don't think they wanna go home? Of course they wanna go home. Judge, we gotta beat the short traffic.

Come on. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This shit's getting old. But they took their job seriously. There's no, there's no, somebody who covered this trial and somebody who was reporting on this, and we had a reporter embedded in the courtroom, observing the jury every day.

This was a jury that took the responsibility very seriously, that listened to all the evidence. They were not slacking off. They didn't fall asleep. They weren't checked out. every day. This was a jury that took the responsibility very seriously, that listened to all the evidence. They were not slacking off. They didn't fall asleep. They weren't checked out. They were paying attention to everything. They deliberated. And you have to say that some will say it's a wrong verdict. Some will say it's a great verdict. The fact that they found him guilty of the charges that it seemed like he probably was going to get convicted of. And the ones that they acquitted of, this is a jury that carefully considered the evidence.

And I can't say that the holiday weekend rushed them to that. I don't believe that. But it is interesting. It is interesting. They came back on Tuesday, Tuesday night said, we have verdicts on four of the five charges, but we can't come to a decision on racketeering conspiracy. I don't remember if the word was, we're immovable on our positions.

I don't remember what the word was. Judge said, go back, deliberate. I got cough in the Hamptons on Thursday, pal. Let's go. They went, they're like, we're going to go home for the night. Came back the next morning, and within an hour, they had a decision. Now, could it be they went back home, they said,

they sat on it, we don't know what the holdouts were, if there was one holdout, two holdouts. It's interesting, the majority of the cases that I cover, when there's a hung jury, meaning they can't come to a decision, it's either A, they stick with that, they say, we're deadlocked, we can't come to a decision, we're not gonna change our opinions.

Or sometimes it's not guilty. Sometimes it is guilty. I mean, it's hard to say. I thought that they were gonna be hung. I thought they were like, if we can't come to the decision on this, nothing's gonna change our perspective. And by the way, by the way,

when there's a jury that's hung, that means some jurors are ready to convict them of racketeering conspiracy. Which made me know, know that he was already getting convicted of other charges. You're not gonna have jurors who are ready to convict him on racketeering conspiracy and acquitted him from everything else.

Not the case. And you were calling, like you said, you were calling the shots on this publicly. Yeah, I saw it. The only, the end, it was just, I knew that he was gonna be found not guilty with respect to Jane. I knew he was gonna be found guilty

with respect to transportation and engage in prostitution. The other ones were in sex trafficking of Cassie and racketeering. Was a toss up. Yeah. Now the judge, this starts on May 5th, the judge estimated that the trial was gonna be eight weeks and he seems to have been correct literally down to the day, which means they knew when the jury was going for deliberations. Well, it was about seven weeks because they were anticipating the defense might put on a defense.

And by the way, if Sean Combs took the stand, this trial was going to take a lot longer. You know, he had been on there for three weeks talking about himself. There was going to be more witnesses that were supposed to testify. There was at least two other alleged victims that were supposed to testify.

One couldn't be found. It was very bizarre. Couldn't be found. Oh, you don't know about this? Alleged victim number three, I think it was Gina in this case. This is Sean Combs, like, other love interest who was a source of jealousy for Cassie and all this.

Um, couldn't... she wasn't responding, apparently, and her attorney wasn't responding to her. They sent her a tweet, something? They just couldn't find her. And at one point during the trial, the defense goes, um, she's not a part of this case. She's not a part of this case. She's not a part of this case. She goes, she's not a part of this case. And the prosecution's like, no, no, no, she's very much a part of this case.

And she was never called as a witness. A lot of people were like, oh, what happened to her? Did he... She was not a part of the case. We don't know what happened. But maybe she wouldn't have been cooperative witness. And the defense was planning on calling their own witnesses. They were gonna call... the head of HR of Sean Combs Enterprise. They were going to call their own psychological expert, their own forensic psychologist, to rebut the testimony of the prosecution's own psychological expert who

talked about the power dynamics between a victim and abuser. They didn't call anybody. And they think at the end of the day, they're like, we don't have to. We thoroughly cross. They cross examined one of the, when I say alleged victim in this case, she wasn't necessarily a part of the indictment, but her testimony helped support that of Cassie and Jane. And also I think it was part of the underlying racketeering case.

It was like, if he's abusing women as part of this criminal enterprise, I think she helped. There was a woman, okay, Brianna Bongolin, who testified Sean Combs held her off a 17 story balcony. Okay. Really important testimony. The prosecutor, the defense dismantled her testimony, dismantled her. How Dismantled her testimony. How did they do that? Oh, number one, there was a message where she offered to buy Sean Combs a t-shirt, like a week after this happened.

Strange. They looked at the travel records and the timestamp, the metadata of... First of all, the metadata of when she took photos of her alleged injuries, it looked like those photos weren't taken when she said the injuries happened. How do we know that?

They looked at the metadata and they said, it's not adding up. Then, listen to this. They... She said this attack happened at a certain time and place. They looked at the travel records and Sean Combs' hotel receipts. He was on the other side of the country. Mm. I mean... And here's the problem. You might say the prosecution is going to throw as much

as they possibly can at Sean Combs. Great. Right. Great. So much they can throw. The more you put in, if the, if the, it's more for the defense to dissect, if they dissect the testimony of a Brianna Bungolin or they dissect the testimony of another alleged victim, Mia, who claims that when she was working for Sean Combs, he sexually assaulted her multiple times. Yet they say, we'll show you text messages where she's staying in touch with him. She wished him a happy birthday on social media. The more that they raise reasonable doubt with respect to those alleged victims, arguably weakens the rest of the case.

Some of that gets hard though, because on the one hand, you have, what is it, Helsinki Syndrome or whatever, or someone's, you know? Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm Syndrome. Close. Where people, it sets in, where people feel like a need to appease their abuser,

where the person's holding them hostage, so to speak, obviously I'm paralleling that term right there from what it officially is. And then, on the other hand, you have like what I might call the Me Too effect or something like that. And let's use the example of Harvey Weinstein. Harvey Weinstein was obviously a scumbag. He obviously in my book when you look at the cases, clearly abused many, many women.

When that case came out though, you saw a lot of initial accusers come out with very compelling stories where you're like, whoa, and then a lot of it checked out in court. Obviously there's something going on with one of the cases right now. It's a separate issue. I don't want to go down that right now, but a lot of it was obviously proven in court. And then you suddenly had a lot of other people come in. And to me, it really actually hurts real victims too because for whatever reason People like to join the party sometimes and then you know

You will have liars come in and claim stuff that didn't happen and so to your point when the prosecution says all right We're gonna bring in a million fucking witnesses You know, let's say they bring in 20 or 25 legit witnesses who are gonna who who are gonna be claiming abuse if you just you know who are gonna be claiming abuse. If you just, you know, knock a peg in one of them and say, wait a minute, there's a hole in that story. Suddenly, if I'm a jury, I go, well, did I miss holes in all the others too?

Here's the counter argument, ready? Counter argument is everybody's lying about them? Every single person is lying, and what's their incentive? Cassie already got paid. She got paid a $20 million settlement. Why is she going to go on the stand and commit perjury? Why is she really going to do that? I mean, really.

Now, again, I go to the idea of were these witnesses lying, or are they telling the truth, but it just doesn't match up to what the narrative is the prosecution's selling. Now, there were problems in some of the testimony. It could be, yeah, they're not telling the truth, they're going after Sean Combs, or it could be traumatic moment, memory issues.

It could be, I think Mia had said, when she was asked about some of the inconsistencies of her behavior, she says, go ask my therapist, go ask my psychologist. Like, that's fair, that's a fair argument to make. I mean, it is complicated why people stay in touch and feel this kind of emotional connection and love for Sean Combs, uh, or an alleged abuser.

Sometimes it looks a little strange. Like, with Jane... Look, Jane, you couple the idea of she had messages where she was trying to set up these wild King Knights, she was expressing her love for Sean Combs. There were messages where she clearly trying to set up these wild king nights. She was expressing her love for Sean Combs. There were messages where she clearly, clearly expressed her reluctance to engaging in any of this, particularly after Cassie filed her lawsuit.

She came out, text messages to Combs where she's like, I feel like a victim, I feel like the same way. Like, this woke everything up to me. Okay, but she's still getting her rent paid by Sean Combs. Mm. That's... That's not great. She was with him right before he got arrested. Oh, in 2024?

Yeah, like 2020, like right before, right before. That's what complicates the conversation. Now, here's the truth. Here's the truth, Julian. He was acquitted, and look, he's innocent. He was innocent until proven guilty. He has a right to put on a defense. The prosecution did not meet their burden. Here's the truth. He's facing 66 lawsuits right now. Alleged accusers, they may feel that after this criminal jury didn't believe it,

they're not going to move forward with their lawsuits. They may say, you know, if these, if Cassie wasn't believed and Jane wasn't believed, am I gonna go on the stand? Wait a minute though. This is different though, cause you're talking about civil court. In criminal court, the burden is on the government

to prove 100% and civil court, all they gotta do is like get 51%. That's true. I, by the way, with his cases, with his cases, and by the way, it hasn't stopped. I mean, even after the verdict, like even towards the end of the trial, he's already been hit with more lawsuits. But here's what's interesting, what I think he's going to do with it. A, because now he has to tackle these, aside from what he'll be sentenced to, and we can talk about that.

But basically, with his civil cases, one, I think he's going to, a lot of them have filed lawsuits against him when they're Jane Doe's or John Doe's, so they're not being identified. Civil court, you don't have much room to do that. You have to really show that it's a danger for you to proceed. And so I think what's going to happen is he's going to first try every single which way to expose the identities of these accusers who are filing lawsuits against them. And if he can get them, the court to agree that these people can't proceed under a pseudonym, they may drop the case.

They may be like, I don't want to be exposed. I don't want to continue anymore. That's one. Number two, he's going to probably file motions to dismiss half of them. If he hasn't already, he's going to have to take each case piece by piece. But you also have to imagine unless he agrees to some sort of global settlement, which I don't think he will do, he's going to try to fight each one of these. And you wonder whether any of them will go to court and we're going to see something

like this, maybe in a jurisdiction where there are cameras. Although right now I don't believe that there are. I think they're mostly in New York. It's still like, to your point, it does look like he just beat the system. And he's this powerful dude, and he was so guilty in the court of public opinion. And then he won, and this is a guy who loves to intimidate people. He's done it his entire life.

And it like, by the way, let's go back to that, the third witness they couldn't find, that is so sketchy. So weird, right? Like, particularly in this case. Do we know that she's alive? I have no reason to suspect that she's in... physical danger or she's harmed.

It's a very good lawyerly way of putting it. I have no reason to suspect that. And let me tell you, during our live shows, that was like the number one question, if something happened to her. No reason to suspect that. I wonder if she's like, listen, I'm not gonna cooperate.

You can call me in, but I'm not gonna be a good witness for you prosecution. Well, besides her then, why do you think if... if Agnifilo, that's how you say it? Uh, we've been saying Agnifilo. Agnifilo, if he and Steel and the team were able to so effectively just tear apart Jane Doe, witness to, why...

why do you think the prosecution called her and used her as such a significant witness? And do you think they just didn't see that coming? Okay, let me now give the other side of it. First of all, they needed more than Cassie to establish racketeering. They were talking about a pattern of abusive people, a pattern of abusive women.

You can't just have Cassie. Jane, let me tell you the benefits of her testimony. So if you ask me, was she, was he going to be convicted of sex trafficking? If Jane, I said 20%, 20% will get convicted, but there was a percent where he might. Now why? I mentioned the text messages. There were text messages are such powerful evidence. It's very hard to say you didn't send it. I mean, they didn't even debate. It was a real conversation. She was clearly expressing reluctance to engaging in these sexual episodes, whether she felt that she was not being treated right, whether there was a sense of jealousy, whether it

was Cassie's lawsuit being filed, and she goes, I feel the same way. It's like my awakening. Those messages are powerful. If you're trying to say she was not consenting to what happened, there was another moment where they talk about, you know, he had financial control over, was paying her rent, controlling how she would make money, goes to the coercion aspect of sex trafficking. But there was another point. And this is when she said in June of 2024, so if you remember the timeline, this is after the Cassie tape was published by CNN.

This is after his properties were raided. She claims that he physically attacked her, that he brought in a male performer and says, take this pill and go out there. You're not going to ruin my night. Now normally if I said that after all that,. After all of this. After the apology table is up in his head, going, that's not me, that's not me. I wasn't in the courtroom. But what I'm told, it was compelling testimony,

it was powerful testimony. Now, normally I would say, if I said that about John Smith, how on earth are you gonna prove that John Smith said that? But after everything the jury saw in text messages and videos, is it really outside the realm of possibility

that he said and did something like that? So you look at that and you say, I get why they call Jane. I get why and particularly in 2024, they wanted as close as time. So he was dating her I think 2020 or 2021 to 2024 as close in time to when they arrested him. We're not talking about something from 2005. Right. Clearly they needed to call her.

But again, I don't think it was a situation where she wasn't telling the truth. I think it was she was telling her truth. She was telling what happened. But at the same point, it just, it wasn't sex trafficking or wasn't racketeering, at least according to the jury. Yeah, I'm not a jury member, but it didn't seem to me that even what the defense was suggesting as she was making things up, it was like, it almost felt to me that the defense at times were saying,

the prosecution's on trial. Okay? They shouldn't have brought you. They shouldn't have brought you as a witness. You have no reason being here in this sex trafficking racketeering trial. That's the way that I thought. Soterios Johnson Did they? Soterios Johnson And again, not to take away from their testimony, because I imagine it, obviously, was incredibly difficult to testify and explain this. Like we know the statute of limitations, for example, ran out on the domestic violence tape that happened in 2016 and stuff like that,

but what officially were the statute of limitations for like the sex trafficking? Because some of the claims that people have made, like even in civil lawsuits, go back to like 1999 and stuff, and you just raised the point that Jane Doe was someone who was more recent, but how far were they allowed to lawsuits go back to like 1999 and stuff. And you just raised the point that Jane Doe was someone who was more recent, but how like how far were they allowed to even go back with those claims?

So for racketeering, my understanding is there had to be a certain like 10 year timeframe when certain conduct had to have happened. I think I'm right about that. But from the civil context, the reason this all started, the reason Cassie filed her lawsuit and the reason we've seen a plethora of lawsuits, particularly on New York, is there

was a change in New York law where there was a lookback window. It was a two-year lookback window. There was a specific law that was passed, where you had two years to file a lawsuit against your abuser, against the person who assaulted you, no matter how old the claim was. Even if it happened like 20 years ago,

you have two years to save. Because they wanted to give people an opportunity. even no matter how old the claim was, even if it happened like 20 years ago, you have two years to save, because they wanted to give people an opportunity. They said, look, our understanding of sexual assault has changed. People will not come forward. They might feel scared. They might not even recognize they're a victim

until after they get therapy. So we're gonna give people a two year look back window, not to- Like a grandfather clause almost. To file a lawsuit against your accuser. Now, on one hand, you could say, wow, that's great. Gives them a legal opportunity. Sure, we can't bring criminal charges on that because it's too old.

But as you said, civil case, very different. It's great. But then you still have to prove it. So if I'm saying something happened in 2000, it's much difficult to prove that something happened in 2000 versus 2004. So it's catch 22. You might have more people filing lawsuits, but maybe there's a lack of video evidence

or text messages or witness availability. So it's not an easy case. Now, where during the whole trial, obviously, you're covering this every day. You're basically doing recap shows of what's happening with analysis, bringing in guests and all that. You had people inside the courtroom,

obviously, right? So what was the setup? Like, how were you getting information? Like, take me through a normal day bringing in guests and all that. You had people inside the courtroom. We had a reporter. So what was the setup? Like, how were you getting information? Like, take me through a normal day as best you could. So we had a reporter named Elizabeth Milner, who's been part of Law and Crime for several years. She was in that courtroom every single day for every piece of testimony. And she was like an encyclopedia.

She would go through notebooks and notebooks of taking notes. And she would come on two times during the day. One, she would come on during our lunch show that we did live on YouTube. And the viewers loved her. They called her Queen Elizabeth by the end. They loved her. She was answering all the questions.

Yeah, well, she was answering all the questions. But then I had her on Sidebar, and we did like 30-minute, hour-long Sidebar episodes. At the end of the day, we published it at night. They went incredibly viral. I mean, like tons of views on it, because she basically was like an encyclopedia of everything that happened during the day.

She gave details about everybody's testimony. And so, for people who couldn't follow the trial and read, they were just turned on sidebar and like, okay, what happened in testimony today? And she did it every day. What are the rules with that? Cause again, I don't have cameras in the courtroom to even know, but like,

did she have to write this down physically? She couldn't type. She had to write it down physically. She couldn't have her cell phone. She had to leave the courtroom to actually send a message. So we would get a message, oh, Elizabeth's out. Then she'd come out, she'd look at her notes and... Oh, so she had to go get the phone from the security.

She couldn't even prepare. She couldn't even prepare. She couldn't be like, oh, I'm ready to go. She had to go out and was like, I was like, oh, Elizabeth, what happened with... And she had to really, like in real time, look at her notes. And that's the same thing in the state court at times.

There was one guy who we all followed, inner city press, Matthew Russell Lee. Oh yeah, he's on every case. There was one guy who we all followed, inner city press, Matthew Russell Lee. Oh yeah, he's on every case. He was great. He has special permission to actually live tweet. Oh, that makes so much sense. That dude has everything. Live tweet the trial, which is what we all followed. He was great. You know why I know he's great? Because at the end of the day, I would match his tweets, his ex-posts, whatever,

his tweets to the transcript and they were verbatim. Oh, it's amazing. I mean, he was great. I follow him for every case that happens. He's phenomenal. He's phenomenal. He writes like a book at the end of every case, too, where he just takes the transcripts.

I haven't even read one of them, but apparently, it's like he's just taking the transcripts with the quick notes on it. You know what's interesting about him? I interviewed him on Sidebar, and you would think that, he's also apparently a lawyer. So when I asked him questions, I thought I was just going to get like a reporter answer. Well, the process he's like, I think, I think they did a bad job.

I was like, whoa, like he's really giving his opinion about it, which I thought was great. He was phenomenal, phenomenal reporter in this case. So that's, that's amazing though. Queen Elizabeth was running in and out of the court room and now people were worried about it. Like are you eating? Are you sleeping enough? What did she say it was like in there?

Like, put me in there if you can. How big was the courtroom? How many people were in there? How much of his family was there every day? I know at one point some of them had to go back to the West Coast for like prom and graduation stuff. But like, you know, what was Diddy like? Yeah, so she basically said the courtroom was packed.

Diddy's family, family members came like almost every single day. There was a guy that I interviewed, Charloochie, who's his like close friend, who's been there every day. Charloochie. Yeah, he was wearing like the free puff t-shirts. I actually interviewed him the other day. So he had supporters.

The jury, I was told, when they were shown, and to be clear, let's be clear about what happened. They were shown sex tapes. They were shown videos of freak offs. They would have to wear headphones, watch it on their individual monitors. There were some who I, Elizabeth told us had to take off the headphones towards the end. Like they look like they had enough of seeing it. And plus they were shown it multiple times. Like the meme of the guy. They were just like. But they didn't, they were very serious about what they were watching. They were very attentive, looking always at the witnesses. Combs was interesting from our understanding and from the reporting. delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC

Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at NoFrills.ca. Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today.

You don't want to miss out. Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

He was very, very involved in his defense, constantly passing notes, talking to his attorneys. He did get in a little bit of trouble at one point. Yeah, the judge reprimanded him. Yeah, told him, stop nodding at the jury. And I think what happened was, it came after a very successful cross-examination, and by the way, cross-examination is when the defense

questioned the prosecution's witnesses. A very successful cross-examination day, the defense won that day, and I think he was getting excited and nodding to the jury. Like, you hear this? You hear this? Your body's going to be six feet below if you didn't. And here, you just nailed it.

So this is the problem. Why is it a big deal? Defendant can never do anything to influence a jury But a guy who's been accused of manipulating the system and obstructing justice and threatening people to be nodding at the jury is not Great and the judge said if he does it again, I Will give an instruction instruction to this jury you will not like Okay. Now, it could be really bad. It would be something along the lines of I noticed Sean comb jury members.

You might notice Sean combs is nodding at you. Like he didn't say this, but he could have been like, you know, Sean combs has been nodding at you disregard any attempt that he is making to influence your decision. Right. I mean, he wouldn't do that. It would be extreme, but basically you have to know that inherently without him saying it, too, right? Like, why is this fucking guy whose voice, money, and dollar is nodding at me? Feeling good, like, he's like...

But yeah, he was very... You never seen him nod, Jesse? Yeah, yeah, well, here's the thing. We had the AI video. Apparently when the verdict came down, he, like, collapsed. Like he went right on the chair. He went, you know, his life was handed back to him basically, because he was looking at life in prison for racketeering conspiracy.

He's looking at a minimum minimum 15 years in prison on sex trafficking. He threw up a little heart sign again. Yeah. By the way, have you seen the courtroom sketches? Oh, they're awesome. He got upset. He's like, I look, he said to the courtroom artist, he goes, such a narcissist. He goes, I look like a koala. He looked like, I look like a koala. He he goes such a narcissist he goes. I look like a koala

He looked like I look like a follow. He didn't like you know what you know what our courtroom artists are quite possibly I swear to God they picked the worst artists in the world, but great. Fuck him great fuck Oh, I look like a quote get the fuck out of here. Hey, can you trial? Yeah? Yeah, but he was very involved It was a you know at times. It was really really tense wasn't much laughter or it was a lot of laughter by the way in the Johnny Depp amber her child was like a lot of laughter when John when Johnny Depp was on the stand making jokes that but not the guy vaping in the car that was great. He was like judges like I've never seen that. So it was

it was quite the experience I wasn't in there I was reporting or I was hosting our coverage, but I wasn't in there. Elizabeth was, and I'm sure it was just an incredible experience. And particularly when she says how different he looks, you know, he doesn't have hair dye. So he looks much older. Yeah, he's got the gray, which also makes him look more, you know, what's the word, not innocent, but like it makes him look more sympathetic. Here's the problem with that They also saw him on videos. I don't know. Yeah, that doesn't look I don't know what those videos look like

Do we know who was in the videos? Yeah, of course meaning like they the jury wasn't told hey, you're gonna see sex videos right now and No, no, no, it was very clear who was on the videos. Okay. The videos were Cassie. They were Jane to alleged victims and different male performers in Sean comb. So they never saw a video of unnamed celebrity X. Okay. No, no, no, no. So that's a huge that goes back to your misconception.

No people thought was going to happen. None of that. None of that. None of that. Interesting. So hmm. None of that. None of that. Interesting. So... Mm. He, you know, when I... when the day that the judge reprimanded him and that made the news, I was like,

it's so on Brandon, and you're sitting here also saying he was very involved in his trial, telling his lawyers what to do as if they can't figure the fuck out. But... Well, in all fairness, sometimes it's good for the defendant to be involved, because he'd be like, you know, he knows these situations better than anybody else. Sure, sure. Hey, just hit him on that point or that, you know, I don't know what the conversation was.

I'm gonna guess he was over-involved though, just based on who he is. Yeah, yeah. I might have mentioned this last time we were on, I don't know if I did, but I want to repeat this point just because it's one of the most, like just from a human being perspective, one of the most damning things ever, and it's not much. But there was a documentary back in 2017 called The Defiant Ones. Did you ever see this? No, I haven't. What's about...

For my money, it's the greatest music documentary ever made. It's four episodes. It was done on HBO, and it tells the story of the long-term business marriage of Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre. And it tells it through their eras, which obviously, like, they were a part of building Interscope, which was the wildest label ever built.

And it's just this incredible who's who. Every person is in it. And at the beginning of the documentary, there's also something I got to tell you off camera about that about Diddy's involvement in this, but I can't say that one because that's in confidence. But at the beginning of this documentary, they show they have the B-roll of all the people who are going to be talking throughout the four episodes being set up and mic'd up. You know, it's all pretty normal.

That's a classic documentary move. Like when they step in, like. Dude, it was. We're ready to do this? Like is. The vibe, it sets the scene so perfect, but you see like Eminem getting mic'd up. You see Snoop Dogg ripping a blunt, go, yo, we ready, ho?

Like, it's just, like, if you're a music fan, it just gets you in the vibe. They had Tom Petty in there, and rest in peace to Tom Petty. Like, they had all these legends getting mic'd up and then they had Diddy. And when it gets to Diddy, this is what I mean, he has no self-awareness of who he is.

He's sitting there, scowling like this. Hey, don't touch my hair. And you know I don't like my hair like that. And he's just like, yeah, oh yeah. Like when you watch him as a human being, just go watch the tape people, you will be like, this guy is a fucking asshole. Like he is someone who is all about himself,

he doesn't give a shit about people, everyone around him is just a piece of meat that he can move out of the way or tell to do his bidding. And I remember, like long before any of this Diddy stuff was the case, I was on team Diddy fucking sucks forever. But like, I would refer people to that scene. Just him getting mic'd up. And say, just watch that, and tell me you can't tell that guy

is the scum of the fucking earth. Again, though, like, him being this narcissist, megalomaniac, I don't think that's up for debate. I mean, I think it's pretty clear that's what he is, but as we said, you gotta prove that he was a racketeer and did these things, and that's a separate issue. I interviewed, I interviewed Charlie Lucey, his like good friend of years,

and he was there at the trial every day. And I said to him, and it's like, I just interviewed him, he's up on the sidebar, and I go, is he gonna change? Like if he gets released, like if he doesn't get significant prison time, and he's really, it's like, how's his life gonna be different? What's he gonna change? Like if he gets released, like if he doesn't get significant prison time and he's really, it's like, how's his life gonna be different?

What's he gonna do different? Like basically is he gonna humble, is this gonna humble him a little bit? It's like we're getting him into therapy. We're getting him into therapy. He's not gonna do this again. He's given up on all this. Okay, I mean, look, I will tell you,

there's nothing like he's been in jail for almost 10 months. He was potentially looking at the rest of his life and despite people saying, well, he was convicted of transportation to engage in prostitution. Each one's minimum of 10 years, two counts, he might get 20 years.

He's not getting 20 years in prison, not happening. I think he's probably gonna get somewhere between two to five years. And he's got time served already. Yeah, that's what I think he's not getting 20 years in prison. It's not happening. I think he's probably going to get somewhere between two to five years. And he's got time served already. Yeah, that's what I think he's going to get. Unless something should change, there's going to be a pre-sentencing investigation and a pre-sentencing report. There's it's up to the judge.

There's no minimum. There's no minimum. So he could even technically say time served, you're out. Don't think that's going to happen. Why? Because you're dealing with two alleged, you're out. Don't think that's going to happen. Why? Because you're dealing with two alleged, you're dealing with two victims and also multiple instances of him committing this crime of transporting men and the victims over state lines for the purposes of sex work.

Multiple. So I think it's an aggravating factor. I think two to five years. Point is when you're looking at the rest of your life in prison and you're going through this trial and you're hearing the testimony and you're thinking at the rest of your life in prison, and you're going through this trial, and you're hearing the testimony, and you're thinking about what matters, maybe he will be a different person.

I don't know. Um, it doesn't excuse the things that he did. Um, but you always wonder how this process could change someone. I hope for the sake of humanity, and that the people that will be unfortunately around him, whoever that may be for the rest of his life, that he does change, but he won't change. He is who he is. But you do have the subjectivity of a judge here, because as you said, there's no minimum

so he can do what he wants. Judges are human beings. They're supposed to look at everything perfectly objectively. Obviously, we know that's not possible 100% like for any human beings, we're all flawed. Do you think that something that has nothing to do with the charges that he's been convicted of here, and that's something, I shouldn't say has nothing to do,

but one of the things he was not convicted of, for example, is that tape with Cassie. Do you think something like that plays a role in a judge who's sitting there and instead of saying two years says, fuck this guy, I'm giving him four? Yep. Yep, I do. I think the judge denied him bail again after the verdict. And the judge said, one of the key factors that I'm looking at is whether or not he's

a danger. And you look at all of the testimony throughout the course of this trial about his violence and defense, you admitted he is violent. You said he engages in domestic violence. Like you can't say he's not a danger. Now the judge said, don't use this decision and my rationale to deny him bail as a preview of what I'm going to do with sentencing. But having said that, if you're talking about Sean Combs transporting people across state lines for the purposes of sex work, you can't necessarily separate it from all of the allegations that were levied against him about using violence and threats and coercion, even if it wasn't sex trafficking,

per se. Some of those characteristics or some of that evidence, I'm sure, will come into play in his decision. But I really think from a legal point of view, even if he felt that way, if he's, okay, let's say he's a judge who goes, I wanna make sure that he gets time, okay? I can't justify 20 years, but what I can say from a legal point of view is two victims and multiple instances of him doing this,

that's aggravating. What he interprets aggravating to be will be what he interprets aggravating to be. You know, I think we were all in a state of shock when, um, uh, Harvey Weinstein was sentenced originally before his conviction was overturned for his first trial in New York. He was sentenced to like, I think it was like 23, 23 years in prison. And it was like, whoa, that was like a shock sentence for him. But again, I think there's a guidelines. The prosecution came forward and said, this is the guidelines we're looking at before

the pre-sentencing report. Again, that's when they interviewed combs. They look at his court, they look at employment records, they look at, they interview family friends, they speak to the victims in the case, they speak to law enforcement, they prepare a report for the judge. Um, they were saying like four and a half to five and a half years. The defense is saying one and a half to two and a half time served. So I'm thinking somewhere is where the judge might go. And obviously if it's not a sentence that they feel is appropriate,

the defense will immediately appeal and try to get the sentence. Well, what was the estimated data sentencing again? You said they have to do a whole investigation. So it was a great question. It was supposed to be set for October 3rd. Then things like yesterday, they're like, Oh, no, no, we're going to push it back to September. We're going to push it to September 22nd. And the defense had requested to be expedited. They want them out of jail as soon as possible. Right. That'll be almost a year. Yeah. But then they apparently apparently had it back and forth, and now they agreed to October 3rd. So October 3rd is when the sentencing's gonna be.

Okay, so... So he'll be in jail for a year. He'll be in jail at, what is it, MDC? He's right now at the MDC, but depending upon what his sentence could be, there's a chance that it'll probably be at another federal facility of some kind. Where that is, I'm not entirely sure.

Okay. How did Diddy react when the judge didn't give him bail? What did Elizabeth say about that? If I recall, I think he was like, like a little, you know, obviously let down. I think he, I think she said he like sighed or exasperated. I think he was such on a high of winning the case. I mean, yes, he was convicted, but... In a normal case, you can make the argument,

and this is what they said, he's no longer facing racketeering. He's no longer facing sex trafficking. Yeah. Those were factors that you considered in your bail analysis originally. He's not facing these kind of violent crimes anymore. That factor's checked off. You can't keep him. We're gonna propose a $1 million bond,

home confinement in Miami, private security, who by the way, I actually interviewed Ira Judelson, who's like the bail bondsman to the stars, that episode's coming out tonight. He, great, like so interesting, he like bailed out all these different celebrities. He's been working on his bail package. So how does that work?

I'm always so confused. He's like a loan shark. Like you basically say, he puts up the money that can be used for bail and he provides conditions. He works with the defense on conditions. I said to him, people are gonna say private security for Diddy to monitor his movements so he doesn't leave or doesn't contact anybody.

How can you trust? They're on his payroll. And you know what he said to me? He goes, my reputation's on the line. I've been doing this for years. Meaning I hire them. He goes, I'm hiring like ex-NYPD, know what he said to me? He goes, my reputation's on the line. I've been doing this for years. Meaning I hire them. He goes, I'm hiring like X NYPD. I think he said, or X. I got black water coming in. They're not, they're not, they're not messing around with him because I'm going to make sure he doesn't do anything, which is an

interesting life. If you think about they take away his phone, they take away wifi, the limit who can come see him. Oh, you don't get wifi. Oh, they have a guy who's been accused of trying to reach out to people involved in the case and threatening people. They're like, they're taking away everything, which look at the end of the day, it's better than jail is better in jail. He's got his own bed, shower, food. He gets to see his family. Poor did he's got a beat off blind now, but, but he's not that he was not granted bail. We'll see if they propose a different bail package. So now it's potentially September 22nd though.

No, no, it's October 3rd. October 3rd is- Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood that. They said, they're like, oh, we'll go to September 22nd. Now they agreed, let's keep this October 3rd. So basically that's interesting because basically that's like the year mark

of him being taken into custody. September 24th, I think, was when he was arrested. Right, now do you think for the crimes that he was convicted of, would he be looking at you know a medium? Security prison or something like that if he had to go do a year They are serious crimes man act is no joke so I wouldn't say that now I think he'd be in a may maybe a higher level prison of some kind. What's good? Yeah. Yeah No, I mean, I don't care where you are. This is not a financial crime. This is not a white-collar crime

No, I would assume it's not low. It's not club-fed. Yeah, so you wouldn mean, I don't care where you are. This is not a financial crime. This is not a white collar crime. No, I would assume it's not low. It's not club fed. So he wouldn't be in a good position. Yeah, it's not a low for sure. It was reported after the verdict that he got like a standing ovation from inmates. Like he beat the system, right? He beat the system.

And I think that's, he's also ditty. Like there's- Why do the inmates like him? He's such a weirdo. They might say, you know, what did he do that's so bad? What did he do that's so wrong? And that's the thing, because he's not the only person who's brought up on sex trafficking charges.

Do you know who the Alexander brothers are? Yeah, they're the real estate guys, right? Real estate, private security brothers. They're facing sex trafficking charges. And I mean, what they're accused of is disgusting. But the counter argument is they had one night stands, they had girlfriends. So let me get the straight anybody who has a girlfriend and buy something for them on Trent and takes them on a vacation. And there's something that's not on the up and up. That's sex trafficking

as opposed to sexual assault or rape. Like are you taking the sex trafficking statute? Are you taking maybe Rico and you're transforming it into what it wasn't originally designed for? I mean, you and I talked about it before. Sex trafficking makes sense if it's taken. You have this organization that's kidnapping girls and shipping them off. I get it. Boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, one-night stand relationship, is it expending it too

far? But look, that case is entirely different. girlfriend relationship, one night stand relationship, where is it, is it expending it too far? But look, that case is entirely different. It gets weird though, because like, you're a public figure, now you're married, let's assume for a second you weren't though. You live in New York City, which is right on the edge of a state border.

If you have some girl who really likes your show or something, and lives in in fucking Newark or Hoboken right here or something. And you're like, Hey, let's meet up. And you say, come into the city for the night and you buy a hotel room for her. Yeah. Is that obviously it's not sex trafficking, but it gets so weird with the subjectivity of what a lawyer could try to claim like, Oh, well, you brought her across a state line. Well, this is a wake up call for the feds. Now look, the Southern District of New York has a high conviction rate.

They have no joke. 98% to lose this case. They got to think twice now. Now wait a second. Does this count on the does this count on the decks as a loss if they technically got two of the charges convicted? Meaning when they're making their stats they get to say 97 98 apparently they're still coming for fucking ditty out there Yeah, you heard that right. It's like a block party going on right now. Sorry people

But do they still get to call that the law aspect of this crime aspect of our show? I'm glad I told him was it. Oh, yeah, I told him to come right at this time as we're talking about. Um, Yeah, it's a loss. It's a loss. It's a big loss. But on the statistics. Yeah, well, no, they'll say it's a win, right? They win.

But it's a loss, because why? Of course it's a loss. It's a big, if you look at any of their indictments, like let's say their indictment was, I think, like 30 pages, I could be wrong. 17 to 18 pages was dedicated to racketeering conspiracy. That was the case. So much of, I mean, we didn't even talk about Kid Cudi.

We didn't talk about it. Well, I'm gonna come back. I'm waiting to bring the plane back. All of those underlying crimes they spent so much time on. Yep. Didn't get it. Sex trafficking, Jane Cassie. Right.

What did I, I actually, it's funny. When I was with Brian McMonicle, who I mentioned at the outset, which I don't think I said this, but for people out there, Brian McMonicle is one of the greatest defense attorneys of all time. He's represented, he's down in Philly,

he's done major cases, from mafia cases, all the way to Bill Cosby. He's the guy who originally got Cosby off and then quit, and then Cosby got convicted after he quit. But, you know, I didn't really get to talk to him about what he was thinking about this case. What was his breakdown as the case went on? He didn't see it as racketeering. He didn't see it as sex trafficking.

He thought that he would get convicted of transportation to engage in prostitution. I, I, I'm fairly confident that's what he said, but he did not see it as a racketeering case. He thought this was a case of, of an overcharged criminal defendant. He said that from day one, he said that even before, uh, jury selection, he was looking at the indictment and said, I don't see it. And he was right.

And there was another great attorney too. If you haven't had him on, you should have an arm. Don't say ASAP Joe. No. Although I get ASAP Joe. Yeah. You have to get this guy on Bradford Cohen. Okay.

Represented Drake. He's awesome. He is, he called this. He also called this called this to like he and I it was funny because I had him on when the jury came back that night I know like we're gonna convict. Excuse me. We have a verdict on four of the five charges We're on the side and racketeering and I said to him look Bradford. This is the way that I see it I think he's convicted of transportation to engage your prostitution. I think he's going to get convicted of Cassie. I don't think he's going to get convicted of Jane. And it seems to me that the jury is, he might get convicted of racketeering conspiracy or

they might be hung. And he goes, you're wrong. He goes, yeah, I don't see it. He goes, I think not guilty of Cassie too. And I think that they're going to find him not guilty of racketeering. And he was a hundred percent right. Seems like a lot of brilliant lawyers. He knew all this coming.

He knew. For sure. He knew. I almost ate dinner. Real quick, I just gotta go to the bathroom. When I come back, I wanna talk about all about the jury selection, cause that took a while. I wonder if he would have told the truth

if they water boarded him. Well, you would know that better than anybody else. You think he would have cracked? I was thinking about that. I'm like, I feel like Diddy might've cracked. Yeah. They do that enough times, you're gonna be like, I'll tell you.

It was all racketeering. I did it. I did it. The Punisher. It was, yeah, whatever. See, the problem with that is, first of all, you are like, toughest guy I know now after watching that. But like, I would say, what leads somebody to just say whatever needs to be said to get out of it? I'll tell you whatever you want. Yeah, I've been thinking about it a lot

since I did that with Tommy G as a documentary. My friend Tommy G did on YouTube is what we're referring to where we were put through a simulated CIA enhanced interrogation program for a day. But the one thing that cannot be simulated when you're doing that is the truth, which is We know when we're in there like it was real as fuck in the sense that like Andy Bustamante who was doing it You know, he and I are very competitive with each other and like he was in it and I was in it and Tommy was in it

But like we could get out at any time. It's for content. It's for God in content, not God in country. You know what I mean? So at any point, if like something was going too far, we had a safe word to be like, all right, this has got to stop right now and everyone would stop. We weren't there actually kidnapped where there was no getting out of it

and where we knew a truth that was arguably bigger than us, meaning we would have to try to protect that, you can't simulate whether or not your mind or body would go to this crazy far place to protect something that's bigger than the meaning of your life. I thought it was gonna be like Tropic Thunder. Like, you thought you were gonna get our friends like, this... the safe work, the safe word's not working, guys.

Didn't we have a plan? What, what? Does anybody... Can we cut? It's really cold. Wasn't that? You were kept in good hands. This is flaming dragon! Is my finger going to grow back? Because I... feels like you cut it off. And, no, that didn't happen to you.

I hear they're going make a spin off of that with Tom Cruise. Oh, they should. That's the best part of that movie. Well, listen to your flaming dragon. Why don't you fuck your face? And the guy's just so confused, but it turned real for them.

It's a good point. I love that movie. Phenomenal. They can't make it anymore. They can't make it anymore. It's incredible what they did. That was amazing. But yeah, like it wasn't, there were a couple a couple times where like at one point I thought they were going to break my fingers. And I was like, wait a second. I didn't sign up for that.

But you become delirious. Like maybe maybe your mind was going to be like, wait a minute. Maybe I really do not like that. But yes, you become I would use the word disoriented. Yeah, every you feel everything way more. Like I was showing you some of the footage. Like even when he came up to me, you see me in the hood there, just zip tied to the chair.

I've been there for a while. I'm fine. I mean, you just zip tied to a chair. But like when the Navy dive team Blackwater guy came up behind me and just went like this, this is all he's doing. It was no more than that at that point. I saw that.

Or like holding this. But it's not that it hurts. You just don't know where anything's coming from. So you're you're like, you know how like when when a person goes blind, they all their other senses pick up there and I can feel it. It's like that but not in a good way. Did they all experience that themselves? So they know what it to feel what it feels like that each one of the guys that did like have they been tortured before and they're like, I know what it's I know what it feels like? Did each one of the guys that did like, have they been tortured before? And they're like, I know what it feels like.

So I know when I inflict on somebody else. They had done some training on that. Trevor, the Blackwater guy had said, like he was supposed to go through Sears School a bunch of times. He was a special operator and then shit always came up and he couldn't, but he had done, like when I talked to him later to get clarification on it,

he had done like some drive-bys, if you will. Like, he had been waterboarded before and stuff. So he did know what that was. And, like, he came up to me after the waterboarding portion was done. Because, like, we would do it in rounds. And at the end of a round, they would take us to the back and uncover us for a minute

and be like, all right, we're off. We're trying to get your interview reaction for the documentary. And go. Right. Right. So, and they wouldn't be, like, all right, we're off. We're trying to get your interview reaction for the documentary. And go. Right, right. So, and they wouldn't be like overly nice, but they'd be soft and calm. And then they'd be like, all right,

hood them on, zip time, let's go. But after I went back on that part, because the parts where Tommy and I were each experiencing that separately, we went farther than they thought they were gonna go. Trevor came up to me when I was done being interviewed on the chair, and I'm shaking like this because your whole body's catching up to the temperature.

And he comes up to me and he goes, hey brother, that was really impressive. I just wanna let you know that was really painful for me. I'm like, it didn't feel fucking painful for you. You felt just. But then I watched the tape and he stayed in character the whole time, but you'll see him, because he had my hood with a zip tie on the back and he stayed in character the whole time but you'll see him when because he had my hood

With a zip tie on the back and he had my hair basically in a ponytail with the zip tie and I had been Being water tortured for 12 minutes before they started the waterboarding. So my hood is soaked and he's pulling it back So it's like a plant when you see someone have a plastic bag pulled in the movie over their face it's just like that except except it's water. And so you're like, you can't breathe. And it felt like, you know, he's just totally in it. And when you watch his facial expressions, he was, but if he's holding me like this, his face on my head's here, his face was looking this way. And he was not, he was definitely not enjoying doing it. And when they got like they watered they did Like a full-blown waterboard just to be very clear to people

Let's not you know get some fucking social clout that we shouldn't have a full-blown waterboard is you're put down at 90 degrees flat and according to the US government mandates that they would have they pour water in your face for 10 seconds Then they're required to pull you up and let you breathe. When they did it to me, they did it with me on my knees and they poured it from the back. However, they didn't take the mask off. They tightened the mask afterwards

and would pull me up like this so you never get a break. So it's like, I didn't get as bad on the front end, but then I got it more annoying on the back end is how I would never get a break. So it's like, I didn't get as bad on the front end, but then I got it more annoying on the back end is how I would describe it. What do you think you learned from that? Besides like, you got a good tolerance for pain and tough. Besides that, what'd you learn? I knew I had that.

I mean, I don't know how you can simulate that going into something like that. I do wonder, I had like a little bit of a head cold still that day. I wonder if I didn't have that if I would have been able to breathe more but I don't know if I would. I feel like it might have been at the same spot just because there was no air in there no matter what, whether I had a head cold or not. But first of all, Tommy is a fucking gangster and actually is an on the ground journalist who wants to do shit.

And that's why I love that fucking dude. His channel is incredible. He's a great friend. So it was his idea to do it. This was him setting it up on his channel. Did an amazing job. The whole team did an amazing job. But the reason, part of the reason I said yes was not just like, oh, fuck it, Tommy wants me to do it with him. I'll do it. It was also like, you know, this debate and these kinds of things, hypotheticals come up on my podcast with different people who have been in that world. And it'd be kind of cool to be able

just a little bit, not a full experience, but a little bit be able to speak to it. And like, when I got to tell you, when they did it the second time, they poured it on me for about six to eight seconds. and dive team guy yanked my head back like this and just how to come and there was no air left and I fucking flamed around for like eight seconds and you can hear right at the end like two seconds before I break because they would ask us like a basic question like what's one plus two or what's the capital of the United States and you had had to give him a bullshit answer until he broke. I tried one last time.

And there was no air, and I was like, fuck it. He goes, what's the capital of the United States? I said, Washington, D.C. And they're like, get it off. Took it off immediately. And when my head came off of it, I looked up at the camera crew, and I'm like, I ain't dying for this shit. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, to me, it's like...

Everyone's gonna break at some point I think, but how far do they go and how much should we be able to constitute to be able to do that in the United States? It is a really difficult thing to ask because by the way they can do way worse shit than waterboarding, that's just the tip of the iceberg. See here's the scary part, if they're torturing somebody

to get information and times of the essence, can they hold out, you know, until that attack happens? You got three hours. We need to get it, and that's when the torture gets more intense. Now, the most intense hypothetical, though, that we've all heard is it's 12 o'clock, there's a nuclear bomb in Manhattan,

it's gonna go off at three, you got the one guy in front of you that you know has the information. In that moment, whoever is doing that, the United States government, they're not even gonna follow the enhanced interrogation. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.

They're gonna start by cutting off fingers. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They're gonna start by doing, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's also like in that scenario, there aren't a lot of, there's a lot of people who wouldn't be able to do that or wouldn't wanna do that, but there's a lot of people out there that are like, oh, maybe, maybe that's okay.

It just gets weird. I watched 24, I know what happens. Right. That wasn't realistic? Yeah. The fact that he didn't go to the bathroom for every episode? That's what I was thinking

while I was doing this. I'm like, cause Andy was so frightening sounding, he was so, he was like an operator, just like this. I was like, fuck, he's done this more than I thought. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I'm like, because when they, I thought they were gonna break my fingers, it turns out what they were doing is they,

at one point they even had the nurse, because we had a nurse on site, we did this safely, come with the Navy Dive team guy. Yeah. Hold on, hon. No, she was like a nice... I did this in the 80s. We called it a fun Saturday night.

She was like a nice Wisconsin girl. I'm like, you have no idea what you guys are talking about. But apparently, Dive team guy like called her over at one point, because he had put one of my zip ties too tight. Oh. And he wanted to check for blood flow. So they were behind me pulling my fingers like this. And it was him and then later was her. I didn't know she was there

because I was hooded. But I was like, Oh, I really need these fingers like I was ready to be like, yo, if I gotta say my safe word and not get the fingers broken, I might be doing that. But it's also like there was a movie. I don't remember what the movie was. There's a guy who is blindfolded and he was they were making him feel like he's being tortured I don't remember this movie, but it was really funny. They they're like, oh we're gonna When you feel cold that's burning skin and like we're gonna like they took a blowtorch and like when you feel it cold That means to you that we're burning your skin. Like, it's so intense.

And what they did was, the guys blindfolded, they burned like a piece of steak to make it smell like it was his skin. And they put an ice pop on him. It was an ice pop. It was a movie. But it's like psychological like that. You can fuck with it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like, when I was watching the raw footage a week later, going through all of it, it's like I remember, I'd be like, oh yeah, that, but nothing looked the way it felt. You felt like you were motionless. You felt like an infant. You're just like totally helpless in place. It never felt, even when they slapped you, it didn't even feel like your head moved that much, and then you'd see the tape, you're like,

oh, I did actually like move with it. Like, it's just such a bizarre, bizarre feeling, but you can't simulate if someone actually were holding a state secret and were actually kidnapped and could not get out of there. There's no way for us to simulate that. When I saw you do that, I was like, it was funny. I was gonna write you and then I was like, you know what, I know I might be on.

Let me ask him about it when I see him. I had to, it's something like, it's crazy. It's crazy what you did. Like, I don't know anybody else that would agree to do that. You're a very, you're a brave young man. Oh, thanks, man. But shout out to Tommy G, because it was his idea and his whole team put it together.

They did an unbelievable job. Like even two of his lifelong best friends served as the security guards and they seemed a little too excited to do that. But you know, one of them is like an ex-military. Let's keep it going. Probably benches like 450, like 10 times. And I'm just like, oh shit, this is, this might be a little painful. They bring out like pliers like oh We're not having this is not how far we're going okay when we cut down the waterboard I'm like

Because they would do it in rounds like I said and we still had more rounds left And I'm like is this like worthy with the fucking electric food your balls comes out and Andy was like no no no Yeah, and I'm like, but are?" I don't know if I believe you. You see, you're a little too excited about that. Like, if I put the Rawls up on the internet, like, if I later put up just that one segment at some point after I had Andy on again, if people just saw him for all six or seven hours,

he'd win an Emmy. He was incredible. Like, he was literally directing live. Like, I would see cuts in the raws of him walking out of the torture chamber when he would leave us, like, sitting there for two minutes, and, like, the cameraman follows him from us straight through the trap door.

He gets into this small, dark hallway, and as, like, literally as they walk through, the door shuts, and he turns around and goes, -"All right, you ready? All right, good. So right now what we're doing and 60 seconds without even an um in there, one take wonder walks right back in,

fellas, you ready for some ice? He just was on it. And we would say things that were funny too. Like Tommy, like the other thing is it doesn't, it feels like all of your delivery's terrible because you're like zip tied, you're behind a hood. Can I do that again? Right, yeah, it feels like you're like line.

It sounds way better when you listen to it back, but it's still not perfect. That said, like we would do funny back and forths, and I looked at the tape, they weren't laughing. There was one time, one time, like while he was in these rounds, he had me on like a mat and laying in ice and water and like holding my chin up to try to not drown in the puddle. And he would have me sit there and every two minutes he'd come back and pour more ice on

me and water and try to get me to answer the question before the what ended up being the waterboarding part of it. And I wouldn't answer the question. So finally, like the last part of that was he's staring at me. And then you just see him like walk over, maybe I can cut this in on the post footage so people can see it. And he like leans down and he goes, every country has a capital, Julian, every country has a capital.

And I'm asking you what the capital of the United States is. And I'm not facing, I can't see any of this. I'm like here, like there's like, like trying to breathe. And he leans down next to me and I had been saying Guadalajara. He would ask me what the capital was. I'd be like, Guadalajara. It's just the dumbest thing I could think of. And so he's like, so what, what, I just, this can all stop.

I need the information. What is the capital of the United States? And I was, I was like, well, obviously, I was struggling at this point. Well, obviously it's not Guadalajara. And he's like, you can see him like almost smile. And I go, so next best, or no, before that I said, well, I'm from New Jersey and we're fucking retarded.

So I don't know, I thought it was Guadalajara and he tried to like, he was like, I said, well, I'm from New Jersey and we're fucking retarded. So I don't know, I thought it was Guadalajara. And he tried to like, he was like, I'm not arguing you with you about your position on the state of New Jersey, but I need to know the capital. And that's when I said, well, obviously it's not Guadalajara. And he's like, Mike, so next best guess, Sue City. And then he got pissed again.

He's like, I admire your gumption, Mr. Dory. Goes out and fucking starts filling up a bucket like a psycho. So he was just like, I mean, it's like, was it acting or was it just like, this is just who I am? So what are you gonna do next? What's the next thing you're gonna do?

Listen, Tommy G's got a lot of ideas. He's got way more ideas than I do. The next time he calls me up, I may think twice about it. Yeah. That was my fault for not thinking about this. Is there something that you've wanted to do that you haven't done? Like people are like, oh, I wanna skydive.

I wanna do something like something like, I know this is crazy, but I'm gonna do this. I don't know. I'm one of those guys that like I have to hear about them. I'm like, oh yeah, I've always wanted to do that. Skydiving's not one of them. I like my feet on the ground. I like tentos. Yeah, yeah, I don't blame you.

Like, I like looking at these buildings. I'm not huge on having my office on the top floor of them. You're nervous about that. Yeah, I'm not a huge heights guy. You're not a height guy. I might have broken them. Do you want to overcome the fear, though? No.

No, you're good. If they had real flimsy windows, this place was like a, I called my agent afterwards, like, yo, they've got to use the exterior and interior for windows. This place was like a, I called my agent afterwards, like, yo, they gotta use the exterior and interior for movies, this place was perfect. There was the train tracks in Milwaukee run right behind it. They didn't even know that. That's cool. So like, yeah, they get us in the chairs,

like right once they have us abducted, they sit us down and Miguel, the director, suddenly you just hear like the Godfather scene, like, vroom, vroom, and the windows, all the blown out windows are shaking. Apparently Miguel was like, no, that's cinnamon, that's incredible. So like, if they'd taken me over to one of those windows

and like broken one of them and held my fucking head out of there, I'd have told them whatever they wanted. I'd have told them every secret doesn't matter. Like that would have been real, there would have been zero tough guy act in that one. Put it that way. That's good.

You know what's by the way really scary is like, you know when they do the floors that are see-through, the floors are glass. You ever do that? You ever like walk in the floors? Oh yeah, when they're walking on the high rises. That's scary. That's like, that's torture.

That's a lot. By the way, nice agent name drop. Look at this guy, big shot. What I'm talking about agent. Everyone has an agent bro. You have 10 subscribers. There's an agent somewhere. But yes my shout out to Nate.

I love Nate. He's been with me a long time. Yeah, but anyway, so let's get back to this case though. So you you had five days at the beginning of jury selection. How it was like hundreds of people at first. Oh, yeah hundreds. I mean mean, look, first of all, they send out a summons to everybody, right? And, you know, who can serve on a jury.

You know, they don't immediately know what the jury, what the trial's gonna be, and they're brought to the courthouse. And the first way you narrow down the jury pool is you say, okay, do you have any conflicts? Any reason you can't serve on the jury? Health issues, work, and a lot of them are excluded. They're like, I, you know, my work won't let me, I won't get paid. I have a vacation, I'm getting married, I'm sick, whatever the reason is,

whittle it down. Then you get into the next phase, which is, okay, what have you heard about the case? And they fill out a questionnaire. What have you filled? What have you heard about the case? And they fill out a questionnaire. What have you heard about the case? Do you have any opinions about Sean Combs? Have you seen the 2016 tape? And a lot of people have seen it. And look, there were jurors, I gotta give the potential jurors questions. I mean, credit, prospective jurors. They admit when they can't be objective.

Now they might be saying, because they're like, legitimately, I can't be objective after seeing what I've seen about the case so far in the media, or they don't want to be on a jury. They don't want to be on an eight week jury, which is why it's actually interesting. Sometimes you'll say, in certain cases, you'll see older people on juries, like the retired students, you know, it's different. But I mean, you had a really a cross section of jurors that were ultimately selected from all different walks of life. And I think that's exactly what you want.

Um, and it's interesting because you would think like jury selection, the Diddy case or jury selection, Donald Trump's case. Oh, there's no way that could happen. It should take months, but you, every time you say that they're able to whittle it down to a jury who says that they can be fair and impartial. But of course the question becomes, do you have stealth jurors, people who want to be on that jury? They'll say all the right things to get on,

but once they're in that deliberation room, something changes, which by the way, one of the things we didn't talk about, one of the jury notes when they were in deliberations was they said one of the jurors was refusing to follow the jury instructions. What do you mean? What does that even mean?

I don't know. Like one of the jury former goes, we're sending out a note, sends out a note to the court. Like during their deliberations says, we have a problem. One of the jurors refuses to follow your instructions. I don't know if that means they came in and were like, he's guilty, I'm not listening to anything, or he's innocent, I'm not listening to anything. Was it something specific about the 60 pages

of jury selection that they just didn't wanna file? I don't know what it meant, but when I talk about stealth jurors, obviously is that a concern? Now, that's why you have alternates. If one juror is not working out, you fill them in with somebody else, and those alternates,

while they're alternates who are excused, they're not, while they can leave the courtroom, they could be called back, and they them in with somebody else. And those alternates, while they're alternates who are excused, they're not, while they can leave the courtroom, they can be called back and they have to come back in. These are... So they're not required to be in there the whole time? No, not during the jury deliberation process. They have to be there for the whole trial. They have to hear all the other...

Right, that's what I want to know. But then they can leave, they're like, you're excused for now, but have your phone on you. We might call you back if there's a problem, which makes sense because in a high profile trial like that, you want as many alternate jurors as possible. How many did they have? I think there was six, but I could be wrong on that. But I think it was six. Got it. Yeah, not easy sitting on this jury, not easy sitting on any jury.

How do you you know, you talked to all these high powered defense attorneys who also have they literally bring in experts, psychological experts to help them with this sometimes. Did you consultants, jury consultants? Yeah, I think they might have had a jury consultant, but also you have to remember these defense attorneys are very experienced. They already know what to look for in a juror. And there's research that goes into their social media posts and what they're about and their background. It's, it's, it's, it's a crazy system when you think about it. You're entrusting your life, you're entrusting...

It's wild. ...strangers to look objectively at all this evidence and pay attention. I will tell you, I have seen cases before, where you question the jury verdict, and you question, did they really, like, follow the evidence? Did they follow everything? Because when you...

Sometimes jurors do interviews after, and you're like, how did you come to that decision? And they completely don't know what the charge is. And that's scary. And by the way, not to fault anybody, but racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, this is not an easy concept. I understand.

No, it's not. It's not an easy concept. And I think, you know, when you looked at all of the different elements that the prosecution had to check off to make racketeering conspiracy, criminal enterprise, common purpose, criminal agreement, multiple underlying crimes, it's like, oh my gosh, it might take the jury three hours to understand even what they're supposed to do. Right.

And not to rip juries, but again, it's like, if you're not smart enough to get out of jury duty, I'm questioning some of your ability to look at the case. I'm just saying. Well, it's not that hard. Well, and there's certain people who want to be part of it. Yes. The older folk, when you say like an older person who's like retired, they want to fill their time, those are probably the best jurors. In most cases, I'm

not saying I know that I'm just like, but also it's like a big case. It's a lot at stake. You're part of it. You know, the world's gonna be watching but also like it's you know, civic duty. I will say though, like, you know, being on this jury. They're the only ones who know what those videos are. Those videos are not getting released those sex tapes., I can imagine what were on them. I can imagine what was going on. I think the reason the prosecution probably put it on

was to not only show the actual act being committed by, you know, Cassie with a sex worker, but also with Sean Combs in the corner of the room, pleasuring himself, directing them what to do. I got, like, eight weeks of this testimony. It's like, it's tough. And by the way, what about being in a murder case and seeing this?

What about child abuse cases? That jury, sometimes prosecutors have to make a decision. We will offer a defendant, even though we know we can convict them, we'll offer them a deal just to not take this to trial. We don't wanna have to jurors to have to go through this. We don't wanna have to put the victims on the case. I cover a lot of cases, unfortunately,

of minors, children being abused and some prove that case, you have to put the victim on. I can't imagine. And so it's like, let's avoid this. We're gonna have you dead to rights. I mean, we have your text messages, we have this. We'll just give you a deal like five years in prison ten years and proud It's so out but like that's also those are the crimes you want to see people put away for the longest time

That's where it gets weird. It's bad, you know bad Is that not to totally sidebar it but we should talk about this Is that part of maybe the logic they had with this Coburger case? Let's talk about Coburger. Yeah, we're gonna come back to Diddy. But we've been covering this for a few years. We should cover this. They had Coburger dead to rights. There was no way an objective jury looking that evidence was gonna find him not

guilty. They had cell phone evidence placing at the scene. They had surveillance footage of his car. They had the DNA on the knife sheath that was left on the crime scene that was a statistical match to him. They had an eyewitness testimony. They made an eyewitness to someone matching his description in the house. They had him dead to rights. He was going to be convicted. Okay. We were questioning if the trial, if it went to trial, would we even get a lot of attention to it? Cause everybody knew what the verdict was going to be. The bigger question was why he did it. Now I, I'm, I'm an attorney.

I don't care who you are. Everybody's entitled to a defense and particularly for the ones who clearly have committed a crime. It's so important that their rights are protected and they get every advantage because as I said before, the last thing that you want is a Brian Coburger to be convicted by a jury and he has some avenue to overturn the conviction. That's right. Now, here's the problem.

You know what he did like a few days before he pled guilty? He was moving forward with an alternative perpetrator defense. He was pointing the finger at four innocent people who knew the victims in this case, these kids. That's so disgusting. Like, again, everybody's entitled to the defense, but you know you committed these crimes. You know you did it, and you're gonna point the finger

at four innocent people to get off? Like, you're already a monster, but how much more of a monster can you possibly be that that's what you were gonna do? So what happened? He was facing the death penalty. He was going to be convicted. That defense, he had tried to get the trial delayed.

That didn't work. He tried to move forward with a different defense. That didn't work. The judge wouldn't allow it. He tried to move forward. Oh, the alternative perpetrator defense wasn't going to work. The judge threw it out. He tried to get the DNA evidence thrown out.

Didn't work. Every avenue he was going to lose. He was going get the DNA evidence thrown out. Didn't work. Every avenue he was gonna lose. He was going into this trial knowing he was gonna lose. Cut his losses and said, okay, take the death penalty off the table, I'll admit it. And he admitted it. It wasn't like, oh, I'm innocent, but the government's going after me,

and this is unfair, but I have no choice but to plead guilty. No, he killed four people in cold blood and admitted it. So there were some family members who were very upset about this. Yeah, the gun call vices, I think, were really upset. They were upset. They go, we weren't part of this decision. We didn't want this.

And the way the prosecution told us in like an email, that's how we find out about this. Yeah, it's not great. Now, I believe that there was one victim's family member who actually agreed with this. Because on the other hand, the way of looking at it is you don't go to trial, you don't have to deal with the pain of all this evidence coming out,

the crime scene photos, although at least one family member said, we've already been through enough. Like, you're not sparing us anything, take this to trial. Because they wanted him convicted, they wanted him sentenced to death. Well, as a part of the agreement, doesn't he not ever have to say why he did it, too? Doesn't have to. No.

See, that... But sentencing is gonna be coming up, and you're curious if he'll say anything. But also, look, this guy, he could sit for an interview in five years, he could sit for an interview and give it, but will he be telling the truth about it? He admitted he did it. He admitted he did it.

And I don't know if we'll ever get an explanation about why. This is the only thing that I'm hoping for. There's a gag order in this case. Nobody's been allowed to talk about it. As soon as he sentenced, the gag orders lifted. Whatever evidence the prosecution had that they were going to present to trial, whatever extraneous evidence they were going to have allowed to say, they can release it. And I hope that they certainly do. I hope that they look, we know a little bit about his search history. I hope there's more explanation because there are theories about what he was trying to do that night. Was he really intending to go in there to murder four people? Was his target one person? What was

his motive that night with that, with respect to one of the victims? Will we ever get those answers? Probably not. And this is the case that is the worst case scenario. It's not a domestic partner who kills someone, who kills their partner over a dispute. It's the stranger in the middle of the night that comes into a house and murders four people in cold blood. That is like one of the craziest things

I've ever heard in my entire life. And he, did you see him in court? Oh dude. Dead eyes, no emotion. There's nothing, people throw around these terms like demonic or whatever. Like evil. He doesn't look of this earth and my reaction is that he's just pure evil. I guess I have to leave out,

as much as I don't want to the 1% chance that he just is mentally deranged. And, you know, wow, okay, let's shocker. Yeah, yeah, crimes. Most of them have some they're not all there. But it doesn't mean that they're criminally insane. Yes, he knew what he was doing. He knew he knew what he was doing. He knew so you do believe that yeah Yeah, I just the only reason I asked that is because he He has no emotion Whatsoever emotion like you you can look at these other guys who are crazy in history Who had like Ted Bundy like? They show emotion they they're obviously sociopaths and crazy serial killers, but there's you can see a

Sick humanity. I don't know if that's the right term, but you can see the thing behind their eyes this guy Looks like a bot he literally looks like a bot he and you have to wonder about the family his family I was just gonna what are they thinking about all I was just gonna ask though what so this gag order comes up Yeah, there's been questions around his parents His foot so he's from Pennsylvania. He was going to get his PhD in Washington I want to come back to the professor by the way, that's sinister, but he's getting his PhD out in Washington I guess it was like a few weeks after the crime weeks six weeks after the crime His father takes a trip across the country, gets picked up from the airport

by Brian and they drive across the country together where they get pulled over twice for speeding, by the way, in those videos, again, he looks like there's nothing there. Is there evidence that the family knew anything? There's rumors that the family must have known or had some involvement. There's nothing to corroborate that I've seen. And I can understand people's

frustrations and their their view that, oh, the family must have known something, how do you not know? But I can't believe that I haven't seen anything. I'm an evidence guy. So until you show me something, I'm not going to believe it. But obviously, people have concerns and you hope maybe the family will speak out and try to call it in. And I think people the why the why why would he do this? And that's, you know, like, was he interested in what murder felt like?

Did he have an obsession with one of the girls? Well, he had the, uh... the professor, the, I guess... Katherine Ramsland? Yeah, so what was she, like, a serial killer specialist or something like that? Yeah, I think criminology, she recently, finally, spoke out

to my colleague at News Nation, Brian Enten. It was an interesting interview because there was nothing about it from her time with him that gave her any indication he would do something like this. And she said he was a smart guy, seemed into the studies. I think everybody was shocked, shocked. It's not like he was like, as far as I know, it wasn't like he was like torturing animals

at a young age or anything like that. It was just, he came out of nowhere. So if people are shocked though, that's also more great evidence that he wasn't just a bot. Like people actually knew him and felt like, you know... He was a regular human. He's a weird guy, but it's a difference between a weird guy

and a quadruple murderer. Because they've speculated, did he want to know the feeling of creating the perfect murder based on what he had studied to see what it was like? What a bad student he was. I mean, he couldn't have left more evidence. The guy was, you know, it was funny. I was on News Nation once,

and they asked me, well, you know, there's a theory going on from the defense, or this has been put out there, that he deliberately left this specific military-style knife to throw law enforcement off to think it was a member of the military. I go... Let me just process this for a second. This criminal mastermind decided to leave a knife, a knife sheath with his DNA on it and figured,

well, the risk of that was outweighed by, oh, they're gonna think it's a member of the military. I go, no way. The guy panicked and ran out and he left it. And that's what happened. He was incredibly sloppy. He turns his phone off and then has it off during the killings and

Turns it back on after the killings and it's going in the direction of the crime scene And when it's turned back on is going back to his house I mean he didn't circle back to the crime scene He was there multiple times and then if you're like, well, how do you know that was his car? This wasn't ever talked about as much later on that day He was there multiple times. And then, if you're like, well, how do you know that was his car? This wasn't ever talked about as much. Later on that day, the Toyota that he was driving, I think it was like 12-something,

he goes to an Albertson's, like a grocery store. He's seen leaving and, like, exiting the car. So if everybody's like, oh, maybe somebody else is driving, it's like, no, you match the car to him, too. It's like... Remember he took the picture, too, with, like, the thumbs up? That was like, oh, maybe somebody else is driving. It's like, no, you match the car to him too. It's like... Remember he took the picture too, with like the thumbs up. That was after that. And again, it's sinister.

Black eyes, a little bit of happiness. It was just... That didn't even look, it was just ice. It was crazy. I remember the first shot of him when he was arrested. Oh yeah, with the bulletproof vest on. And you just try to look, you're like, this guy's so eerie looking.

Yeah, it was one of those where you look at it, you're like, this guy's so eerie looking. Yeah, it was one of those where you look at it, you're like, oh, he must be guilty. Yeah, yeah. Right away. Excellent police work, excellent police work. Why did it take six weeks to get him? I mean, they had to match everything.

They had to find out where the car, the Toyota, where was it registered to, getting surveillance footage, mapping out the cell phone location. One thing led to another, the DNA from the knife sheath, genetic genealogy. It takes a while to build all of this. And by the way, once you make an arrest, then you could like, they had genetic genealogy, which is a way you can match DNA to a family tree and root it out.

But once they arrested him, then they took a cheek swab and then they matched it. It was a statistical match. So once you arrest somebody and you get a hold of more information, you can build an even further case. Yeah, it's sad too, because apparently one of his sisters, I don't remember if she ended up, if she actually reached out to police herself, but when he came home Christmas week, suspected him of it. And was like, what the fuck? Why is his car the same?

And then apparently both of his sisters, and I feel bad about this, because it's not their fault, it's their brother, but they both lost their jobs from this. You just see, whenever someone does things that are this evil, you destroy everyone. You destroy your friends, you destroy your family, you obviously first and foremost destroy the victims

and their families for life. And obviously a death is a death that's all bad, but also the grizzliness, if that's even a word, of what he did here was just so beyond, I mean, I think police described it as the worst crime scene they'd ever seen in their life. It was brutal, it was brutal. It's just, these are four college kids.

Yeah. Like what did they, they just woke up that day and had fun. And I mean, again, they were up at the wrong time. By the way, there was a surviving roommate who apparently saw him. Yes. Why is she alive? I mean, and I'm happy she is, but the point is, is like- I think there were two.

The point is, is like, you wonder if Zana and Ethan were just in the room and they never encountered him, like, could they still be alive? Like, if she wasn't picking up her DoorDash delivery, could she still be alive? That is the speculation. If one of the victims wasn't in the same room as the other, like, would she still be alive?

It's, you play this game, but at the same time, it's just such a tragedy, and your heart goes out to the families, because it's unimaginable what they're going through, what they've had to go through, and their frustrations with law enforcement, their frustration with prosecutors, it's such a sad case. Yeah, it's horrible. So, I'm glad we at least covered it,

just because I was very surprised that it went down that way. And I, again, it's weird, because there's four victims. You know, so you have some that are relieved by this, and then others who aren't. And I feel, you know, you want to see everyone be able to have a united front, but, you know, it's each of their kids. Like, how do you even...

They all react differently. And look, he's a young guy, what, 30 years old now? He's going to be spending the rest of his life in prison. No parole. What is his life gonna look like? I'm ho I hope you know this is Is this what he wanted? Yeah, you got it. This is your life now. Yeah, I hope no more tomorrow for you I hope no one gives him an interview either I hope the interviews that happen are with like experts at the FBI or something for internal like just trying to understand mind hunter shit.

Yeah. Who is this guy? Yeah. So that we can learn and try to avoid this in the future. That's all that should happen. Yeah, but it's also difficult to know if he would ever tell the truth. They might say whatever he wants to say.

Yeah, no, but also when you bring in the high level experts like that. Yeah, they'll be able to. They're gonna, waterboarding? No. Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't be against that. But anyway, so back to the ditty thing, we were talking about the jury selection, how complicated this is.

To be clear for jury selection, you can have a juror who says, I saw the tape, I was upset by it. I know who Sean Combs is, not a fan of his music, and that they'll still be selected for the jury. They would. The question becomes, and that they'll still be selected for the jury. The question becomes, and well, let me explain real quick the jury selection process. So first there's something called for cause. You can strike a juror who you believe is not going to be fair and impartial. And whether they say something or the way they answer a question becomes clear, they're

not fair and impartial. That's one stage. The next stage is eat both the prosecution and the defense have something called preemptory challenges. You can get rid of whatever jurors left for whatever reason. It just can't be based on their race or their religion or their gender. Okay. So they go through that process. Do they have a limited number? Yes, they do. But here's the thing. As long as you can put all of that to side, this is the question. Can you put all of that to the side and say, I can look at this case fair and objectively, I will be governed by the evidence and the law and the facts.

You hopefully they tell the truth. That's what you move forward with. And now, of course, the prosecutor, the defense will say the prosecution is only selecting certain jurors of a certain race, right? Then there was an argument. But it's not a perfect system, but it is a good system. I mean, it's fair and impartial. You got 12. You have to be unanimous. You have to be...

Think about it. Can you get 12 people to agree on anything? That's what's wild. Isn't that crazy? Can you get 12 people to agree on anything? How much of it, though, also get... This is where it comes back to how much of it gets to, while we've been in here a while, seven of us, eight of us think this, on anything? How much of it though also get, this is where it comes back to how much of it gets to while we've been in here a while, seven of us, eight of us think this, the other four, come on, it's July 4th.

Well, that's why it's important to have a jury foreman, somebody who says, look guys, I know we're exhausted. I know we're tired, but we have a job. We've got to keep going. If you want to take a break, want to come back tomorrow, that's it. But you got to have those responsible in the jury room to bring it back and say, we got a guy's life at stake. You ever see 12 angry men? Yes.

There you go. You have to have somebody who comes in and be like, I know we all have tickets and we all have things that we want to go to. And we believe this, but we got to be, we're asked to do this. He deserves it. I don't care who it is. Is it subjective for the judge to decide when that's not possible? Meaning, let's say that a count, let's make this a simple example case. It's a one count case, whatever that count, a murder. And eight of them, they've been talking about it

for three days and eight of them are 100% for them or like, I can't vote for it. And they go to the judge and they say, all right, this is round one. We can't decide does the judge get to decide how many times they get to come back to him for? Him to then say at some point miss Ra it's tricky Why so it's called an Allen charge and you basically go back and you say judge says listen, I want you to keep deliberating Okay, don't abandon your convictions what you believe but you each have to individually make a decision. Continue the deliberations. Follow the jury instructions. Usually you'll get one. Sometimes you'll get two. I think if you go past one,

it's a problem because what happens? It could put undue pressure on the jury to come back to a verdict. You keep telling them, go back to like guilty, not guilty, whatever, like whatever. Like you don't, you have to be respectful. And you also have to know when the jury comes back. If they come back in two hours and like we're deadlocked, any more time. If they came back after five days and say, right, we're deadlocked. Okay. There's something going on here. And then by the way, they can come back to luck. And then the judge asks the attorneys, what would you like me to do? Would you want to declare a mistrial prosecution? Do you want me to give an Allen charge? There's a discussion back and forth and the defense will say sometimes like, they'll also try to be figuring out

like in a way it's a, you're trying to see which way it's leaning. It's also like, it's interesting strategically for a defense attorney because a hung jury is not a loss. It's not a win. You would like a not guilty. But for their perspective, they also have to say, if this jury, for example, let me reverse it. If there were five charges and the defense and the, the, the jury's like, we've come to a decision on four charges and the defense is like, I'm pretty sure they're going to find him not guilty of those four or five charges and they're hung on one. They'll be like, tell them to, tell them, don't give them an Allen charge again. Be like, it is what it is. We'll declare a mistrial because their opinion is,

what's the likelihood the prosecution is going to refile a case against this defendant for one charge? They're not going to do it. So it's kind of a gamble. It's a little strategic to see. Um, because especially if you have a criminal defendant who's, I've seen this before, multiple hung juries. Like, they go to trial once, there's a hung jury. Go to trial again. If they're hung the second time, the defense will be like, you're not going to try this guy a third time. Like, we'll take a hung jury. S2 05 05 But it also... So it sounds like the way the judge... And this is different for every judge because they're all different people. The way they deliver it's really important. S2 05 05 Oh, absolutely.

S2 05 05 So if if they're like go the fuck back there Then yeah, why do that? They're not gonna say we're waterboarding. Yeah, we're Julian or Like if they're like, can you please yeah, yeah, they they read it off a script. They're very calm They're they do it the right way very procedural about it They can't give any indication about which way. Cause sometimes jurors will also look at the judge for like guidance and can't. He's a neutral decision maker here, a neutral arbitrator.

But yeah, it is, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances. And I would think that if the jury came back one more time and did he, or like were hung, there's a possibility there could have been one like real full Alan charged and they might have gone back, but maybe not. Got it. All right. So they take five days to do the jury. I also didn't notice.

So when they finished the jury on day five and then the trial starts right away, they're not like we're coming back tomorrow. They did the opening statements and did some of the initialized... Oh, that happens all the time. Yep. Okay. I must have missed that in the past So they do that and then the whole first part and we've covered a lot of this today But I just want to make sure we didn't miss anything the whole first Four days is Cassie testifying and then being cross-examined and then the fifth day

I believe was Cassie's actual physical evidence, like the pictures and videos and stuff. Well, no, the video came in first. The video came in first. That video did, but I'm saying the other stuff of her injuries and things, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, so it was like they first brought in, I think it was a security guard from the Intercontinental Hotel, who could authenticate the tape coming in.

Yep. But Cassie was shortly, and we knew Cassie was going to be called immediately because she's the star witness in this case. She makes up the racketeering charge. She makes up sex trafficking count. She makes up a transportation to engage in a prostitution count. She's the crux of the case. She's the heart of this case. So we knew that she was going to come on one, one other thing. She was pregnant. I was just going to say she's eight months pregnant. They got to get her on that stand. She gave birth like the week after she left the stand. So the prosecution... What does that do though? What does that look like?

How does that sway a jury? I don't remember if the jury, like if she was covered, like I think that, I think they knew she was pregnant, but like they might have the way she was sitting, they might've covered it. But look, the point of the matter is the jury knew that she had this new relationship going on. She moved on with her life. But I think what was interesting was from a the point of the matter is, the jury knew that she had this new relationship going on,

she moved on with her life, but I think what was interesting was, from a practical point of view, for a racketeering conspiracy case, when they're building up a case of multiple victims, victim number three's gone, right? Was there gonna be a victim five? I don't know. Then there was Jane. We need Cassie. We're not gonna save her for the end of the trial.

That's Catch-22 though, right? Important testimony, but this was gonna be a seven-week trial. Is the jury gonna remember what she had to say by the end? It's strategic. Now, they had her on, she testified. It was fascinating testimony, because on one hand, as I said, there were multiple episodes that the jury could take apart and say, it looks like sex trafficking,

but she was confronted with text messages and her behavior, and there was an audio recording where she was essentially threatening somebody who was going to possibly had a sex tape of her. And it becomes a question, does she not fit the traditional mold of what a victim is or what we expect? Life's complicated, but at the same time, this is not a domestic violence case,

this is a case of sex case. This is a case of sex trafficking. And I think that she laid the groundwork. And what was interesting about her testimony was it was corroborated by other witnesses. You heard a number of other witnesses, that they even had to, because you looked at the injuries. You saw the 2016 tape. You saw the text messages where she's like, I'm not a rag doll. But you had other witnesses to testify. I saw the abuse myself. I didn't step in. It was very clear that there was abuse. It just became a question.

Was she a willing participant in these freak offs or not? And I think the, the, the, the, the prosecution made a good argument too in closing argument. They go, let me get this straight. You want the defense wants you to believe that she consented to being peed on, that she consented to being beaten, that she, that Mia consented to being sexually assaulted, that Jane consented to having, being forced to pill. Like that they were, I mean, these freak offs, these events were prolonged, pro, the prosecution was trying to say they were prolonged sexual episodes

that happened for hours and hours and hours on end. They were exhausted. They were hungry. They were tired. They were sick and that they had to keep on doing it. And they had to keep on doing that. That's what the prosecution wanted the jury to believe, that they had to keep on doing it.

And I think this was something too. It's like, did they do it because, you know, they're getting a benefit from Diddy, they love Diddy, or do they really feel there was no out? And I would say, I don't think that this was hammered enough, and I think this is something maybe the prosecution should have done. They should have said, and I don't remember them saying this, so I apologize if they did, but I think if they said, you know why Cassie didn't fight back? You know why she didn't walk away? You know why she didn't tell more people? You know why

she didn't put up more of a resistance or look at the 2016 tape? Look what happens when she walked away. Yeah, that's what they I think they needed to say a little bit more to. But again, I don't know if the jury would have been convinced, but she was a very impactful witness. And I said after the first two weeks, I think the prosecution's winning this case. And particularly, let's just talk about it, particularly after Kid Cudi. Let's talk about him. Took the words out of my mouth.

We have to talk about Kid Cudi, okay? So Kid Cudi was a great witness for the prosecution. First of all, nobody, I've never seen anybody show up in court as cool as this guy. As cool. As cool. He's wearing the leather jacket He's smoking a cig walking into the car's ripping a boat right as you walk walked into the courthouse No one has looked cooler than him. So he's night he comes on

He comes on the stand. This is a guy who doesn't want to be there It is very clear that he doesn't want to be a part of this. He does. He's not an employee of Sean Combs. He's not a friend of Sean Combs. He's somebody who got dragged in because he would been dating Cassie. And he testifies that his car was fire bombed essentially by Sean Combs. And the reason he says that happened, who else would have done it at that time when Sean Combs was allegedly upset that Cassie was dating Kid Cudi. Now, excuse me, Cassie was dating Kid Cudi. And then he also says, like, he had this meeting with Sean Combs at, I think it was the Soho

house where at first, Sean Combs says, like, at first, Sean Combs denied everything. And then at one point, like a few years later, he claims he came up to me and was like, I'm sorry about all that stuff. And then, and then as well, but he wouldn't, he wouldn't admit that, but he was also like, I mean, this testimony, he said he saw Sean Combs and he goes, he looked like a Marvel villain. That's what he said, because he looked like a Marvel villain. So he was a great witness. He was likable. I think the jury probably resonated. And more importantly, he helped to prove one of the underlying crimes of racketeering. Arson. Okay. Then you believe you proved that. I think they had a fire investigator.

It looked like his car was set on fire. Sure. Defense could say maybe there was female DNA. That's what happens. It was clear this car was set on fire, in my opinion. But it was the question was, did Sean Combs really have a part in it? Did he do it himself? Did he have his associates do it? There was female DNA. You know, I get what they were doing. Then another one, kidnapping was one of the other, other underlying crimes of racketeering. They had Capricorn Clark, one of Sean Combs assistants. And she basically testified that Sean Combs brought her into a car, forced her into a car to go over to Kid Cudi's house. There was another instance where she claimed she was brought to like essentially this warehouse

and forced to take lie detector tests. Cassie was brought back into that hotel room, you know, in 2016. So all of these are multiple instances of kidnapping. Bribery. Let's talk about bribery. So now I've laid out at least two underlying crimes of racketeering. Transportation to engage in prostitution. We talked about that before, the Mann Act. That's another underlying crime of racketeering.

Which they proved. Yeah. Again, if you're talking about the different components of racketeering, I don't think the jury had a problem finding underlying crimes. But while we're at it, let's just do it. Bribery. You got Eddie Garcia who took the stand, who said that Sean Combs paid him $100,000 that he split with two other people to give back the tape. Yeah. Okay, and it's like, you know, this guy, a lot of these witnesses testified under immunity deals

because he's like basically admitting what I did. Um, and he said he got a voicemail from Sean Combs, called him and goes, Eddie, my angel, you saved my life. You know, I think this was compelling evidence drug distribution, drug possession with the intent to distribute. Yeah. How many drugs were, I mean,

I've had that question the entire time we've been talking tonight. They raided all his place. I'm not even talking about the baby oil, which is just creepy, but like they found these powdery substances and everything. How do you not get them with that?

They found drugs in his hotel room when he was arrested. They found evidence of him engaging in a freak off at the hotel. There are guys in jail for life for weed and they found all these crazy drugs on him at all times in every place. How do you not get him with that? Like federal drug.

Yeah, it's a good question. And I wonder like they also found firearms that would deface serial numbers, like that's a federal crime and stuff, I believe it is. So you wonder what it is, but they... I don't think the... the prosecution... I don't think the jury had a hard time finding at least two underlying crimes.

But again, it's just the prostitution things, like we're not talking about the guns or the drugs or whatever. It's all part of... I think they also are trying to build up the narrative. You see how he's a crime boss, right? You see he's using his security staff, he's using his assistants. But to establish the idea that everybody was on the same page, like the mafias, everybody had a common purpose, it's tough. Because I think the best evidence that they had was, you know, everybody was setting up... a lot of people were setting up freak offs,

they knew what was going on, that was the allegation. There was an assistant, David James, who testified early on in the trial, basically said, when I started, I was told this is Sean Combs kingdom, we're all here to serve it. They needed more of that, they needed more. Now, we haven't talked about this.

There was a witness, excuse me. There was a name that was brought up almost every day of that trial, brought up by almost every witness. Christina Corum. This is Sean Combs, reported former chief of staff, his alleged co-conspirator. If we're talking racketeering conspiracy. If he blamed his Epstein.

Right, racketeering conspiracy. Who's the co-conspirator? It was her. She wasn't called as a witness. She wasn't called as a witness. You don't think the jury thought about that? The co-conspirator is not called as a witness. Why? Was it because they felt that she wouldn't be a beneficial witness to them? Maybe they felt they didn't need her when they have all of her text messages already and that was enough to establish her. That's strange though.

Wasn't called as a witness. And, you know, she might have been more of a harmful, harmful witness for the prosecution, but you gotta one her a racketeering conspiracy when he's the only one named. Wouldn't you want more, you need more people. This is what the prosecution needed. I had no choice. We, our job was to, you know, abuse women.

Our job, we all knew what the game plan was. You don't even have to say it like that. But I'm just like, that's case. You could just say, you could literally just say, you know, I had my orders job, we all knew what the game plan was. You don't even have to say it like that. You could just say, you could literally just say, you know, I had my orders and this is what I did. Yeah, I had my orders. That might be enough. My orders was this, like, we all knew what it was,

we all knew we were on the same plane plan. We all, like, I met with Sean Combs, he said, firebomb that car. He's like, pick up Cassie. You know, like, you needed more of that to make the case for the racketeering. That's why I was 50-50 with it. But you had a collection of witnesses.

You had Mia, who claimed that she was sexually assaulted multiple times when she worked for Sean Combs. You know why that's important. Forced labor. That's one of the... That's another one of the underlying crimes of racketeering. So, every day, every week, was trying to check off labor. That's one of the worst labor. That's another one of the underlying crimes of racketeering. So every day, every week was trying to check off one of the elements or one of the underlying

crimes of racketeering. That's the case that they built. Why weren't there any parts of this case that they built based on the tit for tat? I guess not the right term here, but the allegations that Diddy, in order to get a record deal, you'd have to fuck him. We saw this with men and women. I think there was, it wasn't, either that didn't exist, maybe there wasn't on the face, but I think what they were trying to establish is he kept them down, he kept Cassie and Jane down from really earning money in other ways,

so that they, he had financial control over their life. And, you know, there was a bit, lot of testimony he had control over Cassie's appearance, manipulation, deception, using that, like, that's what they really tried to focus on, and not necessarily quid pro quo, per se, on its face. Maybe it didn't even exist. You wonder how many of the, because we're talking about celebrities

and a lot of this stuff too. You wonder how many of those people were approached and said, fuck you, I'm not talking. Maybe. It's possible. Maybe. But it's interesting. I think they also didn't want this case

to be too expansive and go down the rabbit hole and be too complex. I mean, it's already a complicated case. Try to keep it as specific as possible. Do you got any permission? Really? You would do, I would think maybe, well, probably I'm just being really naive on this as not a legal expert, but I would think a way to,

like, let's say you could throw 25 charges at the problem and it just gives you a higher hit rate to hit on six or seven of them, and they include a couple of the big ones, and you just make it so complex that the jury's like, fuck, he did some of this shit, all right, you know what I mean? Like, they got it down to, I would think,

in life where you're supposed to simplify things, this would be an example of where you wanna go more not simplifying it. You know, it's interesting. They charged him, and he immediately wanted to take this to trial. Right. Immediately. I wonder if he had made bail and he was out, and they had more time to build a case,

and more people came forward, and they got more evidence. Maybe they would have hit him with different charges and more charges. But I think with the expedited nature of this, I mean, it is quite uncommon to have a trial in less than a year from arrest and indictment in a federal case. They might've been like, because we all fought, like, what other charges is he gonna be hit with?

You know, there's gotta be a superseding indictment. There were multiple ones, but it really didn't change. Not much more, yeah. One of the allegations that he's been facing in a number of the civil lawsuits has been with respect to minors. Yeah. Minors were not a part of this criminal case. If minors were a part of this criminal case,

the whole game changes. Look at R. Kelly. Oh, yeah. Your defense, there is, your defense is it didn't happen. Your offense is not consent. Consent worked here. Your defense is no longer consent when you're dealing with minors.

So they might've said, we don't have enough to go forward with additional charges. Maybe they were like, we don't want to make it too broad of a case. We want to be very specific. Um, you know, I don't know. Um, but it clearly, they have to now think about the way they prosecuted it and think about how they prosecute similar cases in the future. The kit that there are aspects of this case that just for the smoke around the fire smell, meaning like how they decided to do this. That doesn't mean that the smoke's not fake. It doesn't mean that you know what, as bad a guy as that he is, he never did anything

with miners. That's I have to say it's possible. That's the case. It is possible that the internet as we do with a lot of things, we're all a part of it, speculated too far on some of these other things, especially as it relates to celebrities, that I have to say that's possible. There was just so much weird shit and then when I see things obvious, like guns and drugs, again, forget the baby oil, but like when I see obvious things like that,

just clearly ignored from a charge perspective, you wonder what, like how do you ignore a slam dunk like that? You can add fucking 10 years to his prison sentence. He's guilty. Yeah, I don't know exactly. It's a good question. I don't know why they didn't

charge it the different way. Um, maybe they felt that there were weaknesses in it. You know, what were, was he really possessing the guns? Was his security possessing the guns? Uh, could you put his DNA on the guns? Um, I do think it's interesting. This would have never happened. He would not be fit with charges. He would not be facing any of these lawsuits if Cassie didn't file her initial lawsuit in November of 2023. And let me tell you, he settled with her the day after it was filed.

Imagine if he settled with her the day before she filed. What would we be even talking about this? That's actually a fair point. She... the feds wouldn't have known about this. They wouldn't have known about this if Cassie didn't come... It was nothing like they were investigating Sean Combs in 2022. It was because of her lawsuit, which is, by the way,

the power of a lawsuit, right? The power of investigative reporting. Harvey Weinstein wouldn't have been charged unless it was the New York Times reporting. And R. Kelly wouldn't probably have been prosecuted if it wasn't that surviving R. Kelly document. God, they had rumors on him publicly for 20 years. But it sheds a light. It sheds a light.

It brings attention, it brings pressure. That's right. And, you know, the difference is, in a civil case, the argument is, well, you filed the lawsuit. You're putting the issue on. So this is actually one of the reasons why... sometimes a plaintiff, a person who sues, can't proceed under a pseudonym,

because the argument is, you're the one who decided to accuse him, and you're the one who put this all in question. You gotta proceed. He has a right to challenge his accuser. In a prosecution, you have... You may not want to testify, and you're gonna be subject to a subpoena by the government to testify, but you're supposed to testify truthfully. You could also come on and be like, I don't remember. I don't know.

Like you're not, you have nothing to gain. So again, it went to that interesting point. What was Cassie's incentive to testify, you know, allegedly falsely against Sean Combs? She already got the money. She would settle $20 million. That's why you have to wonder, was she really not telling the truth or was she telling the truth that just didn't fit into the elements of the crime? What were, we started talking about this earlier, but what were the most compelling parts of

the cross-examination against her where you felt like the defense really did a great job? They honestly was the text messages. They didn't really have to question her that much. It was, it was, look, the idea is like, why did you stay, right? Like, what were you objecting to? Did you make it clear? But when you look at some of the text messages

where she seems excited by freak-offs, or she was setting them up, um, or where Sean Combs kind of asked her, gave her a sense of autonomy, do you want to do this tonight or not? That's not, doesn't gel well with the classic violent sex trafficker. And I think it complicated it. And I've always said, it's not a black and white case,

it's a gray case. I think the text messages and a 10 year relationship, look, I hate to say it, she claimed she got raped and then had a consensual sexual relationship with him at, like one more sexual encounter. That happens. Doesn't take away from the fact she could have been raped.

But the idea that I think I think although our understanding of sexual assault has definitely changed for the better, we understand how complicated it can be. At the same time, jurors might say, I just if we're trying to say beyond a Reasonable doubt did he do this? There's a lot for the jury to ultimately consider. Well, you also had the Punisher Yeah, oh you interviewed him. Yeah All right. I'm gonna get to that in a second You know, he wanted to be in car sales before he was in exotic. I wasn't aware. Now, you know, you know

I will come to your actual interview, but even before that, he, I believe, was... called right after her, right? Like, the beginning of the next week. You know why he was a problem? Yeah. What did he not testify to? He's like, I didn't see anything on the up and...

I didn't see her, like, not wanting to be a part of it. Well, that's what I'm saying. He testified I had sex with her like eight to 15 times or something like that. And she seemed like she liked it or he said something like that. So on one end, why is he important? He's important because the prosecution has to establish at a minimum, freak-offs happened.

At the minimum, they have to establish Cassie had sex with a male performer who was getting paid, right? Commercial Sex Act, transportation to engage in prostitution. The problem is, he didn't give the prosecution everything they needed. When he said, I didn't see her not wanting to do it or her being coerced, it's a problem. Now, maybe his, those encounters maybe don't classify as sex trafficking, but maybe the encounters with Daniel Phillip count,

you know, the one who said, I saw physical violence. How does the prosecution not get that in pretrial screening? They know that they know he's going to say that she wanted it and still call them. They had no choice and they had to get in front of it too. And like, that's why they said in a closing argument, look, we're not saying every episode of sex trafficking. We're not. There was aspects of it that were consensual.

And the other way to looking at it is too, and I've said this before, when you have a witness who testifies against somebody and they're too good, like if they, if Cassie came in and go, every single episode was a rape, every single episode was against my will, it hurts her credibility. Whereas she goes, no, this is how I felt at this time. And first I was excited about it. I wanted to make him happy. But then she goes, over time, I lost control and I didn't get a chance to really express how I wanted.

And I'm being beaten here. And I'm being beaten here. I felt helpless. I mean, you want to talk compelling testimony? Her mom took the stand. And her mom said that there was, at one point, Sean Combs was extort, was threatening to release sex tapes in order to prevent that from happening. And apparently, Combs had allegedly said to her, had allegedly said to Cassie, I want all the money back that I paid for you, that I, everything that I did for you, all the trips, all the gifts, I want the money back. Cause apparently she was seeing somebody else.

Maybe it was kid Cuddy. I want the money back or I'm going to release these sex tapes. Cassie's mom said we had to take out like a $20,000 home equity loan. And my Sean Combs. Now you might be saying, how can you prove that the finance guy testified, okay? And said there was a $20,000 payment. There was a record of it. It went in and went out. Like, so. What did her mom say she was saying to Cassie at the time when she goes to do this?

I mean, it's such an impossible position. It's such an impossible position. And it's tough because he's not John Smith, he's Sean Combs. That's right. He's so powerful. he's so wealthy. It's like, what can you do? And again, go back to that thing from Don Richard,

who testified that basically like, you know, if he could beat Cassie up in front of high powered celebrities and figures and nobody does anything, I think it was like only two people who testified that they actually intervene, physically intervened when Sean Combs was, you know, allegedly beating Cassie. Two people. Who did that?

One was Deontay Nash, who was like the stylist, and one I think was Mia, I could be wrong, but like two people out of everybody who jumped in, maybe it was Brianna McGowan, I don't remember, but like two people who jumped in, what does that tell you? What does that tell you about the power dynamic? Now again, I respect the jury's verdict.

I understand. I'm not gonna sit here and say, I understand why they found him not guilty. I get it. But at the same time, it's just such a complicated case. What did you think of the Punisher? So you had to do this pretty recently. Was it after his testimony?

I interviewed him. He was like, you know, it was an experience for him to be a part of it. He had limited testimony about it. He has received a lot of attention, uh, after this. I mean, when you have a name like the Punisher, I mean, um, I said, but the reason I asked him about what he wanted to do. He was asking to come on the podcast. I was like, oh, really? Was he? Yeah. I'm like, should I do this?

Why not? I'll think about it. Think about it. The other problem is I don't want Sean Combs fucking suing me. For what? You know what I mean? Because now they fucked up this case and he's guilty. I can say he's a convicted felon, that's a fact,

but the racketeering stuff, I'm covering it right now with a lawyer, but now if you pull in witnesses after the fact, does it get weird? I don't know, I haven't talked to a lawyer about this yet, so maybe you can clarify this for me. Well, I mean, just you can't say any false statements. What I'm doing is very carefully going through

what the testimony was and my opinion of it, but I'm not coming on here and saying he's a racketeer. I'm not saying he's a sex trafficker. He's not, he was found not guilty. I'm not saying that, to be clear. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he, with all of the lawsuits that he's facing, he has a right to a defense.

He has not been found liable in any of the suits. Some of them have been dismissed. It's a very different case. But look, with the Punisher, it was interesting because I interviewed him on the live show that I did the lunch show and some people Had questions and was like somebody's like what would you do if you weren't involved? He goes, you know, I really wanted to be in car sales like so he's just an interesting guy but yeah, so but anyway, no look he was you think he was a

truthful kind of guy I had no reason to Suspect that he wasn't telling the truth about the encounter by the way A lot of it was backed up in the videos Mmm, a lot of it was backed up in the text messages It's clear what certain things happen and it's not clear about what other things happen And he had Sean Combs just you mentioned this before He had an excellent defense team. Yeah, great lawyer on the prosecution's part two too. I think it was a great lawyering bar none on both sides. But you do wonder if he was John Smith

and he couldn't afford a lot of attorneys, would they be able to present that kind of defense? Would they be able to really have that in-depth cross-examination? And these were... He... They were great. They were great. Did you ask the Punisher on or off air

what he thought about Diddy as in, did he think he was guilty of this stuff? I did. What did he say? I don't remember. Oh, that's nice, Jesse. That would be a nice detail to remember. I know. I don't remember.

God damn it. You were doing so well. I know. Guess what? You'll interview him. And then you know. You know what I did? I to remember. I know. I don't remember. God damn it. You were doing so well. I know. Guess what? You'll get it. You'll interview him. And then you know. You know what I did? I'm lying. I know.

I remember. But I'm giving it to you. Like, oh, another reason for you to interview him. Right. I don't know, Julie. What did he say? Maybe we'll bring him in. But was there anything distraction wise

in the courtroom to like Kanye showing up? That happened at some point. Okay, misnomer about what happened with Kanye, ready? Misnomer, another one. First of all, Kanye West, anyway. You're a big fan, right? So Kanye shows up, okay, shows up. A lot of people think he was in the courtroom.

He wasn't in the courtroom, he couldn't get in. He was in the overflow room. He was in the separate room. He was in the separate room. He was in the overflow room. It's like, doesn't matter who you are, he could not be in the... He was there to show support for Sean Combs. So strange. He was the first one to call him out.

What the fuck happened? Yep, he was there to support him. But apparently he was in the overflow room for like 20 minutes and left, hung out with Sean Combs' son. And that's it. But then he was he wasn't like a witness. He wasn't about there was there was it was interesting. There was testimony from Jane about she went on this trip and was had an interaction with some sort of high profile rapper and his wife and his girlfriend where

they were watching one of the alleged sex workers, like they were all like watching the sex worker have sex with some woman. Like they were watching all together, like, and apparently it was a sex worker that Combs had used as well. Strange detail, but apparently this rapper had like asked her, are you into this lifestyle too? Are you into the same kind of thing? Which I thought was interesting, because I thought the defense would try to say,

if this is such a crime, you got somebody else who's engaging in the same lifestyle. Is it, like, really a crime? Anyway, the point is, we don't know who that person is. We don't know. It could be a lot of people. But there are people, like, obviously, who've made guesses about who it could be. We don't know for sure.

But, um, again, that's just the idea of another celebrity. Kanye had no connection to this case whatsoever. But he showed up. It was interesting. I don't know how many people expected it, but it was a highlight. Yeah. Now, obviously, you've been talking about the tapes. They were shown to the jury.

These are from all different kinds of angles too, right? He had a lot of cameras. Was there ever any speculation within any of the testimony or within any of the cross examination or questioning that led to anything being raised in court that would suggest wondering if some of this was a part of some blackmail operation or some sort of espionage operation? Not in the way you're thinking about it.

The idea was is that he had these tapes to blackmail Jane and Cassie. Get another way, force, fraud, or coercion. If you don't do what I want, I will release these videos. Now, the defense countered it, but not what you're thinking. Not like... No. But I think the defense said they tried to introduce evidence or tried to at least make the narrative, he didn't want these tapes out.

There was no way he was gonna want these tapes out. He was a false threat, okay? Or they would say that if he did wanna make sure, yeah, and then he wouldn't want them to come out because he's trying, this was another interesting part, that if he tried to make sure tapes didn't come out and he paid for the tapes or he paid for the 2016 Intercontinental tape, it wasn't to cover up a crime. It was he's a celebrity who's trying to protect his privacy, which is a good argument. But they were trying to make the that he would never release it. It was

a false. It was a false threat. What do you think the result of this case does from like a precedent per... from a precedent standpoint moving forward with other high profile cases? Obviously Diddy's like extremely high profile, but with people who, you know, I don't want to name like internet speculated names right now, but large high profile people who are suspected of doing the various things. Do you think that this makes the government very hesitant to do the whole thing and actually look into these cases and go after it?

I don't think it's going to stop prosecutors at a state or federal level, assuming there's no statute of limitations issue for moving forward with sexual assault crimes or sex, sex crimes. I would hope not. But it does become a question of when do you, and I don't want to say over prosecute that I've been asked those the prosecutor, did the prosecutors over prosecute them? Did they, they overcharge them, overcharge them. Excuse me.

I can't say that because I, they were checking the boxes. I think they could have proved it. But no, I will say, I think they have to think twice about how they structure a case and what the evidence is. And you know, I think it does set an interesting kind of precedent in the sense it's not just believe all women and believe or believe all men. It can be gray and you have to accept that and know how it's going to work. But I think I do wonder if it will discourage,

uh, alleged victims out there from coming forward and saying, and that's the issue. But at the same time, you look at a case like a, like a Harvey Weinstein or an R Kelly, there are high profile people who were convicted. And I'm not saying Sean Come should have been convicted. I think there was a lot of raise reasonable doubt in this case. And it wasn't the only charges that I think like, I would have been surprised if he was found not guilty of where the more what is convicted. It just seems so straightforward. I think you've laid it out well to the rack tearing sex trafficking. You do have to question the prosecution's theory there.

So I think it's going to up to prosecutors to figure out, do we move forward with charges like this? Is it going to discourage victims from coming forward or allege victims from coming forward? Those conversations will happen, but every case is very, very different. Every prosecution is very different. The evidence is very different. Um, and you know, it's hard to say what the impact of it's going to be. Um, I know it's interesting, like after Johnny DeppAmber heard, because he took a stand against, um,

being accused of being an abuser... Yeah. ...and having allegations weaponized against what he said were weaponized against him. I think it's one of the reasons you've seen a fight back from Justin Baldoni in the Blake Lively case. Like, he said, I'm not, like, this creepy sexual harasser. Like, he fought back about it.

So, I think it's interesting, like you, there are, there are complicated dynamics. And just because a woman comes forward and says, you know, I was sexually assaulted, but I stayed in touch with him or I loved him. It doesn't make her account not true. There are complicated dynamics. At the same time, a criminal defendant has a right. He has a, he or she has a right to be innocent until proven guilty. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have any, I don't have an easy answer. We'll see what the repercussions are moving forward, but I think that this is one of the reasons people were focused on it.

It's a very important case. It's a legally important case. It's a legally complicated case and people are going to be talking about it for a while, I think. Oh yeah. Now there's one other thing I gotta get to before I get you out of here. This is awesome. By the way, your, your breakdowns as usual. Thanks, man. Appreciate it. So everyone makes sure if you haven't already seen the various shows and networks that you're on, we will have those links down below. You can check out all Jesse stuff. It's phenomenal. And we did episode two 94 together as well. By the way, and everybody didn't know you're, uh, you're biased against Combs.

Look at the cup. I'm not biased at all. It's a pop culture phrase. Anyway, so there, there was another case this week that had the latest development that was particularly offensive to a lot of people. But I want to go to the legal route of this. And I'm talking about the Epstein case. Sure. But I want to go to the legal route of this and I'm talking about the Epstein case Sure had the government come out last Sunday night and say oh, yeah. No, he killed himself and there was no blackmail

There's no such thing as Epstein files. You didn't see shit even after they spent months and months Publicly talking about the files they had looked at. I mean, it's just one of the worst, you know Turnarounds you've ever seen in your life But there's there's two legal layers to this that intrigue me now that it's like, could this get even weirder? The first is when Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty on December 29, 2021, shortly afterwards, the judge, in that case, I forget her name, sealed the records. So she was found guilty of sex trafficking as far as the public was concerned

to no one. And now the government has come out and said there was no blackmail, there's no Epstein files. So does Ghislaine Maxwell now have a case to be like, since there was no blackmail and no Epstein files, and my records were sealed forever, and I'm guilty of sex trafficking to no one, therefore my conviction should be thrown out. So, Julian, I'm gonna have to correct you, and I never want to correct you, but I'm gonna have to correct you. Please correct me. That's why I'm here.

And by the way, what you're talking about is what I'm gonna be talking about on Sidebar. And actually, after we leave on the car ride back home, I'm writing this. There is a misnomer out there... Another one. ...that Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficked minors to no one. If you look at the indictment, you look at the case,

she sex trafficked all these minors to Jeffrey Epstein. That was the John. Just him. Just him. And I even did a double check before I came on here. I haven't seen anything from that case where it was like she was operating a network of sex trafficking, uh, minors to all these different people. That wasn't what the case

was. It was about Epstein. And so I had the exact same thought as you. I was like, well, wait a minute, could she appeal her conviction now? Like, and I'm going to have an interview tomorrow, I think with a federal prosecutor about it, but there's nothing I see that would give them grounds to do that. So just on the basis that you have at least one person in this case, the guy who is at the middle of her case. Yep. Think about it.

That can, forget it's Jeffrey Epstein, forget it's Ghislaine Maxwell. Let's say it's Jane and John, right? Yeah, yeah. Jane goes to colleges. No, she went to middle schools. Let's go to middle, Jane goes to middle schools. She collects girls, she brings them over

to this creepy guy's house. He lives in the state away, pays them, you know? That's sex trafficking. And if it's not sex trafficking. It doesn't even need to be a state away for minors. It can be right down the street. It doesn't need to be, it's just the point is, is like, that's sex trafficking.

And I think that's the way to think about it. Well that's good news. Yeah. So I don't see an avenue for her to, she's going to stay behind bars. Okay. As far as I see. Okay. Jesse Weber.

That's it? I thought it was another legal question. Listen, I could keep you here for a long time. No, you said you had two legal questions with Jeffrey Epstein. The idea of just the fact there's no client? No, the first one was no trafficking. The second one, well, I think you kind of answered the second one because you said she trafficked him.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess the idea of like the no client list, like in general, like... Oh, it's crazy. It is a slap in the face to my personal intelligence. The only thing I'll just say is, is what I think is going on is you had the feds look at all of these videos and all of this, and it's not easy. The videos that don't exist now. Well, well, no, they, they claim they have tons of digital evidence of him abusing minors, like tons of it.

They have it. They're not going to release that. And I think that's key. They're not going to release that. They don't want the victim's names to come out. I understand. I get that. Yes. We have to assume if we're talking about it, like, is it just him and the miners on tapes and it's personal massage sessions? Is that's what it is? That's what the argument they seem to be making is. I also was under the assumption that there were tapes with other people.

But again, I don't know if this is a situation where this is just something that was built up and, you know, one thing led to another and there were rumors or really there is some sort of cover up. I will tell you there seems to be a disconnect and something not making a ton of sense. But I will say one more thing. When all the Epstein file release release came out, he has a contact book that already came out book came out years ago, just because somebody's in the contact book doesn't mean that they were involved. Doesn't mean they're

guilty. So, I mean, I don't know if we're going to get answers that people are looking for. I think they want it to be the end of the conversation, but clearly it won't be the end of the conversation. No, and it shouldn't be, because it's also the worst crimes ever. And just, like, you gotta understand, Jesse, if this studio were Jeffrey Epstein's house, the top of this fucking New York mannequin has a camera in it. He had cameras in every room, hundreds of them, at every angle.

He was unlike where there's a lot of speculation with Diddy and a lot of like, yeah, I don't know, could have been whatever. It ain't like that with Epstein. This guy was an intelligence operation through and through. There's proof of it in our own US government and what was said to Alex Acosta when he cut him a deal that was fucking illegal in 2008. And it just offends people's intelligence.

But I think on this one, the public is so like, you gotta be fucking kidding me that they're not gonna let it go. And they shouldn't. Well, we'll see what happens if the public outcry is loud enough. You wonder if there's going to be a response. We'll see. I hope there is. But thanks as always, my man, we will have to do this again. And everyone go check out Jesse's coverage on all these trials. It's incredible. Thanks, man. Thanks for having me. All right. Everybody else, you know what it is. Give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace.

Thank you guys for watching the episode. If you haven't already, please hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video. They're both a huge, huge help. And if you would like to follow me on Instagram and X, those links are in my description below.