Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy on Trial: Bombshell Weakness Exposed in Feds' Case

Episode Date: May 13, 2025

Sean “Diddy” Combs is back in court for a second day of witness testimony in his racketeering and sex trafficking case in New York. Federal prosecutors accuse the one-time entertainment titan of using his power and influence to force people to fulfill his sexual fantasies. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber digs into what both the prosecution and defense revealed in their opening statements with Law&Crime legal counsel Elizabeth Vulaj.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wonderry Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. P. Diddy's trial is underway, but did the prosecution expose a weakness in their own case on day one? Did the defense reveal they may not really have a defense when it comes to one charge? And what can we glean from the legal strategies of both sides as we analyze the major arguments, statements and evidence from the start of Sean Combs' criminal trial. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, so let me tell you what we're going to do here on Sidebar. Okay, so we're not only going to do daily recaps of the Diddy trial, but we are also going to do more in-depth legal breakdowns of key issues that happen every day in court, because that's key. What is the law? Who's winning the case? What are the legal points being made? What's the strategy?

And by the way, talking about what we're going to talk about today, did the point? prosecution expose a weakness in their case? Did the defense do so too? Yesterday, we did a full breakdown of day one of the trial of Sean Diddy Combs as he faces sex trafficking, racketeering, prostitution charges I brought on. Elizabeth Milner, who was in that courtroom. You could check it out on our YouTube page, full breakdown about what happened, finalizing the jury, opening statements, first witness testimony. But now I want to talk about the legal significance of what may have happened and who may be winning. So to do that, let me bring in law and crime general counsel, Elizabeth Vuli. Elizabeth, good to see you. Do I have your title right? Do I call you

legal counsel? Long-prime lawyer? What do you like to be called? That's perfect. Technically, it's head of legal affairs, but general counsel, counsel, all that is good. All right. Opening statements. We know they're not evidence, but they are important, right? Yes, yeah. They're really important. As you said, they're not evidence, but they set the tone for what the themes are going to be for both sides, both for the prosecution and the defense. I think they both struck certain themes. And it's also the first time that the jury is here, from either side, right? So I think things like, you know, obviously the content, the tone, the delivery, all of that is really, really important. And it's sort of like, I like to say an introductory

paragraph if you're, you know, want to think about it in terms of an essay or a paper for all the academics out there. And it's sort of a preview of what's to come. Were you surprised how short they were? Because sometimes you have opening statements that can last the whole day. And particularly if you're talking about a complicated RICO case or a sex trafficking case with multiple victims. I thought that you were going to have the prosecution do their whole opening statement, then go to lunch, then have the defense, and then call it a day. We heard witness testimony too yesterday. Yeah, it was really fast. I think it's in line with how the prosecution has been moving for this entire case. They've moved extremely quickly. The fact that this has gone

to trial less than a year since the actual indictment, I think it falls in line with that. I think prosecutors are taking a really no-nonsense approach. They started off, you know, with their witnesses and the type of testimony that came out yesterday, you know, they didn't hold back, they started off strong and quickly. I think that's how they want to move in this case. I want to start with the opening statement from the prosecution, more specifically prosecutor Emily Johnson. And what she did, my opinion, was really focused on the elements of these charges, that Combs ran a criminal enterprise, that he engaged in crimes for years, that he used his business and associates to commit crimes and cover up the evidence of the crimes.

out some of the underlying predicate acts or crimes that make up the racketeering charge like kidnapping, drug trafficking, arson, bribery obstruction, that combs allegedly use lies, drugs, threats, violence to force and coerce victims like Cassie Ventura and Jane, who we believe is now victim two, into these sex acts against their will, that there was a coordination of payments and transportation of sex workers. Elizabeth, to me, and this is my thesis. I felt there's a weakness in the prosecution's case that was exposed yesterday in the opening statement. It seemed to me, and I'm curious your thoughts, the prosecution spent so much time yesterday trying to explain to the jury that this is a crime because this doesn't feel like a

garden variety racketeering or sex trafficking case. They have to explain to the jury why this is a criminal act. And I think that's a problem. We cover trials all the time. It's a murder. Everybody knows it's a murder, right? You just have to prove who did it. This is like, wait, why is this racketeering? Why is this sex trafficking? Am I wrong? Right, yeah, I think that's going to be the biggest challenge for them, especially when it comes to the racketeering, right?

That's usually a charge. Again, it involves the setup of an enterprise, many people involved. A lot of times that's a charge that's tacked on to members of organized crime or the mafia. Here, he's the only one that's being charged with these crimes. So I think the challenge for the prosecution is going to be pointing out who are the other people involved. What they're alleging is that he exerted control, power and influence over his employees, you know, security guards, other members of his team, to be able to facilitate these acts. And I think that's going to be the challenge for them.

And I think that's the key difference here, especially when it comes to the racketeering. And then the challenge, I think, for the, let's say, the prostitution charge, the difference between obviously that and consensual group sex, which is what the defense tried to touch on is, you know, what happened in between the setups, who was paid, how were they transported, were they transported from state to state? That's going to be the real big thing that's going to separate the defense saying this was just an unorthodox lifestyle. This is, you know, consensual group sex behind closed doors versus all the other elements that make up prostitution. The thin line is coercion. The thin

line is coercion, right? It's the idea if they did it willingly or they didn't. Talking a legal breakdown of a massive case like Diddy, how could I not also mention legal experts? Morgan and Morgan. Our sponsor, America's largest injury law firm. So this is a firm in the past few months, Morgan and Morgan, they secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta. And not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offer them just $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve. Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks

and everything from signing contracts, uploading documents, talking to your legal team, can all be done through the phone. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for thepeople.com slash LC sidebar. Do you think that's going to be a problem for prosecutors to definitively prove that these people did everything, everything? And we could talk about Cassandra Ventura, too. The difficulties the prosecution may have here, that everything she did or any of the other alleged victims did was totally against their well, not for one night, but a repeated pattern that they kept on doing it. Right. And that's one of the things that the defense had touched on in their opening statement was they were saying, you know, especially when it comes to Cassandra Ventura, she was in a

relationship with him for over 10 years and sort of alluded to this thing of, well, if she wanted to leave him, she could have. She was a willing participant. They're alleging, you know, she helped sort of elicit some of these or procure some of these male escorts and she had a hand in it. So I think that's going to be the tough thing is how do you draw the line between being a willing participant for many, many years versus being coursed into doing something. And also one thing that they, the prosecution tried to touch upon was, you know, this allegation of women being drugged because that's a big thing as well. You know, it's the difference between people coming together to agree to do this consensually versus women being drugged and put under the influence. When

you're drugged or put under the influence, you can't consent. By the way, at the time of our recording this, it's possible. Cassandra Ventura may be on the stand or coming on the stand. So, but I think with the issues we're talking about apply to what she testifies to or just the entire case. Because let me just go back to that for a second when we talk about Cassie. I wonder if she's going to have a hard time explaining why she allegedly agreed to do what she did. I mean, we had a man testify yesterday. Daniel Philip, that he was recruited to have sex with Cassandra Ventura. And I'm going to get more into what he testified to in a minute. But he said, he shows up, she's dressed up, she paid him, she texted him. Now, the allegation is this was all

under the direction and control of Sean Combs, or did she make a voluntary choice? The prosecution's relying on her for essentially this whole case, right? I think we wouldn't see a prosecution right now if she didn't come forward with her initial lawsuit. Is that a problem? Yeah, so she is a critical witness for the prosecution, hence why they're probably going to put her on so early. And I think the big thing is going to be her testimony and her explaining why she did this. And one of the things that the prosecution touched upon was, yes, she was in this relationship for a long time. She did these things, but it was in an effort to please him. In the beginning, she had done it because, you know, she was in love with this man. And I think they also touch upon, you know, all the

different factors of the age difference, the power dynamic, all of that really comes into play. And I think our society were at a point where we can understand that a little bit more. But then as time goes on, the distinction the prosecution made was it went from her wanting to please him and she loved him and wanting to keep this relationship to. Then it started to become coercion and things like, I think they're going to touch on abuse, drugs, all of those allegations, things that were used against her, and also her career. One of the things prosecution said was she was signed to his label. He had a lot more power over her.

He dangled this, that's what they're alleging, dangling her career and her career prospects over her so that she would do these things. How does the defense cross-examine her in a way that it doesn't look like you're beating up on not only an alleged victim, a pregnant alleged victim? She's what, eight and a half months, nine months? She's heavily along, yeah. So we don't know for sure, but some photos surface of her when she arrived in New York City last week. And she looks pretty significantly far along.

And I think that was a smart move for the prosecution to put her on now because they don't want to be in a situation where if she goes into labor, she's out of pocket. They lose their biggest witness. They can't even find victim three. Alleged victim three. So you lose potentially your two major victims in a case like this? Yeah, it would be awful for the prosecution if they lost Cassie.

I think that would be really detrimental. So it's smart that they're putting her on right away. So how do they do it? How do they very careful on how they cross-examine her? Yeah. Obviously, she's pregnant with her third child. So you want to be sensitive about that. And also, again, now that we're sort of in the post Me Too era,

I think jurors and just to the general public are really smart about defense attorneys and how they're using questions that they're using to cross-examine her. So I think they're going to be careful about not using questions about her prior sex life and things like that tone and how aggressive they are, making sure that they're not kind of appearing that they're shifting the blame on her. I think they're going to probably ask nuanced questions about how long she did this for, why she did it, how many times did she do it? I think those are the things that are going to try to play for them into showing she did this of her own free will and consensually,

but at the same time not looking as if they're judging her or anything like that. And there's a strength in numbers argument for the prosecution because we learn more about Jane. So potentially victim number two or alleged victim number two. Single mom fell in love. This is again what the prosecution said. Single mom fell in love with Combs, forced to perform in these freakoffs, that she was directed with an escort, forced to perform, says that she was beaten. witness for what they're alleging here, right? But also a strength in numbers argument. Talk

to me about the value of explaining her position in an opening statement and what you think her role is going to be in ultimately this case. Yeah, well, I think you said it's strength and numbers. I think that's the most important thing. And I think, again, that also plays into the enterprise part of it, right? Because if this was just a charge of, you know, a one-time sexual assault or rape, obviously that's, you know, horrific allegations. But what they're trying to say is this was a system that was set in place for years and years that helped support the racketeering charge. So having multiple victims testify, I think is really important. And also showing that, you know, it wasn't just exclusive to Cassie. While they were in a 10-year relationship, I think

off and on, you know, they had several breaks that other women are purportedly telling the same story. I think that we saw that with the Me Too movement when it came to Harvey Weinstein and all of these other people, that it would be one thing if it was just one allegation from one person, but if it's coming from multiple people, again, the civil lawsuits, although they can't really use that in this case against him, it just helps. That pattern is very important for the prosecution's case. Let me talk to you about the defense's opening statement from Tenney Garagos. First of all, it was deliberate for Tenney Garagos to deliver the opening statement as opposed to Mark Agnifalo, right?

Yes. And one of the things that people commented on was that she might not be the most experience, not in terms of how great her work is, but in terms of years of experience. But I think it was really deliberate that both sides had women deliver the opening statements. We saw that with John Edep. One of the things Camille Vasquez said was when she did the cross-examination of Amber. heard. That was really important to be able to do that as a female attorney. So I think it was very deliberate. Some of the things that they touched upon, I think we sort of had guessed that that was coming, you know, again, playing into this idea that this was all consensual. He shouldn't be judged

for having an unorthodox lifestyle. This is one of the things that they had said was this is a government probe that the government doesn't belong in his bedroom essentially. And, you know, this is a case. I think they had said this is a case about infidelity, jealousy, and money. So they're trying to frame it as this was, you know, sort of an up and down relationship and, you know, women coming in and out of his life with these claims. They didn't shy away from it. They basically when it came to Cassandra Ventura said, look at her lawsuit, very public lawsuit, 23. Her lawyer is here, you know, focusing on, they kept coming back and now filing suits. They were jealous of his relationships. I think they made the point, Tendigargos made the point in an opening

statement that as soon as Sean Combs allegedly told Cassie that Kim Porter was the love of his life, that's when everything changed. Is that going to be enough? Right. So that is one of the points that they touched upon was that, you know, she was upset that she wasn't made to be his wife and this was about money. I will say that's a tough argument to make. One is because, again, they settled that lawsuit the day after it was filed. Cassie already received her settlement. We don't know for how much, but I'm guessing it was, you know, not an insignificant number. She doesn't really stand much to gain from this financially by coming forward and testifying. She doesn't come out with a, you know, a tell-all book or an exclusive interview. She's not really monetizing this. So I think that's a

tough sell. And then also, again, this argument that, you know, they came back or it was all about jealousy. I think we have probably a jury in a society that's a little bit more educated on, you know, violent relationships. And that's something they acknowledged. They said, you know, there was domestic violence here, and they had to concede to that video. Can we talk about that? Yeah. They said he's an angry guy. He's a jealous guy. He's engaged. He's engaged. aged in domestic violence. They said it. They said the video, the 2016 video of him reportedly beating Cassandra Ventura is indefensible, but they said domestic violence is not sex trafficking. Interesting strategy there. You think that's going to backfire?

I actually thought that was an intelligent argument to make. They have to do the best they can with what they have. They had to concede to that video because they knew that the prosecution was going to come out with that quickly. And they did. So, you know, I think if they were to shy away from it or try to hide it from the jury, that just wasn't going to fly. So I think they had to come out in front and talk about it. And one of the fair points that they made was, you know, from where the defense is sitting, that video obviously is evidence of domestic violence, which they said, you know, was terrible and he admits to that. But is it evidence of trafficking? Is it evidence of coercion? You know, the prosecution is saying she was trying to escape one of

these alleged freakoffs, therefore it's evidence that she was doing something she didn't want to do, whereas the defense is saying all this video is showing is just horrific domestic violence, yes. But is it evidence of the crimes that are being charged against him now? And it seemed to me that what the defense has been doing and what they will continue to do is to negate every element of the charges, right? It doesn't match up to sex trafficking or racketeering specifically. And so, for example, at least what I saw, they tried to negate all of the underlying crimes of racketeering. So my understanding is you need to prove at least two underlying predicate crimes to get to racketeering conspiracy. So for example, kidnapping, their argument was talking about an employee of Sean Combs was working for 10 years.

Was he actually kidnapped, continued to ask to work for him? Drug trafficking? The drugs were for personal use. Arson? He wasn't involved. Forced labor. Combs worked hard. His employees worked hard.

What do you think of that? Yeah. So that's one of the things that the defense was kind of trying to touch on with the jury questionnaires last week, which I thought is it's always a really great insight as to what the themes of both sides are going to be. They had asked jurors, how do you feel about people that take drugs, that take substances? Again, what they were going to try to prove is this was a wide group. of people. They consensually took drugs. Again, this is sort of an unorthodox lifestyle. People

coming to these freakoffs of their own free will and volition. That shows no coercion. That shows people weren't drugged, but they took it of their own free choice. Whereas the prosecution is saying all of these elements, we're going to prove throughout the trial that, you know, women were drugged. I think they're going to have to rely a lot on personal testimony because, again, where is that hard evidence? A lot of these freakoffs took place behind closed doors. Who knows if Combs got on camera people being drugged or being given allegedly drugs without their knowledge or being slipped something, I doubt that was put on camera. So that's going to be the difficulty is that they're going to have to rely a lot on personal testimony.

And it does make me wonder if they show videos of sex tapes and you see Sean Combs allegedly directing, do this, do that. Is that enough? Because again, you could say it's part of role playing. It's part of their relationship. I wonder what the value of those tapes are going to be. Right. Yeah. I don't know if that. will necessarily be enough. I think we saw in the testimony yesterday with the male escort Daniel Philip. He had talked about how he was paid and what he was told to do and what he witnessed. I think evidence like that is going to be really key. Evidence of, you know, escorts receiving payments and, you know, how are they transported and where they were transported versus, you know,

him necessarily directing a group sex scenario that might not be enough. I'll get to Daniel Philip in a second. You mentioned before the conspiracies, conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy. You need a criminal agreement and a legal agreement, and then over acts taken furtherance of that agreement. This was a conversation that I think we had with Galane Maxwell as well, and it was brought up yesterday. How do you have a conspiracy? You need at least two people. Who's he conspiring with? He's the only one charged in this case. And maybe it's still early on to know, but I imagine the prosecution has to bring on people who help facilitate and coordinate this alleged criminal activity. And yet, aren't they going to be questioned, why are you not criminally

charged? Did you work out a deal? I wonder if that's a problem again for the prosecution. Right. So I think what we're going to see a lot of is testimony coming from members of his team, so employees, chiefs of staff, you know, security guards. We saw a little bit, even though he's not, he wasn't under Diddy's employment, the hotel security officer who was working at the time of the 2016 incident between him and Cassie. I think we're going to see a lot of that because, again, to show an enterprise and racketeering,

you have to show a wide group of people. So they're going to bring out a lot of those kinds of folks, I think. And then also one of the things that they have to show is he exerted power. and control over them. So what did he pay them? Were their threats used? You know, what kind of force did he use to really, you know, push this through? I will tell you, in terms of the defense, I don't think they have much of a defense when it comes to transportation to engage in prostitution. That charge, two charges there. Transporting people with the intent that they engage in sex work. You're looking at a max of 10 years in prison. Because in opening, as far as I understood,

Tenne Garago said he was paying people for their time and experience. Really? And you can kind of argue, not to be unprofessional, but isn't that what people are paying prostitution or sex workers for their time and technically their experience? So I know she was trying to kind of frame it as an informal, you know, agreement. And again, these were people coming together consensually. But is that not evidence of prostitution? You know, again, you're paying individuals for their time and experience and to perform a certain act. I will say, I thought the prosecution began their case brilliantly. Okay? They didn't call Cassandra Ventura as the first witness. Nope. They started with arguably the most important piece of evidence in this case from what we've seen.

The first witness even laid the foundation for that. The 2016 videotape of Combs purportedly beating Cassandra Ventura in an L.A. Continental Hotel hallway. And really, you're talking about two cell phone videos and multiple hotel surveillance videos. And to me, it seems that they started that way to build up the credibility of Cassandra Ventura, who will testify next, right? Because the way I see it is when Cassie filed her lawsuit in 2023, first time we ever heard anything about this, I think people could look at it and be like, how do we know this is legit or not, right? Then the tape comes out. And for me, it not only, and I think for a lot of people, not only corroborated that particular portion of her complaint, but I think you can make the argument it corroborated everything she was saying. So do you think the prosecution was deliberate here in how they started the case? Completely.

So I think it was really critical for them to introduce that video. and I think they did in a smart way because, again, Cassandra Ventura is expected to testify very soon. So they want to make sure that they're set up and introducing that video. They want to bring it out, play it for the jury. There's a motion that was ruled several weeks ago where the judge said, yes, this can be played for the jury. And they also want to make sure they question a witness who has direct knowledge of it. So the security officer, I believe, same as Israel Flores, he was called to, you know, basically handle that situation. He filed an incident report about it.

So they want to make sure they're questioning someone who has knowledge of it. You know, they might not necessarily want to replay that video when Cassie's taking the stand, but they want to make sure that they introduce it and set it up. Let's talk about him real quick. So first witness was former security guard, Israel Flores, LAPD officer. Wonder if that bill is a built-in credibility there because of his position, authenticated the tapes, testified that he got this call that there was a woman in distress, saw Combs and Cassie, that Combs tried to bribe him with a wad of cash,

allegedly saying, don't tell nobody, saw Cassie with a purple eye, filed the report, didn't call the police, recorded the security video on his cell phone to show his wife, even said at one point that he pinned Combs to the wall after Combs allegedly grabbed another security guard's phone. On cross-examination, he was questioned, Combs didn't attack you, no one contacted police, you didn't put certain details in your report. What did you make overall of his testimony? Yeah, so I think his testimony was again really, really critical. He was called to investigate this incident. After it happened, someone reported again, Cassie Ventura being in distress. So he was able to talk about what he witnessed, you know,

how they behaved. Again, the bribe of Combs bribing him, which he said he didn't take, was a really, really key critical part because, again, it points to this, even though he wasn't under Combs' employment, this overall, you know, process of him trying to allegedly bribe people or pay people off with cash that helped support the racketeering charge. So I think that was really critical. And what was interesting on Cross was the defense was taking a strategy that defense attorneys have to do. That's what they're paid to do, which is try to chip away at the credibility. So one of the things they asked him was, well, why was all of this testimony that you're talking about today? Why was it not included in the incident report? Which is a fair question, but, you know,

I think, again, that incident happened years ago. You can't necessarily put everything that happened into a report. But I think it was an interesting marker of them trying to chip away at the credibility of this witness. And then we had Daniel Phillip. So this male performer testified about being paid to have sex with Cassie. Combs was allegedly directing their sexual performances, rubbing baby oil, role-playing, Combs pleasuring himself while all this is going on, recording them, talked about red couches, astroglyde, lubricant, Combs apparently being dressed up in a bandana covering his face, very, very detailed. But also said he observed Cassie on drugs, believes he heard Combs slapping her, saw her being dragged by Sean Combs, her allegedly saying,

I'm sorry to Sean Combs. Also testified that Combs allegedly threw a bottle of liquor at her. Then there was this odd point where he testified that Combs took a picture of his ID for insurance. And then on cross, about whether or not he was a stripper or dancer when he was assigned to perform for Ventura and Combs. You know, that was an interesting part of the cross-examination. But what did you take away from his testimony and the value of his testimony? Yeah, I thought it was fascinating. So I think two things there. One is I think the prosecution really wanted to spare no excruciating detail to the jury. I think part of what they wanted to do is sort of knock Holmes off of his pedestal. A lot of people could argue that's already been done

with what has happened the past year. But I think wanting to include all of those really painful and horrific details was important. And then, too, I think his testimony was critical. And again, trying to prove the trafficking charge that this was coercive acts. This wasn't something that she engaged in voluntarily. So when he talked about being paid, you know, he witnessed Holmes allegedly throwing items at her, dragging her by her hair, her saying, I'm sorry, all of this was evidence and especially allegations of her being drugged. All of this is to show this wasn't a consensual act, but this was trafficking. And the cross-examination was really interesting. I think one of the things that his defense attorney had asked her was, well, did it appear

that she enjoyed it? And again, they keep trying to emphasize on this theme of consent and saying, well, if she appeared to enjoy it, if she appeared, they had asked, she physically stimulated, you know, I'm trying to say in the most curated way. But all of that goes to show that they keep trying to push on this idea of consent, and this is something she wanted. Whereas his main testimony and what prosecution is pushing forward is. These weren't consensual acts. This helps to prove the trafficking charge that this wasn't something she wanted. And I'm sure the defense will jump on the fact that she was the one who paid him. She was the one who texted him. She was the one who's dressed up, that she was a willing participant in all of this. There was a part in the

cross-examination, I want to finish up with this, where it was almost like he didn't want money for being with Cassie and Combs. There was a part where he said, in my head, I was just excited I was in this world and happy to be involved with people of such notoriety. Hmm, what do you think about that? Yeah, that was interesting that he was so honest about that, that someone would forego money just to be in the presence of these people. But I think that really kind of ties into what the prosecution first said in their opening statement is, yes, Sean Combs is this mogul and he's larger than life, but he had a whole other side to him. And again, trying to sort of knock him off of his pedestal. And look, people are human, witnesses, jurors, you know, they might get starstruck,

even given all of the allegations and things we've seen of Diddy, he's been someone that's been in the public eye for years and years. So it didn't surprise me that he thought that, but It did surprise me that he was so honest about in his testimony. And again, it's something I think we're going to see the prosecution doing over and over again is saying, trying to knock him off his pedestal, basically. Elizabeth Vuli, thank you so much for coming on. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Thank you for having me. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.