Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy on Trial: ‘The Prosecution Kinda Blew It,' Trial Expert Says

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

The federal courthouse in New York City, where Sean “Diddy” Combs is on trial for racketeering and sex crimes, doesn’t allow cameras or other recording devices. But certain journalists who regularly report on the Southern District of New York have special dispensation to live-tweet the proceedings.  Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber spoke with journalist Matthew R. Lee about his experience inside the courtroom as he keeps the public updated in real time.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you received Depo-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. Visit https://forthepeople.com/lcdepo to start a claim now!HOST: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.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. There have already been a ton of moments in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs, but you know who has not missed one bit? Matthew Russell Lee, the guy who post real-time updates from court as inner city press. You probably have been following his posts. In a trial with no cameras, Matthew is there. So not only do we want to know what it's like to be one of the main sources of up-to-date

information on the case, but who better to get some insight on the trial, the evidence, and who may be winning. That's why we're going to bring on the man himself. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, everybody, this is another Law and Crime Legal Alert. If you received Depro-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. That's right.

Morgan and Morgan is investigating claims that patients weren't properly warned about this risk. It's free to check. It takes just a few minutes and you don't pay unless they win. So scan the QR code on screen, click the link below or head over to for the people.com slash LC Depot to see if you qualify. Now, it's no secret we have been covering every aspect of Sean Diddy Combs' racketeering, sex trafficking, prostitution trial that Combs, you know, allegedly ran this criminal enterprise that engaged in crimes for years. Prosecutors say that he used his business and associates to commit crimes, covered them up, that those underlying predicate acts or crimes as part of racketeering include kidnapping, drug distribution, arson, bribery, forced labor, sex trafficking. And by the way, speaking of sex trafficking, he's also facing charges. There allegations that Combs used lies and drugs and threats and violence to force and coerce victims like or alleged victims like Cassandra Ventura Fine and others into sex acts against their will.

So from jury selection to opening statements to the testimony of Cassie to an alleged male performer who purportedly participated in freakoffs with Combs and Cassie to a former friend to a former Combs band member to a former assistant to a security guard, we have been bringing you daily. updates for this trial. But the problem is there are no cameras in that courtroom. There is no audio equipment in that courtroom. So we have been doing our best to try to relay to you as much detail as possible. And one of the reasons that we've been able to do that is because of our next guest. There is somebody who has not only been in that courtroom every day, but who live tweets, live posts on X in real time as the trial progresses each moment, somebody that we have definitely look to for quick updates on this case. This guy is a legend. I'm talking about Matthew Russell Lee, but you may know him from his account, Inner City Press. Seriously,

check him out on X. Has over 350,000 followers. What a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming here on Sidebar. And thank you so much for the work that you've been doing day in and day out. Thanks a lot. I'm glad to be on. It's really fun. I cover a lot of different cases. But everyone, you know, this case is like extremely high. But then in the middle of it, I went up stairs to another RICO case where there are 27 defendants. All of the family members are in the courtroom, but there's no press at all. Right. And these people are facing like two of them face the death penalty. So it's sort of a, it's a tale of two legal systems. Yeah. And to be clear, you cover a ton of different federal trials. And it's one of the reasons you have this particular

access to the Diddy trial and actually the ability to transcribe what's happening. By the way, your notes phenomenal. Because I actually match your notes up to the transcript that we get at the end of the day, it's almost verbatim. So, you know, I don't know if you realize this, but you are somebody who not only knows the ins and outs of this case, but one of the reason I'm so happy to have you to talk about this, but so many people are relying on you for updates in this case, your posts, your ex-tweets, whatever you want to call them posts, I don't even know. They are reprinted and are republished on social media constantly. What is it like just for you to be at the center of this where so many people are relying on you?

It is, it's a bit strange. I'll say that it's, and the thing about social media is that you have, like media takes it, so I've seen publications just print threads as their own article, and that's fine. You also have, like, as you may have known, like online, everyone's voice is equal. There are ditty supporters, they do exist. I'll just give you an example, how what it's been like. It's fun. When it's actually, when the trial is going on, everything's out of my mind, and I really enjoy it

because although it's word to word, you do try to capture, like, some things grab you more than others. Or some ways that things are phrased just seems strange, and it seems very important to really nail it down. Like, I feel like it's not, I'm not saying it's an art form. It's a matter of transcription, but also there are things where you can tell how people are going to take it, but the great thing about it is that you don't editorialize. But for example, one aspect of this has been that because of the way social media is, there's been a few spoofers, right? Somebody said, like, you know, that Prince had made an appearance or Nikki Minaj. I don't know if you followed this, but I've got a lot of people have asked me to clarify it, so I've

clarified it. Over the weekend, I did. I did like an e-book just to say, like, these are my tweets. So this is what I'm saying was said in the court, not what somebody with AI or something else did. But even in that, there are people that demand, I think, it's a serious case. These are serious charges, but it's also a media circus, right? So I try to cover it not with a light touch, but you can't, you know, there is a defense too. You know, there's a defense going on. There was yesterday Nicole Westmoreland did a really kind of, I can say it on your airwaves,

a kick-up cross-examination of Don Richard, and I think you have to just say, like, that was good. But people that are extremely committed or mostly work in the domestic violence or sexual abuse space, they don't want to hear anything good about the defense strategy. And they think that you're being sort of dismissive or amoral. So that's, I'm not trying to give a negative thing. It's very fun. I've really enjoyed it. And the thing I'm actually, there's every media in the world is there.

and there was a push to try to get access to the to the videos the freakoff videos i put in a filing into the docket to say just that the lawyer's arguments which are not going into the docket should be put in the docket and yesterday judge subramanian said that they will go in but on a week delay by the way just to be clear and and somebody who covered the johnny debt trial for six weeks and also has been covering the blake lively ryan reynolds case or the harvey winstein trial was there for that you know people go into these cases with and i'm not blay them, not judging them. They already go in with preconceived notions. They have a side. They don't want to hear what the other side is. And unfortunately, that's our job is to present

both sides. And, you know, that's what the point of a trial is. But you mentioned the freak-off tapes or these alleged freak-off tapes, just to be clear and set the record straight, has anybody in that courtroom, including the jury, seen actual footage of sex tapes? They're definitely, yes. But no one else would accept the jury. There was a whole fight about this. And there's a media coalition, right? They have, they have, it's like Davis, Wright and Tremaine. It's a big, they didn't really fight much more. They put in a single filing saying there's a constitutional right to see evidence in trial, which I agree with. They then proposed that there'd be pool reporters. This was also shot down by the judge, citing the Gleine Maxwell case.

So basically, the jurors will have a screen and headphones, and that's it. No, but no one else can see it. I mean, I think personally, I'll say this. I use the word allegedly a lot. I'm pretty sure the tapes exist. I don't, I, in the sense that I don't even think that the defense is saying that there weren't, you know, multiple partner sex events that were filmed. I don't think that's part of their defense. The question is whether it was consensual or whether, even if it was somehow abusive, if it really makes it out of racketeering case. So I personally, I was sort of asked, do I want to join into like unseal the freakoff tapes? And I'm not sure what people would do with it. I mean, you know, credible media probably wouldn't show porn, you know, like violent

porn or I don't know who knows if it's violent. I haven't seen it. It might be important though because it might it might be important for someone, whether it was a pool reporter or not to see it because the question becomes their defense is basically going to be yes, he has a freaky sex life. Yes, he has threesomes. Yes, he films things. Yes, he pays escorts to come in and have sex with his girlfriend. But is that racketeering? That's their defense. And I think in a way, the way the jurors may vote may depend on how they view not just the idea that there's a tape of a threesome being shown to them in a federal court, but like, how does it seem? What's, what are the, right? And which ones do they choose? Because it sounds like there was some violence in some of them at least. So look, I think

from a legal point of view, there is clearly a value for the jury to see it because does it corroborate what Cassandra Ventura and let's say Daniel Phillip were saying about what was happening in behind closed doors and whether or not Sean Combs was directing these events. It's one thing for somebody to testify to it. It's another thing to actually hear it on video if that's what the videos actually show. concerned, of course, about a getting out and what people might do with it. I think that's a legitimate, real concern. But when you talk about the jury in general, seeing those tapes, seeing the evidence, can you glean anything from their reactions? I mean, how are they reacting to this? I think people overdo it. I want to see. I've seen a lot of, and I don't mean to, and I understand why, there's a lot of airspace to fill up. I don't know how much we can read into it. I mean, if somebody said, like, if somebody vomited while watching it, I would report that. If somebody, if somebody, somebody vomited while watching it, I would report that. If someone But I think that sometimes we can cut the cheese too fine in terms of how, how, reading the facial expressions of jurors. I mean, let's be first, let's just step back for a moment.

The SDNY prosecutors, and I think federal prosecutors in general, have about a 95% batting average. So I'm not saying what's going to happen here, but I think it would be shocking if you were found not guilty on all charges. Maybe one, maybe two. I don't know what's going to happen. I'm just saying if you look at the percentage. So people are going to be looking at the eyes and say they didn't seem shocked enough. There was jury selection. People covered it and they thought it was fun. When you got to hear in court somebody say, you know, I get my news from TikTok and there were a number of like one lady who worked for HBO. People covered that kind of stuff. I zeroed in on a particular juror. I don't know why, but except that the person said that he worked at the United Nations. So I used to cover the United Nations very closely. And then he said he worked in the United Nations Counterterrorism Office, but he didn't ever deal with U.S. law enforcement. And having been there, I know that's not true. I know.

know that the U.S. they have meetings. Like people go from HSI. It happens. So I'm not, I'm not angry at this. What I found, this is what I want to sort of give this, this flavor. I thought it was interesting to report on this. I figured out more about the guy, but I said I won't report it because you're not supposed to, this is an anonymous jury, et cetera. At the same time, the public has a right to know how the juror is selected to Judge Sean Combs. So the judge yesterday, or maybe two days ago, said very, very kind of archly, no one better be outing these jurors. That's certainly not my goal, But it seems to me, this is why I'm roundabout coming back to you, people wanted to be on this jury. Like, I cover a lot of jury selections and a lot of trials, and you usually have people not trying to get on the claim.

You usually have people saying, I have a vacation plan, and the judge says, you're going to have to cancel it. Or I have to pick up my kid at five, and he says, well, if we law hook at three, can't you do it? This was entirely different. This, you had people downplaying what they knew about the case. I'm not sure why. I don't know if people think they can write a book about it. Maybe it's interesting. The UN guy can't figure out his motives.

Maybe he thinks he's going to be paid and it's more interesting than these interminable meetings inside the U.S. It's a jury that's pre, I think, predisposed to be interested in this. And whether it's because they want to convict or whether it's because they might want to acquit, I don't know. And I don't know what kind of a person would want to acquit. But I do, I meet them online, but I don't think they made it on to the jury. Well, it's, I mean, this is no, no, this is one of the most high profile trials, impactful criminal trials I've seen in quite some time. Again, I'm going to circle back to Johnny Depp Amber Heard. I mean, that jury was glued to everything that was happening in that case, and they couldn't ignore just how massive of a case that was.

So let me ask you this. As somebody who goes in day in and day out, you've been seeing the evidence, you've been hearing what the prosecution's been doing. Does their case make sense to you? Every day, as you listen to the testimony, do you say, okay, I see how that helps prove racketeering. I see how that helps prove the transportation to engage in prostitution. Oh, I see how that helps prove sex trafficking by forced fraud or coercion. or are there parts of it? You say, I can't quite understand. It feels a little disjointed. I'm curious because let me tell you, as an attorney, when I explain the elements of these crimes,

it is very, very complicated. And I'm curious talking about the jury if they're going to be following it. I think a big part of this all comes down to closing arguments, how it's ultimately crystallized and summarized for the jury. But are you following it? Does it make sense to you the prosecution's case so far? I you know and I'm I I have in my head the people that are like how can you say this but I personally I think this is a very it's a unique it's a unique racketeering sex trafficking prosecution in the sense that just as an example you know I covered one where basically like a crack gang took runaways from New Jersey that were 15 years old and and and sold them as prostitutes on Long Island they came from New Jersey they sold them on Long Island this was and it was definitely by force. When people tried to leave, they were beaten up. There were people flashing guns. Here, I feel, I mean, he's a terrible boss. You heard, you know, yesterday there was the personal assistant who worked 20 hours a day and was told, this is Diddy's World. And so there's grist

for the people that want to say that it's kind of overcharged, or at least the conventional ways in which these statutes are used are not a natural fit to a kind of thuggish music, you know, megalomaniac. And worse, of course, I mean, I don't, I don't know what adjectives I should use. But he's terrible, but it's not surprising to me that there are people that say, wait a second, she could have left. And of course, then there's a bunch of expert opinions saying why people don't leave and that's a whole other kettle of fish, but whether that can turn some of these things into sort of the conventional view of what, you know, it's like sex trafficking.

If an escort is paid to fly, if an escort jewels that they wanted to see is paid to fly from New York to Los Angeles, is he being sex trafficked or is he just plying his trade, whatever it is. I didn't know that these trades were even illegal, like legal, right? There's a, there's a service Cowboys for Angels. I didn't know that you could just like, you know, hire a, higher a male prostitute online, but apparently anything goes. So that's what I mean. I could see some jurors saying, wait a second. And I don't think they're bad people to wonder, it's one thing to sort of blame the victim. And it's another thing to say, like, is this the coercion that's needed under the statute? And I think it's a lot's going to come down to that. These are fair, legitimate questions

that the jury should have when they go into deliberation. They should be thinking about this. But it seems to me from what you said and from what I've been seeing, based on your reporting and other reporting, the prosecution may have a more straightforward path to convict him of transportation to engage in prostitution, where necessarily you're transporting alleged sex workers and alleged victims for purposes of prostitution. Does that seem like at this point in the trial? And by the way, for anybody who knows, we're recording right now on Tuesday morning, does it seem like they might have the good? Oh, absolutely. That seems to be actually what the thing was. There's no, and the thing is I wanted sort of, I'm sure you saw in the sort of pretrial back and forth. This is, I believe that that statute is, I'm a lawyer as well, but I believe it's called the Mann Act, right? The M-A-N, not the, not man, not like man for sale, but it was the man act. And one of the sharpest members of the defense team prior to the two Georgians coming on is the woman called Alexander Shapiro. She's like an appellate specialist. She represents San

Bankman Freed on his appeal. And she wrote this kind of kick-che filing saying that the man act is racist, saying that it was initially enacted for Jack Johnson, the boxer, for whom Miles Davis wrote a record. So I anticipated in closing. Probably it'll be Agnifalo doing the closing. Maybe it should be Ryan Steele or Nicole Westmoreland. It's not for me to say. But I can imagine that argument being made. A jury can't throw a statute out, but I think they're going to try to, I agree that that's a very strong and seems like a slam dunk count. But if you can get somebody on the jury saying, wait a second, this was like a black superstar, and you're trying to like take him down by using an old statute they used against Jack Johnson, it only takes one, you know? I think they were

trying to say in their opening statement, he paid for these people for their time and experience and not necessarily prostitution, which I'm sorry, that feels a little bit like a stretch to me, but, you know, it's a tough charge. You look, we have, I think we can both agree. A lot of this comes down to Cassandra Ventura Fine and her testimony and what the jury makes of it. From watching all of it. And the cross-examination, she was on the stand for several days, a lot of evidence, a lot of messages. Does it seem to you that it favors more her as an alleged victim or a willing participant? What did you make of her testimony? I think I think you can be both. Yeah, I think you can be both. I think there's no question that they showed with the text messages that for much

of it, she was not only a participant, she was the organizer. She was the one making the calls and buying the supplies. I think she was a very compelling witness. I think her sort of, and I'm not saying that she chose that approach, but she was very factual. A few times she got emotional, but it was really depressing what she was saying. She wasn't proud to be saying it. I don't think they were able to make people feel that she was in it for the money. She's already gotten paid. I mean, I think that also makes a big difference. Like, what's in it for her? Other than you could say she's being vindictive, but I think she was a very compelling witness night. This is, again, just looking at it as a battle. I don't think their approach to cross-examining her was the best one.

I've seen Anna Maria Esteval in other cases. She's a good lawyer, but the approach was too scatter shot and reading text messages. I honestly think if they'd gone with this Nicole Westmoreland approach that they took to Don Richard, I don't know how it would have worked out because, you know, with Don Rashard, they basically said, as you saw, you know, you're lying. You're lying. You gave eight versions of this. You're a liar. You're a liar. And they never like came right. Maybe they thought if they tried that with Cassie would just blow up in their face and people, she was very sympathetic, but I don't feel that they really tested it in the same way that they did with Don Rashard. And I feel that that might come back to bite them. Because at the end of those days,

it's a pretty compelling story. And I think people can relate to it. Somebody, they got into it. Yes, they were. It did serve her career. You could say a lot of things about it. But once somebody's hitting you in the head and making you do freak-offs

while you have a urinary tract infection, these are the details that I think are going to stick in people's mind. Because no matter what you say about consent, as she said, nobody wants to do that. It speaks for itself. Like these things were painful. And I don't think that they finished

with all their evidence. I was really struck yesterday by the sort of routine violence. There were violent incidents that Cassie didn't speak about, even the whole thing with the egg and the frying pan. And Kerry Morgan came out with more incidents of being dragged down the whole 50 yards in some Jamaican resort. I think this is going to be a cumulative thing, and it's going to be very difficult for them, for them to rebut. And they kind of lost their chance. The other big issue here is that they're pretty much not going to be able to call her back.

You know, normally you could call a witness back, but because she's having the child, Judge Subramanian, he made an evidentiary ruling against the prosecution, but entirely premised on the fact we're not calling her back. So that was the big one. And I would say the defense kind of, if they wanted to really test that story, they should have taken a harsher approach, not harsher, but a more conventionally cross-examination approach. Well, look, it was no surprise that they wanted her on the stand as quickly as possible, eight and a half months, nine months pregnant. I mean, they're having trouble finding alleged victim number three. If you lose alleged victim number one, what are you talking about with the prosecution's case? Look, I think that they have established that Cassandra Ventura was physically abused.

I think that with the video evidence, the photos, the testimony, the corroborating testimony of other witnesses, I think the jury can accept that there was physical abuse. Of course, it becomes the question, does it rise to sex trafficking, does it rise to racketeering? Which brings me to David James. So I was waiting for the testimony of those who worked with Sean Combs. If you're going to be talking about a criminal enterprise, if you're going to be talking about him using his businesses and his resources and those who worked around him to further criminal activities,

you've got to have those people testify. And I think that's going to be what we see moving forward. What did you take away so far from his testimony? Because, you know, again, to have that inner circle is very interesting. Again, I think, you know, we're doing this Tuesday morning, so he hasn't finished yet on direct. I think here the prosecution kind of blew it. Like they had a certain amount of time.

I mean, who knows? Maybe they can fix it today. But being a bad boss is not enough. Working 20 hours a day and being a megalomaniac is not. a crime. I mean, it's there. I wouldn't want to work there, but I think that they, they should. Force labor. Forced labor, right? They tried to say that's, that's all, yeah. I mean, I think, I don't know if you follow the Larry Ray trial. It was a sex cult dad in Sarah Lawrence College. He literally made people forcibly go down and dig holes on a farm in North

Carolina and put like tinfoil tourniquets around their sexual organs. This was forced labor. The idea of a guy that wanted to work in fashion, being willing to work 20 hours a day, that's just called New York, or a certain kind of New York. In the Harvey Weinstein retrial, there was a guy that testified as his personal assistant saying he had three phones and two Blackberries and Road would drive around with Harvey, basically handing him phones and him saying, you know, screw you or 500 million, you know. And so I think that they need to get this guy, it didn't have the flavor to me, at least, yesterday of this is a criminal enterprise.

It felt like this is a kind of like megalomaniacal. I don't know what rap stars with their own record label, what the continuum of behavior is. But I feel like they were setting, that's the problem with these breaks in the trial days. If I was a juror at the end of yesterday, I would have gone home and said like, okay, he's or whatever. But they might have wanted to start with a bang. Like with Cassie, they start with a bang. It's like, here's the video of the hotel.

You know, again, I can't do it for them. I'm sure that they're building up. And they have other people. They have a chef coming on that's going to be this Jordan Atkinson. I mean, they have a bunch of people. So I think to make it really racketeering, it feels to me like they're going to want to have the security guys. They're going to have guys that, like, had guns, that they alluded to them, like, grabbing the guns and going to find Shug Knight. Like, that's good. That's having recently covered the trial of a local

drill rapper called K-Flock. That's, you know, they focus very much on like the guys getting together in an apartment in the Bronx, grabbing the guns, you know, shooting, going 20 blocks away and shooting at people. With Holmes, nobody knows what he did with Shugnight. There's the burned car, but I think that that's, they should give me more of that, less Blackberry, more gunplay or more something. No, no, I hear you. I hear it because they basically have to convince the jury, persuade this jury that he is this leader of a criminal enterprise that was engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, including the systematic exploitation and abuse of women over a period of time. You know, we're still in the beginning stages. It's going to be an eight-week trial,

but I hear your reservations and concerns with the prosecution's case. I did think James was interesting when he recounted this alleged conversation that he had with Cassandra Ventura, where she allegedly said, man, this lifestyle's crazy. He suggested, why don't you leave? And she says, I can't get out. She told him that Combs controlled her music career, paid for apartment, gave her an allowance. That's also similar to testimony that we heard from another witness as well. Do you think that that has been articulated well? Because I know that the defense has said this is just a relationship built on jealousy and anger.

And, you know, he was trying to help her career. But do you think the idea that she couldn't leave, she couldn't easily leave the grasp of Sean Combs? Do you think that has been properly articulated? I think that they're on much weaker ground when they say things like he didn't put my records out. Like, I don't mean to say sorry too bad. It doesn't feel like coercion. You know what I mean? Like baseball players can't just change teams when they want. And I don't want to be dismissive. But I think the looming threat of violence, it seems to me, it should be what they should be focused on. And at times they do. At times they say, like, she was only able to sort of flap her wings when she

was in South Africa far away and he couldn't get to her physically. And that every time she tried to do anything, he bashed on the door with a hammer. Now you're getting into, why were you afraid to leave because even if you did leave, the guy's going to be at your door with a hammer. You know what I mean? But to say, I couldn't leave because it would hurt my career. It's a shame, but I think there are many people in that situation, not just in the music industry, but like all over the place. But you shouldn't be in a situation where if you say, no, they still go forward and do it. Or if you say, I'm leaving, they bash on your door with a hammer. I think the prosecution is an easy answer. You know why she couldn't leave Exhibit A,

2016 tape. That's a, that's exactly. No, no, I agree. And I think that they should be getting, I think that they, they air when they, when they even, that's all they have to stick. to. They don't have to get in. They're trying to get into these more subtle forms of control. And I can imagine one or more jurors when they actually deliberate saying, like, wait a second, isn't this what they're trying to tell us as coercion? And it's going to take some other juror to say, like, let's just go back to the video. And again, you've covered these things. This hoopla is not going to end for maybe by the 4th of July, as Judge Verminian said. But it's going to be very interesting in deliberation to see like what exhibits they request. Oh, for sure. Because then you try to

read the tea leaves and how long they take. It's anybody's guess. But honestly, I think if I were a juror trying to convince my fellow jurors to convict, I would just say, let's go back to that video because you're absolutely right. Like it speaks for itself. You don't have to be committing violence every day to course somebody. You have to just do it enough that it's in their head. I also think one of the more concrete examples is the plain incident. So if you take the allegations as true, shows her a video of the freak off, she feels trapped. They land. He wants a freak off. He gets a freak off. Now let me ask you about this because I know your time is limited. I know I have to jump into court. His demeanor, watching Sean Combs in court, what are we not seeing?

I mean, I think the, he's definitely, everyone was focused on like his, his hair's gone wide and he's wearing sweaters, you know. I was going to say, actually, you've got on your, you've got on your, your Sean Cone uniform today. Because that's, he's wearing, I don't know, that's the embarrassing. I'm saying like it's a very most, I've seen a lot of, for example, the other rapper I'm talking about local drill rapper K flock wear a suit. You can choose what the BOP gives you to wear. and he's chosen this look, which is very, now that I say that you're wearing it, I don't want to characterize it, but it's, it's, it's, I'm always watching to see which of his lawyers he's actually having a real discussion with. I'm starting to see, and maybe

I'm looking for it, but that Brian Steele and Nicole Westmoreland, my prediction is that they're going to get, because it's a team of nine, right? So they're choosing, it's like a baseball team. You're like, who do I send in as a pinch hitter? And they did. They had Westmoreland as a pinch hitter. It was going to be Mark Agnifalo, who's going to do the cross of John Richard. And clearly, over the weekend, they decided, no, we're going to make a switch. we're bringing in the, you know, the left-handed reliever or whatever. And I wonder whether that decision was made by the team of nine or by Combs himself. And I think I'm less concerned of like, did he glit, not concerned, did he glare at Cassie or whatever?

Like, he's not stupid. He's not going to be intimidating a witness. It's a very studied approach that he's taken. But it is interesting to see not just who he hugs and bumps fists with or does the hard thing to, but which lawyers he's actually like saying, what did that mean and how can we get this witness? And I think you're going to see Georgia up. And sadly, the SDNY defense bar is. They're being challenged here.

They're being taken to a new Georgia standard that I don't know if they can meet. And I'll tell you what, we are going to follow it every step of the way with you, Matthew Russell Lee, any inner city press. Hope everybody can check it out. Thank you so much again for coming on and thank you so much again for the great work. Totally. Love your show. It's a really easy. Thanks, ma'am.

Okay. Bye-bye. Appreciate it. And that is 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 Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.