July 8, 2025 • 22 mins
Amy and T.J. talk about the unexpectedly brief hearing today to set the date for Diddy’s sentencing! After just two minutes, it was over, with the defense agreeing to the judge’s original date of October 3rd. Also, what exactly are the racist origins of the Mann Act that was used to convict Diddy?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks, it is Tuesday, July the eighth. Yes,
did he heard the verdicts last week, but today he
had another very important court hearing in his case. It
lasted all of two minutes, but we got some very
important information out of it, and we found out that
(00:22):
Diddy has changed his mind. And with that, welcome to
this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Who were anticipating one thing from the defense team and
we got something else today.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yes, it was actually very confusing to a lot of folks,
some journalists and everyone was huddled around, even in some
listening rooms trying to hear what was happening for a
scheduled sentencing, like a pre sentencing hearing, I guess.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Is what it was called.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
They called it a conference, a virtual conference. It was
supposed to be for them to discuss, yes, when we
can actually sentence its correct.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
So here's what we were anticipating. It had been said
that the defense and the prosecution had actually agreed to
I guess hasten the sentencing hearing from October third to
September twenty second, So everyone was expecting defense attorneys and
federal prosecutors to submit this September twenty second sentencing date
to the judge, but just before the hearing, attorneys for
(01:21):
both sides then sent another letter, joint letter to the
judge saying never mind, we'll just go ahead and keep
the October third, the original sentencing date done. And then
they were asked, would you like to talk about anything else?
Is there anything else to discuss? Most folks were expecting
(01:42):
other business to be talked about, and they both said, nah,
we're good.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
That was essentially a phone call. They say Diddy was
on the call, but it went just a couple of minutes.
Now surprising heroes because as soon I mean, as you
know what we just reported this. Markgagnfield when he kind
of had an epiphany the day before the verdicts were read,
he realized, you know what, he's been found not guilty
(02:09):
on these other accounts. He's guilty on the prostitution. So
let's get a bail request ready. As soon as they
heard the verdicts, they would like, hey, we want to
get this guy out of jail. The judge said no.
They were immediately Hey, we want to get the sentencing
done as quickly as possible. They were so quick to
be on top of that and today a total turnaround.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
That's what's confusing.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
So last week we heard from Mark Agnfilo telling the
judge that Diddy was actually experiencing exceptional circumstances. They actually
cited that specific claim because they said if he had
to wait until October third, it was a problem. Because
they brought up the fact that Comb's romantic partner, Kim Porter,
(02:54):
died back in twenty eighteen, and so that his twin daughters,
who were sitting behind him in the second.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Row throughout most of the trial.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
They're eighteen years old, but they have been without a
parent for some time now, and so that was part
of the reasoning. We heard Diddy's defense attorney say, hey,
we need an expedited sentencing date.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm not sure if that ever works. Does that I mean,
if there are young children, that's one thing, but that.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Is they're adults technically by law.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I mean, they brought it up as if they thought
it might make a difference. I mean, they know what
they're doing or was that.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Just a maybe it was an emotional reaction maybe, But
also other thing that I was kind of confused by.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
So if the judge is.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Ultimately going to decide whether or not he serves what
they're asking for about two years behind bars versus what
the prosecution is hoping for, which is five years behind bars.
How moving up the sentencing date changes when he gets
out of prison, because at the end of the day,
he's getting credit for time serve. So that was also
maybe just him having peace of mind knowing how much
(03:51):
longer he has.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Maybe that has a.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Mental health benefit to him to his daughter's just to
know sooner rather than later, how long he's going to
be spending.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Bye.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. This
is what we're talking about. He's going to be sentenced.
I think there's a consensus from all the experts and
everything we've been reading he is going to spend and
maybe even some significant time in prison. So even if
they let him out on bail now, he's going to
end up going right back inn So it's not a
matter of the girls are about to get their dad
back in the long term anytime soon. He is going
(04:22):
to He is staying in prison, and it's just a
matter of how long that's going to be. But to
your point, Robes, it seemed almost I don't know if
it was a gut reaction, immediate reaction or not a
well thought out reaction to the judge at the time
last week. And then now they realize, Okay, it doesn't
matter to rush it. We might as well take our
time and get it right, because this is now the
(04:43):
ultimate decision. Convictions were one thing, and the verdicts were
one thing, but now this is the most important thing
to try to get right, to convince the judge to
not go on the high end.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Right. But so to that point, it's very interesting because
Comb's dues face technically a maximum sentence of twenty years
in prison, ten years for each of his conspiracy what
was the transportation for prostitution. He could face a maximum
of twenty years behind bars, and initially the prosecution said
(05:15):
that's what they were going to go for. Now it
appears they're saying, okay, maybe five years would be enough,
and again the defense wants two years. But it's been
made very clear the judge can do whatever he wants.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
He doesn't have.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
To abide by whatever guidelines they keep talking about. Correct,
to do whatever he wants as long the only thing
he can't do is go over ten years for each count.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
That's the only thing. That's the only requirement. So the
thing is now the judge has indicated he is indicated
by not allowing him out on bail after the verdicts.
He has indicated that he feels that Sean Diddy Combes
is still a threat to the community in some way.
He said it flat out from the bench and his
(06:01):
move to not allow him to go home in the meantime,
he won't even let him go home for a couple
of months until the sentencing, right because he thinks he's
such a threat.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
To the community.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, I mean, he mentioned the fact that he does
have enough power and wealth and means to flee even
though he would surrender for his passport. Still when people
have private jets and all sorts of other access that
most of us don't.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Know anything about. That is one thing.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But he also did specifically point out to the fact,
point out the fact, excuse me, that he was violent,
even by his own admission, after he knew he was
under investigation with Jane, So Jane testified to it. He
admitted it, and others also testified to witnessing it that
even when he knew federal investigators were on him for
(06:49):
all of this alleged abuse. He still continued to abuse
his then girlfriend. That was enough for him to say, Hey,
this is a guy who, even when he knows he
might be watched, when he knows he might be monitored,
he's still committing violent acts.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
So no, you cannot be out on bail.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So the jug and the prosecutors are asking the judge
to consider that and to consider conduct he was acquitted for. Right,
it doesn't matter like whatever technicality on racketeering, it didn't
follow the exact law and the jury didn't go along
with it. Okay, fine, we still saw the video of
him beating somebody. We still heard all the stories that
(07:27):
we actually believed. So when you put all that together,
it is a I mean, he comes off as a
scary dude that, if unleashed back into society, could still
be a menace of some kind. I'm looking for the line,
help me hear ropes. There was a line that judged
used about his propensity for violence behind closed doors. You remember,
(07:52):
I'll hear it is quote. This type of violence which
happens behind closed doors in personal relationships, sparked by unpredictable
bouts of anger, is impossible to police with conditions like,
there's nothing I can say and say stay at home
at twenty four hour monitoring. There's nothing he could say
(08:13):
that the judge that would make him feel comfortable about
putting this guy back on the street.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
That's wild and that is telling and will be very
interesting to hear. How then he is going to rule
on sentencing. He's got some time obviously between now and then.
Now it looks like October third. But one of the
big stipulations that happens during this time is there's an
investigation of sorts. I mean actually an investigation, a sentencing investigation,
(08:41):
and federal prosecutors were adamant that that should not be eliminated.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
They shouldn't go straight to sentencing.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
They should actually have the time to let it run
its proper course, which involves a pre sentenced report from
probation officials, which includes an interview with Diddy, and so
heres want that to happen. So that interview, then the
judge would be privy to to read all of those transcripts,
and that's an important part of the process to determine
(09:09):
whether or not or how long someone should stay behind bars.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And at this point, Robes.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I have now right, he had the victory, and it
was a big and it was that's not in all
circles he was facing life.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
He could possibly be getting a couple of years.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's a week less than five, and we get it.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
That is a win for him.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
However, now I'm hearing so many legal experts, the folks
out there who are doing all the analysis of this,
are talking more and more about the judge using his
discretion and using some of the things he wasn't convicted
for against him to still use his like almost this
common sense test of this is a bad dude, and
(09:56):
giving him just two years after up all this shit
we just heard wouldn't be just.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
I can't help but think about how the judge truly felt.
It may have seemed small, but it stood out. And
I think a judge especially knows when someone's trying to
sweet talk him or smooth talk him, especially someone who's
known to be charismatic and had the abilities somehow to
have a lot of women doing whatever he wanted them
(10:23):
to do despite his violent behavior.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
So someone who is charismatic and possibly.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Manipulative, how the judge felt, when did he took the
moment to tell him to tell the judge thank you?
And I think you're doing a really good job. I
wonder how much impact if that had, And I would
think you would have done something negative, not something positive,
(10:50):
because the judge obviously is a smart man, And I
wonder how much that made him feel like, is this, dude,
somebody I really want to go easy on, somebody I
want to be fair?
Speaker 4 (11:00):
Are someone who I want to teach a lesson to.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I don't know if that I just can't help but
feel like that could have had a negative impact.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
It's it's they call them judges for a reason. They
are judging folks. They are referees to make sure each
side gets to play fairly, but they are in judgment
of the person sitting there and how the proceeding is
supposed to go right his judgment about Diddy? Is everything
right now? That moment it went one of.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
What three ways?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It had a positive impact, a negative impact, or absolutely none.
It could have just rolled off. He could have been dismissive.
He might have seen that and said, you jerk, you
look you ass or is there any chance. I think
it's least likely that he was impressed by it in some.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Way, like, oh, it's hard, that's hard to imagine, Oh
my god, he he thinks I'm doing a good job. Wow,
that's so cool. But I did, like you, and I
have covered plenty of trials. Have you ever ever seen.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
A defendant have the no one's come let's just say that,
or perhaps the hubris to to do that.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I've seen some arrogant defendants, but not so to do that.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
I want to let you know what a good job
you've been doing. You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
We had to read.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
All we had all our All we could do was
read it. Oh we could do is read So who
knows how it actually came across. It could have been authentic,
It could have been sweet, It could have been nice,
It could have been awkward.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
We don't exactly know.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
All we were able to do is actually read it
based on what was coming out of the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
So it read arrogant. It read arrogant and manipulative. Yes,
it read both of those things. To me, who does that?
And what Judge actually is swayed by that?
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I think that I just think he's smart enough to know.
This smart guy is not going to be sweet.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I mean just saying thank you, Judge.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Oh man, this is the moment us standing out to.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
My mom always told me everyone's favorite subjectors themselves. So
if you know he took that, if he took that, yeah,
flattery will get.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
You everywhere, right, it absolutely will. So who knows. I
don't know. It'd be interesting.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
I'm very fascinated to see what this judge decides.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
He's got time to go through it.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, obviously he'll have the interview with Ditty. I don't
wonder how that will go.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
And here's the thing, folks, he is going to be
deciding judgment on how long Diddy should spend in prison
after being convicted on a law that many people say
is racist, shouldn't be on the books, and Diddy shouldn't
have been charged with in the first place, the Man Act.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Do you know what that is?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Welcome back everyone to this Tuesday. Did he trial addition?
Because we had a hearing that turned out to be
basically just a two minute quick Hey never mind, judge,
you know when you said you wanted that sentencing hearing
to be on October third, Yeah, cool, that's that's what
we both want now anyway.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Yeah, so that's what happened today.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
The big Ooh, what's the defense going to argue, what's
the judge going to say?
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Nothing? Nothing, the least dramatic day of all the days.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Absolutely loved the Diddy trial, and this is when we
were anticipating, like something dramatic.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
What are they going to do? Nothing? Nothing, nothing today?
And that's okay.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
We've had a lot of dramatic days in this in
this case, we could take a break, but still we
learned a lot, and that's why we're hopping on. So
at least you give the update because it is relevant,
it is significant, it is meaningful that they have decided. Now, hey,
never mind, we don't want to push this thing, rush
this thing. Maybe they're just being a little more deliberate,
but they know he's going to be spending significant time
in jail.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Probably yes, at least two years. That would be the
defense's hope. So another year behind bars.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
You had the numbers off the top of your head.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Twenty one to twenty seven months is what the defense
appears to be asking for, and it looks like the
prosecution is hoping anywhere from four to five years behind bars.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
So he's already served ten months. By the time we
get to this sentencing hearing.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
It will actually be a little bit over a year,
So subtract a year and a month, basically thirteen months
from whatever the sentence is, and that is how long
he will be behind bars.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Sweet spirit.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
It's possible if the judge goes the low end and
what the defense is asking, he'd be out within a
year of the sentencing date.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
That would be best case scenario.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
A year we're talking about summer of twenty twenty six
getting out of jail. The high end though, five years
from the prosecution, so four years, so twenty twenty nine,
somewhere around there. And then you have to consider the
judge can do what he wants, and he has given
some indication that he does not like this guy's propensity
for violence behind closed doors.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
He has given signals that he could.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
He could go high on the high end or even higher.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Are some of the signals he's given.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yeah, he certainly has. And so it's anyone's guess what
the judge is going to do.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Uh, you know. And I think maybe that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Could have played into the reasoning behind the event, just saying, hey,
you know what, judge, what you wanted, Let's just do
what you wanted.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Let's do this on your timeline. We're cool.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
We need a minute to figure out right convictions now
on something you keep hearing transportation to engage in prostitution.
Those are the two counts he was convicted of, maximum
of ten years in prison for each count. But it's
based on something called the Man Act. You keep hearing
that the Man Act, the Man Act, the Man Act.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
In ropes.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
This is a an incredibly controversial century old law that's
been on the books, and part of its history is
steeped in racism.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
It certainly is.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
And I didn't realize this, but when you start looking
at so these the transportation to engage in prostitution, those
two counts that he was convicted of are a part
of the Man Act, which was acted back in nineteen ten,
and it was originally known as the White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
It criminalizes transporting individuals across state line four.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
And here's the catch, prostitution.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
But it originally said prostitution or debauchery or for any
other immoral purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Who gets to decide what an immoral purpose?
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Correct? And a woman correct?
Speaker 3 (17:34):
And so there was a very high profile case against
black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
First ever black heavyweight champ, not just any.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Guy here back in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So guess what, he had a white girlfriend, and guess what,
Black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson took his girlfriend across
state lines. And so that is why and how he
was convicted in this Man Act, which obviously is steeped
(18:06):
in racism. So they were this Act allowed prosecutors to
bring charges against people who had unlawful premarital, unlawful extramarital,
unlawful at that point in a racial relation.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
So they were able to take this.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Act and apply it in very gray areas for this
whole immoral purpose.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So it was one of their arguments is that this
case was being brought against one of the most successful
black entrepreneurs we have ever seen in this country.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
And they thought it was they're going after him for
some kind of racial prosecution. Yep.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The judge actually was pissed and shot that down in court.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Anytime there was a suggestion that this was about race,
or they brought it about race.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
But that plays for the pubblic it does praise for
a jury.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Now it also we should point out this Man Act
was used against R and B singer R Kelly. It
was used against Galaine Maxwell in the whole. Jeffrey Epstein
the longtime confident of Jeffrey Epstein. But still there's no
denying that that specific act absolutely absolutely is Steepson races.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
I'm storry to put you on the spoting I'm social star,
but I think you're going to know it.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
What is it about?
Speaker 1 (19:17):
They changed some language and took out some component that
made it vague, right, They updated the language of the
law at some point to make sure it wasn't so
vague and it could be used against interracial culture.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
So this is what I can see right now.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
So the law was meant to punish common sex work,
but it was removed from the Act by an amendment
in the eighties about the immoral purpose because.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
That was vague.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
So when they used a moral purpose, that's when they
could say, oh ah, black man and a white woman,
that's a moral.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
That wasn't what the eighties.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Well, it took until the eighties before that amendment was dropped.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Babe.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
When I first was a reporter in Charleston, South Carolina
in nineteen ninety five, it was on the books.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It was illegal if you.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
And I had met and fallen in love in nineteen
ninety five at our first job whatever.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
You would have been younger than me.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Don't point it out, but we would not have been
able to legally technically be married.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
In the state of South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Nineteen ninety five, the Confederate flag was flying atop the
state House in Columbia, South Carolina, and technically, legally it
was on the books that white and black folks could
not marry.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Damn, how crazy is that?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Twenty twenty two, when we first started dating.
Speaker 4 (20:33):
Sorry, everybody also wanted to point out this is interesting.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
I didn't realize this, so we mentioned, of course, what
this whole Man Act, that it went against Jack Johnson
back in nineteen thirteen. I didn't know this, but President
Trump Hip positumously pardoned him Boom in twenty eighteen, Boom
for that crime. He was convicted under the Man Act
for taking his girlfriend across the state line.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
So wait, you're telling me that the current president has
actually already pardoned a famous black man who was convicted
under the Man Act.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
I am saying, I am saying that very thing.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
He's done this before.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
You never know what I am telling you that, And
that's how.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
We're gonna leave it.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Today, folks, I've been saying this, all right, well that's
just wait for it. And with that, folks, we're gonna
keep hopping on. When we do get some did they updates,
and they do trickle in the next one. We anticipate, right,
a couple of briefings are going to be filed with
some updates, and yes, the prosecution is expected maybe even
to up their ask for how many years they want
(21:37):
ditties to spend behind bars. But when we do get
the updates, we'll continue to hop on here for you,
and we appreciate you all continuing to listen. We continue
to do these because we do know that you are listening,
and we appreciate you coming us.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
All right, I'm Amy Robot and on behalf of my
partner T J. Holmes.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Have a wonderful Tuesday, everybody. She the Tcherna
Hey there, folks, it is Tuesday, July the eighth. Yes,
did he heard the verdicts last week, but today he
had another very important court hearing in his case. It
lasted all of two minutes, but we got some very
important information out of it, and we found out that
(00:22):
Diddy has changed his mind. And with that, welcome to
this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Who were anticipating one thing from the defense team and
we got something else today.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yes, it was actually very confusing to a lot of folks,
some journalists and everyone was huddled around, even in some
listening rooms trying to hear what was happening for a
scheduled sentencing, like a pre sentencing hearing, I guess.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Is what it was called.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
They called it a conference, a virtual conference. It was
supposed to be for them to discuss, yes, when we
can actually sentence its correct.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
So here's what we were anticipating. It had been said
that the defense and the prosecution had actually agreed to
I guess hasten the sentencing hearing from October third to
September twenty second, So everyone was expecting defense attorneys and
federal prosecutors to submit this September twenty second sentencing date
to the judge, but just before the hearing, attorneys for
(01:21):
both sides then sent another letter, joint letter to the
judge saying never mind, we'll just go ahead and keep
the October third, the original sentencing date done. And then
they were asked, would you like to talk about anything else?
Is there anything else to discuss? Most folks were expecting
(01:42):
other business to be talked about, and they both said, nah,
we're good.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
That was essentially a phone call. They say Diddy was
on the call, but it went just a couple of minutes.
Now surprising heroes because as soon I mean, as you
know what we just reported this. Markgagnfield when he kind
of had an epiphany the day before the verdicts were read,
he realized, you know what, he's been found not guilty
(02:09):
on these other accounts. He's guilty on the prostitution. So
let's get a bail request ready. As soon as they
heard the verdicts, they would like, hey, we want to
get this guy out of jail. The judge said no.
They were immediately Hey, we want to get the sentencing
done as quickly as possible. They were so quick to
be on top of that and today a total turnaround.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
That's what's confusing.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
So last week we heard from Mark Agnfilo telling the
judge that Diddy was actually experiencing exceptional circumstances. They actually
cited that specific claim because they said if he had
to wait until October third, it was a problem. Because
they brought up the fact that Comb's romantic partner, Kim Porter,
(02:54):
died back in twenty eighteen, and so that his twin daughters,
who were sitting behind him in the second.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Row throughout most of the trial.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
They're eighteen years old, but they have been without a
parent for some time now, and so that was part
of the reasoning. We heard Diddy's defense attorney say, hey,
we need an expedited sentencing date.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm not sure if that ever works. Does that I mean,
if there are young children, that's one thing, but that.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Is they're adults technically by law.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
I mean, they brought it up as if they thought
it might make a difference. I mean, they know what
they're doing or was that.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Just a maybe it was an emotional reaction maybe, But
also other thing that I was kind of confused by.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
So if the judge is.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Ultimately going to decide whether or not he serves what
they're asking for about two years behind bars versus what
the prosecution is hoping for, which is five years behind bars.
How moving up the sentencing date changes when he gets
out of prison, because at the end of the day,
he's getting credit for time serve. So that was also
maybe just him having peace of mind knowing how much
(03:51):
longer he has.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Maybe that has a.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Mental health benefit to him to his daughter's just to
know sooner rather than later, how long he's going to
be spending.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Bye.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. This
is what we're talking about. He's going to be sentenced.
I think there's a consensus from all the experts and
everything we've been reading he is going to spend and
maybe even some significant time in prison. So even if
they let him out on bail now, he's going to
end up going right back inn So it's not a
matter of the girls are about to get their dad
back in the long term anytime soon. He is going
(04:22):
to He is staying in prison, and it's just a
matter of how long that's going to be. But to
your point, Robes, it seemed almost I don't know if
it was a gut reaction, immediate reaction or not a
well thought out reaction to the judge at the time
last week. And then now they realize, Okay, it doesn't
matter to rush it. We might as well take our
time and get it right, because this is now the
(04:43):
ultimate decision. Convictions were one thing, and the verdicts were
one thing, but now this is the most important thing
to try to get right, to convince the judge to
not go on the high end.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Right. But so to that point, it's very interesting because
Comb's dues face technically a maximum sentence of twenty years
in prison, ten years for each of his conspiracy what
was the transportation for prostitution. He could face a maximum
of twenty years behind bars, and initially the prosecution said
(05:15):
that's what they were going to go for. Now it
appears they're saying, okay, maybe five years would be enough,
and again the defense wants two years. But it's been
made very clear the judge can do whatever he wants.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
He doesn't have.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
To abide by whatever guidelines they keep talking about. Correct,
to do whatever he wants as long the only thing
he can't do is go over ten years for each count.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
That's the only thing. That's the only requirement. So the
thing is now the judge has indicated he is indicated
by not allowing him out on bail after the verdicts.
He has indicated that he feels that Sean Diddy Combes
is still a threat to the community in some way.
He said it flat out from the bench and his
(06:01):
move to not allow him to go home in the meantime,
he won't even let him go home for a couple
of months until the sentencing, right because he thinks he's
such a threat.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
To the community.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, I mean, he mentioned the fact that he does
have enough power and wealth and means to flee even
though he would surrender for his passport. Still when people
have private jets and all sorts of other access that
most of us don't.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Know anything about. That is one thing.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But he also did specifically point out to the fact,
point out the fact, excuse me, that he was violent,
even by his own admission, after he knew he was
under investigation with Jane, So Jane testified to it. He
admitted it, and others also testified to witnessing it that
even when he knew federal investigators were on him for
(06:49):
all of this alleged abuse. He still continued to abuse
his then girlfriend. That was enough for him to say, Hey,
this is a guy who, even when he knows he
might be watched, when he knows he might be monitored,
he's still committing violent acts.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
So no, you cannot be out on bail.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So the jug and the prosecutors are asking the judge
to consider that and to consider conduct he was acquitted for. Right,
it doesn't matter like whatever technicality on racketeering, it didn't
follow the exact law and the jury didn't go along
with it. Okay, fine, we still saw the video of
him beating somebody. We still heard all the stories that
(07:27):
we actually believed. So when you put all that together,
it is a I mean, he comes off as a
scary dude that, if unleashed back into society, could still
be a menace of some kind. I'm looking for the line,
help me hear ropes. There was a line that judged
used about his propensity for violence behind closed doors. You remember,
(07:52):
I'll hear it is quote. This type of violence which
happens behind closed doors in personal relationships, sparked by unpredictable
bouts of anger, is impossible to police with conditions like,
there's nothing I can say and say stay at home
at twenty four hour monitoring. There's nothing he could say
(08:13):
that the judge that would make him feel comfortable about
putting this guy back on the street.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
That's wild and that is telling and will be very
interesting to hear. How then he is going to rule
on sentencing. He's got some time obviously between now and then.
Now it looks like October third. But one of the
big stipulations that happens during this time is there's an
investigation of sorts. I mean actually an investigation, a sentencing investigation,
(08:41):
and federal prosecutors were adamant that that should not be eliminated.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
They shouldn't go straight to sentencing.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
They should actually have the time to let it run
its proper course, which involves a pre sentenced report from
probation officials, which includes an interview with Diddy, and so
heres want that to happen. So that interview, then the
judge would be privy to to read all of those transcripts,
and that's an important part of the process to determine
(09:09):
whether or not or how long someone should stay behind bars.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And at this point, Robes.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I have now right, he had the victory, and it
was a big and it was that's not in all
circles he was facing life.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
He could possibly be getting a couple of years.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's a week less than five, and we get it.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
That is a win for him.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
However, now I'm hearing so many legal experts, the folks
out there who are doing all the analysis of this,
are talking more and more about the judge using his
discretion and using some of the things he wasn't convicted
for against him to still use his like almost this
common sense test of this is a bad dude, and
(09:56):
giving him just two years after up all this shit
we just heard wouldn't be just.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
I can't help but think about how the judge truly felt.
It may have seemed small, but it stood out. And
I think a judge especially knows when someone's trying to
sweet talk him or smooth talk him, especially someone who's
known to be charismatic and had the abilities somehow to
have a lot of women doing whatever he wanted them
(10:23):
to do despite his violent behavior.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
So someone who is charismatic and possibly.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Manipulative, how the judge felt, when did he took the
moment to tell him to tell the judge thank you?
And I think you're doing a really good job. I
wonder how much impact if that had, And I would
think you would have done something negative, not something positive,
(10:50):
because the judge obviously is a smart man, And I
wonder how much that made him feel like, is this, dude,
somebody I really want to go easy on, somebody I
want to be fair?
Speaker 4 (11:00):
Are someone who I want to teach a lesson to.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I don't know if that I just can't help but
feel like that could have had a negative impact.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
It's it's they call them judges for a reason. They
are judging folks. They are referees to make sure each
side gets to play fairly, but they are in judgment
of the person sitting there and how the proceeding is
supposed to go right his judgment about Diddy? Is everything
right now? That moment it went one of.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
What three ways?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It had a positive impact, a negative impact, or absolutely none.
It could have just rolled off. He could have been dismissive.
He might have seen that and said, you jerk, you
look you ass or is there any chance. I think
it's least likely that he was impressed by it in some.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Way, like, oh, it's hard, that's hard to imagine, Oh
my god, he he thinks I'm doing a good job. Wow,
that's so cool. But I did, like you, and I
have covered plenty of trials. Have you ever ever seen.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
A defendant have the no one's come let's just say that,
or perhaps the hubris to to do that.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I've seen some arrogant defendants, but not so to do that.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
I want to let you know what a good job
you've been doing. You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
We had to read.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
All we had all our All we could do was
read it. Oh we could do is read So who
knows how it actually came across. It could have been authentic,
It could have been sweet, It could have been nice,
It could have been awkward.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
We don't exactly know.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
All we were able to do is actually read it
based on what was coming out of the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
So it read arrogant. It read arrogant and manipulative. Yes,
it read both of those things. To me, who does that?
And what Judge actually is swayed by that?
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I think that I just think he's smart enough to know.
This smart guy is not going to be sweet.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I mean just saying thank you, Judge.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Oh man, this is the moment us standing out to.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
My mom always told me everyone's favorite subjectors themselves. So
if you know he took that, if he took that, yeah,
flattery will get.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
You everywhere, right, it absolutely will. So who knows. I
don't know. It'd be interesting.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
I'm very fascinated to see what this judge decides.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
He's got time to go through it.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, obviously he'll have the interview with Ditty. I don't
wonder how that will go.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
And here's the thing, folks, he is going to be
deciding judgment on how long Diddy should spend in prison
after being convicted on a law that many people say
is racist, shouldn't be on the books, and Diddy shouldn't
have been charged with in the first place, the Man Act.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Do you know what that is?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Welcome back everyone to this Tuesday. Did he trial addition?
Because we had a hearing that turned out to be
basically just a two minute quick Hey never mind, judge,
you know when you said you wanted that sentencing hearing
to be on October third, Yeah, cool, that's that's what
we both want now anyway.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Yeah, so that's what happened today.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
The big Ooh, what's the defense going to argue, what's
the judge going to say?
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Nothing? Nothing, the least dramatic day of all the days.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Absolutely loved the Diddy trial, and this is when we
were anticipating, like something dramatic.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
What are they going to do? Nothing? Nothing, nothing today?
And that's okay.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
We've had a lot of dramatic days in this in
this case, we could take a break, but still we
learned a lot, and that's why we're hopping on. So
at least you give the update because it is relevant,
it is significant, it is meaningful that they have decided. Now, hey,
never mind, we don't want to push this thing, rush
this thing. Maybe they're just being a little more deliberate,
but they know he's going to be spending significant time
in jail.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
Probably yes, at least two years. That would be the
defense's hope. So another year behind bars.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
You had the numbers off the top of your head.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Twenty one to twenty seven months is what the defense
appears to be asking for, and it looks like the
prosecution is hoping anywhere from four to five years behind bars.
Speaker 4 (15:07):
So he's already served ten months. By the time we
get to this sentencing hearing.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
It will actually be a little bit over a year,
So subtract a year and a month, basically thirteen months
from whatever the sentence is, and that is how long
he will be behind bars.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Sweet spirit.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
It's possible if the judge goes the low end and
what the defense is asking, he'd be out within a
year of the sentencing date.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
That would be best case scenario.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
A year we're talking about summer of twenty twenty six
getting out of jail. The high end though, five years
from the prosecution, so four years, so twenty twenty nine,
somewhere around there. And then you have to consider the
judge can do what he wants, and he has given
some indication that he does not like this guy's propensity
for violence behind closed doors.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
He has given signals that he could.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
He could go high on the high end or even higher.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Are some of the signals he's given.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yeah, he certainly has. And so it's anyone's guess what
the judge is going to do.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Uh, you know. And I think maybe that.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Could have played into the reasoning behind the event, just saying, hey,
you know what, judge, what you wanted, Let's just do
what you wanted.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Let's do this on your timeline. We're cool.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
We need a minute to figure out right convictions now
on something you keep hearing transportation to engage in prostitution.
Those are the two counts he was convicted of, maximum
of ten years in prison for each count. But it's
based on something called the Man Act. You keep hearing
that the Man Act, the Man Act, the Man Act.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
In ropes.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
This is a an incredibly controversial century old law that's
been on the books, and part of its history is
steeped in racism.
Speaker 4 (16:46):
It certainly is.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
And I didn't realize this, but when you start looking
at so these the transportation to engage in prostitution, those
two counts that he was convicted of are a part
of the Man Act, which was acted back in nineteen ten,
and it was originally known as the White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
It criminalizes transporting individuals across state line four.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
And here's the catch, prostitution.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
But it originally said prostitution or debauchery or for any
other immoral purpose.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Who gets to decide what an immoral purpose?
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Correct? And a woman correct?
Speaker 3 (17:34):
And so there was a very high profile case against
black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
First ever black heavyweight champ, not just any.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Guy here back in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
So guess what, he had a white girlfriend, and guess what,
Black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson took his girlfriend across
state lines. And so that is why and how he
was convicted in this Man Act, which obviously is steeped
(18:06):
in racism. So they were this Act allowed prosecutors to
bring charges against people who had unlawful premarital, unlawful extramarital,
unlawful at that point in a racial relation.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
So they were able to take this.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Act and apply it in very gray areas for this
whole immoral purpose.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
So it was one of their arguments is that this
case was being brought against one of the most successful
black entrepreneurs we have ever seen in this country.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
And they thought it was they're going after him for
some kind of racial prosecution. Yep.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The judge actually was pissed and shot that down in court.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Anytime there was a suggestion that this was about race,
or they brought it about race.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
But that plays for the pubblic it does praise for
a jury.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Now it also we should point out this Man Act
was used against R and B singer R Kelly. It
was used against Galaine Maxwell in the whole. Jeffrey Epstein
the longtime confident of Jeffrey Epstein. But still there's no
denying that that specific act absolutely absolutely is Steepson races.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
I'm storry to put you on the spoting I'm social star,
but I think you're going to know it.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
What is it about?
Speaker 1 (19:17):
They changed some language and took out some component that
made it vague, right, They updated the language of the
law at some point to make sure it wasn't so
vague and it could be used against interracial culture.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
So this is what I can see right now.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
So the law was meant to punish common sex work,
but it was removed from the Act by an amendment
in the eighties about the immoral purpose because.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
That was vague.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
So when they used a moral purpose, that's when they
could say, oh ah, black man and a white woman,
that's a moral.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
That wasn't what the eighties.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Well, it took until the eighties before that amendment was dropped.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Babe.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
When I first was a reporter in Charleston, South Carolina
in nineteen ninety five, it was on the books.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It was illegal if you.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
And I had met and fallen in love in nineteen
ninety five at our first job whatever.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
You would have been younger than me.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
Don't point it out, but we would not have been
able to legally technically be married.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
In the state of South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Nineteen ninety five, the Confederate flag was flying atop the
state House in Columbia, South Carolina, and technically, legally it
was on the books that white and black folks could
not marry.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Damn, how crazy is that?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Twenty twenty two, when we first started dating.
Speaker 4 (20:33):
Sorry, everybody also wanted to point out this is interesting.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
I didn't realize this, so we mentioned, of course, what
this whole Man Act, that it went against Jack Johnson
back in nineteen thirteen. I didn't know this, but President
Trump Hip positumously pardoned him Boom in twenty eighteen, Boom
for that crime. He was convicted under the Man Act
for taking his girlfriend across the state line.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
So wait, you're telling me that the current president has
actually already pardoned a famous black man who was convicted
under the Man Act.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
I am saying, I am saying that very thing.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
He's done this before.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
You never know what I am telling you that, And
that's how.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
We're gonna leave it.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Today, folks, I've been saying this, all right, well that's
just wait for it. And with that, folks, we're gonna
keep hopping on. When we do get some did they updates,
and they do trickle in the next one. We anticipate, right,
a couple of briefings are going to be filed with
some updates, and yes, the prosecution is expected maybe even
to up their ask for how many years they want
(21:37):
ditties to spend behind bars. But when we do get
the updates, we'll continue to hop on here for you,
and we appreciate you all continuing to listen. We continue
to do these because we do know that you are listening,
and we appreciate you coming us.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
All right, I'm Amy Robot and on behalf of my
partner T J. Holmes.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Have a wonderful Tuesday, everybody. She the Tcherna
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.