July 29, 2025 • 35 mins
His sentencing is in two months, but Sean "Diddy" Combs wants to go home NOW. His lawyers have filed a new request to get Diddy out of jail where he's been for nearly a year. Part of their new argument: He may be the only person currently in a United States jail for being a john.
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, Folcus. July twenty ninth, and Diddy is trying
once again to go home. He has offered a judge
just about everything you could imagine, including fifty million dollars
and a laundry list of things he would give up
if a judge would let him go home at least
(00:22):
for the next two months. And with that, welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. We didn't plan
on doing this update. We weren't expecting and anticipating that
Diddy was going to give it a shot again because
he's been shot down We're trying to keep up at
least twice three times by the same judge saying I
ain't gonna let.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
You out of jail, right, And so to think that
he's now having to take this argument or his lawyers
are to the very same judge who's denied him multiple times,
that's fair to say. But this is a new and
interesting argument that we haven't heard before, and when you
really get into the details, it's fascinating, and who knows.
(01:03):
When you start to read what the defense has put together,
you start to think, could this shot work? It seems possible.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It's always seemed possible after his convictions. You remember immediately
after there was essentially a bail hearing after he was convicted,
and the judge on the spot said, you know what,
he asked them for their briefings. I give them to
me by one o'clock. Didn't give me a few hours
and all the side he said, no, we thought he
was going home. He thought he was going home.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
I think a lot of people were waiting outside the courthouse,
waiting to celebrate, waiting to see did he walk out
as a at least temporary freeman. I think a lot
of folks were betting that he was going to get out.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And that's a good point to make with all this,
And we were following day and day out. So if
you haven't been keeping up here, yes did. He was
convicted of two counts of prostitution transportation to engagement prostitution,
but he is remaining in jail. He wasn't convicted on
the other three more serious charges. But the judge said,
(02:08):
you have to stay in jail into your sentencing, which
is October third. You have to stay in jail after
October third. He's going to get some more jail time.
I think everybody agrees, yes, yes, he's going to get
more jail time. Is that a year, two years, three years,
four years? Don't know, but his argument now robes it
has been his argument forever. Why am I having to
(02:30):
stay in this jail? Why for these charges? And now
robes now that the most serious charges he's not guilty of?
So now why am I still sitting in jail?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
But I'm curious. I have a question because if he
has to serve the time regardless, we don't know what
the sentencing is going to be. It could be as
little as another year, as much as it's very four
years maybe, but maybe the prosecution has suggested that they
(03:03):
might ask for even more, so it could be from
anywhere from one to I don't know, five plus years.
But if he stays in jail now he gets credit
for time served. But he just wants a break. We
want to pause.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
He has been in prison, in a notorious jail in
Brooklyn for almost a year.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Would he be sentenced to a different prison so to
get Maybe is it to get out of this notorious
prison to be put into a better, safer environment that
I could that I could understand if where he is
now is so egregious and so dangerous and so awful
that he thinks, Hey, I'll go ahead and postpone the time.
I know I have to serve, even if it means
(03:44):
too much. But like part of me thinks, if you're
if you're in this tough spot, do you really even
want the temptation of feeling and tasting freedom to to
know you have to go back?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Can I go home and have a steak?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
But you could leave earlier if you just stayed.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Yeah, but I could go get a steak today and
you don't know what's coming. What if the sentence is
only a year, Okay, I can stomach that I got
a two month break to get my hair dyed again,
to get a good shave, to get a good meal.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
He doesn't like his gray hair.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Doesn't he talk to his family, get things in order?
Do all kinds seedings? Get out and get a break. Yeah,
I'm sure he's desperate. I'll take a give me two weeks.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
That makes sense. It's almost like getting a little vacation, yes,
from the sentence that you know you're going to have
to serve, and I do get it if it's in
a different facility, because this is a notorious facility.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
You know what vacation is a good word, because what's
every vacation you get a break from the hell of
life for a little while. Can you enjoy your time away,
but you know you got to go right back to
that hell. That's a good way to put it. So
reminder of where we are here, folks. Yes, it was
a seven week trial. We followed all of that. Yes
we got the verdicts on July second. Now we thought
we wouldn't be hearing anything until close to October third,
(05:06):
when his sentence is coming. The robes. This is a
twelve page motion they put together, and the keyword here
is exceptional. Exceptional was a theme throughout, but they in
the very first line Robes, they did not mess around.
They made very clear what they were going to be
asking this judge.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
For the first line of this twelve page motion reads
as follows Sean Combs through his council moves for his
release on appropriate conditions in advance of a sentencing.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Hearing appropriate conditions. We're going to get into these conditions
in a minute, and he's very specific about the six
he names, but then he kind of left it open
for the judge as well to add some others. But
we talk about this word exceptional the line they use
here in the lane, and we're going to go through,
and the briefing is really interesting, and you know what
reminds me of the lawyer Agniphilo some of the language
(06:01):
in there. It's just colloquial. It's plain speak of like, hey,
common sense tells you kind of a thing. That's how
he talks.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, and I want to point this out. So I was,
I had a kind of a busy day and you
had the time to read through this entire twelve page motion,
and you said to me, Robes, this is actually so fascinating.
And I thought, really a legal briefing, a twelve page
legal briefing, I don't know anyone who wants to come
(06:28):
home and read this. And yet you were right, it's fascinating.
It really is a page turner.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
It's an absolute plage. And again it's twelve pages, not
necessarily that long. But he goes through and makes this argument.
We're going to give you particular excerpts, but this is
the line that kind of sums up what they were
going after. Lawyers were arguing that US Code gives this
court the authority to let ditty out if quote it
(06:56):
is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such
person's detention would not be appropriate. Exceptional reasons, And then
they go through ropes and they lay out point by
point by point, this is exceptional. This is exceptional. This
is exceptional, this is exceptional. They're going through his case
and saying, this is not a guy who should be
(07:21):
in jail, and they go through and name all these
exceptional reasons and robes the Man Act. How many times
do we hear that throughout the trial? A lot too
many to counts front and center once again.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yes, So what is the Man Act? It was named
after Representative James Man of Illinois. It was originally referred
to as the White Slave Traffic Act of nineteen ten.
And what it does. It prohibits transporting someone over state
lines for prostitution. But it has broad language. It says
(07:54):
any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, debauchery.
I knew, I said that wrong. It's been a long
day debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
This was That's the problem. Yes, that is the problem,
because that's broad language for the purpose of prostitution. You
could just stop right there. But when you add debauchery. Okay,
what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:16):
What is that?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Who determines what is any other immoral purpose? And that
is the problem. They use this and many will point
to you use this against black men in the past.
Jack Johnson, who's a boxing.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Champ who had a white girlfriend, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
A white girlfriend. They use this against him. Now they
also used it against r. Kelly and Glene Maxwell. The
Man Act, and many are saying, it's controversy, should be
done away with and why are you trying to put
somebody in jail who hired a prostitute under the White
Slave Traffic Act of nineteen ten is the argument many.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Will make to prevent interracial relationships was part of as well.
That was a huge part of it. They didn't like,
So an immoral purpose would be a black man with
a white woman, or whatever way you want to put it.
But that is disturbing. The history is real, and it's
perhaps ironic given the fact that now it's being applied
(09:14):
in this way, and certainly it's being taken perhaps not
for or from what its initial or original intent was,
and being applied to something now that a lot of
people are saying, come on, yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
And they go out, come on, man, at point by points,
and they argue again some excerpts here from this motion,
but they say, the way it has been applied in
the past quote clearly indicates the exceptional, indeed unique nature
of this case, specifically the prosecution and continued incarceration of
(09:52):
a customer of services provided by a sex worker to
a third person, than of a defended profiting financially from
the business of prostitution. You cannot break that down, a
legal thing down to make it make more sense to
the layperson than that.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Correct. I get that you and I have been talking
about this. Diddy did not profit financially, nor did his
business profit financially. Nope, from any sort of prostitution. This
was a personal sexual fantasy lived out in real life
by consenting adults, is the argument. This had nothing to
(10:33):
do with prostitution in the sense that someone was financially
profiting from someone else being forced to perform a sexual act.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
With that line, continued incarceration of a customer of services
provided by a sex worker. They have a john in
prison right now and won't let them go home for
two months.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
A john who didn't actually engage directly in sexual acts
with said prostitute.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
That is the exact argument that they are now making.
That's wild and it's fascinating. Now, he goes on to say,
in the limited cases of Man Act convictions from across
the country that bear any similarity to mister Comb's case,
the defendants were released pending sentencing. His argument is, wait
a minute, you don't treat anybody else who's been found
(11:21):
guilty under the man Act this way, So why is
he being treated this way? Right? That's a simple argument. Now, again,
we're not lawyers, but to a lay person into a juror,
that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
It does. And they go on to say, speaking of exceptional,
the circumstances here are by definition exceptional in that there
has never been a Man Act prosecution remotely like this one. Specifically,
the exceptional nature of prosecuting and incarcerating a person convicted
(11:57):
of paying for sex services to be provided to his girlfriend.
And again, everyone was a consenting adult, and the jury
actually upheld that by not convicting him of sex trafficking,
by not convicting him of the more serious charges by law,
(12:22):
and by the juror's decision, that is a true statement.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
He's making the argument almost that the jurors are saying
this by what they did, not just legal precedent, but
the jurors are telling you what they feel about what
he did and what he's responsible for. The Man Act
as front and center in this entire motion, in this
(12:49):
argument for him getting out now, they're saying the prosecution
and continued incarceration are unique in the history of the
Man Act. There has literally never been a case like
this one where a person and his girlfriend arranged for
adult men, have consensual sexual relations with the adult long
term girlfriend as part of a demonstrated swingers lifestyle, and
has been prosecuted and incarcerated under the Man Act. He's saying,
(13:10):
these are swingers, okay, and you're keeping him in jail
for that. He's not arguing about how much he should
be sentenced to. He's just saying, you don't need to
keep this guy in jail his until his sentencing. What
do we hear all the time about people being released
under their own recognisance?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Well, the big question is is he a threat to
anyone else while he's awaiting sentencing? Would he be retaliatory?
Speaker 1 (13:38):
What is the judge said about that?
Speaker 2 (13:41):
He said, hell, yeah, everything exactly. He said there is
a reason why his bail was denied when he was
initially arrested. Those reasons haven't changed. That's what the judge
has said up until now. This is interesting because I
do appreciate because a lot of times legaliese or these
types of documents, or just when you're reading these kinds
(14:07):
of motions, a lot of times they're confusing. I don't
understand the language, even like having had to do this
many times over the years, this one is actually so understandable.
And I appreciate that from Diddy's lawyers. But here's what
they said, and I think this will make sense to
a lot of folks who are listening to their argument.
(14:28):
Combs and two of his longtime girlfriends had a private
intimate life that is not uncommon today. I don't know
about that. I mean, I feel like it's kind of uncommon.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
So he's trying to make the argument this swinging isn't
necessarily so taboo anything.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Just some of the stuff I heard. I'm gonna go
ahead and say, I'm I think it was uncommon.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
There was nothing common about anything.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
So I'm going to take issue with that statement. Fine,
I just want to say that as a human, I'm sorry,
I'm fairly certain, I feel confident saying what I heard
was uncommon. But anyway, I digress, Let's move on. It
may not have been common on June twenty fifth, nineteen ten,
when the Man Act, or as it was originally called,
(15:13):
the White Slave Traffic Act, was passed. Diddy's defense goes
on to say, but attitudes about sex and morality have
come a long way in the last one hundred and
fifteen years. Okay, I'll give you that. It is worth
noting that when the Man Act was passed to protect
the morals and decency of America's women, America's women were
(15:35):
not allowed to vote.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I thought that was so interesting to put that in there.
Doesn't that bring it home to how much of a
different time it was when this thing that you just
convicted him for the time they wrote this for was
a time that women couldn't even vote.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
It was like these poor white women didn't know what
they were doing, or couldn't be even couldn't even be
allowed to make their own decisions because they couldn't even vote,
let alone decide that they actually were in love with
and wanted to be with the black man. I mean,
I feel like that all kind of plays into this okay.
So they go on to say, perhaps due to the
(16:10):
troubling background of this statute, whose history is rich with
both racism and misogyny, I'm going to agree with that
the Department of Justice has limited its application to those
people profiting financially from the business of prostitution and not
using it to prosecute consensual adults for their own lifestyles.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
He say, we shouldn't even bet that. We shouldn't even
be here because the Department of Justice does not do this.
We shouldn't even be here, is the point. Now. I
think a lot of people would agree. Why why he's
a john. We went through all this, he's a john.
He paid for prostitute.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
These aren't underage women. These weren't underage prostitutes. And the
jury did not agree that the two alleged victims were
in fact doing something that they didn't choose to do.
The jury made the decision by not convicting him of
(17:11):
the more serious charges that these two women were there
under duress.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
They go on to keep making a point that cowboys
aren't in jail, girlfriends aren't in jail, then neither should
Ditty be in jail. The argument goes on to say
he actually needs to get out of that jail because
it's dangerous. And there are six specific things that Diddy
(17:38):
and his lawyer's list that they are willing to offer
the judge if the judge will let him go home
for the next couple of months.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Before we go to break, I have to tell you
about new leggings I've been living in lately. They're from
this brand called Tona, and fun fact here, they were
actually designed by the same visionary behind Lulu Lemon, So
from that alone, you already know they're going to be
pretty good. These leggings feel like a second skin. They're
super flattering, super comfortable, and somehow still supportive. I've been
(18:08):
wearing them on my morning runs and they've quickly become
my everyday lounging leggings too. And here's what makes them
even better. Every pair you buy helps fund a mental
health counseling session for a teen in need. Tona's on
a mission to end teen suicide and self harm, which
we think is so important and incredible, So we've partnered
with Tona to give you twenty percent off your order
(18:31):
and free shipping. Head to tonaactive dot com and use
code iHeart for twenty percent off and free shipping.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
We continue now going through this twelve page motion. New
effort from Sean Diddy Combs and his lawyers to get
him out of jail where he has been for the
past year. Almost wanted to go home for maybe the
next two months until his affe sentencing on October third,
But they put together robes a compelling argument arguing that
this is an exceptional case and he should be let out.
(19:08):
That he should absolutely not be in jail for being
called a swinger. Now this next session section, there's a
quote in here that a lot of people have been using,
and perhaps it is the most noteworthy quote in all
of this twelve page motion is the one there I
have underlined romes where he's arguing that Sean Diddy Comb
should not be in jail. Yes, he's saying Comb should
(19:30):
be called a swinger in the vocabulary of the Man Act,
they write prostitution. Generally, he might at worst be somewhat
analogous to a john someone who pays to have sex
with a sex worker, in this case, a male sex worker,
more particularly a male sex worker who works for and
is vetted by a company. He's saying this isn't some
(19:52):
weird thing where he's hauling somebody across state lines, sneaking
somebody over. He went through a company Cowboys and Angels,
Cowboys for Angels.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
So I messed it up? How did I mess up
Cowboys for Angels? So this is a legitimate company. Part
of the argument that he employed for escort services.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
He wasn't out there on the street pickings some money up.
He called a company, So that was part of the argument.
With this next line here, Rope, this is the one
that it's getting a lot of headlines and a lot
of people are talking about. And you'll understand why, folks.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
All right, it reads Sean Combs should not be in
jail for this conduct. In fact, he may be the
only person currently in a United States jail for being
any sort of john and certainly the only person in
jail for hiring adult male escorts for him and his
(20:45):
girlfriend when he did not even have sex with the
escort himself.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
That's as plain and simple. You can understand that, right.
I wonder if he is. I wonder if somebody's looking
at that. I'm sure they researched it. He is. He
possibly the only person in jail in this country for
doing what he did. Anybody else who did it or
possibly got convicted on the Man Act, they would be out.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
But but if anyone else is in jail for something similar,
for being a sort of john, I can't imagine there's
somebody who's in jail for being a john who didn't
actually have sex with the sex worker.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So in that argument that they're making is he's kind
of less than a john. It was almost a service
for somebody else. He just happened to be the one
who paid for it. It's part of the argument that
they're making this is they are they are using his
not guilties to make an argument now that they weren't
able to do before. They go on and say that
(21:46):
the cowboys and the girlfriends they're not in jail and
they shouldn't be. But said, if everybody else the agency
leader is, the porn stars, the girlfriends, the cow all
these folks are out of jail, but this guy is
in jail, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
I actually love the quote that they use because it's
actually fascinating. Again, I was kind of neutral when I
walked into this to read and see what the defense
had to say. This one to me is actually really fascinating,
they say. They write, mister Combs is incarcerated while everyone
else involved in this identical conduct, his girlfriends, the cowboys,
(22:25):
the agency's leaders, the porn stars, and others walk free
as they should because their argument is these were all
consenting adults. Now, mister Combs, Sean Diddy Combs facilitated it,
he paid for it, so they're kind of leaving that
part out, but he was Maybe the prosecution or others
would argue he was the mastermind behind it, but these
(22:47):
are consenting adults, and certainly the jury agreed with that
concept that everyone involved was a consenting adult.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
They went on, they're making an argument, I haven't heard
this throughout roads. Remind me if I have. We've heard
about this prison, this jail, MDC. It's the only federal
facility that can hold prisoners here that are getting ready
for trial, any federal trial. I believe it's in Brooklyn.
But it's notorious. I mean, it has a very very
bad reputation. And they make a point of saying that's
(23:16):
another reason he should be getting out. And why this
case is exceptional is that mister Colmbs has been a
model inmate. But they say the violent conditions are still
very much a concern for mister Colmbs and is an
unnecessary confinement risk given the clear precedent of multiple similarly
situated Man Act convictions where defendants were released on conditions.
(23:39):
What they're saying here is that Judge, by leaving him here,
you are putting him at risk different position than other
folks with the same convictions. So why in doing so,
it's an undue risk to this guy for these crimes.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Some people would say he got a standing ovation. Oh yeah,
that's right when he came back from court at this
notorious prison. I'm not saying that there aren't perhaps outliers,
some dangerous folks who don't like him and have ill
will towards him. But some of the argument could be, hey,
he's a hero of the jail. What do you mean
his life's at risk.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
The argument is just a dangerous place, like you just
don't want to be in there.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
You don't want to look at somebody the wrong way.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
You do not want to be in now is what
their argument is, and you're putting him at risk. A
couple other things they hit on here, and they trying
to make the point. The judge said repeatedly, repeatedly and
denying his previous requests to get out, said he is
a threat in Robes. This is going to be key
because the judge says he can factor in some of
the other behavior that he wasn't convicted for, but he
(24:44):
has shown that he's violent. They keep trying to say
that he is not a threat, and made that argument
how convincingly I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Look, we heard all about and specifically from Cassie Ventura Fine,
and it was documented. I don't think any No, they
didn't even deny it. They had multiple witnesses confirming it,
and we had video and there is the video. But
beyond even that video surveillance from that hotel, clearly there
were several other incidents of violence that were documented and verified.
(25:16):
I think that's fair, and he didn't deny them.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
But this is key that they point out that I
didn't put together before this.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
So they his lawyers pointed out they said, based on
the facts developed at the trial, aside from a single
instance on June eighteenth, twenty twenty four, where mister Combs
was provoked by Jane through her own acts of violence,
there was no evidence of any acts of violence in
the last seven years. So that incident we heard about
(25:46):
that Jane, she slammed his head on a marble countertop. Correct,
and then he went back in the bedroom and the
John who was there described hearing slapping and certainly they're
little bruising and it was her to the point where
he was like ice that and then get back to
performing with this john. The john then couldn't perform because
(26:07):
he was so disturbed by hearing and seeing what he saw.
It all went sideways at that point. So clearly that
was an act of violence. But the lawyers are pointing
out that was the only act of violence in the
past seven years.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That's it was a bad one. Their argument is she
started it. Okay, fine, that's no definisha, that's no justification.
But she did some pretty horrific stuff. They're saying he
was provoked and short of that, in the past seven years,
he has not been a violent person. To even point
out that when he was arrested here he had been
in the domestic violence program last year. He was participating
(26:45):
in that last year and he has continued some of
that work during his incarceration. Now they're making an argument
the guy was trying to do better, and he had
not been hitting women for the past seven years, until
he did, until somebody slammed it, until he did, until
he did. No excuse for that. But if a judge
is making the argument that he is such a violent
(27:06):
and continues to be a violent person, they're arguing that
for the past seven years he has not been.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
The other concern was and for several of the folks
who testified, and they spoke to it, and they made
a point to make it an official statement regarding his bail.
There are folks out there who say, Hey, I'm going
to be concerned. I'm worried if you let ditty out,
he may come after me. He may seek retribution, retaliation.
(27:34):
But this is what his lawyers had to say about this, like,
what do you think he's actually going to do something
crazy in these next two months? Are you insane? Of course,
he's going to be on his best behavior. And so
they specifically use this language. They said, if released on conditions,
Sean Combs will not be violent to anyone. As we
said in court, this jury gave him his life back,
(27:56):
and he will not squander his second chance at life,
nor would he do anything to further jeopardize jeopardize his
seven children not having a father, and four of his
children not having a parent at all.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
The judge can look at that and do what he's
supposed But looking at that makes sense to me. I mean,
this dude could have been going to jail for the
rest of his life, and maybe he might be in
for another year, best case scenario another five. I mean,
that's that's a big deal. No matter what, he's still
going to have a lot of life left. I think
that makes sense. He's not an idiot. Now, everybody out
(28:33):
there that we've talked to, and we've talked to plenty
who feared this guy, who feared him for decades, even
are they ever going to feel comfortable? Are they going
to that?
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And they might claim being out and free and being
able to communicate with others, he might not technically commit
an act of violence himself, but could he, with the
right communication and a certain amount of freedom, be able
to compel someone else to do that. I still think
if anyone who testified, or anyone who had anything to
(29:01):
do with some of the evidence held against him, if
any harm came to any of them, he would come
to light. I mean, there's no way that the trail
wouldn't lead straight back to Diddy.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
He's probably around. He'll be praying all of them are okay,
Like I hope they don't have an accident, because everybody's
gonna come knocking on my door, I can imagine. So
they go on and say in the briefing, okay, we
can make all these convincing arguments. They finally go forward
and say he's not gonna be viling with anyone, and
he's willing to abide by any condition that the court offers.
(29:34):
But robes he offered and was very specific. He has
six things, he said, he is offering the judge. I
will give you this if you will let me out.
Do you think the judge is going to go along
with this? Here are the six things.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I don't know because some of this has to do
with there There is something to be said about buying
your way out of jail, and this could be construed
as that by some. But one of the first things
he says he is offering he will sign a fifty
million dollar bond secured by his home in Miami. That
(30:10):
bond will be co signed by three financially responsible people,
so they're on the hook for it. Number three, Combs
will reside in his home in Miami. Number four, His
travel will be limited to the Southern District of Florida
the Southern District of New York for attorney meetings, as
well as airports necessary to travel between the two. He
(30:32):
also says, so this is number five, that he will
be placed under the express supervision of the US Pre
Trial Services Agency and must report to the agency as directed.
And finally, he says his passport, he will surrender it
to pre Trial Services and he will not apply for
any other passport.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Do I have right? Is any of that different from
the stuff he originally offered. I know the fifty million
dollar in the house was already there. I don't remember
the three other people. I don't remember that.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
He did say he would surrender his passport. I do
remember that for sure. And I think he also agreed
to be under the supervision of whoever wants to make
sure he does what he says he's going to do.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Those six things they offered, and then you know what
else they offered. Anything you want, Judge, They essentially sing
this to the judge quote. If the court finds more
extreme conditions necessary, the court may also add any or
all of the following conditions, home detention, private security approved
by the court, pre trial services with the cost born
(31:36):
by the defendant, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, electronic
surveillance of the defendant, anything the court deems necessary. So
we are they're essentially saying, whatever, he's just desperate to
get out of here, we will give you anything you want.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Wooh. And so yes, they go on to say, with
any and all of the conditions posed, and they were plentiful,
mister Combs can show by clear and convincing evidence, he
does not pose a danger to the community. They say,
he will fully surrender to supervision by pre trial services
to ensure that the court knows that mister Combs does
(32:17):
not pose a danger to any person. I don't know.
I mean, look, the arguments are again fascinating and interesting,
and they make a very good case. This is probably
the best case I have ever seen. However, this is
a judge who has denied him bond multiple times, more
(32:40):
than once. And what has changed between when he ruled
before and now, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Everything is the same, except that the attorneys had more
time to put together maybe a more compelling argument because
the judge when he was found and not guilty on
those three counts, guilty on the two. Judge said hours later, Nope,
I'm not gonna let you out of jail. I'll see
you in October third for your sentencing. They have, for
whatever reason, thought let's give it another shot, and they're
(33:11):
given another shot. I believe the judge is asking for
the prosecutors to respond in the next couple of days.
I'm not sure when he might give his ruling, but
strange things have happened in this case, and it's quite
possible we could hear something from the judge of this
week that's going to either tell him, yeah, nothing's changed,
You're gonna keep you butt in jail. Or can you
imagine him saying, Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
I wonder what the political pressure is on this judge.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
What the it's not supposed to have any not supposed
to the way this judge has been solid.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
I have to I have to regree, like I think
this judge has handled this very high profile emotionally charged.
You can from A from A there's a racial component,
there's a gender component. There's so many competing interests. People
are fervently compact, like passionate about either side, and I
(34:08):
think he has seemed very measured and very fair in
this case. It's hard for me to imagine that he
would suddenly grant Diddy.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yeah, to have a change of heart. He knows the
facts of the case, he knows all that.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
It seems very This feels like a hail Mary.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Fine, and why not. What would he have to lose?
Got nothing to lose. But maybe there's something in there.
We're reading it a certain way. Maybe the judge will
read it a different way, in a legal way, and
there is a compelling argument to let him go home now.
But yeah, folks, we didn't plan on doing this, but
we hop back on today because oh my god, we
got a Diddy update that we weren't expecting for quite
(34:48):
some time. We will keep an eye on this. You
can expect updates from us, certainly if anything happens. But again,
we believe the prosecutors have until Thursday. I believe it's
Thursday to get that response in and we shall see.
So with that, folks, we always appreciate you hanging out
here with us and listening to us and following us
along for this Didty trial, which still, as it seems
(35:11):
a couple more months to go before we know exactly
what's going to happen, but this week has shaped up
to be an interesting one, and maybe a really big
one in the ditty case. But for now we always
appreciate you listening to us. I'm t J. Holmes, along
with my dear, dear and new robot. We'll see you'll
soon
Hey there, Folcus. July twenty ninth, and Diddy is trying
once again to go home. He has offered a judge
just about everything you could imagine, including fifty million dollars
and a laundry list of things he would give up
if a judge would let him go home at least
(00:22):
for the next two months. And with that, welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. We didn't plan
on doing this update. We weren't expecting and anticipating that
Diddy was going to give it a shot again because
he's been shot down We're trying to keep up at
least twice three times by the same judge saying I
ain't gonna let.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
You out of jail, right, And so to think that
he's now having to take this argument or his lawyers
are to the very same judge who's denied him multiple times,
that's fair to say. But this is a new and
interesting argument that we haven't heard before, and when you
really get into the details, it's fascinating, and who knows.
(01:03):
When you start to read what the defense has put together,
you start to think, could this shot work? It seems possible.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It's always seemed possible after his convictions. You remember immediately
after there was essentially a bail hearing after he was convicted,
and the judge on the spot said, you know what,
he asked them for their briefings. I give them to
me by one o'clock. Didn't give me a few hours
and all the side he said, no, we thought he
was going home. He thought he was going home.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
I think a lot of people were waiting outside the courthouse,
waiting to celebrate, waiting to see did he walk out
as a at least temporary freeman. I think a lot
of folks were betting that he was going to get out.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And that's a good point to make with all this,
And we were following day and day out. So if
you haven't been keeping up here, yes did. He was
convicted of two counts of prostitution transportation to engagement prostitution,
but he is remaining in jail. He wasn't convicted on
the other three more serious charges. But the judge said,
(02:08):
you have to stay in jail into your sentencing, which
is October third. You have to stay in jail after
October third. He's going to get some more jail time.
I think everybody agrees, yes, yes, he's going to get
more jail time. Is that a year, two years, three years,
four years? Don't know, but his argument now robes it
has been his argument forever. Why am I having to
(02:30):
stay in this jail? Why for these charges? And now
robes now that the most serious charges he's not guilty of?
So now why am I still sitting in jail?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
But I'm curious. I have a question because if he
has to serve the time regardless, we don't know what
the sentencing is going to be. It could be as
little as another year, as much as it's very four
years maybe, but maybe the prosecution has suggested that they
(03:03):
might ask for even more, so it could be from
anywhere from one to I don't know, five plus years.
But if he stays in jail now he gets credit
for time served. But he just wants a break. We
want to pause.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
He has been in prison, in a notorious jail in
Brooklyn for almost a year.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Would he be sentenced to a different prison so to
get Maybe is it to get out of this notorious
prison to be put into a better, safer environment that
I could that I could understand if where he is
now is so egregious and so dangerous and so awful
that he thinks, Hey, I'll go ahead and postpone the time.
I know I have to serve, even if it means
(03:44):
too much. But like part of me thinks, if you're
if you're in this tough spot, do you really even
want the temptation of feeling and tasting freedom to to
know you have to go back?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Can I go home and have a steak?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
But you could leave earlier if you just stayed.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Yeah, but I could go get a steak today and
you don't know what's coming. What if the sentence is
only a year, Okay, I can stomach that I got
a two month break to get my hair dyed again,
to get a good shave, to get a good meal.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
He doesn't like his gray hair.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Doesn't he talk to his family, get things in order?
Do all kinds seedings? Get out and get a break. Yeah,
I'm sure he's desperate. I'll take a give me two weeks.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
That makes sense. It's almost like getting a little vacation, yes,
from the sentence that you know you're going to have
to serve, and I do get it if it's in
a different facility, because this is a notorious facility.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
You know what vacation is a good word, because what's
every vacation you get a break from the hell of
life for a little while. Can you enjoy your time away,
but you know you got to go right back to
that hell. That's a good way to put it. So
reminder of where we are here, folks. Yes, it was
a seven week trial. We followed all of that. Yes
we got the verdicts on July second. Now we thought
we wouldn't be hearing anything until close to October third,
(05:06):
when his sentence is coming. The robes. This is a
twelve page motion they put together, and the keyword here
is exceptional. Exceptional was a theme throughout, but they in
the very first line Robes, they did not mess around.
They made very clear what they were going to be
asking this judge.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
For the first line of this twelve page motion reads
as follows Sean Combs through his council moves for his
release on appropriate conditions in advance of a sentencing.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Hearing appropriate conditions. We're going to get into these conditions
in a minute, and he's very specific about the six
he names, but then he kind of left it open
for the judge as well to add some others. But
we talk about this word exceptional the line they use
here in the lane, and we're going to go through,
and the briefing is really interesting, and you know what
reminds me of the lawyer Agniphilo some of the language
(06:01):
in there. It's just colloquial. It's plain speak of like, hey,
common sense tells you kind of a thing. That's how
he talks.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, and I want to point this out. So I was,
I had a kind of a busy day and you
had the time to read through this entire twelve page motion,
and you said to me, Robes, this is actually so fascinating.
And I thought, really a legal briefing, a twelve page
legal briefing, I don't know anyone who wants to come
(06:28):
home and read this. And yet you were right, it's fascinating.
It really is a page turner.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
It's an absolute plage. And again it's twelve pages, not
necessarily that long. But he goes through and makes this argument.
We're going to give you particular excerpts, but this is
the line that kind of sums up what they were
going after. Lawyers were arguing that US Code gives this
court the authority to let ditty out if quote it
(06:56):
is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such
person's detention would not be appropriate. Exceptional reasons, And then
they go through ropes and they lay out point by
point by point, this is exceptional. This is exceptional. This
is exceptional, this is exceptional. They're going through his case
and saying, this is not a guy who should be
(07:21):
in jail, and they go through and name all these
exceptional reasons and robes the Man Act. How many times
do we hear that throughout the trial? A lot too
many to counts front and center once again.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yes, So what is the Man Act? It was named
after Representative James Man of Illinois. It was originally referred
to as the White Slave Traffic Act of nineteen ten.
And what it does. It prohibits transporting someone over state
lines for prostitution. But it has broad language. It says
(07:54):
any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, debauchery.
I knew, I said that wrong. It's been a long
day debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
This was That's the problem. Yes, that is the problem,
because that's broad language for the purpose of prostitution. You
could just stop right there. But when you add debauchery. Okay,
what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:16):
What is that?
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Who determines what is any other immoral purpose? And that
is the problem. They use this and many will point
to you use this against black men in the past.
Jack Johnson, who's a boxing.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Champ who had a white girlfriend, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
A white girlfriend. They use this against him. Now they
also used it against r. Kelly and Glene Maxwell. The
Man Act, and many are saying, it's controversy, should be
done away with and why are you trying to put
somebody in jail who hired a prostitute under the White
Slave Traffic Act of nineteen ten is the argument many.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Will make to prevent interracial relationships was part of as well.
That was a huge part of it. They didn't like,
So an immoral purpose would be a black man with
a white woman, or whatever way you want to put it.
But that is disturbing. The history is real, and it's
perhaps ironic given the fact that now it's being applied
(09:14):
in this way, and certainly it's being taken perhaps not
for or from what its initial or original intent was,
and being applied to something now that a lot of
people are saying, come on, yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
And they go out, come on, man, at point by points,
and they argue again some excerpts here from this motion,
but they say, the way it has been applied in
the past quote clearly indicates the exceptional, indeed unique nature
of this case, specifically the prosecution and continued incarceration of
(09:52):
a customer of services provided by a sex worker to
a third person, than of a defended profiting financially from
the business of prostitution. You cannot break that down, a
legal thing down to make it make more sense to
the layperson than that.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Correct. I get that you and I have been talking
about this. Diddy did not profit financially, nor did his
business profit financially. Nope, from any sort of prostitution. This
was a personal sexual fantasy lived out in real life
by consenting adults, is the argument. This had nothing to
(10:33):
do with prostitution in the sense that someone was financially
profiting from someone else being forced to perform a sexual act.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
With that line, continued incarceration of a customer of services
provided by a sex worker. They have a john in
prison right now and won't let them go home for
two months.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
A john who didn't actually engage directly in sexual acts
with said prostitute.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
That is the exact argument that they are now making.
That's wild and it's fascinating. Now, he goes on to say,
in the limited cases of Man Act convictions from across
the country that bear any similarity to mister Comb's case,
the defendants were released pending sentencing. His argument is, wait
a minute, you don't treat anybody else who's been found
(11:21):
guilty under the man Act this way, So why is
he being treated this way? Right? That's a simple argument. Now, again,
we're not lawyers, but to a lay person into a juror,
that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
It does. And they go on to say, speaking of exceptional,
the circumstances here are by definition exceptional in that there
has never been a Man Act prosecution remotely like this one. Specifically,
the exceptional nature of prosecuting and incarcerating a person convicted
(11:57):
of paying for sex services to be provided to his girlfriend.
And again, everyone was a consenting adult, and the jury
actually upheld that by not convicting him of sex trafficking,
by not convicting him of the more serious charges by law,
(12:22):
and by the juror's decision, that is a true statement.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
He's making the argument almost that the jurors are saying
this by what they did, not just legal precedent, but
the jurors are telling you what they feel about what
he did and what he's responsible for. The Man Act
as front and center in this entire motion, in this
(12:49):
argument for him getting out now, they're saying the prosecution
and continued incarceration are unique in the history of the
Man Act. There has literally never been a case like
this one where a person and his girlfriend arranged for
adult men, have consensual sexual relations with the adult long
term girlfriend as part of a demonstrated swingers lifestyle, and
has been prosecuted and incarcerated under the Man Act. He's saying,
(13:10):
these are swingers, okay, and you're keeping him in jail
for that. He's not arguing about how much he should
be sentenced to. He's just saying, you don't need to
keep this guy in jail his until his sentencing. What
do we hear all the time about people being released
under their own recognisance?
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Well, the big question is is he a threat to
anyone else while he's awaiting sentencing? Would he be retaliatory?
Speaker 1 (13:38):
What is the judge said about that?
Speaker 2 (13:41):
He said, hell, yeah, everything exactly. He said there is
a reason why his bail was denied when he was
initially arrested. Those reasons haven't changed. That's what the judge
has said up until now. This is interesting because I
do appreciate because a lot of times legaliese or these
types of documents, or just when you're reading these kinds
(14:07):
of motions, a lot of times they're confusing. I don't
understand the language, even like having had to do this
many times over the years, this one is actually so understandable.
And I appreciate that from Diddy's lawyers. But here's what
they said, and I think this will make sense to
a lot of folks who are listening to their argument.
(14:28):
Combs and two of his longtime girlfriends had a private
intimate life that is not uncommon today. I don't know
about that. I mean, I feel like it's kind of uncommon.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
So he's trying to make the argument this swinging isn't
necessarily so taboo anything.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Just some of the stuff I heard. I'm gonna go
ahead and say, I'm I think it was uncommon.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
There was nothing common about anything.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
So I'm going to take issue with that statement. Fine,
I just want to say that as a human, I'm sorry,
I'm fairly certain, I feel confident saying what I heard
was uncommon. But anyway, I digress, Let's move on. It
may not have been common on June twenty fifth, nineteen ten,
when the Man Act, or as it was originally called,
(15:13):
the White Slave Traffic Act, was passed. Diddy's defense goes
on to say, but attitudes about sex and morality have
come a long way in the last one hundred and
fifteen years. Okay, I'll give you that. It is worth
noting that when the Man Act was passed to protect
the morals and decency of America's women, America's women were
(15:35):
not allowed to vote.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I thought that was so interesting to put that in there.
Doesn't that bring it home to how much of a
different time it was when this thing that you just
convicted him for the time they wrote this for was
a time that women couldn't even vote.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
It was like these poor white women didn't know what
they were doing, or couldn't be even couldn't even be
allowed to make their own decisions because they couldn't even vote,
let alone decide that they actually were in love with
and wanted to be with the black man. I mean,
I feel like that all kind of plays into this okay.
So they go on to say, perhaps due to the
(16:10):
troubling background of this statute, whose history is rich with
both racism and misogyny, I'm going to agree with that
the Department of Justice has limited its application to those
people profiting financially from the business of prostitution and not
using it to prosecute consensual adults for their own lifestyles.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
He say, we shouldn't even bet that. We shouldn't even
be here because the Department of Justice does not do this.
We shouldn't even be here, is the point. Now. I
think a lot of people would agree. Why why he's
a john. We went through all this, he's a john.
He paid for prostitute.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
These aren't underage women. These weren't underage prostitutes. And the
jury did not agree that the two alleged victims were
in fact doing something that they didn't choose to do.
The jury made the decision by not convicting him of
(17:11):
the more serious charges that these two women were there
under duress.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
They go on to keep making a point that cowboys
aren't in jail, girlfriends aren't in jail, then neither should
Ditty be in jail. The argument goes on to say
he actually needs to get out of that jail because
it's dangerous. And there are six specific things that Diddy
(17:38):
and his lawyer's list that they are willing to offer
the judge if the judge will let him go home
for the next couple of months.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Before we go to break, I have to tell you
about new leggings I've been living in lately. They're from
this brand called Tona, and fun fact here, they were
actually designed by the same visionary behind Lulu Lemon, So
from that alone, you already know they're going to be
pretty good. These leggings feel like a second skin. They're
super flattering, super comfortable, and somehow still supportive. I've been
(18:08):
wearing them on my morning runs and they've quickly become
my everyday lounging leggings too. And here's what makes them
even better. Every pair you buy helps fund a mental
health counseling session for a teen in need. Tona's on
a mission to end teen suicide and self harm, which
we think is so important and incredible, So we've partnered
with Tona to give you twenty percent off your order
(18:31):
and free shipping. Head to tonaactive dot com and use
code iHeart for twenty percent off and free shipping.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
We continue now going through this twelve page motion. New
effort from Sean Diddy Combs and his lawyers to get
him out of jail where he has been for the
past year. Almost wanted to go home for maybe the
next two months until his affe sentencing on October third,
But they put together robes a compelling argument arguing that
this is an exceptional case and he should be let out.
(19:08):
That he should absolutely not be in jail for being
called a swinger. Now this next session section, there's a
quote in here that a lot of people have been using,
and perhaps it is the most noteworthy quote in all
of this twelve page motion is the one there I
have underlined romes where he's arguing that Sean Diddy Comb
should not be in jail. Yes, he's saying Comb should
(19:30):
be called a swinger in the vocabulary of the Man Act,
they write prostitution. Generally, he might at worst be somewhat
analogous to a john someone who pays to have sex
with a sex worker, in this case, a male sex worker,
more particularly a male sex worker who works for and
is vetted by a company. He's saying this isn't some
(19:52):
weird thing where he's hauling somebody across state lines, sneaking
somebody over. He went through a company Cowboys and Angels,
Cowboys for Angels.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
So I messed it up? How did I mess up
Cowboys for Angels? So this is a legitimate company. Part
of the argument that he employed for escort services.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
He wasn't out there on the street pickings some money up.
He called a company, So that was part of the argument.
With this next line here, Rope, this is the one
that it's getting a lot of headlines and a lot
of people are talking about. And you'll understand why, folks.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
All right, it reads Sean Combs should not be in
jail for this conduct. In fact, he may be the
only person currently in a United States jail for being
any sort of john and certainly the only person in
jail for hiring adult male escorts for him and his
(20:45):
girlfriend when he did not even have sex with the
escort himself.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
That's as plain and simple. You can understand that, right.
I wonder if he is. I wonder if somebody's looking
at that. I'm sure they researched it. He is. He
possibly the only person in jail in this country for
doing what he did. Anybody else who did it or
possibly got convicted on the Man Act, they would be out.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
But but if anyone else is in jail for something similar,
for being a sort of john, I can't imagine there's
somebody who's in jail for being a john who didn't
actually have sex with the sex worker.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So in that argument that they're making is he's kind
of less than a john. It was almost a service
for somebody else. He just happened to be the one
who paid for it. It's part of the argument that
they're making this is they are they are using his
not guilties to make an argument now that they weren't
able to do before. They go on and say that
(21:46):
the cowboys and the girlfriends they're not in jail and
they shouldn't be. But said, if everybody else the agency
leader is, the porn stars, the girlfriends, the cow all
these folks are out of jail, but this guy is
in jail, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2 (22:00):
I actually love the quote that they use because it's
actually fascinating. Again, I was kind of neutral when I
walked into this to read and see what the defense
had to say. This one to me is actually really fascinating,
they say. They write, mister Combs is incarcerated while everyone
else involved in this identical conduct, his girlfriends, the cowboys,
(22:25):
the agency's leaders, the porn stars, and others walk free
as they should because their argument is these were all
consenting adults. Now, mister Combs, Sean Diddy Combs facilitated it,
he paid for it, so they're kind of leaving that
part out, but he was Maybe the prosecution or others
would argue he was the mastermind behind it, but these
(22:47):
are consenting adults, and certainly the jury agreed with that
concept that everyone involved was a consenting adult.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
They went on, they're making an argument, I haven't heard
this throughout roads. Remind me if I have. We've heard
about this prison, this jail, MDC. It's the only federal
facility that can hold prisoners here that are getting ready
for trial, any federal trial. I believe it's in Brooklyn.
But it's notorious. I mean, it has a very very
bad reputation. And they make a point of saying that's
(23:16):
another reason he should be getting out. And why this
case is exceptional is that mister Colmbs has been a
model inmate. But they say the violent conditions are still
very much a concern for mister Colmbs and is an
unnecessary confinement risk given the clear precedent of multiple similarly
situated Man Act convictions where defendants were released on conditions.
(23:39):
What they're saying here is that Judge, by leaving him here,
you are putting him at risk different position than other
folks with the same convictions. So why in doing so,
it's an undue risk to this guy for these crimes.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Some people would say he got a standing ovation. Oh yeah,
that's right when he came back from court at this
notorious prison. I'm not saying that there aren't perhaps outliers,
some dangerous folks who don't like him and have ill
will towards him. But some of the argument could be, hey,
he's a hero of the jail. What do you mean
his life's at risk.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
The argument is just a dangerous place, like you just
don't want to be in there.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
You don't want to look at somebody the wrong way.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
You do not want to be in now is what
their argument is, and you're putting him at risk. A
couple other things they hit on here, and they trying
to make the point. The judge said repeatedly, repeatedly and
denying his previous requests to get out, said he is
a threat in Robes. This is going to be key
because the judge says he can factor in some of
the other behavior that he wasn't convicted for, but he
(24:44):
has shown that he's violent. They keep trying to say
that he is not a threat, and made that argument
how convincingly I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Look, we heard all about and specifically from Cassie Ventura Fine,
and it was documented. I don't think any No, they
didn't even deny it. They had multiple witnesses confirming it,
and we had video and there is the video. But
beyond even that video surveillance from that hotel, clearly there
were several other incidents of violence that were documented and verified.
(25:16):
I think that's fair, and he didn't deny them.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
But this is key that they point out that I
didn't put together before this.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
So they his lawyers pointed out they said, based on
the facts developed at the trial, aside from a single
instance on June eighteenth, twenty twenty four, where mister Combs
was provoked by Jane through her own acts of violence,
there was no evidence of any acts of violence in
the last seven years. So that incident we heard about
(25:46):
that Jane, she slammed his head on a marble countertop. Correct,
and then he went back in the bedroom and the
John who was there described hearing slapping and certainly they're
little bruising and it was her to the point where
he was like ice that and then get back to
performing with this john. The john then couldn't perform because
(26:07):
he was so disturbed by hearing and seeing what he saw.
It all went sideways at that point. So clearly that
was an act of violence. But the lawyers are pointing
out that was the only act of violence in the
past seven years.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That's it was a bad one. Their argument is she
started it. Okay, fine, that's no definisha, that's no justification.
But she did some pretty horrific stuff. They're saying he
was provoked and short of that, in the past seven years,
he has not been a violent person. To even point
out that when he was arrested here he had been
in the domestic violence program last year. He was participating
(26:45):
in that last year and he has continued some of
that work during his incarceration. Now they're making an argument
the guy was trying to do better, and he had
not been hitting women for the past seven years, until
he did, until somebody slammed it, until he did, until
he did. No excuse for that. But if a judge
is making the argument that he is such a violent
(27:06):
and continues to be a violent person, they're arguing that
for the past seven years he has not been.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
The other concern was and for several of the folks
who testified, and they spoke to it, and they made
a point to make it an official statement regarding his bail.
There are folks out there who say, Hey, I'm going
to be concerned. I'm worried if you let ditty out,
he may come after me. He may seek retribution, retaliation.
(27:34):
But this is what his lawyers had to say about this, like,
what do you think he's actually going to do something
crazy in these next two months? Are you insane? Of course,
he's going to be on his best behavior. And so
they specifically use this language. They said, if released on conditions,
Sean Combs will not be violent to anyone. As we
said in court, this jury gave him his life back,
(27:56):
and he will not squander his second chance at life,
nor would he do anything to further jeopardize jeopardize his
seven children not having a father, and four of his
children not having a parent at all.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
The judge can look at that and do what he's
supposed But looking at that makes sense to me. I mean,
this dude could have been going to jail for the
rest of his life, and maybe he might be in
for another year, best case scenario another five. I mean,
that's that's a big deal. No matter what, he's still
going to have a lot of life left. I think
that makes sense. He's not an idiot. Now, everybody out
(28:33):
there that we've talked to, and we've talked to plenty
who feared this guy, who feared him for decades, even
are they ever going to feel comfortable? Are they going
to that?
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And they might claim being out and free and being
able to communicate with others, he might not technically commit
an act of violence himself, but could he, with the
right communication and a certain amount of freedom, be able
to compel someone else to do that. I still think
if anyone who testified, or anyone who had anything to
(29:01):
do with some of the evidence held against him, if
any harm came to any of them, he would come
to light. I mean, there's no way that the trail
wouldn't lead straight back to Diddy.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
He's probably around. He'll be praying all of them are okay,
Like I hope they don't have an accident, because everybody's
gonna come knocking on my door, I can imagine. So
they go on and say in the briefing, okay, we
can make all these convincing arguments. They finally go forward
and say he's not gonna be viling with anyone, and
he's willing to abide by any condition that the court offers.
(29:34):
But robes he offered and was very specific. He has
six things, he said, he is offering the judge. I
will give you this if you will let me out.
Do you think the judge is going to go along
with this? Here are the six things.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
I don't know because some of this has to do
with there There is something to be said about buying
your way out of jail, and this could be construed
as that by some. But one of the first things
he says he is offering he will sign a fifty
million dollar bond secured by his home in Miami. That
(30:10):
bond will be co signed by three financially responsible people,
so they're on the hook for it. Number three, Combs
will reside in his home in Miami. Number four, His
travel will be limited to the Southern District of Florida
the Southern District of New York for attorney meetings, as
well as airports necessary to travel between the two. He
(30:32):
also says, so this is number five, that he will
be placed under the express supervision of the US Pre
Trial Services Agency and must report to the agency as directed.
And finally, he says his passport, he will surrender it
to pre Trial Services and he will not apply for
any other passport.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Do I have right? Is any of that different from
the stuff he originally offered. I know the fifty million
dollar in the house was already there. I don't remember
the three other people. I don't remember that.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
He did say he would surrender his passport. I do
remember that for sure. And I think he also agreed
to be under the supervision of whoever wants to make
sure he does what he says he's going to do.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Those six things they offered, and then you know what
else they offered. Anything you want, Judge, They essentially sing
this to the judge quote. If the court finds more
extreme conditions necessary, the court may also add any or
all of the following conditions, home detention, private security approved
by the court, pre trial services with the cost born
(31:36):
by the defendant, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, electronic
surveillance of the defendant, anything the court deems necessary. So
we are they're essentially saying, whatever, he's just desperate to
get out of here, we will give you anything you want.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Wooh. And so yes, they go on to say, with
any and all of the conditions posed, and they were plentiful,
mister Combs can show by clear and convincing evidence, he
does not pose a danger to the community. They say,
he will fully surrender to supervision by pre trial services
to ensure that the court knows that mister Combs does
(32:17):
not pose a danger to any person. I don't know.
I mean, look, the arguments are again fascinating and interesting,
and they make a very good case. This is probably
the best case I have ever seen. However, this is
a judge who has denied him bond multiple times, more
(32:40):
than once. And what has changed between when he ruled
before and now, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Everything is the same, except that the attorneys had more
time to put together maybe a more compelling argument because
the judge when he was found and not guilty on
those three counts, guilty on the two. Judge said hours later, Nope,
I'm not gonna let you out of jail. I'll see
you in October third for your sentencing. They have, for
whatever reason, thought let's give it another shot, and they're
(33:11):
given another shot. I believe the judge is asking for
the prosecutors to respond in the next couple of days.
I'm not sure when he might give his ruling, but
strange things have happened in this case, and it's quite
possible we could hear something from the judge of this
week that's going to either tell him, yeah, nothing's changed,
You're gonna keep you butt in jail. Or can you
imagine him saying, Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
I wonder what the political pressure is on this judge.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
What the it's not supposed to have any not supposed
to the way this judge has been solid.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
I have to I have to regree, like I think
this judge has handled this very high profile emotionally charged.
You can from A from A there's a racial component,
there's a gender component. There's so many competing interests. People
are fervently compact, like passionate about either side, and I
(34:08):
think he has seemed very measured and very fair in
this case. It's hard for me to imagine that he
would suddenly grant Diddy.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yeah, to have a change of heart. He knows the
facts of the case, he knows all that.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
It seems very This feels like a hail Mary.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Fine, and why not. What would he have to lose?
Got nothing to lose. But maybe there's something in there.
We're reading it a certain way. Maybe the judge will
read it a different way, in a legal way, and
there is a compelling argument to let him go home now.
But yeah, folks, we didn't plan on doing this, but
we hop back on today because oh my god, we
got a Diddy update that we weren't expecting for quite
(34:48):
some time. We will keep an eye on this. You
can expect updates from us, certainly if anything happens. But again,
we believe the prosecutors have until Thursday. I believe it's
Thursday to get that response in and we shall see.
So with that, folks, we always appreciate you hanging out
here with us and listening to us and following us
along for this Didty trial, which still, as it seems
(35:11):
a couple more months to go before we know exactly
what's going to happen, but this week has shaped up
to be an interesting one, and maybe a really big
one in the ditty case. But for now we always
appreciate you listening to us. I'm t J. Holmes, along
with my dear, dear and new robot. We'll see you'll
soon
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Zima
Chris Harrison
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.