September 20, 2024 • 17 mins
Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.
Support the show: http://www.youtube.com/@stephenasmith
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 (00:03):
Joining me now as promised, to discuss the legal aspects
of the federal indictment of Sean P. Diddy. Combs is
the one and only Ryan Smith, legal analysts for ESPN
and ABC News. My colleague, my contemporary. What's up, my man?
How are you? How's everything?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
What's going on?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Steven A?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Good to talk to you as always.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Man, Thank you so much for making time out of
your busy schedule. I really really appreciate it. Let's get
right to it. Sean Combs is charged with racketeering, conspiracy,
sex trafficking, and interstate transportation for prostitution. The cruts of
the charges are tied to freakoffs, coerced sex acts that
Combs allegedly orchestrated and recorded. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's right, that's right.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
The freak coffs, as the prosecution said in the bail
here in the freak offfs are the core of this case.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
It all kind of revolves around that and the idea
behind this.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
You talk about racketeering conspiracy, stephen A, that's the big one,
that's the one. And you talk about the penalties here
minimum fifteen years, maximum life in prison. But the racketpeeran
conspiracy is the big one because it involves son Colms
setting up business enterprises to be a record executive, to
build a media empire. But also the allegations say, conspiring
(01:12):
with others to get together and set up a criminal enterprise,
to commit criminal acts, and then to commit other acts
to cover up some of those acts, all in furtherance
of satisfying as sexual desires. So the charges you have
are spot on, and these are serious charges, very hard
to beat for a defense.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Is this an embellished way Ryan of saying that he
basically tried to have his own prostitution ring.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's one way to put it.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
You know, it's almost a way of saying he controlled this,
almost like a mobster controls certain criminal organizations. The allegations
here and when you talk about Rico, it all stems
it's first started because of mob activity. You couldn't necessarily
say someone did something directly, but you can say people
got together, set up an enterprise and decided to carry
(01:58):
out criminal acts. So almost like yes, a prosecution ring,
but more to facilitate these free costs according to the
allegations and Steven, it's important to say these are all allegations.
At this point, the federal government has put together a case.
They've compiled what they say is mountains of evidence, and
so this will all have to be proven in court.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
What have you ever seen anybody of courts doesn't turned
down fifty million dollar bond. I mean, I mean, I
heard fifty million dollars. He's offering up fifty million dollars
to get all to you know, let him out of jail,
let him go to home confinement and detainment, promising, according
to TMZ, anyway that he wasn't going to he wasn't
going to be near any women or anything like that.
And they still said, hell no, stay here behind in
(02:38):
jail as of Tuesday afternoon. Do you find that to
be a tad bit odd?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Not at all, not considering the nature of the crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Because when you look about bail, right stephen A is
not just about well can I sit at home?
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I'll be fine. I won't leave.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
His defense lawyer putting up, Hey, Sam, we're gonna put
up fifty million bond, showing passports in the bail hearing.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I've got his passport, his children's paers. He's not going anywhere.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But when you talk about giving bail, there's a couple
of factors involved, the dangerousness of the individual, the flight
risk involved potentially, and the nature of the crimes dangerousness.
These are harsh allegations, kidnapping for sex, coercion, bribery, kidnapping, arson,
that's just some of what they're alleging in this complaint
flight risk. You're talking about a billionaire Stephen in it.
(03:23):
He's saying I'll give up my house. The prosecution looks
at that and says, well, look, you have so many resources.
You could find a number of ways of getting out
of town. And not only that, the judge in this case,
in denying bail, talked about how a lot of these
activities happened behind closed doors and happened when he was
under the influence of substances according to the allegations. So
it seems like the judge was looking at this and saying,
(03:45):
if I did let you off and stay at home,
you could commit the very crimes that prosecutors are alleging,
and that's the last thing I want to happen, no
matter how much money you're saying you'll offer.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Is that based strictly on the prosecutions assertions, or is
this about witnesses who've already publicly proclaimed that he's engaged
in this behavior, and even though they didn't necessarily do it,
this past Tuesday, the noise reverberating around this country about
him and the kind of acts that he's alleged to
(04:17):
have committed, and along with the video of him hitting
and kicking Cassie Ventura a few months ago. How much
of a role did that play in your estimation in
the judge denying him bail on Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Denying bail on Tuesday, I think it played a role
because it's the basis of the indictment in some ways.
So the idea is, this is the situation that happened
with Cassie that you're putting up right there right now,
at least according to what we can surmise from the indictment,
that's part of this, that's part of what they're considered
to be these freak costs, that's part of some of
(04:50):
the alleged conduct.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
They're saying that did he did.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And so the judge and looking at that and tying
all this together in the indictment, says, hey, these kinds
of things could happen, maybe not to behave you're seeing
the video there but in terms of what prosecutors are alleging. Now,
if you talk about the larger picture here, when you
talk about the free costs, this overall behavior, the judge
looks at that and looks at what's out there, and
the last thing they want to do is say I
(05:15):
let somebody out on bail.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
They provided the.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Money, and then they did the same conduct, the very
same conduct that's being alleged here. We find out that
later in a sense trying to protect the public from
what could.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Be a dangerous individual. So did it have an impact, Yes,
in the sense.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Of what the prosecutors are saying P did he did
in this entire criminal enterprises.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
They alleged interested in knowing what you think about the
arguments that P did. He tried to make in his
own defense through his lawyer. Of course, on Tuesday, I
saw his lawyer appear, one of his lawyers appear on
Cuomo on News Nation, and when she was talking to
Chris Cuomo, she articulated that the difference people that brought
up are Kelly. They brought up stuff like that, and
(05:55):
they were like, you're talking about underage people there in
this particular instance there say you might abhor P. Diddy's behavior,
but nevertheless it involved consenting adults. That is the argument
that they were trying to make. How plausible of an
argument is that, at this particular moment in time.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Steven Atis is a tough case to beat.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
But I will say this, what you're articulating right now
is the defense strategy to a t think about it
this way. They look at this situation and they say,
this entire case for them, the defense is based on
Cassie's allegations, and what that really is for the defense,
at least according to what we've heard from them so far,
is a relationship gone bad, gone very bad. And it's
(06:39):
important to note when you look at the defense argument here,
there are bad people who do very bad things, but
just because they do bad things doesn't mean those are
criminally bad things.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's sort of the angle they're taking there.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Even when they talk about the Cassie video in the
detention hearing, they talked about the precursor to that being
an argument over stuff that was on his cell phone,
about communicating to other women. They've talked about did he
being an imperfect person. They've talked about the freak costs
being adults doing adult things. When looked at that way.
It's like they're trying to paint stephen A a picture
(07:17):
of a bunch of people got together, had a party
and there was sex.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
That's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
A bunch of people got together and had a party
and there was crazy sex.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
That's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
None of They're trying to paint it as if the
activities that people are saying did he did are not
criminal acts.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
They might be ontoard. People might think they're freaky.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
People might not like him, people might think he's a
bad person, but for them, being a bad person does
not mean being criminally liable.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
One could argue, you look at Bill Cosby and what
happened to him, albeit years later, you look at Jeffrey Epstein,
you look at Harvey Weinstein, you look at r.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Kelly.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Because you have those specific incidence is to point to
in recent memory that would dilute the potency of such
an argument onto the part of the defense. Do you
agree with such an assertion?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I do personally, because we've now seen and frankly, we've
known in some ways many many people in the public
and just in the way you look at life. We
have known about the issue of power and balance in
our society on jobs in different occasions. Many people, many
in your listeners have probably experienced it on many occasions.
And what we've seen through the Epstein case, the Rchlla case,
(08:32):
is that there are situations that the rich and powerful
can put other people in that can coerce them, force
them to do things against their will, even force them
in criminal ways, but they can do it because of
their power dynamic. So, getting back to your point, this
idea of hey, these are consenting individuals doing consenting things.
(08:52):
Diddy's relationship with victim Ie and the indictment, which many
people are saying is Cassie. In this case, it's consenting activity.
But looked at another way, especially through the lens of
what we've seen recently with Epstein, with Bill Cosby, with R. Kelly,
we now know that there are things that are going
on with powerful individuals that may be criminal acts, but
(09:15):
they're doing it because.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
They have the power over others.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
They're doing it because they can, They're doing it because
they're holding threats. Some of these allegations are you put
somebody up in a hotel somewhere to live and then
get threat to take it away unless they participate in
free calls, you kidnap them, you commit arson, in other cases, bribery,
so many different things that they're alleging here that a
criminal enterprise, in their mind, a criminal enterprise is done
(09:38):
in order to facilitate these criminal acts. So for me,
the argument falls short. But here's the thing, stephen A.
Everything changes when you're in a courtroom. And if the defense,
what they're going to try to do is convince a
jury of Hey, you may hate he did.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
He may hate everything about him.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
You may think he uses his power for wrong means,
but in a criminal way?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Is that what he's doing? And they're going to try
to poke holes in that.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Just a few more questions for I let you get
on out of here. Ryan Smith, legal analysts for ESPN
and ABC News, right here with stephen A. Smith on
the stephen A. Smith Show. P Diddy's face. The wave
of lawsuits, one is recent as last week accusing him
a sexual assault of misconduct in the past year. Of course,
he's denied wrongdoing. How many lawsuits has he settled at
this point? Are you aware of that number so far?
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Not aware of the specific number, but it's been more
than a few. And here's the thing. When you think
about that. I know a lot of people see that,
and technically, and this is one of the mountains of
problems for the defense people here that he settle a
lawsuit and say, God, you must have done something, must
have done something. Doing something does not mean guilty of
rico conspiracy. Doing something does not mean guilty of sexual trafficing,
(10:48):
trafficking by force, fraud or cores and or transportation for
engagement in prostitution.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Those are the charges he's facing in the federal indictment.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
So that's going to be important here because yes, they
will have and you know already you can see stephen
A the mountain of.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Evidence that prosecutors are compiling. In their detention letter.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
They talked about over fifty witnesses and victims that they've
talked to, over one hundred electronic devices, securing from his property,
over one thousand bottles.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Of baby oil and lubricants.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
This is what they're all trying to do to build
out this idea that these freak offs happened, and that
he violated the law in this way and faces severe
penalties for it.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
What will happen to his assets? Answer me that question,
because he put a fifty million dollar they didn't accept it.
But what's scheduled to happen to his assets right now?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Yeah, if he's convicted.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
So if he's convicted, one of the things they're asking
for and here is for fiture of assets and look,
stephen A, that could mean his businesses, bad Boy, houses, carved, playing,
all these different assets he has. We don't know the
amounts to the extent of what would happen here, that's
going to be up to the judge again if convicted,
But that's what could happen right now.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
It's all a waiting game.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
We wait for the true They have to go through
discovery and that could be months and months and months away.
So for now those assets might be generally fine, but
all bets are off if he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Based on what happens.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Kevin Lyles, CEO of three hundred and Entertainment, announced that
he'll step down at the end of September. He announced
that Tuesday. He's been with Warner Music Group since two
thousand and four, which formerly hased did He's Bad Boy Records,
and has been a vocal defender of Puffy. What are
we to make of the announcement? On the day of
the indictment that something like that happened that he decided
to step down.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Yeah, it's a tough one because you look at this
stephen A and I guess on one side you could say, well,
is there some sort of involvement with Kevin Lyles in this?
But again I put my legal hat on and I say,
we can't.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Know that for sure.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
All of this is even with P Diddy, it's innocent
until proven guilty. I always want to say that in
a case like this because the allegations are so explosive.
But when you talk about other individual individuals involved, think
about what is alleged here in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
It's not just did he committed a crime tearing.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Conspiracy is you had a meeting of the minds with
another person a group of individuals to set up a
criminal enterprise and do criminal acts. I am not saying
that Lyles or anyone else that might have been identified or.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
That people are thinking of, had anything to do with that.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
But I think one of the problems with people involved
in Diddy's life is that they are now wrapped in
in some way in this They might be in some
way questioned about whether or not they have some involvement
or questioned about what they knew, or questioned about what
they knew about his activities.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So it becomes tough to say that the two are related.
We just don't know for sure.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
But this is the problem of being in Diddy's orbit
at this point in time with these charges. One thing,
I think all the people who are involved in his
orbit in some way or another as employees, if they
haven't already been talked to, they must be thinking, I
wonder if they're looking for me next.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
I wonder if they want to ask what I know?
And that puts you in a really delicate spot.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
The very last question here, Ryan, you know, sug Knight
had indicated during an interview months ago that Diddy's in
a world of trouble because of who he is, who
he knows, who he's connected to, and how there might
be something to be concerned about. And he alluded to
Jeffrey Epstein and how ultimately he had committed supposedly reportedly
(14:20):
suicide in twenty nineteen. I remember the two cameras near
the jail cell. There was something wrong with him, and
there was no video of the suicide, et cetera, et cetera.
So you have a lot of conspiracy theorists out there
that was saying he was taken out because of who
he knew and who he could implicate, et cetera, et cetera,
and sug Knight refer to that. Usually you're not trying
to use sug Knight as a source. But when you
(14:41):
talk about the music industry and some of the stuff
that goes on in the music industry, if anybody would know,
it would be him. Is that real or fantasized in
your eyes as it pertains to the kind of concerns
that somebody in P Diddy's position should have at this
moment in time.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
You mean that others might be wrapped into the outside
of you, and that other people bigger than him might
be wrapped into this.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Yeah, potentially. Yeah, I think that when I think that
not has something to do with them saying no, we're
not granting you bail, We're gonna keep you right here.
You know, I think that when you have the Homeland
Security and again I don't know, but my attitude, Ryan
is this, if Homeland Security is coming your way, chances
our age is coming for you. They're coming for more
than just you. That's how I'm thinking I could be wrong.
(15:28):
You would know better than me. That's why I'm asking.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I tell you it's an interesting point because you almost
look at it like this. There's two ways to look
at somebody in a situation like this when you have
a P.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Diddy.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
First of all, you could look at it the one
way and saying, what bigger fish is there than him?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
So because he's a big enough fishing of himself.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
This is a man who's assets some estimate to be
in the billion range, the companies, all the different things
that he's got, so he's a big figure in the industry.
What I mentioned two ways to look at it. One
way you look at these charges is the the prosecutor's office.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Then the Southern District.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Of New York is making a statement, we are not
going to tolerate this kind of conduct.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So if you are.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Involved under Diddy around Diddy, we will hold you accountable.
They have said stephen A, they are not done. That's
what's really interesting in this. They are not done. They
might be doing more. Even in the detention letter they
sent they said they're not revealing everything right now, so
there's more out there that we don't know.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
And to your point, someone higher.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
What you do in a lot of these cases is
if you've got somebody charged with a crime, you might
step back and say, Okay, who do you know above you?
What information are you willing to give on to this person?
And you talk about the severity of these charges. Think
about it life in prison as a maximum that could
be used to get Diddy to comply if they think
(16:53):
there's something to this, if the defense thinks there's something
to this, to maybe flip on somebody else. So we're
talking about theory, we're not talking about facts. But in
some ways, I think you've got a point. You're not
only sending the message of anybody in the orbit. You
could be held accountable in some way if you don't
come forward with the information you know, or to somebody
like Diddy. Hey, if you know others in different situations,
(17:16):
tell us what you know, and maybe that changes your picture.
I'm not saying it's fact. I'm saying it's always a
possibility when you're looking at a case like this.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
One of the very best in the business, legal analysts
extraordinaire for ESPN and ABC News, the one and only
Ryan Smith, right here on Stephen Aismith Show. Thank you
so much for your time, my man, and the education
much much appreciated. Man.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Thank you so much anytime man. Take care of
Joining me now as promised, to discuss the legal aspects
of the federal indictment of Sean P. Diddy. Combs is
the one and only Ryan Smith, legal analysts for ESPN
and ABC News. My colleague, my contemporary. What's up, my man?
How are you? How's everything?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
What's going on?
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Steven A?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Good to talk to you as always.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Man, Thank you so much for making time out of
your busy schedule. I really really appreciate it. Let's get
right to it. Sean Combs is charged with racketeering, conspiracy,
sex trafficking, and interstate transportation for prostitution. The cruts of
the charges are tied to freakoffs, coerced sex acts that
Combs allegedly orchestrated and recorded. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's right, that's right.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
The freak coffs, as the prosecution said in the bail
here in the freak offfs are the core of this case.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
It all kind of revolves around that and the idea
behind this.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
You talk about racketeering conspiracy, stephen A, that's the big one,
that's the one. And you talk about the penalties here
minimum fifteen years, maximum life in prison. But the racketpeeran
conspiracy is the big one because it involves son Colms
setting up business enterprises to be a record executive, to
build a media empire. But also the allegations say, conspiring
(01:12):
with others to get together and set up a criminal enterprise,
to commit criminal acts, and then to commit other acts
to cover up some of those acts, all in furtherance
of satisfying as sexual desires. So the charges you have
are spot on, and these are serious charges, very hard
to beat for a defense.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Is this an embellished way Ryan of saying that he
basically tried to have his own prostitution ring.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's one way to put it.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
You know, it's almost a way of saying he controlled this,
almost like a mobster controls certain criminal organizations. The allegations
here and when you talk about Rico, it all stems
it's first started because of mob activity. You couldn't necessarily
say someone did something directly, but you can say people
got together, set up an enterprise and decided to carry
(01:58):
out criminal acts. So almost like yes, a prosecution ring,
but more to facilitate these free costs according to the
allegations and Steven, it's important to say these are all allegations.
At this point, the federal government has put together a case.
They've compiled what they say is mountains of evidence, and
so this will all have to be proven in court.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
What have you ever seen anybody of courts doesn't turned
down fifty million dollar bond. I mean, I mean, I
heard fifty million dollars. He's offering up fifty million dollars
to get all to you know, let him out of jail,
let him go to home confinement and detainment, promising, according
to TMZ, anyway that he wasn't going to he wasn't
going to be near any women or anything like that.
And they still said, hell no, stay here behind in
(02:38):
jail as of Tuesday afternoon. Do you find that to
be a tad bit odd?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Not at all, not considering the nature of the crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Because when you look about bail, right stephen A is
not just about well can I sit at home?
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I'll be fine. I won't leave.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
His defense lawyer putting up, Hey, Sam, we're gonna put
up fifty million bond, showing passports in the bail hearing.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I've got his passport, his children's paers. He's not going anywhere.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
But when you talk about giving bail, there's a couple
of factors involved, the dangerousness of the individual, the flight
risk involved potentially, and the nature of the crimes dangerousness.
These are harsh allegations, kidnapping for sex, coercion, bribery, kidnapping, arson,
that's just some of what they're alleging in this complaint
flight risk. You're talking about a billionaire Stephen in it.
(03:23):
He's saying I'll give up my house. The prosecution looks
at that and says, well, look, you have so many resources.
You could find a number of ways of getting out
of town. And not only that, the judge in this case,
in denying bail, talked about how a lot of these
activities happened behind closed doors and happened when he was
under the influence of substances according to the allegations. So
it seems like the judge was looking at this and saying,
(03:45):
if I did let you off and stay at home,
you could commit the very crimes that prosecutors are alleging,
and that's the last thing I want to happen, no
matter how much money you're saying you'll offer.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Is that based strictly on the prosecutions assertions, or is
this about witnesses who've already publicly proclaimed that he's engaged
in this behavior, and even though they didn't necessarily do it,
this past Tuesday, the noise reverberating around this country about
him and the kind of acts that he's alleged to
(04:17):
have committed, and along with the video of him hitting
and kicking Cassie Ventura a few months ago. How much
of a role did that play in your estimation in
the judge denying him bail on Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Denying bail on Tuesday, I think it played a role
because it's the basis of the indictment in some ways.
So the idea is, this is the situation that happened
with Cassie that you're putting up right there right now,
at least according to what we can surmise from the indictment,
that's part of this, that's part of what they're considered
to be these freak costs, that's part of some of
(04:50):
the alleged conduct.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
They're saying that did he did.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And so the judge and looking at that and tying
all this together in the indictment, says, hey, these kinds
of things could happen, maybe not to behave you're seeing
the video there but in terms of what prosecutors are alleging. Now,
if you talk about the larger picture here, when you
talk about the free costs, this overall behavior, the judge
looks at that and looks at what's out there, and
the last thing they want to do is say I
(05:15):
let somebody out on bail.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
They provided the.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Money, and then they did the same conduct, the very
same conduct that's being alleged here. We find out that
later in a sense trying to protect the public from
what could.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Be a dangerous individual. So did it have an impact, Yes,
in the sense.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Of what the prosecutors are saying P did he did
in this entire criminal enterprises.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
They alleged interested in knowing what you think about the
arguments that P did. He tried to make in his
own defense through his lawyer. Of course, on Tuesday, I
saw his lawyer appear, one of his lawyers appear on
Cuomo on News Nation, and when she was talking to
Chris Cuomo, she articulated that the difference people that brought
up are Kelly. They brought up stuff like that, and
(05:55):
they were like, you're talking about underage people there in
this particular instance there say you might abhor P. Diddy's behavior,
but nevertheless it involved consenting adults. That is the argument
that they were trying to make. How plausible of an
argument is that, at this particular moment in time.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Steven Atis is a tough case to beat.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
But I will say this, what you're articulating right now
is the defense strategy to a t think about it
this way. They look at this situation and they say,
this entire case for them, the defense is based on
Cassie's allegations, and what that really is for the defense,
at least according to what we've heard from them so far,
is a relationship gone bad, gone very bad. And it's
(06:39):
important to note when you look at the defense argument here,
there are bad people who do very bad things, but
just because they do bad things doesn't mean those are
criminally bad things.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's sort of the angle they're taking there.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
Even when they talk about the Cassie video in the
detention hearing, they talked about the precursor to that being
an argument over stuff that was on his cell phone,
about communicating to other women. They've talked about did he
being an imperfect person. They've talked about the freak costs
being adults doing adult things. When looked at that way.
It's like they're trying to paint stephen A a picture
(07:17):
of a bunch of people got together, had a party
and there was sex.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
That's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
A bunch of people got together and had a party
and there was crazy sex.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
That's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
None of They're trying to paint it as if the
activities that people are saying did he did are not
criminal acts.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
They might be ontoard. People might think they're freaky.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
People might not like him, people might think he's a
bad person, but for them, being a bad person does
not mean being criminally liable.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
One could argue, you look at Bill Cosby and what
happened to him, albeit years later, you look at Jeffrey Epstein,
you look at Harvey Weinstein, you look at r.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Kelly.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Because you have those specific incidence is to point to
in recent memory that would dilute the potency of such
an argument onto the part of the defense. Do you
agree with such an assertion?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
I do personally, because we've now seen and frankly, we've
known in some ways many many people in the public
and just in the way you look at life. We
have known about the issue of power and balance in
our society on jobs in different occasions. Many people, many
in your listeners have probably experienced it on many occasions.
And what we've seen through the Epstein case, the Rchlla case,
(08:32):
is that there are situations that the rich and powerful
can put other people in that can coerce them, force
them to do things against their will, even force them
in criminal ways, but they can do it because of
their power dynamic. So, getting back to your point, this
idea of hey, these are consenting individuals doing consenting things.
(08:52):
Diddy's relationship with victim Ie and the indictment, which many
people are saying is Cassie. In this case, it's consenting activity.
But looked at another way, especially through the lens of
what we've seen recently with Epstein, with Bill Cosby, with R. Kelly,
we now know that there are things that are going
on with powerful individuals that may be criminal acts, but
(09:15):
they're doing it because.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
They have the power over others.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
They're doing it because they can, They're doing it because
they're holding threats. Some of these allegations are you put
somebody up in a hotel somewhere to live and then
get threat to take it away unless they participate in
free calls, you kidnap them, you commit arson, in other cases, bribery,
so many different things that they're alleging here that a
criminal enterprise, in their mind, a criminal enterprise is done
(09:38):
in order to facilitate these criminal acts. So for me,
the argument falls short. But here's the thing, stephen A.
Everything changes when you're in a courtroom. And if the defense,
what they're going to try to do is convince a
jury of Hey, you may hate he did.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
He may hate everything about him.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
You may think he uses his power for wrong means,
but in a criminal way?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Is that what he's doing? And they're going to try
to poke holes in that.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Just a few more questions for I let you get
on out of here. Ryan Smith, legal analysts for ESPN
and ABC News, right here with stephen A. Smith on
the stephen A. Smith Show. P Diddy's face. The wave
of lawsuits, one is recent as last week accusing him
a sexual assault of misconduct in the past year. Of course,
he's denied wrongdoing. How many lawsuits has he settled at
this point? Are you aware of that number so far?
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Not aware of the specific number, but it's been more
than a few. And here's the thing. When you think
about that. I know a lot of people see that,
and technically, and this is one of the mountains of
problems for the defense people here that he settle a
lawsuit and say, God, you must have done something, must
have done something. Doing something does not mean guilty of
rico conspiracy. Doing something does not mean guilty of sexual trafficing,
(10:48):
trafficking by force, fraud or cores and or transportation for
engagement in prostitution.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Those are the charges he's facing in the federal indictment.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
So that's going to be important here because yes, they
will have and you know already you can see stephen
A the mountain of.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Evidence that prosecutors are compiling. In their detention letter.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
They talked about over fifty witnesses and victims that they've
talked to, over one hundred electronic devices, securing from his property,
over one thousand bottles.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Of baby oil and lubricants.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
This is what they're all trying to do to build
out this idea that these freak offs happened, and that
he violated the law in this way and faces severe
penalties for it.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
What will happen to his assets? Answer me that question,
because he put a fifty million dollar they didn't accept it.
But what's scheduled to happen to his assets right now?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Yeah, if he's convicted.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
So if he's convicted, one of the things they're asking
for and here is for fiture of assets and look,
stephen A, that could mean his businesses, bad Boy, houses, carved, playing,
all these different assets he has. We don't know the
amounts to the extent of what would happen here, that's
going to be up to the judge again if convicted,
But that's what could happen right now.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
It's all a waiting game.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
We wait for the true They have to go through
discovery and that could be months and months and months away.
So for now those assets might be generally fine, but
all bets are off if he's convicted.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Based on what happens.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Kevin Lyles, CEO of three hundred and Entertainment, announced that
he'll step down at the end of September. He announced
that Tuesday. He's been with Warner Music Group since two
thousand and four, which formerly hased did He's Bad Boy Records,
and has been a vocal defender of Puffy. What are
we to make of the announcement? On the day of
the indictment that something like that happened that he decided
to step down.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Yeah, it's a tough one because you look at this
stephen A and I guess on one side you could say, well,
is there some sort of involvement with Kevin Lyles in this?
But again I put my legal hat on and I say,
we can't.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Know that for sure.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
All of this is even with P Diddy, it's innocent
until proven guilty. I always want to say that in
a case like this because the allegations are so explosive.
But when you talk about other individual individuals involved, think
about what is alleged here in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
It's not just did he committed a crime tearing.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Conspiracy is you had a meeting of the minds with
another person a group of individuals to set up a
criminal enterprise and do criminal acts. I am not saying
that Lyles or anyone else that might have been identified or.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
That people are thinking of, had anything to do with that.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
But I think one of the problems with people involved
in Diddy's life is that they are now wrapped in
in some way in this They might be in some
way questioned about whether or not they have some involvement
or questioned about what they knew, or questioned about what
they knew about his activities.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So it becomes tough to say that the two are related.
We just don't know for sure.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
But this is the problem of being in Diddy's orbit
at this point in time with these charges. One thing,
I think all the people who are involved in his
orbit in some way or another as employees, if they
haven't already been talked to, they must be thinking, I
wonder if they're looking for me next.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
I wonder if they want to ask what I know?
And that puts you in a really delicate spot.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
The very last question here, Ryan, you know, sug Knight
had indicated during an interview months ago that Diddy's in
a world of trouble because of who he is, who
he knows, who he's connected to, and how there might
be something to be concerned about. And he alluded to
Jeffrey Epstein and how ultimately he had committed supposedly reportedly
(14:20):
suicide in twenty nineteen. I remember the two cameras near
the jail cell. There was something wrong with him, and
there was no video of the suicide, et cetera, et cetera.
So you have a lot of conspiracy theorists out there
that was saying he was taken out because of who
he knew and who he could implicate, et cetera, et cetera,
and sug Knight refer to that. Usually you're not trying
to use sug Knight as a source. But when you
(14:41):
talk about the music industry and some of the stuff
that goes on in the music industry, if anybody would know,
it would be him. Is that real or fantasized in
your eyes as it pertains to the kind of concerns
that somebody in P Diddy's position should have at this
moment in time.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
You mean that others might be wrapped into the outside
of you, and that other people bigger than him might
be wrapped into this.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Yeah, potentially. Yeah, I think that when I think that
not has something to do with them saying no, we're
not granting you bail, We're gonna keep you right here.
You know, I think that when you have the Homeland
Security and again I don't know, but my attitude, Ryan
is this, if Homeland Security is coming your way, chances
our age is coming for you. They're coming for more
than just you. That's how I'm thinking I could be wrong.
(15:28):
You would know better than me. That's why I'm asking.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I tell you it's an interesting point because you almost
look at it like this. There's two ways to look
at somebody in a situation like this when you have
a P.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Diddy.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
First of all, you could look at it the one
way and saying, what bigger fish is there than him?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
So because he's a big enough fishing of himself.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
This is a man who's assets some estimate to be
in the billion range, the companies, all the different things
that he's got, so he's a big figure in the industry.
What I mentioned two ways to look at it. One
way you look at these charges is the the prosecutor's office.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Then the Southern District.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Of New York is making a statement, we are not
going to tolerate this kind of conduct.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
So if you are.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Involved under Diddy around Diddy, we will hold you accountable.
They have said stephen A, they are not done. That's
what's really interesting in this. They are not done. They
might be doing more. Even in the detention letter they
sent they said they're not revealing everything right now, so
there's more out there that we don't know.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
And to your point, someone higher.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
What you do in a lot of these cases is
if you've got somebody charged with a crime, you might
step back and say, Okay, who do you know above you?
What information are you willing to give on to this person?
And you talk about the severity of these charges. Think
about it life in prison as a maximum that could
be used to get Diddy to comply if they think
(16:53):
there's something to this, if the defense thinks there's something
to this, to maybe flip on somebody else. So we're
talking about theory, we're not talking about facts. But in
some ways, I think you've got a point. You're not
only sending the message of anybody in the orbit. You
could be held accountable in some way if you don't
come forward with the information you know, or to somebody
like Diddy. Hey, if you know others in different situations,
(17:16):
tell us what you know, and maybe that changes your picture.
I'm not saying it's fact. I'm saying it's always a
possibility when you're looking at a case like this.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
One of the very best in the business, legal analysts
extraordinaire for ESPN and ABC News, the one and only
Ryan Smith, right here on Stephen Aismith Show. Thank you
so much for your time, my man, and the education
much much appreciated. Man.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Thank you so much anytime man. Take care of
Host
Stephen A. Smith
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.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.