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):
Now, let's get to the latest on Sean Diddy Combs,
whose federal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges is
set to begin next month.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Sources tell People Magazine.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
That Cassandra Cassie Ventura is prepared to testify against her
ex partner did He at the upcoming trial using her name.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Last Friday, prosecutors follow the.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Motion stating that quote Victim number one would not be
testifying anonymously during Comb's upcoming trial, where he faces charges
of racketeering and conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage
in prostitution. People Magazine exclusively confirmed with sources that Ventura
is victim number one or Victim one, and.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
That she will be testifying in the trial.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Meanwhile, three other victims are preparing to testify anonymously against
the disgraced musician. Listen, in recent news, we've seen a
lot of things come to the fold. We've seen charges
and dropped by other folks, uh, things going away, But
this hasn't.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
And to me, this is why this is.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So incredibly damaging for Diddy because the one person that
visually incriminates him more than anything else, it's Cassie Ventura.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
His ex girlfriend. She is the person he was.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Seen in that video that he ran down the hallway
half naked, grabbed her, yanked her, threw her to the floor,
kicked her, you know, through a vase.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
That are.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
The behavior was despicable and it's incredibly incriminating to me.
If you're the prosecution and you can use that video
to smear P Diddy, that's bad. That's very very bad.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
I understand that some people will set up there say
racketeering and all of this other stuff that, you know,
the charges that have been leveled against him. This may
how much this may have to do with that remains
to be seen. But these are twelve as we're talking
about jurors of your peers, and if you have an
opportunity to visualize a heinous act on the part of
the defendant, then that's not going to garner sympathy.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
It's not going to garner neutrality.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
It's not going to garner the kind of emotion that
one would surmise you would need from a jury in
order for you to win your case and ultimately get
off with a not guilty verdicant able to go home.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I don't know if that's possible.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Once you see that video of him putting his hands
on Cassie Ventura, and for her to be the one
to testify, and for her to be the one testifying
on behalf of the prosecution, considering the fact that she
was his lady, considering the fact that purportedly reportedly she
engaged in activities she otherwise would not have wanted to
(02:52):
at the behest of him. When you consider some of
the things that they're saying about him, and the fact
that your ex girl, with all the evidence in the
world to come at you, one would smise, is willing
to do so for the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Ladies and gentlemen. That's not good.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That's very very bad. That's very bad. I mean, I
just don't know what to say about it. I really
really don't, because again, I'm not trying to convict the
brother in the court of public opinion, nor am I
trying to let him off.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
I'm trying to let the facts bear themselves out.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
But with the litany of charges and allegations that the
Throne in his direction, I can't imagine anything more incriminating
than her. She's the last person that I would have
expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I thought somehow,
some way Diddy and his defense team would have prevented
that part from happening. That's not going to happen. And whatever,
(03:48):
think about it, whatever they ask, you're just ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Just paused for a second.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Just close your eyes for a second and just imagine
that when your eyes were open just a few seconds earlier,
you saw that video and its Continental Hotel. I believe
that's where it was in La where he's running down
the hallway half naked. He grabs a he yankes it
to the floor. She lays helpless on the ground. He kicks,
(04:15):
and he shoves, and he throws a vase at her.
He drags her down the hall where he does all
of this stuff. The hotel clearly had the video. They
held on for it for quite some time because it
happened years ago, and yet somehow, someway it didn't come
to light until this. And then you're showing that the jurors.
(04:39):
Jurors see this after that, every question they ask her,
they're going to believe her before they believe him. They
could even play the video him on social media, looking
disheveled and contrite and saying that he was real messed up.
(05:00):
He was in a messed up place, He had a
lot going on. You see it right there there and
there it is. That's him on social media of his
own revolition, putting that post out. He's in no.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Position to refute what she says, especially.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
If they can find their questions to her personal experiences,
Like if they ask her dates and times and stuff
like that, and they could try to get a caught
up and all of that and she gives the wrong answers, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
That could be incriminating.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
But if they're asking her about what she felt, like,
how terrorized she felt, what the fear factor was like,
these are things that you can't police, and it all
impacts a jury. This is why I say he's in trouble.
(05:52):
It's not just because of the litany of charges. It's
not just because it's being brought by the Southern State
of the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's not just because of those things. It's because.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
The person or people who are incriminating him, especially as
it pertains to hers specifically, It's not going to be
hard for her to be very convincing.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
It just isn't.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Those are my thoughts as minimal as they may be
in significance. But my next guest, that's not a problem.
He has joining me to discuss. This is ESPN and
ABC News legal analyst, one of the best in the business,
I might add, he's also Sports Center anchor as well,
the one and only Ryan Smith mc colleague.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
What's going on, buddy? How you doing, man? How's everything?
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Everything's good man? How you doing?
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I'm doing all right, man. Let's get right to it.
Heard me talking about Diddy a little bit earlier. As
trial date starts on May fifth. What's the significance of
Cassandra Cassi Ventura testifying under her real name instead of
anonymously like three other people named in the indictment.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways.
And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically,
For me, this is huge because it lends credibility to
her testimony. So you think about it like this, Cassie
gets up on the stand, she's naming herself and for
jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's
this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle
(07:21):
using her name. Now that's nothing against other accusers who
might not be willing to use their names. It's just
that how we tend to look at things, especially how
juries might tend to look at things. They might say, well,
this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going
to back her a little bit more.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
We might believe her a little bit more, and it
lends credibility to her allegations.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
The other thing is putting her name out there, and
I know it's been out there in some connections in
many ways so far.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
It also helps others possibly come forward. Prosecutors always talked
about how this.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Case might not be done, there might be other factors,
and that could still be a possibility Legally, I think
it's twofold Number one's showing of strength for the prosecution.
And we are here, we are naming ourselves, we are
out there, come at us. The other thing I think
that's critical here is it puts the defense on the defensive.
Here's why she gets up on the stand. She names herself.
(08:11):
She's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It
might make it harder for them to try to discredit her,
or intimidate her, or come at her really hard.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
On cross examination.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So those are some factors that play into all this,
and I think for the prosecution it's a win to
have her naming herself.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy.
When you talk about her name instead of being anonymous,
her name being put out there specifically, what can she
speak to I'm talking about the actual specifications of the
charges against them. How can she specifically speak against that.
We heard the words racketeering for crowd out loud. What
would she have to do with that? Explain that to
(08:49):
my viewers.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain
what happened at these free coughs, and that's going to
be huge. I think people tend to look at legal
trials and they say, well, this person's going to give
us the smoking gun, is going to tell us the
one thing that's connect everything.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
But racketeering cases are a vast thing that you have
to build. So you have to show through the different witnesses,
through the different evidence, all the different things you have
that there was a criminal enterprise going on in furtherance
of these activities, in further once, in furtherance in.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
This case of these assaults of these different things in
terms of prostitution of the allegations they're making.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
So you have to build that case.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
And I think what Cassie can do is we've all
seen the video and there's been a lot of connections
to her in that video.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
But this goes beyond that. This is her being able
to frame what the situation was like for Diddy, what
some of these events were like, so they can use
her testimony along with the evidence they have to prove
the racketeering.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
But Ryan, when we talk about that and just playing
devil's advocate for seving Diddy in all likelihood, one would
surmise would say she was consensual in these actions.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Okay, she wasn't forced, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
His proof could be the fact that they were in
a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible,
such such an insidious figure, why was she involved with
him for so long? What defense do you anticipate he'll
be able to make that he has a snowballs chance
and you know what of making against her, particularly when
(10:22):
she's the.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
One we saw him hit and kick on a video.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
That's the defense He's gonna say she was consensual.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
He's gonna say all the people involved, everybody the prosecutor
is bringing in, was all consensual. That people did this
because they liked that, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors,
you got to look at it in terms of the
way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building
it in the same way or in a similar way
that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person
in power, a gatekeeper just certain things in this industry.
(10:51):
If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways,
you had to do the things he said, and this
was how he did it, And these are the things
these people had to do. I think you make a
great point that they were in a relationship, that that
might be part of what they might use. But my
sense is that, and we don't all the prosecution's case.
My sense is that they're going to build this and
say she was in that relationship. But just because you're
(11:14):
in a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control
you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there
was a point where he was doing this and doing
things that she felt like she had to do in
order to not.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Only further her career, but in order to be a
part of this world.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
And I think that's a one way in which prosecutors
are going to try to build this case. They're going
to try to build similarities among Cassie and other people
that might testify and other people that are contributing to
this case, to say this was a pattern, these are
the things he did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
But if she's willing to put her name on Front
Street instead of being anonymous, and others refrained from doing so,
won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy the anonymous ones.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
I love that you answer that question.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That's a common thing that people ask when you talk
about one person revealing their name and others not. And
you make a great point because in some ways it
looks like, well, they're not willing to stand behind their claims,
so how can we believe their claims?
Speaker 4 (12:14):
What the judge and what others.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Are going to have to decide in this case, and
what probably will play out a little bit is the
reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here. Cassie
is a well known public figure. She was also connected
in that initial videotape. We know that she is a
part of this. Anybody who knows anything about this case.
So in many ways, it's amazing that she's still coming
forward and offering herself out there like this, with all
(12:37):
the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment
she might face. But Stephen A look at it from
the other people's perspective. Are they supposed to be in
a place where they're supposed to deal with the harassment
and the public scrutiny. I think it becomes hard for
people sometimes to realize that people who are accusers in
cases like this, they come forward with their story, and
(12:58):
as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath of
sharing the story. They're harassed online, people get their address,
they try to find them. That the complaints dog, the
accudations dog them for most of their lives. How does
that affect their ability to get a job, How does
that affect their ability to live in society? So I
think it's incredibly brave that Cassie's able to come forward
(13:18):
and use her name, But she's also a public figure
and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit.
I think what will help the other accusers is they
might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom,
and maybe it'll be easier for the prostituting and state
of yours. Hey, look, they don't have the public profile
that she does. Let's try to hear their words and
respect their privacy.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject
in the second, but the word anonymous, A lot of
people don't realize what that means. They just says, okay,
you don't know the meaning the public. But those who
will testify against Ditty anonymously, does Diddy and his defense team.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Know specifically who they are? Do they know their names, etc?
Can you explain that to my audience.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, they'll know their names. Discoveries should have all come out.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
A lot of that information should come out, unless there's
some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to
restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or
that they can be threatened. But in deary, the way
this should work is they should have a right to
confront their accusers. They should have a right to know
their names, background on them, and that's part of what
they're going to try to use.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
To to credit their story.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
So, but the naming anonymous ends up being significant in
a case like this because you mentioned it. Once you
put Cassie's name out on Front Street, everybody's gonna hear
about it.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
We're going to be waiting for the testimony. We're going
to be trying to figure out what she said.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
You're gonna probably have to do press conferences possibly at
some point. Speak are the other people signing up for
that in order to share what happened to them? And
I think that's the critical part of leaving their names
anonymous in that courtroom. That stuff that's both to be
confidential and allow them to.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Go ahead and live their lives while also sharing their
truth as the prosecution needs them to to build their case.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
The video that did he put out on social media
where he appeared contrite and dishevel, those are the words
that I used, basically saying he was fed up. He
was in a very very bad place when he did
what he did to Cassie Ventur.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
You see the video right there.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
How incriminating could that end up being against him? Now
that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to
the lawsuit and she's gonna come out on Front Street
and say whatever it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Is that she has to say, it could be a
very big problem.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
For him, because prosecutor's gonna pull up that videotape, they're
gonna put it out there in court, and they're gonna say,
look at what this man said.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
He is sorry for what he did. Folks, let's outline
for you now what he did. Cassie.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Let's get on the stand and outline for us what
he did, and coupled with our evidence, that's going to
prove our case. So typically when you have a situation
like that, your lawyers will tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey,
don't say anything. I know there's a temptation to do that.
Don't say anything because it could be used against you.
I think at Diddy's mind, it's a way to get
public sympathy.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
It's a way to get.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
And I think in some way his defense team can
say about this, hey, he's apologizing for the relationship.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
He is not a perfect person, but he is not
a criminal. That's going to be their messaging.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
But still, you don't want to have to have a
videotape out there from your client saying I'm sorry for
what I did, giving the prosecution the ability to explore
that and with their evidence with Cassie and with other
witnesses to be able to prove, yeah, you're sorry for
what you did because it was criminal. That's what prosecutors
are going to want to do.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do.
What does this case earily remind you of as it
pertains to other cases that may have existed out there
in the past. When you think about what p did,
he is going through right now, what's the comparison you
draw it to.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the R.
Kelly case. Both of those cases involve the situation where
prosecutors were able.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
To build it as you have a gatekeeper, and it's
impossible to really make inroads in this area without the gatekeeper. Now,
no know, people are going to hear and say, well,
all of these people, they could have Diddy is doing this,
they could have gone to Dre or somebody else. And
there's a million other rap artists and production companies out there.
But I think what they're trying to build in the
same way that was built in the Weinstein case was
(17:14):
he wasn't the only studio in town. Mirror Max wasn't
the only place to make films, but in a particular way.
Once you got into this world, there was a way
to build your career, to foster development. And I think
what this case draws a similarity to, and what prosecutors
have been trying to do with these cases is show no.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
One is above the law.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
You can't go out, in prosecutor's mind, create a business
and then make people do your bidding, even if it's illegal,
in order to move up in that business. If it's
a legitimate business, you can't do that.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
And so in the same way that the Weinstein case
was prosecuted and the r. Kelly case was prosecuted.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
It feels like prosecuted or following the similar playbook here
trying to make that point not only publicly but also
in the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many
ways were set up in further inst of Ditty and
the people with him, and at the expense of these
in their minds accusers and victims.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
We use words last question on this matter.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
We use words like criminal enterprise, We use words like
racketeering and what have you. Is it wrong for us
to get the impression that it's not Didty that they're
after they're after him? Of course, please don't get me wrong,
But it's not just him. They're after a whole string
of individuals that he's connected to, as opposed to it
just be it was about R Kelly, it was about
(18:33):
Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to be thereafter just Didty.
It's like he's the guy to get, so all the
dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody associated with it.
That's the impression that I'm getting to that. You say, what,
Ryan Smith, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
I say I completely agree, and I say I would
go beyond that.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
The first thing is, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
They're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything
that backed him and everything that created this center, because
that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases.
I know the people out there say, hey, just about Ditty.
It's not just about Didy. It's about trying to.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Uphold the law. It's not what prosecutor. That's how prosecutors
see it.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
But the way I go beyond it is this, with
each one of these cases, they are trying to send
a message, not just to the.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Ditties of the world or to the Harvey Weinstein or
R Kelly's.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
They're trying to send a message to the people who
have other things going on, or people who might come
up later who might have ideas of doing something that
they are saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you,
we will come after you. The fact that Ditty is
there in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
About you, about people you know. So if you're doing
something on the wrong side of the law and you
think your power and your money and influence is going
to protect you, it will not. And that's the message
they're trying to send. We obviously, stephen A, we talk
about this case. We have to see how it's litigated
and how everything comes out. But for prosecutors, this is
every success they have in this area is an another.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Ability for them to be able to say to everybody
else out there in all of these businesses, you are
not above the law, no matter how much money or
power you have.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
I want to transition back to the world to sports
and off this p Diddy topic, and thank you so
much for coming on Ryan and talking about this, But
I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar
settlement between NCAA and student and athletes past and present.
By the way, this deal could reshape the business of
college sports.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Correct, Yeah, absolutely, And this deal is it's labeled as
a two point eight billion dollar settlement, but really it's
a deal that looks backwards and forwards. So the backwards
part is it's spending billions of dollars to payback athletes
who didn't who weren't able to make deals before NIL,
who are part of these anti trust lawsuits that were
all combined. So, for example, that could mean that athletes
(20:50):
who made a lot of money for their schools, like
Power five Conference football players, basketball players who.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Make hundreds of thousands of dollars, small sport.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Athletes a mid majors could end up making only hundreds
of dollars, but in ways it kind of compensates them.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
The looking forward part ends up being interesting too, because
what it does is it sets up sort of a
salary cap, just like we say in pro sports, twenty
million bucks or so for each school to spend on athletes.
The idea is to try to rein in some of
the NIL spending by boosters and all that. And it
also sets something that I think is going to actually
be a legal issue beyond the settlement, which is like
(21:24):
a clearing house for nil deals. So if somebody's making
a deal.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Over six hundred bucks, they have a clearing house, it's
going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is
this circumventing the salary cap.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
If not, you can't do it.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
I think that one's going to face court challenges even
after this settlement, at least it has a likelihood too.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
What I think the big part that turns me off,
frind is that they're talking about cap and you know,
revenue at twenty million per school or what have you,
something along those lines. The two point eight million dollar
billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive
from what happened between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four
to the athletes that would denied money at that particular
moment in time, and sort of reimbursing them from missed
ages and things of that nature. I understand that part,
(22:02):
even though I think it should be more. My issue
is why does it need to be capped? Why does
it be capped at twenty million dollars as opposed to
a percentage of revenue generated by the universities, just like
you have in basketball or football, where there's a percentage
of football or basketball related income or revenue that comes
to the players.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Why can't the same be with NCUBA athletes.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
That's I'm suspicious, is what I'm trying to say about
that cap trying to derail the kind of money guys
are able to get in NIL and guys and lady
is able to get in nil and beyond and stuff
like that. I'm kind of suspicious anytime I see a
capped number associated with student athletes playing in the nc
DOUBLEA under the ncublea umbrella, because I don't trust them
(22:44):
one bit to that.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
You say what I say.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
The pushback to you is going to be, well, it's
going to go up next year, it might be.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
More, and then it's going to be more.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which
is there's still a cap.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
And I think you make a great point.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
I also think what becomes interesting in what you're saying
is the clearinghouse aspect of this.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
Think about this, stephen A.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
In the advent of NIL and even before that, athletes
became in many ways, these college athletes became business people.
They built up huge followings online, millions of people. Some
of their income might be coming from boosters, some of
them might be coming from their own deals. Are we
now going to look at those deals that they in
many ways created on their own and say, well, you're
going to circumvent the salary caps, so you can't do that.
(23:26):
Now we're back in the same bag that we were
in before nil, which is not only your cap argument,
which means people might be limited from getting their real
market value, but then also even if you could go
out and have millions of followers and do all these
other things on your own, well, now we might try
to cap that, We might try to limit that because
we feel like it's circumventing the cap we already have.
(23:47):
I am in agreement with you. I think when you
have a situation like nil, it's almost like letting the
cat out of the bag. Once they open that bag up,
you can't close it off and now say, okay, let's
pull everybody back in and cut the number and try
to keep everybody down a little bit lower.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
That ship has already sailed.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
I think if people I think at this point the
booster system, the fact that I agree with the idea
of paying players directly from colleges, but I think to
try to cap it and to try to rein it
in is always going to be a problem, and it's
always going to face legal challenges, and it's always gonna
have critics because people are gonna say, just when you
open the floodgates so we could make money and create
(24:24):
businesses and earn more, you're trying to close them back
up again to the benefit of schools, which is the
same reason why we ended up in many ways in
the nil spot in the first place.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
And by the way, you know it's bad when Supreme
Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump,
was the one that made the argument in twenty twenty
one where he called them out and he said, I've
known there's no business in America that could get away
with doing this other.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Than you guys.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And sure enough, I think they're they're find trying to
find an end a round to get around this stuff
to do the same thing they've always been doing.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
So we'll see what happens with all of that.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Ryan Smith, Man, I really really appreciate you taking time
out of your busy schedule.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it. Thanks
so much anytime.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Man. Good to talk to you, all right.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
One of only Ryan Smith legal analysts ABC and ESPN.
Also anchor for Sports Center. The Brothers outstanding, one of
the best in the business, making no mistake about that.
Now, let's get to the latest on Sean Diddy Combs,
whose federal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges is
set to begin next month.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Sources tell People Magazine.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
That Cassandra Cassie Ventura is prepared to testify against her
ex partner did He at the upcoming trial using her name.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Last Friday, prosecutors follow the.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Motion stating that quote Victim number one would not be
testifying anonymously during Comb's upcoming trial, where he faces charges
of racketeering and conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage
in prostitution. People Magazine exclusively confirmed with sources that Ventura
is victim number one or Victim one, and.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
That she will be testifying in the trial.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Meanwhile, three other victims are preparing to testify anonymously against
the disgraced musician. Listen, in recent news, we've seen a
lot of things come to the fold. We've seen charges
and dropped by other folks, uh, things going away, But
this hasn't.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
And to me, this is why this is.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So incredibly damaging for Diddy because the one person that
visually incriminates him more than anything else, it's Cassie Ventura.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
His ex girlfriend. She is the person he was.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Seen in that video that he ran down the hallway
half naked, grabbed her, yanked her, threw her to the floor,
kicked her, you know, through a vase.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
That are.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
The behavior was despicable and it's incredibly incriminating to me.
If you're the prosecution and you can use that video
to smear P Diddy, that's bad. That's very very bad.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
I understand that some people will set up there say
racketeering and all of this other stuff that, you know,
the charges that have been leveled against him. This may
how much this may have to do with that remains
to be seen. But these are twelve as we're talking
about jurors of your peers, and if you have an
opportunity to visualize a heinous act on the part of
the defendant, then that's not going to garner sympathy.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
It's not going to garner neutrality.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
It's not going to garner the kind of emotion that
one would surmise you would need from a jury in
order for you to win your case and ultimately get
off with a not guilty verdicant able to go home.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
I don't know if that's possible.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Once you see that video of him putting his hands
on Cassie Ventura, and for her to be the one
to testify, and for her to be the one testifying
on behalf of the prosecution, considering the fact that she
was his lady, considering the fact that purportedly reportedly she
engaged in activities she otherwise would not have wanted to
(02:52):
at the behest of him. When you consider some of
the things that they're saying about him, and the fact
that your ex girl, with all the evidence in the
world to come at you, one would smise, is willing
to do so for the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Ladies and gentlemen. That's not good.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That's very very bad. That's very bad. I mean, I
just don't know what to say about it. I really
really don't, because again, I'm not trying to convict the
brother in the court of public opinion, nor am I
trying to let him off.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
I'm trying to let the facts bear themselves out.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
But with the litany of charges and allegations that the
Throne in his direction, I can't imagine anything more incriminating
than her. She's the last person that I would have
expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I thought somehow,
some way Diddy and his defense team would have prevented
that part from happening. That's not going to happen. And whatever,
(03:48):
think about it, whatever they ask, you're just ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Just paused for a second.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Just close your eyes for a second and just imagine
that when your eyes were open just a few seconds earlier,
you saw that video and its Continental Hotel. I believe
that's where it was in La where he's running down
the hallway half naked. He grabs a he yankes it
to the floor. She lays helpless on the ground. He kicks,
(04:15):
and he shoves, and he throws a vase at her.
He drags her down the hall where he does all
of this stuff. The hotel clearly had the video. They
held on for it for quite some time because it
happened years ago, and yet somehow, someway it didn't come
to light until this. And then you're showing that the jurors.
(04:39):
Jurors see this after that, every question they ask her,
they're going to believe her before they believe him. They
could even play the video him on social media, looking
disheveled and contrite and saying that he was real messed up.
(05:00):
He was in a messed up place, He had a
lot going on. You see it right there there and
there it is. That's him on social media of his
own revolition, putting that post out. He's in no.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Position to refute what she says, especially.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
If they can find their questions to her personal experiences,
Like if they ask her dates and times and stuff
like that, and they could try to get a caught
up and all of that and she gives the wrong answers, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
That could be incriminating.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
But if they're asking her about what she felt, like,
how terrorized she felt, what the fear factor was like,
these are things that you can't police, and it all
impacts a jury. This is why I say he's in trouble.
(05:52):
It's not just because of the litany of charges. It's
not just because it's being brought by the Southern State
of the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It's not just because of those things. It's because.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
The person or people who are incriminating him, especially as
it pertains to hers specifically, It's not going to be
hard for her to be very convincing.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
It just isn't.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Those are my thoughts as minimal as they may be
in significance. But my next guest, that's not a problem.
He has joining me to discuss. This is ESPN and
ABC News legal analyst, one of the best in the business,
I might add, he's also Sports Center anchor as well,
the one and only Ryan Smith mc colleague.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
What's going on, buddy? How you doing, man? How's everything?
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Everything's good man? How you doing?
Speaker 1 (06:44):
I'm doing all right, man. Let's get right to it.
Heard me talking about Diddy a little bit earlier. As
trial date starts on May fifth. What's the significance of
Cassandra Cassi Ventura testifying under her real name instead of
anonymously like three other people named in the indictment.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Yeah, this could be huge in a couple different ways.
And let's break it down between symbolically and legally. Symbolically,
For me, this is huge because it lends credibility to
her testimony. So you think about it like this, Cassie
gets up on the stand, she's naming herself and for
jurors and even in the court of public opinion, there's
this sense that she's standing behind her allegations full throttle
(07:21):
using her name. Now that's nothing against other accusers who
might not be willing to use their names. It's just
that how we tend to look at things, especially how
juries might tend to look at things. They might say, well,
this person standing behind what they're saying, so we're going
to back her a little bit more.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
We might believe her a little bit more, and it
lends credibility to her allegations.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
The other thing is putting her name out there, and
I know it's been out there in some connections in
many ways so far.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
It also helps others possibly come forward. Prosecutors always talked
about how this.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Case might not be done, there might be other factors,
and that could still be a possibility Legally, I think
it's twofold Number one's showing of strength for the prosecution.
And we are here, we are naming ourselves, we are
out there, come at us. The other thing I think
that's critical here is it puts the defense on the defensive.
Here's why she gets up on the stand. She names herself.
(08:11):
She's got the credibility. Jurors are connecting with her. It
might make it harder for them to try to discredit her,
or intimidate her, or come at her really hard.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
On cross examination.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
So those are some factors that play into all this,
and I think for the prosecution it's a win to
have her naming herself.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Let's look at the specificity of the actual charges against Diddy.
When you talk about her name instead of being anonymous,
her name being put out there specifically, what can she
speak to I'm talking about the actual specifications of the
charges against them. How can she specifically speak against that.
We heard the words racketeering for crowd out loud. What
would she have to do with that? Explain that to
(08:49):
my viewers.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
My biggest thing is she's going to try to explain
what happened at these free coughs, and that's going to
be huge. I think people tend to look at legal
trials and they say, well, this person's going to give
us the smoking gun, is going to tell us the
one thing that's connect everything.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
But racketeering cases are a vast thing that you have
to build. So you have to show through the different witnesses,
through the different evidence, all the different things you have
that there was a criminal enterprise going on in furtherance
of these activities, in further once, in furtherance in.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
This case of these assaults of these different things in
terms of prostitution of the allegations they're making.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
So you have to build that case.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
And I think what Cassie can do is we've all
seen the video and there's been a lot of connections
to her in that video.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
But this goes beyond that. This is her being able
to frame what the situation was like for Diddy, what
some of these events were like, so they can use
her testimony along with the evidence they have to prove
the racketeering.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
But Ryan, when we talk about that and just playing
devil's advocate for seving Diddy in all likelihood, one would
surmise would say she was consensual in these actions.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Okay, she wasn't forced, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
His proof could be the fact that they were in
a relationship for years. So if he was so reprehensible,
such such an insidious figure, why was she involved with
him for so long? What defense do you anticipate he'll
be able to make that he has a snowballs chance
and you know what of making against her, particularly when
(10:22):
she's the.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
One we saw him hit and kick on a video.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
That's the defense He's gonna say she was consensual.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
He's gonna say all the people involved, everybody the prosecutor
is bringing in, was all consensual. That people did this
because they liked that, they wanted to be there. But prosecutors,
you got to look at it in terms of the
way prosecutors are trying to build their case. They're building
it in the same way or in a similar way
that the Weinstein case was built. This is a person
in power, a gatekeeper just certain things in this industry.
(10:51):
If you wanted to get into this industry in certain ways,
you had to do the things he said, and this
was how he did it, And these are the things
these people had to do. I think you make a
great point that they were in a relationship, that that
might be part of what they might use. But my
sense is that, and we don't all the prosecution's case.
My sense is that they're going to build this and
say she was in that relationship. But just because you're
(11:14):
in a relationship doesn't mean that person gets to control
you and make you do certain things. And perhaps there
was a point where he was doing this and doing
things that she felt like she had to do in
order to not.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Only further her career, but in order to be a
part of this world.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
And I think that's a one way in which prosecutors
are going to try to build this case. They're going
to try to build similarities among Cassie and other people
that might testify and other people that are contributing to
this case, to say this was a pattern, these are
the things he did in order to continue this criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
But if she's willing to put her name on Front
Street instead of being anonymous, and others refrained from doing so,
won't that diminish potentially their argument against Diddy the anonymous ones.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
I love that you answer that question.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That's a common thing that people ask when you talk
about one person revealing their name and others not. And
you make a great point because in some ways it
looks like, well, they're not willing to stand behind their claims,
so how can we believe their claims?
Speaker 4 (12:14):
What the judge and what others.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Are going to have to decide in this case, and
what probably will play out a little bit is the
reason why people are trying to remain anonymous here. Cassie
is a well known public figure. She was also connected
in that initial videotape. We know that she is a
part of this. Anybody who knows anything about this case.
So in many ways, it's amazing that she's still coming
forward and offering herself out there like this, with all
(12:37):
the public scrutiny that she might face, with the harassment
she might face. But Stephen A look at it from
the other people's perspective. Are they supposed to be in
a place where they're supposed to deal with the harassment
and the public scrutiny. I think it becomes hard for
people sometimes to realize that people who are accusers in
cases like this, they come forward with their story, and
(12:58):
as painful as that is, there becomes the aftermath of
sharing the story. They're harassed online, people get their address,
they try to find them. That the complaints dog, the
accudations dog them for most of their lives. How does
that affect their ability to get a job, How does
that affect their ability to live in society? So I
think it's incredibly brave that Cassie's able to come forward
(13:18):
and use her name, But she's also a public figure
and she's been accustomed to that scrutiny a little bit.
I think what will help the other accusers is they
might not be as famous, maybe not as a custom,
and maybe it'll be easier for the prostituting and state
of yours. Hey, look, they don't have the public profile
that she does. Let's try to hear their words and
respect their privacy.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
The word anonymous, and I'm gonna go off the subject
in the second, but the word anonymous, A lot of
people don't realize what that means. They just says, okay,
you don't know the meaning the public. But those who
will testify against Ditty anonymously, does Diddy and his defense team.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Know specifically who they are? Do they know their names, etc?
Can you explain that to my audience.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, they'll know their names. Discoveries should have all come out.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
A lot of that information should come out, unless there's
some sort of play by the prosecutor to try to
restrict that access because there's some concern about harassment or
that they can be threatened. But in deary, the way
this should work is they should have a right to
confront their accusers. They should have a right to know
their names, background on them, and that's part of what
they're going to try to use.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
To to credit their story.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
So, but the naming anonymous ends up being significant in
a case like this because you mentioned it. Once you
put Cassie's name out on Front Street, everybody's gonna hear
about it.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
We're going to be waiting for the testimony. We're going
to be trying to figure out what she said.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
You're gonna probably have to do press conferences possibly at
some point. Speak are the other people signing up for
that in order to share what happened to them? And
I think that's the critical part of leaving their names
anonymous in that courtroom. That stuff that's both to be
confidential and allow them to.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Go ahead and live their lives while also sharing their
truth as the prosecution needs them to to build their case.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
The video that did he put out on social media
where he appeared contrite and dishevel, those are the words
that I used, basically saying he was fed up. He
was in a very very bad place when he did
what he did to Cassie Ventur.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
You see the video right there.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
How incriminating could that end up being against him? Now
that Cassie has been willing to attach her name to
the lawsuit and she's gonna come out on Front Street
and say whatever it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Is that she has to say, it could be a
very big problem.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
For him, because prosecutor's gonna pull up that videotape, they're
gonna put it out there in court, and they're gonna say,
look at what this man said.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
He is sorry for what he did. Folks, let's outline
for you now what he did. Cassie.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Let's get on the stand and outline for us what
he did, and coupled with our evidence, that's going to
prove our case. So typically when you have a situation
like that, your lawyers will tell you, if you're representing Diddy, hey,
don't say anything. I know there's a temptation to do that.
Don't say anything because it could be used against you.
I think at Diddy's mind, it's a way to get
public sympathy.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
It's a way to get.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
And I think in some way his defense team can
say about this, hey, he's apologizing for the relationship.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
He is not a perfect person, but he is not
a criminal. That's going to be their messaging.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
But still, you don't want to have to have a
videotape out there from your client saying I'm sorry for
what I did, giving the prosecution the ability to explore
that and with their evidence with Cassie and with other
witnesses to be able to prove, yeah, you're sorry for
what you did because it was criminal. That's what prosecutors
are going to want to do.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Knowing the law, knowing criminal cases the way that you do.
What does this case earily remind you of as it
pertains to other cases that may have existed out there
in the past. When you think about what p did,
he is going through right now, what's the comparison you
draw it to.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
My biggest comparison is the Weinstein case, also the R.
Kelly case. Both of those cases involve the situation where
prosecutors were able.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
To build it as you have a gatekeeper, and it's
impossible to really make inroads in this area without the gatekeeper. Now,
no know, people are going to hear and say, well,
all of these people, they could have Diddy is doing this,
they could have gone to Dre or somebody else. And
there's a million other rap artists and production companies out there.
But I think what they're trying to build in the
same way that was built in the Weinstein case was
(17:14):
he wasn't the only studio in town. Mirror Max wasn't
the only place to make films, but in a particular way.
Once you got into this world, there was a way
to build your career, to foster development. And I think
what this case draws a similarity to, and what prosecutors
have been trying to do with these cases is show no.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
One is above the law.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
You can't go out, in prosecutor's mind, create a business
and then make people do your bidding, even if it's illegal,
in order to move up in that business. If it's
a legitimate business, you can't do that.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
And so in the same way that the Weinstein case
was prosecuted and the r. Kelly case was prosecuted.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
It feels like prosecuted or following the similar playbook here
trying to make that point not only publicly but also
in the courtroom. These are criminal enterprises that in many
ways were set up in further inst of Ditty and
the people with him, and at the expense of these
in their minds accusers and victims.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
We use words last question on this matter.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
We use words like criminal enterprise, We use words like
racketeering and what have you. Is it wrong for us
to get the impression that it's not Didty that they're
after they're after him? Of course, please don't get me wrong,
But it's not just him. They're after a whole string
of individuals that he's connected to, as opposed to it
just be it was about R Kelly, it was about
(18:33):
Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't appear to be thereafter just Didty.
It's like he's the guy to get, so all the
dominoes will fall and we'll get everybody associated with it.
That's the impression that I'm getting to that. You say, what,
Ryan Smith, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
I say I completely agree, and I say I would
go beyond that.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
The first thing is, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
They're trying to get him and the enterprise and everything
that backed him and everything that created this center, because
that's what they try to do when they prosecute criminal cases.
I know the people out there say, hey, just about Ditty.
It's not just about Didy. It's about trying to.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Uphold the law. It's not what prosecutor. That's how prosecutors
see it.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
But the way I go beyond it is this, with
each one of these cases, they are trying to send
a message, not just to the.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Ditties of the world or to the Harvey Weinstein or
R Kelly's.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
They're trying to send a message to the people who
have other things going on, or people who might come
up later who might have ideas of doing something that
they are saying Diddy did. They're saying, we will find you,
we will come after you. The fact that Ditty is
there in the courtroom, perhaps he is telling us things.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
About you, about people you know. So if you're doing
something on the wrong side of the law and you
think your power and your money and influence is going
to protect you, it will not. And that's the message
they're trying to send. We obviously, stephen A, we talk
about this case. We have to see how it's litigated
and how everything comes out. But for prosecutors, this is
every success they have in this area is an another.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Ability for them to be able to say to everybody
else out there in all of these businesses, you are
not above the law, no matter how much money or
power you have.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
I want to transition back to the world to sports
and off this p Diddy topic, and thank you so
much for coming on Ryan and talking about this, But
I want to talk about this potential multi billion dollar
settlement between NCAA and student and athletes past and present.
By the way, this deal could reshape the business of
college sports.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Correct, Yeah, absolutely, And this deal is it's labeled as
a two point eight billion dollar settlement, but really it's
a deal that looks backwards and forwards. So the backwards
part is it's spending billions of dollars to payback athletes
who didn't who weren't able to make deals before NIL,
who are part of these anti trust lawsuits that were
all combined. So, for example, that could mean that athletes
(20:50):
who made a lot of money for their schools, like
Power five Conference football players, basketball players who.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Make hundreds of thousands of dollars, small sport.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
Athletes a mid majors could end up making only hundreds
of dollars, but in ways it kind of compensates them.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
The looking forward part ends up being interesting too, because
what it does is it sets up sort of a
salary cap, just like we say in pro sports, twenty
million bucks or so for each school to spend on athletes.
The idea is to try to rein in some of
the NIL spending by boosters and all that. And it
also sets something that I think is going to actually
be a legal issue beyond the settlement, which is like
(21:24):
a clearing house for nil deals. So if somebody's making
a deal.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Over six hundred bucks, they have a clearing house, it's
going to look at that and maybe say, hey, is
this circumventing the salary cap.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
If not, you can't do it.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
I think that one's going to face court challenges even
after this settlement, at least it has a likelihood too.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
What I think the big part that turns me off,
frind is that they're talking about cap and you know,
revenue at twenty million per school or what have you,
something along those lines. The two point eight million dollar
billion dollar settlement that they've been talking about is retroactive
from what happened between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four
to the athletes that would denied money at that particular
moment in time, and sort of reimbursing them from missed
ages and things of that nature. I understand that part,
(22:02):
even though I think it should be more. My issue
is why does it need to be capped? Why does
it be capped at twenty million dollars as opposed to
a percentage of revenue generated by the universities, just like
you have in basketball or football, where there's a percentage
of football or basketball related income or revenue that comes
to the players.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Why can't the same be with NCUBA athletes.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
That's I'm suspicious, is what I'm trying to say about
that cap trying to derail the kind of money guys
are able to get in NIL and guys and lady
is able to get in nil and beyond and stuff
like that. I'm kind of suspicious anytime I see a
capped number associated with student athletes playing in the nc
DOUBLEA under the ncublea umbrella, because I don't trust them
(22:44):
one bit to that.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
You say what I say.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
The pushback to you is going to be, well, it's
going to go up next year, it might be.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
More, and then it's going to be more.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
But the problem is it doesn't answer your claim, which
is there's still a cap.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
And I think you make a great point.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
I also think what becomes interesting in what you're saying
is the clearinghouse aspect of this.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
Think about this, stephen A.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
In the advent of NIL and even before that, athletes
became in many ways, these college athletes became business people.
They built up huge followings online, millions of people. Some
of their income might be coming from boosters, some of
them might be coming from their own deals. Are we
now going to look at those deals that they in
many ways created on their own and say, well, you're
going to circumvent the salary caps, so you can't do that.
(23:26):
Now we're back in the same bag that we were
in before nil, which is not only your cap argument,
which means people might be limited from getting their real
market value, but then also even if you could go
out and have millions of followers and do all these
other things on your own, well, now we might try
to cap that, We might try to limit that because
we feel like it's circumventing the cap we already have.
(23:47):
I am in agreement with you. I think when you
have a situation like nil, it's almost like letting the
cat out of the bag. Once they open that bag up,
you can't close it off and now say, okay, let's
pull everybody back in and cut the number and try
to keep everybody down a little bit lower.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
That ship has already sailed.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
I think if people I think at this point the
booster system, the fact that I agree with the idea
of paying players directly from colleges, but I think to
try to cap it and to try to rein it
in is always going to be a problem, and it's
always going to face legal challenges, and it's always gonna
have critics because people are gonna say, just when you
open the floodgates so we could make money and create
(24:24):
businesses and earn more, you're trying to close them back
up again to the benefit of schools, which is the
same reason why we ended up in many ways in
the nil spot in the first place.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
And by the way, you know it's bad when Supreme
Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump,
was the one that made the argument in twenty twenty
one where he called them out and he said, I've
known there's no business in America that could get away
with doing this other.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
Than you guys.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And sure enough, I think they're they're find trying to
find an end a round to get around this stuff
to do the same thing they've always been doing.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
So we'll see what happens with all of that.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Ryan Smith, Man, I really really appreciate you taking time
out of your busy schedule.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Thanks for coming on, my brother. I appreciate it. Thanks
so much anytime.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Man. Good to talk to you, all right.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
One of only Ryan Smith legal analysts ABC and ESPN.
Also anchor for Sports Center. The Brothers outstanding, one of
the best in the business, making no mistake about that.
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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