May 15, 2025 • 55 mins
Hey Reigndrops! Carlos is teaming up with Eboni K. Williams for a brand-new #RealityWithTheKing series: True Crime Thursdays. They’re kicking things off with a deep dive into the Diddy trial—and trust us, no one’s holding back. Come for the breakdown, stay for the sharp legal insight from our favorite attorney, Eboni K. Williams. And as a bonus, she spills some tea on the Real Housewives of New York City and all the buzz about its future. New episodes drop every Thursday - don’t miss it!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
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 (00:01):
Welcome to Reality with the King. It's me Carlos Kings,
the King of Reality TV and one of the most
sought after executive producers in reality television with over ten
years a production experience. Twice a week on Reality with
the King, we'll sit down with my friends across the
entertainment industry, recap our favorite reality shows and revisit un
(00:24):
forgettable moments that we are still talking and tweeting about.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hey, rain drops.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
On today's episode of Reality with the King, we have
to talk about all things reality television, but we also
got to talk about all things that are happening in
the reality of the world. In this particular case, both
are intersected because p Diddy was a reality star who
started making the band I want to work for Diddy,
(00:52):
And he did have a Sean Thomos show that was
going to come out this year, but it got canceled
due to everything going on. So welcome to True Crime
Thursdays Reality with the King Edition. And I cannot do
this alone, so I am here with my good friend
Legal Ego Honey. She is also a judge. She is
(01:14):
the host of.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
The award winning podcast Holding Court.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So y'all know how I'm talking about the beautiful, the talented,
the amazing woman and mother that she is. Give it
up for Ebony K.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Williams rain Drops, Hello darlings, and the King. I salute you, honey.
Let's get into all of it. I like that framing though, too.
I like true crime. What are we doing true crime
Thursdays with the King?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Yeah? True crime Thursdays. Because the thing is this, I'm into.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
All things true crime. I'm launching a new series that
is coming out in June, so stay tuned for that
is in a true crime space. But with this ditty
stuff happening, it hit me Ebany that it is the
intersection of true crime reality star because Puff was on.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Making the band.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
I want to work for Diddy the four on Fox
that I worked on alongside him, DJ Calla and Meghan Trainer.
So I do want to get into a lot that's
been happening because what's going on in this case has
been the talk of the town for the past like
year year and a half. So to update everybody who
(02:28):
has been living under roped.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
As you all know, Mediamogo, SEANP.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Ded Combs is in jail for allegedly because he hasn't
been found guilty for alleged crimes of sex trafficking.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Okay, that's what he's in jail for.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
What has been happening for the past three days?
Speaker 1 (02:49):
The trial has started and as of today's taping, we
are going to discuss the first couple of days of
the trial, and mie K Williams is going to update
us on exactly what's been happening.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
So they want to trial his former girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Cassie Ventura, who is eight months pregnant, had to suffer
through being a witness in this case by talking about
some of the things she experienced, and I want Ebony.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
To update us on all things going on. So Ebonie,
what is going on in this case and why is
Cassie a part of me? Because we saw.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
The video where he physically harmed her at the lobby
of a hotel in the hallway. I'm sorry, but this
case is not about domestic violence. This case is about
sex trafficking. So can you educate us on what's been
going on and how Cassie is involved in this from
that arena?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah, it's so broad, Carlos. The magnitude of what we're
talking about by virtue of first of all, the magnitude
of Sean Diddy Combs. Right, we are his contemporary. We
were raised on the cultural impact of this man and
this entity, you know, because that is exactly what he is.
And put a pin in entity and enterprise because that's
(04:10):
actually part of this case.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
So when we think all things music, but also fashion,
also liquor and spirits, also television, also h all the
things from every genre of the industry, there's nowhere you
can really go and Sean Combe's or bad boy or
sorock or some you know, Comb's enterprises doesn't touch it.
(04:33):
So let me start with that framing, just so folks
can really appreciate the magnitude of the defendant. It's hard
to equate it to anything, but think of the magnitude
of an O. J. Simpson where it was the NFL,
but it was hurts, it was uh naked just uh
was it naked whatever those movies were that he was on.
(04:54):
You know, yes, thank you think that for our generation, Okay,
And many people Carlos are going ahead and claiming this
case as the case of our century. You know, if
oj was the case of the twentieth century, this is
certainly the case thus far of the twenty first century,
(05:14):
and my legal peers are framing it that way. So
that sets the stage. Now let's go to the charges.
You correctly cited that one of the main because it's
really five major charges that are in this federal indictment,
the three original the sex trafficking is one of them,
but they are joined with two very important co charges
(05:38):
transporting for the sake of prostitution and the biggie as
we're kind of calling it in legal communities, the conspiracy
and racketeering.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then there were two what we call superseding indictments, Carlos.
So these were indictments that came after the first charges
dropped and the homes were invaded in Miami and Los
Angeles and the raids and all of that. That was
when we got those first three charges sex trafficking, racketeering,
and conspiracy, and then transporting with prostitution.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Then we got two additional which means that the government
in this case, when I say the government, I want
to be clemed i ab out the United States of America,
the Federal Government v.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
Shan Colmes. That's the title of this case. Okay. Again,
scope and magnitude.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
They were asking after the first indictment Carlos, then prosecutor
black man by the name of Damian Williams. He has
sent stepped down from this case, but he was the
original prosecutor on the case. He was asking for more
witnesses and more victims, more alleged victims to what come forward.
He was saying, we're still working on this case. Baby,
it's not cooked, as the kids would say. It is
(06:48):
still an active investigation. But based on the facts, evidence
and proposed witnesses we have thus far, we've put forth
the first set of indictment.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Then, very calm in the lo Carlos. This is not uncommon.
I want to be clear.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
We have superseding indictments, indictments that come after the initial
framing of the charges because we've got what, more witnesses,
more facts, more pieces of evidence to add on to
the first set of charges. So there's an additional sex
trafficking charge and an additional transportation for the sake of
prostitution charge, So five total charges we're talking about here. Now,
(07:26):
let me get to your question, because it is the
question of the case thus far. When we talk about
the video that many of us first saw when CNN
broke this news last year, and we all bore witness
to the horrific traumatic, extraordinarily violent, just unconscionable. I mean,
(07:47):
we saw a madman on camera right kicking, beating, dragging
a woman that didn't even have on shoes or socks,
and we were all horrified to see it. But you're
absolutely right. There were no and still are no criminal
charges attached to that tape.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Zero none, not.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
That would have been domestic violence or some type of
assault in the California jurisdiction, statute of limitations ran on it,
because I just wanted to lay this out for the
rain drops, Carlos.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Why not criminal charges on that?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's because the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations
had already run on that tape.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
That tape was I'll get you the year in a second,
but it was.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
It was the one year window, and which would have
been the state level that would have allowed it, and
the three year federal window. Both of them were expired.
So there are no criminal charges as it relates to that.
Now you're asking great question, why are we even talking
about this tape? Why was it the first piece of
(08:52):
evidence that the prosecutors put into evidence on this.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Federal trial that seemingly has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Well, I want the rain Drops to think about at
least two things being true at the same time. So
what we see on that video is absolutely domestic violence
and it is absolutely not a charge in this case.
So anybody did y'all see saying that they are right?
And also this part it's very important, Carlos, the prosecutors
(09:22):
in the federal indictment cite aspects that we do see
on this video physical assault. I want to read it
verbatim because I don't want this to get into any
what Ebony thought of what Ebony said on this one,
because the stakes are too high.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
This is clause four. If you pull up any this
is public record.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Rain Drops.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Pull up the original indictment of the United States of
America v. Shan Colmes. You will see in the very
first caption they lay out the racketeering and conspiracy part
Clause go paragraph for number four physical abuse by Sean Colmes.
This is the government talking physical abuse by Sean Combs's
aka Puff Daddy akap DD aka Black.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
The defendant.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Was recurrent and widely known on numerous occasions from at
least two thousand and nine to continuing years, Combs assaulted
women by doing, amongst other things, striking, punching, dragging, throwing
objects at and kicking them. These assaults were at times
(10:30):
witnessed this is Keith. They were witnessed by other folks.
They included an instance in the Los Angeles hotel.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
This is the specific video.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
We're talking about here in or about that's the year
March of twenty sixteen and was later reported where Comb's kicked,
dragged and threw a vase at a woman. We now
know that woman to be Cassie Ventura as she was
attempting to leave when a member of the hotel security intervened.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
By the way rain drops.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
That was the very first witness that the pro secution
put on the witness stay in day one. The first
witness we heard was from was that security guard, that
security officer. Really he was a security guard. And that's important, Flores,
go ahead, Carlos.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
And from my understanding, the security guard is now a
police officer for the Los Angeles to Police Department, I believe.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
And what was so interesting is and I want you
to explain this to me. So allegedly he did.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
He contacted the then security guard to confiscate the footage
of what he did to Cassie. And is it true
that the security guard said on the stand that he
and I believe his then girlfriend or wife he showed
it to her.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And did not give it to the police. Is that true?
Speaker 4 (11:55):
More or less? So?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Right? So, because I had that first question too, I
was like, well, why did you record this on your
cell phone?
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Sir? Right?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
And the answer that he said and admits to, which
I thought was very cringe quite frankly, was that the
only reason that he recorded this was not for some
moral high ground to It was not to prove law enforcement.
It was so that he can show his lady. I'm
not sure if it was his wife or not, but
(12:22):
so that he could show his lady. Look, look, look
and see what happened to me at work today. Look
and see yah, see judge, But look and see what
I saw. Sean Combs this victim so that he could
be believed by his romantic partner.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
So this is very interesting.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I want to make a point too that the read
because many people said, well, why didn't he go to
the police, Why didn't he do that? Well, y'all, remember
he's working in what a commercial capacity at that time,
He's working for the hotel.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Now he's not law enforcement.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
And see this is where you know Black Comedy has
been joking about this for years, right, these toy cops,
no disrespect, but secure we must be. This is very important.
Security guards are not law enforcement. They're not they have
no they're not duty bound in that same way. So
his main reason for being there was to protect the
what the property of the hotel, and that's why what
(13:15):
we heard him testify to Carlos on opening day of
trial was that he would be letting mister Combs know
that the damage done by his abusive episode we show
up on the hotel bill. He's there to make sure
that the property is safe, not that the individuals per
se in the hotel. That's what police are for.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
So a question for you, by this being a case
that outlines sex trafficking and the other things you outline,
Cassie's testimony is important. Tell me why her testimony is
important as it relates to us hearing about these freakoffs
(14:01):
that allegedly and god, I'm saying alleged because he hasn't
found guilty so I'm not just right, Ebony. Why are
the freak off details important in this case as Cassie
has to unfortunately be a month pregnant living through this
by giving her testimony in front of the man who
he saw abuse her.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, so this is very important, the freakoff testimony, but
also the videotape. What I believe the prosecution is doing
the government in this case, Carlos, is they are slow walking.
Let's back up. We've already been told that this case
will likely be six to eight weeks long.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
That's a long time. Think about all that we've already heard.
How many already.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Right, whether you think he's guilty or not, or it
rises to the occasion of criminal activity or not.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
There's been a lot of.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
And we're on day three barely okay, and we're talking
about six to eight weeks more of this. So that
tells me that the prosecution is slow walking. The factual
foundation is what they're laying, Carlos, taking their time, and
unfortunately I agree with you, but it's necessary. If you're
gonna get a conviction, you have got to have a
(15:14):
cooperating witness. And I think it's very important that people
acknowledge that Cassie not only is testifying at her vulnerable,
fragile condition of being eight months pregnant, she's doing so
under her own name.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
And she didn't have to do that. She could have. Yeah,
she made a decision. She chose to do that, Carlos King.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Oh, yes, she chose to with forego a pseudonym, because
she could have been testifying as Jane Do one. As
we're being told future victims, alleged victims will be testifying
under pseudonyms Je Chambo two, Maybe there's a Jane Doe three.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
But the fact that Cassie Venturer says, no, no, no,
it's me. I am a famous woman in my own right.
This culture and community know me as it relates to
this man. And I believe she must believe, Carlos, that
it is persuasive for her to stand in receiving the consequences.
(16:14):
Because let's be clear, we all know victim shaming is real.
We've already all seen it already on the internet. It
relates to her testimony. Sound like she wanted it, sound
like she liked it, sound like she deserved it. Why
she stay okay? So she knew she would be receiving
that she's not a dummy.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
She's saying, even with that coming my way as I
carry my third child in uterow okay, and that's important.
And I'm gonna be personal, Carlos, as a woman that
just gave birth nine months ago. What we know scientifically
now is that the neuro system of the mother of
the gestational carrier directly impacts.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
The fetus and the child. So you better know that that.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I'm sure her doctor told her you withdrawing withstanding, rather
that level of stress and emotional turmoil while your baby
is still in final development, is you're paying a price, okay.
And she decided to pay that price on behalf of
the fact that she felt it was so necessary that
(17:17):
while this case is not being televised, that's why none
of us have seen actual photos of anybody, including Sean Holmes.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
What have we seen, Carlos these drawings at miss right.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
She's still saying, people, I want them to know my name,
I want them to know that this is me, Cassandra Ventura,
and I'm telling what happened to me, and I'm telling
my truth.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Why is the abuse and the freak offs and the
violent behavior in the freak offs. So important that we
know these details because the government, Carlos, is arguing that
all of that creates their case to argue conspiracy and racketeering.
So two things about that, right, So that's why when
I read I took the time to read this that
(18:00):
you know what they're alleging In the first complaint, in
the first indictment, they're saying, part of what because racketeering, Okay,
that what does that mean? That means criminal enterprise at play.
That's why we think of mafia when we hear Rico.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Is that the reason why the FED.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Ransack his Beverly Hills a stay and took and and
did the investigation, allegedly took guns and all that stuff because.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
And all at the same time, because when you're dealing
with a Rico, a racketeering conspiracy, that means you've got
multiple players, if you will, multiple agents with different tasks
of executing the criminal activity. And that means if I'm
in Miami and I'm a part of the Combs enterprise,
alleged criminal enterprise, and I'm and I see the cops
(18:48):
coming or the Homeland Security in this case, coming, and
what am I gonna do? I'm gonna text Carlos King,
who's at the LA spot and he's also a part
of the and I'm gonna say, hey, hey, Carlos, they're
they just came in on us in Miami get rid
of all the evidence in La so in an effort
to avoid the destruction of evidence, the collaboration of people trying.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
To get their stories straightened together.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
This is how the the you know, the the This
is how they they let they put you on notice
right that that they're they're closing in on you, and
they do it in that simultaneous way. It was not
very different than what we saw with r. Kelly or
where he had Atlanta charges, but he also had Chicago.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
This is what the rico of it all comes into play,
multiple different pockets, most of the time in different places,
but all working in concert. That's a legal term, working
in concert, Carlos, meaning together for the execution of a
shared criminal agenda.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
And part of that one more thing, because I'm sorry
to keep talking about I want to yeah. And and
they're saying that part of the criminal activity was the abuse,
was the kicking, punching, dragging of women. That's a part
of what they were conspiring, Because what are we conspiring
to do if we're just if we're conspiring.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
To make red kool aid, that's not a crime. We
can do that, Carlos. But if we're.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Conspiring to punch and kick people, that's criminal. Now we're
conspiring to commit a crime. So you've got to articulate
before you can get to the conspiracy, because that's what
everybody on social media that I'm hearing and reading and
listening and traveling, you and your raindrops too. Where's the rico?
Where's the conspiracy? Okay, domestic violence? I see that, got it.
(20:41):
He's out on trial for that. Where is the conspiracy?
The rico, the racketeering, and the working in concert, the
collusion if you will, you cannot collude by yourself. So
but I'm thinking that the prosecution has made a tactical
decision here, Carlos, and a strategic decision to say, oh,
we're gonna get to the various members of Sean Combs's enterprise,
(21:06):
whether they be because they worked for bad Boy at
a time, or they were his personal assistant, or maybe
they were security guards, or maybe they were drivers, or
maybe they were Heaven Forbid executives of some sort a
you know, the various business entities that he controlled, because
this is all about him being in control of all
these people and various enterprise. But before we get to that,
(21:31):
we we're gonna take our time in slow walk what
the criminal activity itself was, and it was the physical abuse.
They're gonna eventually they're go. They kind of are starting
to allude to the Arson. So we heard in today
day three testimony the reference to Kid Cuddy okay, who
at one time was a boyfriend, a short term boyfriend
of Cassie, I think around twenty eleven, she says, when
(21:54):
her and Shaan Colmes were on the rocks, Sean colmebs
catches with of this relationship between Cassie and Cutty, threatens
to harm both of them. She says, she at some
point calls Key Cutty. He pulls up on the on
the curve, picks her up, takes her to his home.
At some point she goes anyways, and and Sean Holmes says,
(22:15):
I'm going to blow his car up. So that's Arson.
That that that that would be a threat of arson, okay.
And then, as per The New York Times, Kid Cuddy
confirmed that some days after that threat of arson was made,
his car indeed exploded in the driveway. So this is
where the government is pulling that fact of Okay, part
(22:36):
of the criminal activity was the arson. Part of the
criminal activity was the physical abuse. Uh, let's get to
the freak offs because you asked about it, Carlos. Part
of the criminal activity was sexual at sexual sex, sexual activity,
sexual behavior, but not done voluntarily. She talked about on
the witness stand today. Many people were shot. She said
(22:56):
she was rape She used the rape word, Carlos. She said,
Sean Holmes raped me after some event and she said
he had dark eyes, his eyes were blacked out, and
he raped her. Okay, So that would be criminal activity.
And if the prosecution can prove Carlos that other people
(23:17):
were involved in the execution of him being able to
rape her, and this could be simple. This could be
as simple as his driver taking him to the destination
where the rape occurred, if the driver had knowledge that
Shawn Holmes was going there with the intention to commit
a crime, to do something illegal. Because now we're conspiring,
(23:40):
I'm helping you execute criminal activity.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
That would make me a co conspirator.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Is it starting to it? Really is child.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
We are just getting started. This is reality with the King,
and I'm Carlos King. Let's get back into the show.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Is it starting up? Yeah, No, it really is.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Because one of the questions that a lot of people
had ebony is sort of the salaciousness of the details
that Cassie's providing in her testimony. But now it all
makes sense because what we are hearing are some very
silations details that is Cassie's truth, which is the sort
(24:34):
of escort she had to be with.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
She's been cross examined.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
About whether or not it was elective or was she
forced to do it.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Let's let's be easy on that word cross exam, Carlos,
because it's very important.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
We're gonna get to right. This is still direct exam.
But you're right, he's being questioned.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
She's been question No, that's why your hair. I'm not
the legal ease, but thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
She is being questioned whether or not it was forced
or she's being questioned if it was elective.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Some of the things that people are saying because.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I want to know if media is going to play
a role in this, or is the sort of details
of the story going to color it for the jury.
So when we hear things like the sort of and
this is obviously you know it's explicit, but I'll say
the proper words, ejaculation that occurred doing a freak off,
(25:33):
and allegedly she had to take that and wipe it
on puff nipples as his way of having a satisfaction.
They talked about one escort urinating in her mouth. Can
you tell me why these very specific details are important.
(25:55):
Is it to paint the picture of what Cassie had
to endure or is it to really show that what
you said earlier, we are giving you step by step
leading into the ultimate racketeering. Recall all those things sex trafficking.
So we gotta be as detail as possible.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
It's both, So let me start with where you just landed.
They have to be as detailed as possible. How dare
any prosecutor, because don't forget Carlos. As much as I'm
making the case and laying out the facts, I am
a criminal defense lawyer by trade.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
That's what I did for a living.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I was first a public defender and then I was
a private lawyer for a defendants. So how dare a
prosecutor come in my face and try to convict my
client without specificity, period, that would be a gas to
the law. So they are required to be as absolutely
specific as available. So if there is a specific fact,
(26:51):
whether it's urine in a pool, whether it's twenty five
bottles of baby oil, whether it's the ejaculation you're urinating
to the point where she can't breathe and it's choking.
That we heard about the U T I s and
cole sores. She yeah, I went into all of that.
They must give us those details. But to your earlier
instinct because this is these are your instincts.
Speaker 4 (27:14):
They're producing too.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
They're painting the picture they're showing you with with fine
detail and broad stroke. This is a monster. Sean Colmes
is a monster and he and there was and he
was so depraved. See, this is the psychology of the process.
See psychology is a big part of this because when
we talk about the crime of coercion, Okay, and I'm gonna,
(27:38):
I'm gonna. I know we're running out of time for
this week. This is a great series, by the way,
So rain Drops, Carlos King has gifted you, honey, to
be able to get this in this level of detail
and expertise on a weekly basis as this case continues.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
This is this is a gift.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Okay, because I can only do this with you, so
thank you, so much.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
So happy to do it because it's important. I want
our culture to understand what's happening here. I want the
culture to Carlos. This is more than just the man
coming for a black successful man in America.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
This is more than that. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Race doesn't play apart, We'll get to that eventually, but
this is bigger than that. So when we talk about coercion,
we're talking about the sex act happened. We know that
these sex acts with Cassie Sean Combs and male escorts
and others happened. That is not disputed. Here's what's in dispute,
Carlos King, and this is where this case will turn
(28:30):
or fail. Can the prosecution make the case convincingly to
not one, two, or three, but twelve different men and
women That behavior rose to the level of by force
and unwillingness. So that's why you keep hearing even her
(28:53):
own prosecution team, who she's their witness, right asking her
did you feel free to leave? That's very important. And
when she says something like not really. Now, I'm gonna
tell you, as a defense lawyer, I'm happy to hear that,
because I'm gonna go in on that. When cross examination
time does come, and it is coming as soon as
(29:15):
the prosecution Carlos is completely done with their examination. We
call that direct exam. I expect her to be on
the on the stand another day, if not two more days.
You might even go into next week. Don't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Mm hmm. Wow.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Once they're done, they're gonna have to say defense your witness,
and then that's when they gonna get into her. They're
going to try to destroy her credibility. They're gonna try
to make her the biggest slut that ever lived. They're
gonna try to make her desperate for fame. They're gonna
try to make her completely thirsty. And some of these
things might apply.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Hell, we don't know.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
We weren't there, So those are gonna be the arguments.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
But the main one they're gonna argue is, well, back
when the when the government asked you, miss Ventura, did
you feel you had to do those things? You responded,
it was the only way I could spend time with him.
And then those twelve jurors, Carlos King are gonna have
to decide for themselves individually. Do I think that's coercion?
(30:16):
Do I think when Sean Combs says, if you were
to believe the testimony, when Shan Combs says, if you don't,
if this prostitute man I flew in from wherever for
the freak off that you know that's how we get
down and you know that's how you and my lady,
and you know that's how you get my time and attention,
and you want that And if you don't do it
(30:39):
right now tonight, I'm gonna release these sex tapes for
all the world to see.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Juror says, is that force.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Is?
Speaker 2 (30:47):
That?
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Is that Sean Comb's enforcing overt willpower over her such
that she doesn't feel free to say no to it.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
That's the question of this case.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Abony K.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Williams that, first of all, that's that was powerful in
the sense of really understanding the magnitude of this case,
the dynamic of this case, the sensitivity. You know, and
we watch a lot of court shows, movies and all
that stuff, but what we always know is when you
say something like you said, the defence can take that
(31:21):
one SoundBite and paint a different picture for the Jewors.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
So what we did learn today is.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Cassie accepted the twenty million dollars settlement from Puff. When
she and her legal team revealed to all of us
last year what she was going two years Oh my god,
it's like yesterday, two years ago. What is so interesting
(31:51):
about that to me is this, I would love to
get your legal education educate us on this.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Excuse me.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
It was said today that she was writing a book
and was going to release it and she gave him
a heads up. Did she ask for a did Cassie
ask for money in order to not release the book?
Did he say no? Did she then release what she
went through publicly? And then did he settle with her
(32:19):
less than twenty four hours after that?
Speaker 3 (32:21):
So my understanding of the facts based off of the
reporting that I've been able to get, because that's all
we can get. You know, unless you're in the press pool.
Actually there is no press pool, so unless you're in
the courtroom. Really, from per my reporting, this is the
order Carlos. She writes the book, shows it to her
mother said her intention with writing the book is ultimately
(32:42):
for Sean Combs to see it, and she hopes it
brings remorse, so she then contacts him through his team. Specifically,
she names kk Okay in a sense a high level
assistant to Sean Colmes, and says, get him these chapters.
This happens, someone from his team offers thirty million dollars.
(33:04):
So it's my understanding, Carlos that she didn't necessarily ask,
because that would be the height of extortion. Quite frankly, now,
she would be stepping into criminal territory, Carlos. Baby, if
I say, look at these pictures I got to you, Carlos,
and all it takes for me not to show them
to the world is thirty thousand dollars, I've extorted you
(33:27):
at that point. Now this is not about you anymore.
Now it's about me and my criminal activity of extortion.
So I didn't get that. She said, hey, here are
the chapters, read them and weep. Give me thirty million
and I'll make them go away.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
No, no, no, no no.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
She wrote the chapters, She previewed them by sending them
to him, and his team read them. They read them
and said, we will give you thirty million to make
this whole thing go away. And then at some point.
I think that was kind of tabled, if you will.
I have to believe, because before every civil suit is filed,
(34:01):
there's normally always pre trial conversations with the or pre
filing conversations, I should say, between the lawyers. So I
have to believe. Cassie's civil lawyer, So this is not
the government or the FEDS. This is her personal civil
lawyer that took her case on retainer knowing that if
they were successful in recovering anything, he would he or
she would get a third Okay, how that's how those
(34:25):
deals work.
Speaker 4 (34:26):
M hm, and you take it on.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
That's a contingency deal typical of a civil case. They
went to Seaan Colmebs and his team and said, hey,
we're about to file this suit, and they probably gave
them maybe not everything that was in the suit, Carlos,
but a lot of it. You know, the key Cudding
I'm sure was in it. I'm sure the hotel incident
was in it, because they knew they had that videotape
to pull from and say, hey, if you don't make
(34:49):
our client hole in some way fiscally right now, we're
going to take this and file it and it's going
to be a public record and then the public can
figure it out. And Shawn comes Is team you know,
said we'll go do it, and they went and did it.
November twenty twenty three, and twenty four hours later, the
twenty million dollar settlement happened. I have to believe that
(35:11):
Sean Combs thought that Cassie was still in such a
state of humiliation and grief and trauma that she would
never want the world to know that about her because
that was his. And that actually goes to the prosecution.
Going back now to the criminal elements required for this
current case we're on Carlos, that sounds a little bit
(35:33):
like the coursive tactic that was maybe at play to
silence his alleged victim.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Certainly, you wouldn't want anybody to know that you were
drowning in p literally.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Certainly you wouldn't want anybody to know that you had
STDs and UTIs and coal sores. And certainly you wouldn't
want the America and the world to see you as
such a.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
Tragic horrors figure. I'm just saying, you know.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
What they Yeah, and then that.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
Type of psycho that's the psychological warfare that can absolutely
Carlos be a part of coercion, making you feel you
cannot say no, making you feel you cannot tell, making
you feel you can't as every many people in the
common well just leave, just run away. Well, if she
feels that she runs away, you're gonna release the tape,
(36:26):
or she feels if she tells, you're going to make
it so bad for her that she can't get a
record deal in the industry. That's what the prosecution is
ultimately going to lead us to by way of the
coercion argument. And then if you bring in more people
to enforce the coersion, like oh, my man's gonna make
(36:47):
sure that all the DJs and such and such that
they don't never play none of your shit, My my
my girl and her girl's gonna make sure no producers
work with you in the industry, All of that can
be made you. These are hypotheticals rain drops, But I'm
saying this is what corrosion could look like, and that
also would be getting working in concert, conspiring. That is
(37:09):
what conspiracy could look like. To execute the corision. We
can conspire carlos to work together to execute coercion, just
like we can conspire to work together to execute physical abuse.
Just like we can conspire to work together to execute kidnapping.
Get in this car right now, or I'm gonna release
the tapes. That's corision, and kidnapping could be because you're
(37:33):
forcing me into a space I don't want. I'm not
voluntarily in. Or you're not letting me leave your home.
I'm not free to leave because of the force of
will and threat, you're imparting my way. But then that's
why it's twelve jurors, because another juror can hear all
of that, is say, yeah, it sounds real bad, but
I don't know if it's bad.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
Enough that you just couldn't free yourself.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
And that's why these cases are very interesting, and that's
why there's twelve differ and people on that jury box.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
And for the record, if Pop would have settled initially,
none of this would be happening.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
I don't believe you listened to holding court enough. I
don't believe that I'm just messing with you. I don't
believe we would be here talking. None of it is today,
I think all if we are to believe the majority
of what Cassie has said thus far consistently by the way,
which gives her some credibility in my personal book and
my legal one, I believe all this young lady really
(38:31):
really wanted was acknowledgment, acknowledgment that what she endured was
beyond the pale, beyond scope.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
She didn't deserve it, and it was wrong.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
And I think had she gotten that acknowledgment Carlos by
way of the twenty million doc, because frankly, I'm gonna
tell you, I was shocked to hear it was only
twenty million dollars today. I thought, for sure did it
was upwards of fifty million dollars because the demand was
I think in the seventies. I think it was around
seventy something million. May I think if she had gotten
her twenty million dollar check, which is some form of
(39:04):
acknowledgment of culpability, not legally legally, it's not that at all,
but I believe that most people that receive a check
feel that way.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Alive.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Gretchen Carlson from Roger L's, with the fox of it all,
I was there for that, you know.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
I think that that.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Probably would have satisfied enough of her desire desired outcome.
When it came to the alleged behavior, it wasn't done
the lawsuit was fired. At that point, she had nothing
else to lose. We already knew her name, We already
knew it was her. We already knew she had gotten
beaten and drugged and raped and participated, whether voluntary or
(39:41):
not voluntary, We know she had participated in some extraordinarily salacious, vile,
you know, unconscionable activities. So at that point, I think
it became game on, so to speak. And so now
let's cooperate with the prosecution and let's move all the
pieces on the chessboard for civil and criminal. And that's
(40:02):
why we're talking about the case today.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Last question for you.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
We see that his teenage daughters are there that he
had with the Lake Importer and Sarah Chapman and Sarah
Chapman thank you. Sarah's their daughter together named Chance. We
see his his first child's mother, Missa Hilton, who's with
the Walker, show up. His mom showed up, his sons
(40:28):
show up, his his his his theen weren't married. So
his bonus son, Christian, yes, son, I'll be sure, showed up.
Why do you think it was important for the defense
to bring in his family? But importantly, his very young
teenage daughters who I read. No, I don't know if
(40:52):
it's true, but I've read that the information Cassie speaking
about obviously is so severe that his teenage daughters.
Speaker 2 (40:59):
Had to lead the room. Why are they even be
in the first place.
Speaker 3 (41:02):
I'm so glad you asked this on the way out,
because I had some thoughts around this. So conventional wisdom
tells us as lawyers, right, especially defense lawyers, that we
want to humanize and sympathize our clients to the best
of our ability, and that's good legal advice and skill.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
That is true.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
It's the reason that you saw Rihanna and Asab Rocky's
two little baby cute sons in court on his verdict day.
Here's the difference, though, So that's the why, that's the
theory around why they would be there in the first place.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
To answer your question.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Here's where it's problematic for me as both an attorney
and a human being. Quite frankly, and now as a parent. Okay,
I don't know if I'm ajuror looking at especially like
you said, the three youngest girls, right, It's one thing
Justin's thirty one years old. We could argue he's a
(42:00):
grown man, Christian I believe at some point these are
older children. Okay, so I think you can make the
argument that they could stomach hearing a lot of this.
I think when you're talking about these young teenage still girls,
I'm now questioning the wisdom of you understanding what best
(42:25):
interest of the child means, and that should always be
our north star as parents period. We should always only
be doing what is in the best interest of our children.
Speaker 4 (42:37):
So while I understand.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
A legal theory or impulse to show, look how great
of a father he must be for these kids to
be in the galley supporting him, look at how great
of an ex husband he must be, or not husband
because he never married a motherfucker, But look at how
great of an ex boyfriend or baby daddy or great son.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
Because it is Jenis Colmbs in the courtroom, I believe
she was.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Yeah, yeah, you know, so look at who's showing up
for him. I understand that, Carlos, But if I'm on
this jury, I'm also wondering, well, damn, are you that
self centered?
Speaker 4 (43:12):
Selfish?
Speaker 3 (43:13):
And either that or so unaware of the innate trauma
that is inherent when your daughters, Whether you did it
or not irrelevant, Actually that your daughters are having to
bear witness and be in an environment so traumatic, so dark,
so toxic. I would think, even if you did nothing wrong,
(43:36):
mister Combs, you would think so much of your responsibility
to your teenage daughters to protect them from such testimony.
And the fact that you between those two choices, because
we all have choices, Carlos, you and your legal team said, nah,
we feel it's more important for the jury to see
(43:56):
these girls and try to sympathize with Sean Comes, our client,
and then to protect the emotional wellbeing, the psychological stability
of these very formative young girls, these young girls, Carlos,
who are in this very moment shaping their understanding of sexuality,
their understanding of consent, their understanding of body autonomy, their
(44:20):
understanding of their own ability to say yes no to
certain So I would actually to me, this was a
miss on the defense for the three young daughters. Now
the older sons, the mama get yes. Because God knows,
hardly anybody from the industry has said a motherfucking thing
on behalf of Shawn Colmbs in positivity or defense to
(44:40):
be noted. Okay, just something to note. So showing your
family and support. Yeah, let's make you human. That's why
he got those sweaters on every day in court versus
the power suit. You know, that's why you know they've
got him. I think Sunny Houston said on the view,
he's looking like mister Rogers, you know. Yeah, absolute the glasses.
(45:01):
What you doing with them glasses on? Carlo and I'm
just playing with you.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
Nah.
Speaker 3 (45:07):
Yeah, we saw this with the Menandaz brothers, you know,
thirty years ago. Let's try to humanize and soften the defendant.
Got it cool, Every good defense lawyer does it. I
did it too with my clients. But these young girls
are very tender, They're very vulnerable, They're very impressionable, and
I would think a good father that cares about their
(45:29):
interests would protect them at all costs, even if he
was completely factually innocent.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
You take my we.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
Saw this in a time to kill, you know, take
take her out.
Speaker 4 (45:39):
Of this courtroom.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Samuel L.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Jackson didn't want his daughter's fictitious but you know, didn't
want his daughter to see that he and he was taught.
Speaker 4 (45:46):
He ended up getting not guilty.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
But there's certain things a good parent wants to protect
their child from. So I think the call on This
looked selfish, it looked contrived, and it looked desperate.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Quite frankly, Emney K Williams, I mean, listen, there's more
to come.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Ebony will be joining me next week to recap. Like
she said this, this trial is.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Going on for quite a while and on True Crime
Thursdays with MBUK Williams, we will be breaking down the
cage now, Ebony, we're before I let you go again.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
Oh oh, I know you're busy.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
I know that you have been doing your homework.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
You are everywhere when it comes to all the things
you have going on. Not sure if you heard the news,
but there's been so much controversy, not sipping.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Surrounding your former show, The Real Housewives of New York City.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Long story short, The network release their upcoming shows, and
two notable shows were not on that release, and it
was The Real Housewives of New Jersey but also New
York City. Page six two days afterwards ran a report
that The Real Housewives of New York City was actually
allegedly camps old and was not going to come back
(47:02):
in the foreseeable future. Bravo has since then said the
show is not canceled and that there's still in the
casting process, Bethany Frankel did a TikTok radio child make
up Free Honey and talked about being an end of
an era and what the what the show was and
due to her words, not my Ebany K Williams, but
(47:27):
due to the decision of not sticking with the original cast,
was the demise of this show. Now Bravo has said
it's not canceled.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
We'll let it.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
Get your thoughts on every single aspect of this.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
You are you, You're good. Carlos, You're very good. You're
what you do, My brother absolute you. Okay, So my my,
my high level take is this. I think it's for
the best. If this, I think it's for the best.
If the show does not come back right now, I
think it might be for the best if the show
does not come back. Ever, and contrary to some interpretation,
(48:07):
it's not sour grapes. Let me tell you why I
say that. I say that because Roney seasons roughly one
through twelve, So this is before my arrival, when the
cast was homogeneously white. For most people, most viewers of
the show was extraordinarily enjoyable. It had its moments of
(48:28):
you know, darkness, with lu Anne and her drinking and
some other different things, but generally speaking, Ronnie was a cultural,
lexicon enjoyable platform show. It also got a lot of heat,
as you know, The New York Times did a whole
article on not just Ronie, but Ronnie and all of
(48:49):
the housewived shows, basically indicting all of the white shows
for being all white shows in cities. Now it's one
thing of your all white show in Idaho where there's
next to no black population.
Speaker 4 (49:03):
But at some point.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
People started scratching their heads and really wondering, why is
a city with twenty five percent black population and twenty
six percent Latina population outlat of New York City, why
is it an exclusively white cast. The network heard the call,
they casted me to be the first black woman on
the cast. And what ensued was, to put it mildly,
(49:27):
Carlos and you know, we've talked about this at nauseum,
but it was, it was, it was.
Speaker 4 (49:32):
It was horrific.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
It was horrific at very high levels. Without going into
all of the details. What I think was most horrific
about it, and why I think it was so horrific
and traumatic, was because when we're talking about the premise
of housewives in general. Right, let's boom out for a second.
And you know this better than anybody because you are
(49:54):
the golden touch, okay of what this franchise when it's
at its best. You we were there, come about Atlanta, Okay,
and I think Jersey too, you produced.
Speaker 4 (50:06):
Yeah, so you.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
I would say, I don't care when nobody says, I
would say, of all the franchise, those two in your
era were peak housewives. When we look back in twenty
years and forty years and we say what shifted culture indefinitely,
it will be the Teresa table flip and the knee
leaks of it all. Okay, close your legs to married men.
(50:28):
That those those types of moments, right, Okay, we can agree, agreed,
But what we're talking about in all these housewives, themes
entertaining on the basis of exploring wealth, money, class and society.
Speaker 4 (50:46):
Is that a fair statement? Okay?
Speaker 3 (50:49):
And here's what nobody really wanted to admit and still
really want admit when it comes to real Housewives of
New York City or and we saw a little bit
of it with Beverly Yiels, I would say a lot
of it with Beverly Hills. I think that's why our
good friend Garcela's not there. Now, when you start talking
about class and social standing and status, you're innately having
(51:10):
a race conversation.
Speaker 4 (51:12):
You might not be doing it verbally.
Speaker 3 (51:14):
You might not be saying, well, white women are here,
and black women are there, and white white girls are
this and and they're this level of beauty, and they're
this level of success, and the black girls are down here.
But it's baked into the cake. All you got to
do is read Isabelle Wilkinson's Cast or any other number
of great books that break down the innate social hierarchy
(51:34):
as it relates to America's cast system. We're not that
different than India, Carlos. Okay, there are assigned perceived slots
of the social order. And I don't care if you're
in New York or Beverly Hills. Okay, being black by
(51:55):
definition disqualifies you from sitting atop that social order, per
this framework that I'm describing. So when you put a
black woman on a cast with all white women or
mostly white women, it doesn't matter her beauty. In Garcell's case,
her distinguished an uncomparable resume in her business from the movies,
(52:20):
to the series, to all the things. It doesn't matter
her pedigree, it doesn't matter anything. But because she is black,
that is such a challenge to her castmate and to
many of the viewers Carlos to see her as truly
equal and equitable in terms of the social order of
(52:42):
the other women. And this was exacerbated on Roni because
these women, you know, kind of the more challenge they
are on the traditional roles of like education or pedigree,
or let's look at my cast look, look look at
the women. I was on the show with Ramona Luyne Sonya.
Sonya married well, Leuanne married pretty well. But that's not
(53:02):
their pedigree, that none of them come from it. So
the strongest piece of social currency they each held was
what whiteness. This is sociology one on one, okay. So
when whiteness is the thing that you that you hold
and society has told you makes you most special and
most valuable and most qualified and deserving of sitting atop
(53:27):
the social order of your society, you're you're gonna be
extremely threatened, put off, and dismissive and halfway disgusted by
a person of black race identity. Infiltrating that trying to
come in and participate in that Heaven forbid in some ways,
superseding you educationally, youth wise, beauty wise, all of these things.
(53:52):
So the long and short of it is this, Carlos,
those New York as it relates Toroni, it was always
going to and don't Just so for those that want
to say, yeah, it was just you, Ebany, you were
too much, you were too strong, that's fine. I'll totally
I'll take that projection because that's exactly what it is
and I'll take it.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
So that's it.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
Those are my thoughts, ladies, jentlemen, gays and bays being
comparable Ebony, Kay william I mean, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Else that we said after that. My drop for my
girl and y'all.
Speaker 1 (54:22):
She's coming back next week for another roundup of what's
happening with the Diddy trial f Mek Williams. I thank
you so much and I'll see you next week.
Speaker 4 (54:31):
See you next week.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Love by rain Drops by Carlos.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
Thank you for listening to Reality with the Kings.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
New episodes drop on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Share, comment, follow,
and subscribe to Reality with the King.
Speaker 2 (54:49):
Wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
Visit Reality withthe King dot com and be sure to
follow me at the Carlos King Underscore on Instagram, Twitter,
and Yes, Baby, my YouTube channel where you could get
all of my visuals, baby, my expressions. Yeah, and don't
forget tweet me your thoughts and hot takes about this
episode using the hashtag Reality with the King. Reality with
(55:16):
the King is a production of Kingdom Rain Entertainment, an
executive produced by me Carlos King, Kingdom Rain Entertainment, Baby,
Welcome to Reality with the King. It's me Carlos Kings,
the King of Reality TV and one of the most
sought after executive producers in reality television with over ten
years a production experience. Twice a week on Reality with
the King, we'll sit down with my friends across the
entertainment industry, recap our favorite reality shows and revisit un
(00:24):
forgettable moments that we are still talking and tweeting about.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hey, rain drops.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
On today's episode of Reality with the King, we have
to talk about all things reality television, but we also
got to talk about all things that are happening in
the reality of the world. In this particular case, both
are intersected because p Diddy was a reality star who
started making the band I want to work for Diddy,
(00:52):
And he did have a Sean Thomos show that was
going to come out this year, but it got canceled
due to everything going on. So welcome to True Crime
Thursdays Reality with the King Edition. And I cannot do
this alone, so I am here with my good friend
Legal Ego Honey. She is also a judge. She is
(01:14):
the host of.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
The award winning podcast Holding Court.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So y'all know how I'm talking about the beautiful, the talented,
the amazing woman and mother that she is. Give it
up for Ebony K.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Williams rain Drops, Hello darlings, and the King. I salute you, honey.
Let's get into all of it. I like that framing though, too.
I like true crime. What are we doing true crime
Thursdays with the King?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Yeah? True crime Thursdays. Because the thing is this, I'm into.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
All things true crime. I'm launching a new series that
is coming out in June, so stay tuned for that
is in a true crime space. But with this ditty
stuff happening, it hit me Ebany that it is the
intersection of true crime reality star because Puff was on.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Making the band.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
I want to work for Diddy the four on Fox
that I worked on alongside him, DJ Calla and Meghan Trainer.
So I do want to get into a lot that's
been happening because what's going on in this case has
been the talk of the town for the past like
year year and a half. So to update everybody who
(02:28):
has been living under roped.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
As you all know, Mediamogo, SEANP.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Ded Combs is in jail for allegedly because he hasn't
been found guilty for alleged crimes of sex trafficking.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Okay, that's what he's in jail for.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
What has been happening for the past three days?
Speaker 1 (02:49):
The trial has started and as of today's taping, we
are going to discuss the first couple of days of
the trial, and mie K Williams is going to update
us on exactly what's been happening.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
So they want to trial his former girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Cassie Ventura, who is eight months pregnant, had to suffer
through being a witness in this case by talking about
some of the things she experienced, and I want Ebony.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
To update us on all things going on. So Ebonie,
what is going on in this case and why is
Cassie a part of me? Because we saw.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
The video where he physically harmed her at the lobby
of a hotel in the hallway. I'm sorry, but this
case is not about domestic violence. This case is about
sex trafficking. So can you educate us on what's been
going on and how Cassie is involved in this from
that arena?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah, it's so broad, Carlos. The magnitude of what we're
talking about by virtue of first of all, the magnitude
of Sean Diddy Combs. Right, we are his contemporary. We
were raised on the cultural impact of this man and
this entity, you know, because that is exactly what he is.
And put a pin in entity and enterprise because that's
(04:10):
actually part of this case.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
So when we think all things music, but also fashion,
also liquor and spirits, also television, also h all the
things from every genre of the industry, there's nowhere you
can really go and Sean Combe's or bad boy or
sorock or some you know, Comb's enterprises doesn't touch it.
(04:33):
So let me start with that framing, just so folks
can really appreciate the magnitude of the defendant. It's hard
to equate it to anything, but think of the magnitude
of an O. J. Simpson where it was the NFL,
but it was hurts, it was uh naked just uh
was it naked whatever those movies were that he was on.
(04:54):
You know, yes, thank you think that for our generation, Okay,
And many people Carlos are going ahead and claiming this
case as the case of our century. You know, if
oj was the case of the twentieth century, this is
certainly the case thus far of the twenty first century,
(05:14):
and my legal peers are framing it that way. So
that sets the stage. Now let's go to the charges.
You correctly cited that one of the main because it's
really five major charges that are in this federal indictment,
the three original the sex trafficking is one of them,
but they are joined with two very important co charges
(05:38):
transporting for the sake of prostitution and the biggie as
we're kind of calling it in legal communities, the conspiracy
and racketeering.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then there were two what we call superseding indictments, Carlos.
So these were indictments that came after the first charges
dropped and the homes were invaded in Miami and Los
Angeles and the raids and all of that. That was
when we got those first three charges sex trafficking, racketeering,
and conspiracy, and then transporting with prostitution.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Then we got two additional which means that the government
in this case, when I say the government, I want
to be clemed i ab out the United States of America,
the Federal Government v.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
Shan Colmes. That's the title of this case. Okay. Again,
scope and magnitude.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
They were asking after the first indictment Carlos, then prosecutor
black man by the name of Damian Williams. He has
sent stepped down from this case, but he was the
original prosecutor on the case. He was asking for more
witnesses and more victims, more alleged victims to what come forward.
He was saying, we're still working on this case. Baby,
it's not cooked, as the kids would say. It is
(06:48):
still an active investigation. But based on the facts, evidence
and proposed witnesses we have thus far, we've put forth
the first set of indictment.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Then, very calm in the lo Carlos. This is not uncommon.
I want to be clear.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
We have superseding indictments, indictments that come after the initial
framing of the charges because we've got what, more witnesses,
more facts, more pieces of evidence to add on to
the first set of charges. So there's an additional sex
trafficking charge and an additional transportation for the sake of
prostitution charge, So five total charges we're talking about here. Now,
(07:26):
let me get to your question, because it is the
question of the case thus far. When we talk about
the video that many of us first saw when CNN
broke this news last year, and we all bore witness
to the horrific traumatic, extraordinarily violent, just unconscionable. I mean,
(07:47):
we saw a madman on camera right kicking, beating, dragging
a woman that didn't even have on shoes or socks,
and we were all horrified to see it. But you're
absolutely right. There were no and still are no criminal
charges attached to that tape.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Zero none, not.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
That would have been domestic violence or some type of
assault in the California jurisdiction, statute of limitations ran on it,
because I just wanted to lay this out for the
rain drops, Carlos.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Why not criminal charges on that?
Speaker 3 (08:20):
It's because the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations
had already run on that tape.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
That tape was I'll get you the year in a second,
but it was.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
It was the one year window, and which would have
been the state level that would have allowed it, and
the three year federal window. Both of them were expired.
So there are no criminal charges as it relates to that.
Now you're asking great question, why are we even talking
about this tape? Why was it the first piece of
(08:52):
evidence that the prosecutors put into evidence on this.
Speaker 4 (08:55):
Federal trial that seemingly has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Well, I want the rain Drops to think about at
least two things being true at the same time. So
what we see on that video is absolutely domestic violence
and it is absolutely not a charge in this case.
So anybody did y'all see saying that they are right?
And also this part it's very important, Carlos, the prosecutors
(09:22):
in the federal indictment cite aspects that we do see
on this video physical assault. I want to read it
verbatim because I don't want this to get into any
what Ebony thought of what Ebony said on this one,
because the stakes are too high.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
This is clause four. If you pull up any this
is public record.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Rain Drops.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Pull up the original indictment of the United States of
America v. Shan Colmes. You will see in the very
first caption they lay out the racketeering and conspiracy part
Clause go paragraph for number four physical abuse by Sean Colmes.
This is the government talking physical abuse by Sean Combs's
aka Puff Daddy akap DD aka Black.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
The defendant.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Was recurrent and widely known on numerous occasions from at
least two thousand and nine to continuing years, Combs assaulted
women by doing, amongst other things, striking, punching, dragging, throwing
objects at and kicking them. These assaults were at times
(10:30):
witnessed this is Keith. They were witnessed by other folks.
They included an instance in the Los Angeles hotel.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
This is the specific video.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
We're talking about here in or about that's the year
March of twenty sixteen and was later reported where Comb's kicked,
dragged and threw a vase at a woman. We now
know that woman to be Cassie Ventura as she was
attempting to leave when a member of the hotel security intervened.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
By the way rain drops.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
That was the very first witness that the pro secution
put on the witness stay in day one. The first
witness we heard was from was that security guard, that
security officer. Really he was a security guard. And that's important, Flores,
go ahead, Carlos.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
And from my understanding, the security guard is now a
police officer for the Los Angeles to Police Department, I believe.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
And what was so interesting is and I want you
to explain this to me. So allegedly he did.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
He contacted the then security guard to confiscate the footage
of what he did to Cassie. And is it true
that the security guard said on the stand that he
and I believe his then girlfriend or wife he showed
it to her.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And did not give it to the police. Is that true?
Speaker 4 (11:55):
More or less? So?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Right? So, because I had that first question too, I
was like, well, why did you record this on your
cell phone?
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Sir? Right?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
And the answer that he said and admits to, which
I thought was very cringe quite frankly, was that the
only reason that he recorded this was not for some
moral high ground to It was not to prove law enforcement.
It was so that he can show his lady. I'm
not sure if it was his wife or not, but
(12:22):
so that he could show his lady. Look, look, look
and see what happened to me at work today. Look
and see yah, see judge, But look and see what
I saw. Sean Combs this victim so that he could
be believed by his romantic partner.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
So this is very interesting.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I want to make a point too that the read
because many people said, well, why didn't he go to
the police, Why didn't he do that? Well, y'all, remember
he's working in what a commercial capacity at that time,
He's working for the hotel.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Now he's not law enforcement.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
And see this is where you know Black Comedy has
been joking about this for years, right, these toy cops,
no disrespect, but secure we must be. This is very important.
Security guards are not law enforcement. They're not they have
no they're not duty bound in that same way. So
his main reason for being there was to protect the
what the property of the hotel, and that's why what
(13:15):
we heard him testify to Carlos on opening day of
trial was that he would be letting mister Combs know
that the damage done by his abusive episode we show
up on the hotel bill. He's there to make sure
that the property is safe, not that the individuals per
se in the hotel. That's what police are for.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
So a question for you, by this being a case
that outlines sex trafficking and the other things you outline,
Cassie's testimony is important. Tell me why her testimony is
important as it relates to us hearing about these freakoffs
(14:01):
that allegedly and god, I'm saying alleged because he hasn't
found guilty so I'm not just right, Ebony. Why are
the freak off details important in this case as Cassie
has to unfortunately be a month pregnant living through this
by giving her testimony in front of the man who
he saw abuse her.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, so this is very important, the freakoff testimony, but
also the videotape. What I believe the prosecution is doing
the government in this case, Carlos, is they are slow walking.
Let's back up. We've already been told that this case
will likely be six to eight weeks long.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
That's a long time. Think about all that we've already heard.
How many already.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Right, whether you think he's guilty or not, or it
rises to the occasion of criminal activity or not.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
There's been a lot of.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
And we're on day three barely okay, and we're talking
about six to eight weeks more of this. So that
tells me that the prosecution is slow walking. The factual
foundation is what they're laying, Carlos, taking their time, and
unfortunately I agree with you, but it's necessary. If you're
gonna get a conviction, you have got to have a
(15:14):
cooperating witness. And I think it's very important that people
acknowledge that Cassie not only is testifying at her vulnerable,
fragile condition of being eight months pregnant, she's doing so
under her own name.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
And she didn't have to do that. She could have. Yeah,
she made a decision. She chose to do that, Carlos King.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Oh, yes, she chose to with forego a pseudonym, because
she could have been testifying as Jane Do one. As
we're being told future victims, alleged victims will be testifying
under pseudonyms Je Chambo two, Maybe there's a Jane Doe three.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
But the fact that Cassie Venturer says, no, no, no,
it's me. I am a famous woman in my own right.
This culture and community know me as it relates to
this man. And I believe she must believe, Carlos, that
it is persuasive for her to stand in receiving the consequences.
(16:14):
Because let's be clear, we all know victim shaming is real.
We've already all seen it already on the internet. It
relates to her testimony. Sound like she wanted it, sound
like she liked it, sound like she deserved it. Why
she stay okay? So she knew she would be receiving
that she's not a dummy.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
She's saying, even with that coming my way as I
carry my third child in uterow okay, and that's important.
And I'm gonna be personal, Carlos, as a woman that
just gave birth nine months ago. What we know scientifically
now is that the neuro system of the mother of
the gestational carrier directly impacts.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
The fetus and the child. So you better know that that.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I'm sure her doctor told her you withdrawing withstanding, rather
that level of stress and emotional turmoil while your baby
is still in final development, is you're paying a price, okay.
And she decided to pay that price on behalf of
the fact that she felt it was so necessary that
(17:17):
while this case is not being televised, that's why none
of us have seen actual photos of anybody, including Sean Holmes.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
What have we seen, Carlos these drawings at miss right.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
She's still saying, people, I want them to know my name,
I want them to know that this is me, Cassandra Ventura,
and I'm telling what happened to me, and I'm telling
my truth.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Why is the abuse and the freak offs and the
violent behavior in the freak offs. So important that we
know these details because the government, Carlos, is arguing that
all of that creates their case to argue conspiracy and racketeering.
So two things about that, right, So that's why when
I read I took the time to read this that
(18:00):
you know what they're alleging In the first complaint, in
the first indictment, they're saying, part of what because racketeering, Okay,
that what does that mean? That means criminal enterprise at play.
That's why we think of mafia when we hear Rico.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Is that the reason why the FED.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Ransack his Beverly Hills a stay and took and and
did the investigation, allegedly took guns and all that stuff because.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
And all at the same time, because when you're dealing
with a Rico, a racketeering conspiracy, that means you've got
multiple players, if you will, multiple agents with different tasks
of executing the criminal activity. And that means if I'm
in Miami and I'm a part of the Combs enterprise,
alleged criminal enterprise, and I'm and I see the cops
(18:48):
coming or the Homeland Security in this case, coming, and
what am I gonna do? I'm gonna text Carlos King,
who's at the LA spot and he's also a part
of the and I'm gonna say, hey, hey, Carlos, they're
they just came in on us in Miami get rid
of all the evidence in La so in an effort
to avoid the destruction of evidence, the collaboration of people trying.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
To get their stories straightened together.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
This is how the the you know, the the This
is how they they let they put you on notice
right that that they're they're closing in on you, and
they do it in that simultaneous way. It was not
very different than what we saw with r. Kelly or
where he had Atlanta charges, but he also had Chicago.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
You know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
This is what the rico of it all comes into play,
multiple different pockets, most of the time in different places,
but all working in concert. That's a legal term, working
in concert, Carlos, meaning together for the execution of a
shared criminal agenda.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
And part of that one more thing, because I'm sorry
to keep talking about I want to yeah. And and
they're saying that part of the criminal activity was the abuse,
was the kicking, punching, dragging of women. That's a part
of what they were conspiring, Because what are we conspiring
to do if we're just if we're conspiring.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
To make red kool aid, that's not a crime. We
can do that, Carlos. But if we're.
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Conspiring to punch and kick people, that's criminal. Now we're
conspiring to commit a crime. So you've got to articulate
before you can get to the conspiracy, because that's what
everybody on social media that I'm hearing and reading and
listening and traveling, you and your raindrops too. Where's the rico?
Where's the conspiracy? Okay, domestic violence? I see that, got it.
(20:41):
He's out on trial for that. Where is the conspiracy?
The rico, the racketeering, and the working in concert, the
collusion if you will, you cannot collude by yourself. So
but I'm thinking that the prosecution has made a tactical
decision here, Carlos, and a strategic decision to say, oh,
we're gonna get to the various members of Sean Combs's enterprise,
(21:06):
whether they be because they worked for bad Boy at
a time, or they were his personal assistant, or maybe
they were security guards, or maybe they were drivers, or
maybe they were Heaven Forbid executives of some sort a
you know, the various business entities that he controlled, because
this is all about him being in control of all
these people and various enterprise. But before we get to that,
(21:31):
we we're gonna take our time in slow walk what
the criminal activity itself was, and it was the physical abuse.
They're gonna eventually they're go. They kind of are starting
to allude to the Arson. So we heard in today
day three testimony the reference to Kid Cuddy okay, who
at one time was a boyfriend, a short term boyfriend
of Cassie, I think around twenty eleven, she says, when
(21:54):
her and Shaan Colmes were on the rocks, Sean colmebs
catches with of this relationship between Cassie and Cutty, threatens
to harm both of them. She says, she at some
point calls Key Cutty. He pulls up on the on
the curve, picks her up, takes her to his home.
At some point she goes anyways, and and Sean Holmes says,
(22:15):
I'm going to blow his car up. So that's Arson.
That that that that would be a threat of arson, okay.
And then, as per The New York Times, Kid Cuddy
confirmed that some days after that threat of arson was made,
his car indeed exploded in the driveway. So this is
where the government is pulling that fact of Okay, part
(22:36):
of the criminal activity was the arson. Part of the
criminal activity was the physical abuse. Uh, let's get to
the freak offs because you asked about it, Carlos. Part
of the criminal activity was sexual at sexual sex, sexual activity,
sexual behavior, but not done voluntarily. She talked about on
the witness stand today. Many people were shot. She said
(22:56):
she was rape She used the rape word, Carlos. She said,
Sean Holmes raped me after some event and she said
he had dark eyes, his eyes were blacked out, and
he raped her. Okay, So that would be criminal activity.
And if the prosecution can prove Carlos that other people
(23:17):
were involved in the execution of him being able to
rape her, and this could be simple. This could be
as simple as his driver taking him to the destination
where the rape occurred, if the driver had knowledge that
Shawn Holmes was going there with the intention to commit
a crime, to do something illegal. Because now we're conspiring,
(23:40):
I'm helping you execute criminal activity.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
That would make me a co conspirator.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Is it starting to it? Really is child.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
We are just getting started. This is reality with the King,
and I'm Carlos King. Let's get back into the show.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Is it starting up? Yeah, No, it really is.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Because one of the questions that a lot of people
had ebony is sort of the salaciousness of the details
that Cassie's providing in her testimony. But now it all
makes sense because what we are hearing are some very
silations details that is Cassie's truth, which is the sort
(24:34):
of escort she had to be with.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
She's been cross examined.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
About whether or not it was elective or was she
forced to do it.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
Let's let's be easy on that word cross exam, Carlos,
because it's very important.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
We're gonna get to right. This is still direct exam.
But you're right, he's being questioned.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
She's been question No, that's why your hair. I'm not
the legal ease, but thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
She is being questioned whether or not it was forced
or she's being questioned if it was elective.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Some of the things that people are saying because.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I want to know if media is going to play
a role in this, or is the sort of details
of the story going to color it for the jury.
So when we hear things like the sort of and
this is obviously you know it's explicit, but I'll say
the proper words, ejaculation that occurred doing a freak off,
(25:33):
and allegedly she had to take that and wipe it
on puff nipples as his way of having a satisfaction.
They talked about one escort urinating in her mouth. Can
you tell me why these very specific details are important.
(25:55):
Is it to paint the picture of what Cassie had
to endure or is it to really show that what
you said earlier, we are giving you step by step
leading into the ultimate racketeering. Recall all those things sex trafficking.
So we gotta be as detail as possible.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
It's both, So let me start with where you just landed.
They have to be as detailed as possible. How dare
any prosecutor, because don't forget Carlos. As much as I'm
making the case and laying out the facts, I am
a criminal defense lawyer by trade.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
That's what I did for a living.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
I was first a public defender and then I was
a private lawyer for a defendants. So how dare a
prosecutor come in my face and try to convict my
client without specificity, period, that would be a gas to
the law. So they are required to be as absolutely
specific as available. So if there is a specific fact,
(26:51):
whether it's urine in a pool, whether it's twenty five
bottles of baby oil, whether it's the ejaculation you're urinating
to the point where she can't breathe and it's choking.
That we heard about the U T I s and
cole sores. She yeah, I went into all of that.
They must give us those details. But to your earlier
instinct because this is these are your instincts.
Speaker 4 (27:14):
They're producing too.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
They're painting the picture they're showing you with with fine
detail and broad stroke. This is a monster. Sean Colmes
is a monster and he and there was and he
was so depraved. See, this is the psychology of the process.
See psychology is a big part of this because when
we talk about the crime of coercion, Okay, and I'm gonna,
(27:38):
I'm gonna. I know we're running out of time for
this week. This is a great series, by the way,
So rain Drops, Carlos King has gifted you, honey, to
be able to get this in this level of detail
and expertise on a weekly basis as this case continues.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
This is this is a gift.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Okay, because I can only do this with you, so
thank you, so much.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
So happy to do it because it's important. I want
our culture to understand what's happening here. I want the
culture to Carlos. This is more than just the man
coming for a black successful man in America.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
This is more than that. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Race doesn't play apart, We'll get to that eventually, but
this is bigger than that. So when we talk about coercion,
we're talking about the sex act happened. We know that
these sex acts with Cassie Sean Combs and male escorts
and others happened. That is not disputed. Here's what's in dispute,
Carlos King, and this is where this case will turn
(28:30):
or fail. Can the prosecution make the case convincingly to
not one, two, or three, but twelve different men and
women That behavior rose to the level of by force
and unwillingness. So that's why you keep hearing even her
(28:53):
own prosecution team, who she's their witness, right asking her
did you feel free to leave? That's very important. And
when she says something like not really. Now, I'm gonna
tell you, as a defense lawyer, I'm happy to hear that,
because I'm gonna go in on that. When cross examination
time does come, and it is coming as soon as
(29:15):
the prosecution Carlos is completely done with their examination. We
call that direct exam. I expect her to be on
the on the stand another day, if not two more days.
You might even go into next week. Don't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Mm hmm. Wow.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Once they're done, they're gonna have to say defense your witness,
and then that's when they gonna get into her. They're
going to try to destroy her credibility. They're gonna try
to make her the biggest slut that ever lived. They're
gonna try to make her desperate for fame. They're gonna
try to make her completely thirsty. And some of these
things might apply.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Hell, we don't know.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
We weren't there, So those are gonna be the arguments.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
But the main one they're gonna argue is, well, back
when the when the government asked you, miss Ventura, did
you feel you had to do those things? You responded,
it was the only way I could spend time with him.
And then those twelve jurors, Carlos King are gonna have
to decide for themselves individually. Do I think that's coercion?
(30:16):
Do I think when Sean Combs says, if you were
to believe the testimony, when Shan Combs says, if you don't,
if this prostitute man I flew in from wherever for
the freak off that you know that's how we get
down and you know that's how you and my lady,
and you know that's how you get my time and attention,
and you want that And if you don't do it
(30:39):
right now tonight, I'm gonna release these sex tapes for
all the world to see.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Juror says, is that force.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Is?
Speaker 2 (30:47):
That?
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Is that Sean Comb's enforcing overt willpower over her such
that she doesn't feel free to say no to it.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
That's the question of this case.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Abony K.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Williams that, first of all, that's that was powerful in
the sense of really understanding the magnitude of this case,
the dynamic of this case, the sensitivity. You know, and
we watch a lot of court shows, movies and all
that stuff, but what we always know is when you
say something like you said, the defence can take that
(31:21):
one SoundBite and paint a different picture for the Jewors.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
So what we did learn today is.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Cassie accepted the twenty million dollars settlement from Puff. When
she and her legal team revealed to all of us
last year what she was going two years Oh my god,
it's like yesterday, two years ago. What is so interesting
(31:51):
about that to me is this, I would love to
get your legal education educate us on this.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Excuse me.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
It was said today that she was writing a book
and was going to release it and she gave him
a heads up. Did she ask for a did Cassie
ask for money in order to not release the book?
Did he say no? Did she then release what she
went through publicly? And then did he settle with her
(32:19):
less than twenty four hours after that?
Speaker 3 (32:21):
So my understanding of the facts based off of the
reporting that I've been able to get, because that's all
we can get. You know, unless you're in the press pool.
Actually there is no press pool, so unless you're in
the courtroom. Really, from per my reporting, this is the
order Carlos. She writes the book, shows it to her
mother said her intention with writing the book is ultimately
(32:42):
for Sean Combs to see it, and she hopes it
brings remorse, so she then contacts him through his team. Specifically,
she names kk Okay in a sense a high level
assistant to Sean Colmes, and says, get him these chapters.
This happens, someone from his team offers thirty million dollars.
(33:04):
So it's my understanding, Carlos that she didn't necessarily ask,
because that would be the height of extortion. Quite frankly, now,
she would be stepping into criminal territory, Carlos. Baby, if
I say, look at these pictures I got to you, Carlos,
and all it takes for me not to show them
to the world is thirty thousand dollars, I've extorted you
(33:27):
at that point. Now this is not about you anymore.
Now it's about me and my criminal activity of extortion.
So I didn't get that. She said, hey, here are
the chapters, read them and weep. Give me thirty million
and I'll make them go away.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
No, no, no, no no.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
She wrote the chapters, She previewed them by sending them
to him, and his team read them. They read them
and said, we will give you thirty million to make
this whole thing go away. And then at some point.
I think that was kind of tabled, if you will.
I have to believe, because before every civil suit is filed,
(34:01):
there's normally always pre trial conversations with the or pre
filing conversations, I should say, between the lawyers. So I
have to believe. Cassie's civil lawyer, So this is not
the government or the FEDS. This is her personal civil
lawyer that took her case on retainer knowing that if
they were successful in recovering anything, he would he or
she would get a third Okay, how that's how those
(34:25):
deals work.
Speaker 4 (34:26):
M hm, and you take it on.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
That's a contingency deal typical of a civil case. They
went to Seaan Colmebs and his team and said, hey,
we're about to file this suit, and they probably gave
them maybe not everything that was in the suit, Carlos,
but a lot of it. You know, the key Cudding
I'm sure was in it. I'm sure the hotel incident
was in it, because they knew they had that videotape
to pull from and say, hey, if you don't make
(34:49):
our client hole in some way fiscally right now, we're
going to take this and file it and it's going
to be a public record and then the public can
figure it out. And Shawn comes Is team you know,
said we'll go do it, and they went and did it.
November twenty twenty three, and twenty four hours later, the
twenty million dollar settlement happened. I have to believe that
(35:11):
Sean Combs thought that Cassie was still in such a
state of humiliation and grief and trauma that she would
never want the world to know that about her because
that was his. And that actually goes to the prosecution.
Going back now to the criminal elements required for this
current case we're on Carlos, that sounds a little bit
(35:33):
like the coursive tactic that was maybe at play to
silence his alleged victim.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
Certainly, you wouldn't want anybody to know that you were
drowning in p literally.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Certainly you wouldn't want anybody to know that you had
STDs and UTIs and coal sores. And certainly you wouldn't
want the America and the world to see you as
such a.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
Tragic horrors figure. I'm just saying, you know.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
What they Yeah, and then that.
Speaker 3 (36:03):
Type of psycho that's the psychological warfare that can absolutely
Carlos be a part of coercion, making you feel you
cannot say no, making you feel you cannot tell, making
you feel you can't as every many people in the
common well just leave, just run away. Well, if she
feels that she runs away, you're gonna release the tape,
(36:26):
or she feels if she tells, you're going to make
it so bad for her that she can't get a
record deal in the industry. That's what the prosecution is
ultimately going to lead us to by way of the
coercion argument. And then if you bring in more people
to enforce the coersion, like oh, my man's gonna make
(36:47):
sure that all the DJs and such and such that
they don't never play none of your shit, My my
my girl and her girl's gonna make sure no producers
work with you in the industry, All of that can
be made you. These are hypotheticals rain drops, But I'm
saying this is what corrosion could look like, and that
also would be getting working in concert, conspiring. That is
(37:09):
what conspiracy could look like. To execute the corision. We
can conspire carlos to work together to execute coercion, just
like we can conspire to work together to execute physical abuse.
Just like we can conspire to work together to execute kidnapping.
Get in this car right now, or I'm gonna release
the tapes. That's corision, and kidnapping could be because you're
(37:33):
forcing me into a space I don't want. I'm not
voluntarily in. Or you're not letting me leave your home.
I'm not free to leave because of the force of
will and threat, you're imparting my way. But then that's
why it's twelve jurors, because another juror can hear all
of that, is say, yeah, it sounds real bad, but
I don't know if it's bad.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
Enough that you just couldn't free yourself.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
And that's why these cases are very interesting, and that's
why there's twelve differ and people on that jury box.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
And for the record, if Pop would have settled initially,
none of this would be happening.
Speaker 3 (38:08):
I don't believe you listened to holding court enough. I
don't believe that I'm just messing with you. I don't
believe we would be here talking. None of it is today,
I think all if we are to believe the majority
of what Cassie has said thus far consistently by the way,
which gives her some credibility in my personal book and
my legal one, I believe all this young lady really
(38:31):
really wanted was acknowledgment, acknowledgment that what she endured was
beyond the pale, beyond scope.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
She didn't deserve it, and it was wrong.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
And I think had she gotten that acknowledgment Carlos by
way of the twenty million doc, because frankly, I'm gonna
tell you, I was shocked to hear it was only
twenty million dollars today. I thought, for sure did it
was upwards of fifty million dollars because the demand was
I think in the seventies. I think it was around
seventy something million. May I think if she had gotten
her twenty million dollar check, which is some form of
(39:04):
acknowledgment of culpability, not legally legally, it's not that at all,
but I believe that most people that receive a check
feel that way.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Alive.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Gretchen Carlson from Roger L's, with the fox of it all,
I was there for that, you know.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
I think that that.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Probably would have satisfied enough of her desire desired outcome.
When it came to the alleged behavior, it wasn't done
the lawsuit was fired. At that point, she had nothing
else to lose. We already knew her name, We already
knew it was her. We already knew she had gotten
beaten and drugged and raped and participated, whether voluntary or
(39:41):
not voluntary, We know she had participated in some extraordinarily salacious, vile,
you know, unconscionable activities. So at that point, I think
it became game on, so to speak. And so now
let's cooperate with the prosecution and let's move all the
pieces on the chessboard for civil and criminal. And that's
(40:02):
why we're talking about the case today.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Last question for you.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
We see that his teenage daughters are there that he
had with the Lake Importer and Sarah Chapman and Sarah
Chapman thank you. Sarah's their daughter together named Chance. We
see his his first child's mother, Missa Hilton, who's with
the Walker, show up. His mom showed up, his sons
(40:28):
show up, his his his his theen weren't married. So
his bonus son, Christian, yes, son, I'll be sure, showed up.
Why do you think it was important for the defense
to bring in his family? But importantly, his very young
teenage daughters who I read. No, I don't know if
(40:52):
it's true, but I've read that the information Cassie speaking
about obviously is so severe that his teenage daughters.
Speaker 2 (40:59):
Had to lead the room. Why are they even be
in the first place.
Speaker 3 (41:02):
I'm so glad you asked this on the way out,
because I had some thoughts around this. So conventional wisdom
tells us as lawyers, right, especially defense lawyers, that we
want to humanize and sympathize our clients to the best
of our ability, and that's good legal advice and skill.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
That is true.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
It's the reason that you saw Rihanna and Asab Rocky's
two little baby cute sons in court on his verdict day.
Here's the difference, though, So that's the why, that's the
theory around why they would be there in the first place.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
To answer your question.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Here's where it's problematic for me as both an attorney
and a human being. Quite frankly, and now as a parent. Okay,
I don't know if I'm ajuror looking at especially like
you said, the three youngest girls, right, It's one thing
Justin's thirty one years old. We could argue he's a
(42:00):
grown man, Christian I believe at some point these are
older children. Okay, so I think you can make the
argument that they could stomach hearing a lot of this.
I think when you're talking about these young teenage still girls,
I'm now questioning the wisdom of you understanding what best
(42:25):
interest of the child means, and that should always be
our north star as parents period. We should always only
be doing what is in the best interest of our children.
Speaker 4 (42:37):
So while I understand.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
A legal theory or impulse to show, look how great
of a father he must be for these kids to
be in the galley supporting him, look at how great
of an ex husband he must be, or not husband
because he never married a motherfucker, But look at how
great of an ex boyfriend or baby daddy or great son.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
Because it is Jenis Colmbs in the courtroom, I believe
she was.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Yeah, yeah, you know, so look at who's showing up
for him. I understand that, Carlos, But if I'm on
this jury, I'm also wondering, well, damn, are you that
self centered?
Speaker 4 (43:12):
Selfish?
Speaker 3 (43:13):
And either that or so unaware of the innate trauma
that is inherent when your daughters, Whether you did it
or not irrelevant, Actually that your daughters are having to
bear witness and be in an environment so traumatic, so dark,
so toxic. I would think, even if you did nothing wrong,
(43:36):
mister Combs, you would think so much of your responsibility
to your teenage daughters to protect them from such testimony.
And the fact that you between those two choices, because
we all have choices, Carlos, you and your legal team said, nah,
we feel it's more important for the jury to see
(43:56):
these girls and try to sympathize with Sean Comes, our client,
and then to protect the emotional wellbeing, the psychological stability
of these very formative young girls, these young girls, Carlos,
who are in this very moment shaping their understanding of sexuality,
their understanding of consent, their understanding of body autonomy, their
(44:20):
understanding of their own ability to say yes no to
certain So I would actually to me, this was a
miss on the defense for the three young daughters. Now
the older sons, the mama get yes. Because God knows,
hardly anybody from the industry has said a motherfucking thing
on behalf of Shawn Colmbs in positivity or defense to
(44:40):
be noted. Okay, just something to note. So showing your
family and support. Yeah, let's make you human. That's why
he got those sweaters on every day in court versus
the power suit. You know, that's why you know they've
got him. I think Sunny Houston said on the view,
he's looking like mister Rogers, you know. Yeah, absolute the glasses.
(45:01):
What you doing with them glasses on? Carlo and I'm
just playing with you.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
Nah.
Speaker 3 (45:07):
Yeah, we saw this with the Menandaz brothers, you know,
thirty years ago. Let's try to humanize and soften the defendant.
Got it cool, Every good defense lawyer does it. I
did it too with my clients. But these young girls
are very tender, They're very vulnerable, They're very impressionable, and
I would think a good father that cares about their
(45:29):
interests would protect them at all costs, even if he
was completely factually innocent.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
You take my we.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
Saw this in a time to kill, you know, take
take her out.
Speaker 4 (45:39):
Of this courtroom.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Samuel L.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Jackson didn't want his daughter's fictitious but you know, didn't
want his daughter to see that he and he was taught.
Speaker 4 (45:46):
He ended up getting not guilty.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
But there's certain things a good parent wants to protect
their child from. So I think the call on This
looked selfish, it looked contrived, and it looked desperate.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Quite frankly, Emney K Williams, I mean, listen, there's more
to come.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Ebony will be joining me next week to recap. Like
she said this, this trial is.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Going on for quite a while and on True Crime
Thursdays with MBUK Williams, we will be breaking down the
cage now, Ebony, we're before I let you go again.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
Oh oh, I know you're busy.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
I know that you have been doing your homework.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
You are everywhere when it comes to all the things
you have going on. Not sure if you heard the news,
but there's been so much controversy, not sipping.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Surrounding your former show, The Real Housewives of New York City.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Long story short, The network release their upcoming shows, and
two notable shows were not on that release, and it
was The Real Housewives of New Jersey but also New
York City. Page six two days afterwards ran a report
that The Real Housewives of New York City was actually
allegedly camps old and was not going to come back
(47:02):
in the foreseeable future. Bravo has since then said the
show is not canceled and that there's still in the
casting process, Bethany Frankel did a TikTok radio child make
up Free Honey and talked about being an end of
an era and what the what the show was and
due to her words, not my Ebany K Williams, but
(47:27):
due to the decision of not sticking with the original cast,
was the demise of this show. Now Bravo has said
it's not canceled.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
We'll let it.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
Get your thoughts on every single aspect of this.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
You are you, You're good. Carlos, You're very good. You're
what you do, My brother absolute you. Okay, So my my,
my high level take is this. I think it's for
the best. If this, I think it's for the best.
If the show does not come back right now, I
think it might be for the best if the show
does not come back. Ever, and contrary to some interpretation,
(48:07):
it's not sour grapes. Let me tell you why I
say that. I say that because Roney seasons roughly one
through twelve, So this is before my arrival, when the
cast was homogeneously white. For most people, most viewers of
the show was extraordinarily enjoyable. It had its moments of
(48:28):
you know, darkness, with lu Anne and her drinking and
some other different things, but generally speaking, Ronnie was a cultural,
lexicon enjoyable platform show. It also got a lot of heat,
as you know, The New York Times did a whole
article on not just Ronie, but Ronnie and all of
(48:49):
the housewived shows, basically indicting all of the white shows
for being all white shows in cities. Now it's one
thing of your all white show in Idaho where there's
next to no black population.
Speaker 4 (49:03):
But at some point.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
People started scratching their heads and really wondering, why is
a city with twenty five percent black population and twenty
six percent Latina population outlat of New York City, why
is it an exclusively white cast. The network heard the call,
they casted me to be the first black woman on
the cast. And what ensued was, to put it mildly,
(49:27):
Carlos and you know, we've talked about this at nauseum,
but it was, it was, it was.
Speaker 4 (49:32):
It was horrific.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
It was horrific at very high levels. Without going into
all of the details. What I think was most horrific
about it, and why I think it was so horrific
and traumatic, was because when we're talking about the premise
of housewives in general. Right, let's boom out for a second.
And you know this better than anybody because you are
(49:54):
the golden touch, okay of what this franchise when it's
at its best. You we were there, come about Atlanta, Okay,
and I think Jersey too, you produced.
Speaker 4 (50:06):
Yeah, so you.
Speaker 3 (50:07):
I would say, I don't care when nobody says, I
would say, of all the franchise, those two in your
era were peak housewives. When we look back in twenty
years and forty years and we say what shifted culture indefinitely,
it will be the Teresa table flip and the knee
leaks of it all. Okay, close your legs to married men.
(50:28):
That those those types of moments, right, Okay, we can agree, agreed,
But what we're talking about in all these housewives, themes
entertaining on the basis of exploring wealth, money, class and society.
Speaker 4 (50:46):
Is that a fair statement? Okay?
Speaker 3 (50:49):
And here's what nobody really wanted to admit and still
really want admit when it comes to real Housewives of
New York City or and we saw a little bit
of it with Beverly Yiels, I would say a lot
of it with Beverly Hills. I think that's why our
good friend Garcela's not there. Now, when you start talking
about class and social standing and status, you're innately having
(51:10):
a race conversation.
Speaker 4 (51:12):
You might not be doing it verbally.
Speaker 3 (51:14):
You might not be saying, well, white women are here,
and black women are there, and white white girls are
this and and they're this level of beauty, and they're
this level of success, and the black girls are down here.
But it's baked into the cake. All you got to
do is read Isabelle Wilkinson's Cast or any other number
of great books that break down the innate social hierarchy
(51:34):
as it relates to America's cast system. We're not that
different than India, Carlos. Okay, there are assigned perceived slots
of the social order. And I don't care if you're
in New York or Beverly Hills. Okay, being black by
(51:55):
definition disqualifies you from sitting atop that social order, per
this framework that I'm describing. So when you put a
black woman on a cast with all white women or
mostly white women, it doesn't matter her beauty. In Garcell's case,
her distinguished an uncomparable resume in her business from the movies,
(52:20):
to the series, to all the things. It doesn't matter
her pedigree, it doesn't matter anything. But because she is black,
that is such a challenge to her castmate and to
many of the viewers Carlos to see her as truly
equal and equitable in terms of the social order of
(52:42):
the other women. And this was exacerbated on Roni because
these women, you know, kind of the more challenge they
are on the traditional roles of like education or pedigree,
or let's look at my cast look, look look at
the women. I was on the show with Ramona Luyne Sonya.
Sonya married well, Leuanne married pretty well. But that's not
(53:02):
their pedigree, that none of them come from it. So
the strongest piece of social currency they each held was
what whiteness. This is sociology one on one, okay. So
when whiteness is the thing that you that you hold
and society has told you makes you most special and
most valuable and most qualified and deserving of sitting atop
(53:27):
the social order of your society, you're you're gonna be
extremely threatened, put off, and dismissive and halfway disgusted by
a person of black race identity. Infiltrating that trying to
come in and participate in that Heaven forbid in some ways,
superseding you educationally, youth wise, beauty wise, all of these things.
(53:52):
So the long and short of it is this, Carlos,
those New York as it relates Toroni, it was always
going to and don't Just so for those that want
to say, yeah, it was just you, Ebany, you were
too much, you were too strong, that's fine. I'll totally
I'll take that projection because that's exactly what it is
and I'll take it.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
So that's it.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
Those are my thoughts, ladies, jentlemen, gays and bays being
comparable Ebony, Kay william I mean, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Else that we said after that. My drop for my
girl and y'all.
Speaker 1 (54:22):
She's coming back next week for another roundup of what's
happening with the Diddy trial f Mek Williams. I thank
you so much and I'll see you next week.
Speaker 4 (54:31):
See you next week.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Love by rain Drops by Carlos.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
Thank you for listening to Reality with the Kings.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
New episodes drop on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Share, comment, follow,
and subscribe to Reality with the King.
Speaker 2 (54:49):
Wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
Visit Reality withthe King dot com and be sure to
follow me at the Carlos King Underscore on Instagram, Twitter,
and Yes, Baby, my YouTube channel where you could get
all of my visuals, baby, my expressions. Yeah, and don't
forget tweet me your thoughts and hot takes about this
episode using the hashtag Reality with the King. Reality with
(55:16):
the King is a production of Kingdom Rain Entertainment, an
executive produced by me Carlos King, Kingdom Rain Entertainment, Baby,
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com