August 1, 2025 • 11 mins
Sean "Diddy" Combs is fighting to overturn his recent prostitution convictions, arguing the controversial events—referred to as "freak-offs"—were actually protected under the First Amendment as amateur pornography productions. While he was acquitted of more serious racketeering and trafficking charges, Diddy was convicted on two interstate prostitution counts. His legal team is pushing for dismissal ahead of his October sentencing, and reports suggest President Trump may be considering a pardon, adding a political twist to the unprecedented case.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/rudebees-insight--6688030/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/rudebees-insight--6688030/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Deep Dive, your ultimate shortcut really to
being well informed and finding those surprising facts that make
complex topics just click. Today, we're plunging into a legal
development that's really turning heads. It's centered on Sean Ditty
Combs and well, a truly unexpected new legal moves.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Yeah, it's quite something. This kind of post conviction maneuvering
isn't unheard of, but the arguments here are, well, they're notable, definitely.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
So we're going to dissect this recent motion file by
Ditty's legal team. They're aiming to overturn his convictions related
to interstate prostitution. Our mission in this deep dive really
is to grasp these specific charges Comb's faced, what he
was actually acquitted of, and then these bold, frankly, they're
calling them unprecedented legal arguments his team is now.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Championing, right, including that fascinating First Amendment defense.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
We'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
We're pulling directly from a Billboard pro article published just yesterday,
July thirty first, twenty twenty five. And look, this case
is a fantastic lens. You know. Lets us explore these
compelling intersections of celebrity criminal law fundamental constitutional rights and.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Even how we define certain activities today. The definitions themselves
are kind.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Of being questioned exactly, So get ready for some racket
insightful knowledge here.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
What's really striking, I think, is how this case is
forcing the legal system to grapple with these you know,
long established definitions, but in entirely new contexts.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Right, It's not just another celebrity headline.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
It's like a test case for the nuances of law
intersecting with modern social dynamics, the digital age, that sort
of thing.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, so let's unpack this. We should probably set the
legal stage first.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Good idea context is key.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So you might recall Sean Diddy Combs was arrested and
charged last year, and these were serious charges racketeering or
reicho and sex trafficking violation.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Yeah, richo, that's our ICO, usually reserved for like organized crime,
big criminal enterprises, So using that really signaled house surious.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
The government viewed these accusations.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Totally, and these charges they stemmed from accusations that he
ran what the article called a sprawling criminal operation, the
goal facilitating freakofs, which were described as elaborate events or
even drug fueled sex marathons.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, the descriptions were pretty lurid, and the specifics included
claims he forced his ex girlfriend Cassie Ventura and other
women to have sex with male escorts.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Well he watched and masturbated. Those were the core allegations,
driving the most serious charges.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
And from a broader legal perspective, those initial charges were
incredibly aggressive. I mean, using Raiko, they were trying to
frame his actions as this large scale, ongoing criminal.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Enterprise, right, aiming for a very comprehensive interpretation of everything
he was allegedly doing exactly. So, after all that build up,
we get the blockbuster trial May and June this year,
and here's where I found it really interesting. Okay, the
jury cleared Combs on those major iiO and sex traffic
charges acquitted.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Gone, that acquittal was definitely a huge moment in the case,
especially given how severe those initial accusations were. It suggests
the prosecution, well, they struggled to prove that whole overarching
criminal enterprise thing, or at least the jury didn't buy
it based on the evidence presented for those specific broader charges.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
But and this is the crucial part, despite those acquittals,
he wasn't completely off the hook, right, The jury did
convict him on two lesser counts interstate prostitution. Mm hmmm.
This was specifically for transporting Cassie Ventura, another woman, and
various sex workers across state lines.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
And that interstate bit is really key. That's what gives
the federal government jurisdiction, makes it a federal crime much
more serious than a state level issue.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Might have been exactly so clear to the big stuff,
but still convicted on these two specific counts relating to
transport for prostitution.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And this outcome really underscores how precise criminal law can be.
You know, the big sweeping theory didn't sick, but the
prosecution could still prove the specific elements for these particular
acts transporting individuals across state lines for what the jury
decided was in fact prostitution. It shows you can win
on the details even if the grand narrative fails.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Which brings us right up to the brand new development. Yeah. Thursday,
July thirty first to twenty twenty five. Just yesterday, Combe's lawyers,
including Mark Agnikolo, filed this motion. They want those two
lesser prostitution convictions thrown out completely, and.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
They're using strong language, calling the conviction itself unprecedented in
the history of federal prostitution law.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
They are, and they're making two core arguments both well,
both are pretty audacious.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I mean, the boldness here is challenging the very definition.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Of the crime he was convicted of. That's step one.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
And then they add a fundamental constitutional defense on top. Yeah,
this isn't just you know, a standard appeal saying the
judge made an error. It's a root and branch attack
on the legal basis for the conviction.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So take argument one, their first big claim and I'm
quoting the filing directly here. It's stark. This is not prostitution.
They're saying the activities described legally just don't count as prostitution.
The filing says, Sean Combs sits in jail based on
evidence that he paid adult male escorts and entertainers who
engaged in consensual sexual activities with his former girlfriends which
(05:23):
he videotaped and later watched with the girlfriends. And then
it concludes that is not prostitution, and if it is,
his conviction is on constitutional right.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
And this is where the legal interpretation gets really really nuanced.
It forces the question what exactly is the legal definition
of prostitution in this federal context?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, what are they arguing specifically?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Well, the defense seems to be pushing for a very
narrow reading of the law, almost like a classical definition.
Their suggesting prostitution requires a direct, explicit payment for sex
between the participants. Okay, so they're trying to draw this
line saying, look, he paid escorts, those escorts engaged with
his girlfriends consensually, he watched, maybe filmed, But that specific
(06:05):
chain of events, they argue, doesn't fit the narrow definition
of him paying for prostitution in the way the law intended.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
So the fact that he paid the escorts, but the
escorts had sex with the girlfriends, not him directly for money.
That's the distinction they're making.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
That seems to be the core of it. It's about
who paid whom for what specific act. They're saying the
link isn't direct enough to meet the statue. If they
actually succeed with this, well it could really reshape how
federal prostitution charges are brought, especially in these more complex
third party payment scenarios or you know, non traditional setups.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Okay, wow, that alone is a big swing. Yeah, but
If that wasn't bold enough, their second argument, it's even
more of a curve ball. Yeah, a First Amendment defense
free speech protection. Seriously, his legal team calls it a
creative alternate argument. They're literally arguing his actions were protected
free speech to the First Amendment.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Now what's the connection they're making.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Okay, again, quoting the filing, he was producing amateur pornography
for later private viewing.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Ahka, So framing the whole thing is content creation exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It goes on, this is protected First Amendment conduct that
no substantial government interest justifies prohibiting since the films depicted
adult voluntarily engaging in consensual activity.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Wow, okay, that is that's definitely pushing boundaries. It immediately
makes you ask, right, where do the boundaries of free
speech lie when they bump up against other laws like
prostitution statutes or you know, even obscenity laws. So the
defense is trying to recategorize these freak offs entirely, not
as criminal conduct, but as the act of producing amateur pornography.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
So filming it makes its speech.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
That's the argument they're floating. And look, connecting this to
the bigger picture, The First Amendment does protect a lot
of expressive conduct, even creating adult content generally, if it's consensual,
doesn't involve minors, isn't legally obscene, it gets protection.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
But using it as a defense when a jury already
decided the underlying activity involved interstate prostitution, Sure, it seems
like a stretch.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
It's a very very challenging legal tightrope walk. It's kind
of like arguing, you know, if you film your friends
doing something potentially illegal in private, the act of filming
somehow shields the whole thing as protected artistic expression. It's
trying to stretch that definition of speech to cover private
conduct in a way that frankly, courts haven't typically applied
(08:29):
in situations like this, especially where interstate transport for prostitution
has already been determined by a jury. It's inventive, Absolutely inventive. Yeah,
fascinating provocative legal strategy, no doubt. So, Okay, what's next
for Diddy? What's the bigger picture here?
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Well, first things first, the judge has to rule on this.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Motion, right, and if the convictions aren't overturned, an.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
He scheduled for sentencing in October?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And do we know what kind of sentence he might
be looking.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
At The article mentions sentencing guidelines suggest somewhere between two
and five years in prison for these two counts. But
guidelines are just that suggestions. The judge has discretion.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Gotcha, So this motion is crucial for him before that
October date. Absolutely, the timing is critical, and you know,
the judge's decision on these arguments, particularly the first Amendment one,
could potentially set a significant precedent for how similar complex
cases might be handled down the road.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And beyond the courtroom filings. The Billboard pro article notes
another potential avenue Combs is reportedly pursuing. Oh says President
Trump is heavily weighing giving him a full presidential pardon.
Apparently several of Combe's associates have been pitching the White
House on this.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Ah okay, the pardon angle, Well, that certainly highlights the
multifaceted nature of these high profile cases, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
It does.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
You have the legal battles playing out in court running
parallel with these you know, political considerations and the possibility
of executive action like a pardon. It just broadens the
whole sk of how these things can ultimately play out.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
The courts are just one arena.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
It seems.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Yeah, it's a reminder that the legal system isn't the
only path, especially in cases like this. So, okay, let's
recap quickly. You've just gotten some swift insight into what
is truly a captivating legal tightrope. Walk Combe's defense is
trying to challenge the very definition of a crime prostitution
in this case, while simultaneously invoking fundamental constitutional rights, specifically
(10:28):
the First Amendments free speech protection.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
For activities they're framing as producing amateur pornography exactly. And
what this deep dive really shows, I think, is how
these legal definitions and even constitutional protections are constantly being tested, reinterpreted,
especially in.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Our evolving world.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Right, this isn't just about one celebrity case. It touches
on broader implications for privacy, the boundaries of artistic expression,
and fundamentally how we define what actually constitutes a crime,
particularly now in the digital age.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
So what does this all mean for you listening? Well,
this deep dive has hopefully given you a shortcut to
understanding a really complex legal situation. You've got the specific arguments,
some surprising facts you might not have heard elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, it's definitely not straightforward.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Not at all. Yeah no for that.
Welcome to the Deep Dive, your ultimate shortcut really to
being well informed and finding those surprising facts that make
complex topics just click. Today, we're plunging into a legal
development that's really turning heads. It's centered on Sean Ditty
Combs and well, a truly unexpected new legal moves.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Yeah, it's quite something. This kind of post conviction maneuvering
isn't unheard of, but the arguments here are, well, they're notable, definitely.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
So we're going to dissect this recent motion file by
Ditty's legal team. They're aiming to overturn his convictions related
to interstate prostitution. Our mission in this deep dive really
is to grasp these specific charges Comb's faced, what he
was actually acquitted of, and then these bold, frankly, they're
calling them unprecedented legal arguments his team is now.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Championing, right, including that fascinating First Amendment defense.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
We'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
We're pulling directly from a Billboard pro article published just yesterday,
July thirty first, twenty twenty five. And look, this case
is a fantastic lens. You know. Lets us explore these
compelling intersections of celebrity criminal law fundamental constitutional rights and.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Even how we define certain activities today. The definitions themselves
are kind.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Of being questioned exactly, So get ready for some racket
insightful knowledge here.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
What's really striking, I think, is how this case is
forcing the legal system to grapple with these you know,
long established definitions, but in entirely new contexts.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Right, It's not just another celebrity headline.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
It's like a test case for the nuances of law
intersecting with modern social dynamics, the digital age, that sort
of thing.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, so let's unpack this. We should probably set the
legal stage first.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Good idea context is key.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So you might recall Sean Diddy Combs was arrested and
charged last year, and these were serious charges racketeering or
reicho and sex trafficking violation.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Yeah, richo, that's our ICO, usually reserved for like organized crime,
big criminal enterprises, So using that really signaled house surious.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
The government viewed these accusations.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Totally, and these charges they stemmed from accusations that he
ran what the article called a sprawling criminal operation, the
goal facilitating freakofs, which were described as elaborate events or
even drug fueled sex marathons.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, the descriptions were pretty lurid, and the specifics included
claims he forced his ex girlfriend Cassie Ventura and other
women to have sex with male escorts.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Well he watched and masturbated. Those were the core allegations,
driving the most serious charges.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
And from a broader legal perspective, those initial charges were
incredibly aggressive. I mean, using Raiko, they were trying to
frame his actions as this large scale, ongoing criminal.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Enterprise, right, aiming for a very comprehensive interpretation of everything
he was allegedly doing exactly. So, after all that build up,
we get the blockbuster trial May and June this year,
and here's where I found it really interesting. Okay, the
jury cleared Combs on those major iiO and sex traffic
charges acquitted.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Gone, that acquittal was definitely a huge moment in the case,
especially given how severe those initial accusations were. It suggests
the prosecution, well, they struggled to prove that whole overarching
criminal enterprise thing, or at least the jury didn't buy
it based on the evidence presented for those specific broader charges.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
But and this is the crucial part, despite those acquittals,
he wasn't completely off the hook, right, The jury did
convict him on two lesser counts interstate prostitution. Mm hmmm.
This was specifically for transporting Cassie Ventura, another woman, and
various sex workers across state lines.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
And that interstate bit is really key. That's what gives
the federal government jurisdiction, makes it a federal crime much
more serious than a state level issue.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Might have been exactly so clear to the big stuff,
but still convicted on these two specific counts relating to
transport for prostitution.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And this outcome really underscores how precise criminal law can be.
You know, the big sweeping theory didn't sick, but the
prosecution could still prove the specific elements for these particular
acts transporting individuals across state lines for what the jury
decided was in fact prostitution. It shows you can win
on the details even if the grand narrative fails.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Which brings us right up to the brand new development. Yeah. Thursday,
July thirty first to twenty twenty five. Just yesterday, Combe's lawyers,
including Mark Agnikolo, filed this motion. They want those two
lesser prostitution convictions thrown out completely, and.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
They're using strong language, calling the conviction itself unprecedented in
the history of federal prostitution law.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
They are, and they're making two core arguments both well,
both are pretty audacious.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I mean, the boldness here is challenging the very definition.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Of the crime he was convicted of. That's step one.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
And then they add a fundamental constitutional defense on top. Yeah,
this isn't just you know, a standard appeal saying the
judge made an error. It's a root and branch attack
on the legal basis for the conviction.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So take argument one, their first big claim and I'm
quoting the filing directly here. It's stark. This is not prostitution.
They're saying the activities described legally just don't count as prostitution.
The filing says, Sean Combs sits in jail based on
evidence that he paid adult male escorts and entertainers who
engaged in consensual sexual activities with his former girlfriends which
(05:23):
he videotaped and later watched with the girlfriends. And then
it concludes that is not prostitution, and if it is,
his conviction is on constitutional right.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
And this is where the legal interpretation gets really really nuanced.
It forces the question what exactly is the legal definition
of prostitution in this federal context?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, what are they arguing specifically?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Well, the defense seems to be pushing for a very
narrow reading of the law, almost like a classical definition.
Their suggesting prostitution requires a direct, explicit payment for sex
between the participants. Okay, so they're trying to draw this
line saying, look, he paid escorts, those escorts engaged with
his girlfriends consensually, he watched, maybe filmed, But that specific
(06:05):
chain of events, they argue, doesn't fit the narrow definition
of him paying for prostitution in the way the law intended.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
So the fact that he paid the escorts, but the
escorts had sex with the girlfriends, not him directly for money.
That's the distinction they're making.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
That seems to be the core of it. It's about
who paid whom for what specific act. They're saying the
link isn't direct enough to meet the statue. If they
actually succeed with this, well it could really reshape how
federal prostitution charges are brought, especially in these more complex
third party payment scenarios or you know, non traditional setups.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Okay, wow, that alone is a big swing. Yeah, but
If that wasn't bold enough, their second argument, it's even
more of a curve ball. Yeah, a First Amendment defense
free speech protection. Seriously, his legal team calls it a
creative alternate argument. They're literally arguing his actions were protected
free speech to the First Amendment.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Now what's the connection they're making.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Okay, again, quoting the filing, he was producing amateur pornography
for later private viewing.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Ahka, So framing the whole thing is content creation exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It goes on, this is protected First Amendment conduct that
no substantial government interest justifies prohibiting since the films depicted
adult voluntarily engaging in consensual activity.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Wow, okay, that is that's definitely pushing boundaries. It immediately
makes you ask, right, where do the boundaries of free
speech lie when they bump up against other laws like
prostitution statutes or you know, even obscenity laws. So the
defense is trying to recategorize these freak offs entirely, not
as criminal conduct, but as the act of producing amateur pornography.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
So filming it makes its speech.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
That's the argument they're floating. And look, connecting this to
the bigger picture, The First Amendment does protect a lot
of expressive conduct, even creating adult content generally, if it's consensual,
doesn't involve minors, isn't legally obscene, it gets protection.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
But using it as a defense when a jury already
decided the underlying activity involved interstate prostitution, Sure, it seems
like a stretch.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
It's a very very challenging legal tightrope walk. It's kind
of like arguing, you know, if you film your friends
doing something potentially illegal in private, the act of filming
somehow shields the whole thing as protected artistic expression. It's
trying to stretch that definition of speech to cover private
conduct in a way that frankly, courts haven't typically applied
(08:29):
in situations like this, especially where interstate transport for prostitution
has already been determined by a jury. It's inventive, Absolutely inventive. Yeah,
fascinating provocative legal strategy, no doubt. So, Okay, what's next
for Diddy? What's the bigger picture here?
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Well, first things first, the judge has to rule on this.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Motion, right, and if the convictions aren't overturned, an.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
He scheduled for sentencing in October?
Speaker 3 (08:53):
And do we know what kind of sentence he might
be looking.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
At The article mentions sentencing guidelines suggest somewhere between two
and five years in prison for these two counts. But
guidelines are just that suggestions. The judge has discretion.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Gotcha, So this motion is crucial for him before that
October date. Absolutely, the timing is critical, and you know,
the judge's decision on these arguments, particularly the first Amendment one,
could potentially set a significant precedent for how similar complex
cases might be handled down the road.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And beyond the courtroom filings. The Billboard pro article notes
another potential avenue Combs is reportedly pursuing. Oh says President
Trump is heavily weighing giving him a full presidential pardon.
Apparently several of Combe's associates have been pitching the White
House on this.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Ah okay, the pardon angle, Well, that certainly highlights the
multifaceted nature of these high profile cases, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
It does.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
You have the legal battles playing out in court running
parallel with these you know, political considerations and the possibility
of executive action like a pardon. It just broadens the
whole sk of how these things can ultimately play out.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
The courts are just one arena.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
It seems.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Yeah, it's a reminder that the legal system isn't the
only path, especially in cases like this. So, okay, let's
recap quickly. You've just gotten some swift insight into what
is truly a captivating legal tightrope. Walk Combe's defense is
trying to challenge the very definition of a crime prostitution
in this case, while simultaneously invoking fundamental constitutional rights, specifically
(10:28):
the First Amendments free speech protection.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
For activities they're framing as producing amateur pornography exactly. And
what this deep dive really shows, I think, is how
these legal definitions and even constitutional protections are constantly being tested, reinterpreted,
especially in.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
Our evolving world.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Right, this isn't just about one celebrity case. It touches
on broader implications for privacy, the boundaries of artistic expression,
and fundamentally how we define what actually constitutes a crime,
particularly now in the digital age.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
So what does this all mean for you listening? Well,
this deep dive has hopefully given you a shortcut to
understanding a really complex legal situation. You've got the specific arguments,
some surprising facts you might not have heard elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, it's definitely not straightforward.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Not at all. Yeah no for that.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!