All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2025 - Lionel Nation
41:30
WEEK ONE: Diddy Untouched as Cassie Crumbles on the Stand

WEEK ONE: Diddy Untouched as Cassie Crumbles on the Stand

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, well, well.
Mr. Lionel, do you think that he will walk?
Do you think that the prosecution is proving their case?
Do you think that they have any more witnesses?
And is Cassie their star witness?
How bad do you think this is for the prosecution or good or for the defense?
Knock yourself out.
Great questions.
First, do I think he will walk?
If he does, I would not be surprised.
Number one.
Number two, and in no particular order, your questions are very, very good, but they're each different.
Have they proved their case?
No.
No.
I mean, again, it's a little early.
It's like you're going into a movie and saying, I don't understand this.
It's like, it just started.
So, I understand that.
The thing that I want people to understand, and the message that I have for them to understand, is very simply this.
I am a lawyer by profession.
I am licensed.
I was a prosecutor.
And let me imagine if you were charged with speeding.
Going 55 in a school zone.
And you're pulled over.
And I give you a ticket.
And you say, I'm going to fight this.
And you go to court.
And I bring up the fact that there was alcohol in the car.
And that you were drunk.
And that you are a drunk.
And you've been arrested for being drunk.
And you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You charged me with speeding.
What about the speeding?
I'm here for speeding.
Yes, but don't you think this is relevant?
No!
You don't think drunk driving is relevant?
You didn't charge me with that!
I'm only here for what you charged me.
You decided to charge me with this.
This is what you're stuck with.
Let's talk about this.
But can't they add any more charges?
I saw Nancy Grace that there's new charges added to Diddy because they left it so broad.
Okay.
For the audience, because a lot of people are angry.
I am one of them.
My ex-husband used to beat the crap out of me.
And I'm not laughing about that.
It's just that people get so angry with me when I point out that, yes, he's an asshole.
Yes, he's beating the crap out of a Cassie.
Yes, you know, there are all kinds of things going on there.
But it's not what he's charged with.
Can you explain to the people what exactly he's charged with?
Three charges.
Number one.
It used to be called the Mann Act or the White Slavery Charge.
Transporting somebody across straight lines, people, for the purposes of prostitution.
Like what Hunter Biden did.
Well, you know, they had Jack Johnson, the famous black boxer, R. Kelly, Chuck Berry, you know, but that is...
Chuck Berry?
Oh, Chuck Berry.
Remember the great...
Oh, yeah.
He had some very interesting...
Quite a life.
So, then, the other one is, in no particular order, conspiracy, a racketeering conspiracy.
This is an enterprise.
An enterprise.
A criminal enterprise.
Not just Diddy.
Not just him doing something, but think of it as an organization.
Loosen it, but not just him.
If you and I were to plan something, conspire, confederate, if I said, I want to get with you and let's traffic in cocaine, I'll get 10 kilos and more.
This is a conspiracy.
And we're guilty from the moment we start talking.
We're guilty, even though we haven't...
Okay.
Uh-oh.
We're not talking about that, by the way.
Right, right.
So this is conspiracy, conspiracy from the Latin conspirare, to breathe together, versus me acting individually, all right?
So that's it.
Now, if that conspiracy goes a little bit further, and let's say it's not just you and me conspiring, maybe with some other people.
We actually have almost like a mini enterprise, a mini company, a mini organization.
It's an enterprise, racketeering.
And that's the vice.
So it's a little bit more.
So, so far I've heard Diddy, Cassie.
I haven't heard.
Now, granted, they're going to argue, the government's going to argue that the security people, those who maybe arranged the freak-offs, okay.
Maybe those who secured the hotel, okay.
Or the sites, okay.
Maybe.
Good luck with that one.
Let me...
Why is that not part of the organization?
Because I heard people saying that the prosecution is planning to say that Didi isn't an organization in itself.
That he didn't need anybody because why does he need anybody?
Because he's larger than life.
And all he had after him were employees.
And those employees don't count, should count, sorry, as part of the organization.
Well, they better.
But then again, you're talking about somebody.
Is somebody...
Working as a part of the enterprise.
For example, you have to know you're in the enterprise.
What if I have a series of, like in the Pizzagate case, I have a series of pizza parlors and I'm actually selling heroin out of it.
You work for me.
You don't even know this.
You're literally just selling pizzas.
Could you be brought into this?
No!
But the pizza...
Company was a part of the organization.
Yes, but you individually knew nothing about it.
So we'll get into that.
Listen, everybody who's of this stature has people working for them who are, you know, agents and gophers and that sort of thing.
So changing this subject a little bit back, do you remember years ago the story of Ike and Tina Turner?
Ike beat the hell out of her.
Could they have charged Ike with Racketeering?
What?
Or, well, this is the same thing.
But they had people working for him.
Yeah.
Everybody knew what was going on, though, too.
Everybody knows.
It's the same thing with Harvey Weinstein.
Everybody knew what was going on.
So do these people that knew what was going on in Hollywood and allowed it to happen, should they be charged as well?
Well, you bring up a good point.
There are no laws that mandate you doing something, you reporting it.
It's called misprision.
But there are other cases where they're called mandatory reporters.
For example, if you're a teacher, a nurse, you see evidence of it.
You have to bring it.
But that's about it.
So what we're seeing is, and as this develops, this has been going on since when the Stones and the Who and Led Zeppelin...
And the days of the groupies when Cream Magazine used to talk about jailbait and baby groupies and the plaster casters and all of this.
This has been going on since the days of Charlie Chaplin, Fatty Arbuckle, Clara Bow.
But all of a sudden, this guy, this guy now is trafficking.
I'll bet you that if he were to sit down, if you were to sit there and say, did he tell me the truth?
I remember.
I don't like him.
I don't know him.
I couldn't tell you what song he...
It doesn't matter.
I'm a lawyer.
But if I looked at him and I said, what did you do?
He said, I do it all the time.
I did it.
I could name, and you could probably name, five other people, famous people, who did the same thing.
And I don't know.
It doesn't really surprise me.
But let me ask you this.
Let me jump into this.
Three things.
Let me just make sure we answer your question.
Because as you can see, when I start talking...
I'm all over the place!
That's okay.
But racketeering, just to clarify, the charges are racketeering.
Can you explain to people what racketeering means?
Because a lot of people...
Racketeering, again...
You can answer that.
Racketeering means we have a criminal enterprise.
It's not just me and you.
We have a little organization.
Think of the mafia.
Think of the mafia.
Think of the Gambino crime family.
And employees don't count.
Employees don't count.
It has to be people at the same level.
You have to know what's going on.
You might be an underling.
But you know you're a part of the Gambino crime family.
And you're benefiting from it.
Benefiting or trying to get into it.
Doesn't matter.
Oh, okay.
That's a good point.
Being an employee does not make you part of the organization.
You have to benefit or try to get into it for personal gain.
But more importantly, you have to know it.
You have to know exactly what I'm doing.
Do you know you're working for Diddy?
Yes.
Are you procuring women for the free golfs?
Yes.
Do you realize some of these women might be underage?
Which really hasn't been charged to me.
But yes.
Do you understand that a lot of there's drugs involved?
Yes.
I know that.
This is what I'm...
Yes.
I'm there.
Okay.
You're a member of the enterprise.
But the bottom line is, and what's important is, and this is the most critical.
Again, I'm saying, let me just go back.
MAN Act, which is that white slavery statute, transporting across state lines for prostitution.
We mentioned racketeering.
But number three, and this is the most important, human trafficking.
Human trafficking, sex trafficking, where I use force, fraud, or coercion in order for you to do something.
Let me tell you the best example.
The best example would be to take in an unaccompanied minor.
Somebody who comes to this country.
A cartel brings them in.
I grab a little girl.
I grab a mother.
You work for me.
You give me your passport if you have one.
You're going to go into labor trafficking, sex trafficking, and I'm threatening you.
Now I am using you as chattel.
I am using you.
I am benefiting from you.
This is trafficking.
I am benefiting you.
It's almost slavery.
Slavery is probably one of the best words or versions of this.
Now, so those are the big three.
Here's my question.
Now, cross-examination, I think today is part two of this.
Cross-examination is the best part of my trials because this is when I get to interview the other side's witness.
You're a defense attorney, just to be on the record.
Right.
But if I'm a defense attorney, so I'm going to get the chance to cross-examine the prosecution witness.
The prosecution can cross-examine my witness.
Cross-examination means the other side's person I'm talking to.
And you can use leading questions.
Which is the most important.
So Cassie, you could have left any time.
Couldn't you?
Yes.
Did he put a gun to your head?
No.
These texts that you have, I want to be your freak.
Did anybody put you up to this?
No.
Because remember, the subsidiary issue here is consent.
You could have left.
It was a bad day for the prosecution yesterday, wasn't it?
I don't know.
Let me say something.
Let me say something very Carefully here.
Unless you are in that courtroom, and unless you can really see what people are saying, you don't know.
It might have been great.
I don't know.
I mean, in the case of the text messages where she said that she couldn't wait for the...
Freak-off, or she's setting them up, or how she didn't like to do freak-offs with girls, but how she couldn't wait to be with him.
This is after one freak-off.
This is why I said that these are text messages that are out there that they posted them.
And what they seek to do, remember, the way that he went, remember, Diddy doesn't have to prove anything.
He has to either, he wins by a...
A mistrial or hung jury.
One person votes to acquit, the rest don't.
That's it.
It's a mistrial.
We've got to do it again, which is a loss for the prosecution.
Number two, a flat-out acquittal.
Unanimous, not guilty.
And all of that is by creating reasonable doubt.
Not proving that it didn't happen, but making the jury say, I'm not so sure about this.
And the other way to win is on appeal.
Because they are setting themselves up for an appeal like you cannot believe, because I know...
How are they doing that?
Well, let's first finish the third question, and then you can tell me not.
So, anyway, but they're talking to her, and so they're saying, so, did he pull you into a van and get you to go there?
Did he give you a narcotic?
Did he tranquilize you, and you wake up, and next thing you know, you're in a freak-off, and you couldn't leave, and you were chained?
No, you wanted to go there.
And in all these pictures of you with him, your career benefited, you benefited, you were paid.
Not to mention, you got how much in this civil lawsuit?
$20 million?
Okay, fine.
All right.
Now listen, the incident of this beating is irrelevant.
What does that have to do with anything?
It's wrong.
It's terrible.
He's not charged with hitting her.
There is a rule called 403 evidence.
And that means that when evidence is probative, meaning it proves something, but the tendency to inflame the jury, to prejudice the jury, is so great, the court has to keep it out.
Not everything that's relevant comes in.
So the question you have to ask is, they must have objected, Judge, what does this have to do other than prejudice the jury against Diddy?
Why is this important?
Why is this case?
But before, this example of them beating, how is this not prejudicial?
He's not being charged with us.
This was disposed of before.
This has nothing to do with us.
Now, if they're smart, they would hope the judge would let it in, as he did.
That lays the groundwork for an appeal, for an appellate court later to say, you were right, this judge was wrong, he should have...
That was part of the judicial against the defendant because he was not being charged for that.
It's like, for example, if you said, if you're charged with speeding and then they show a bunch of stereotypes of you stealing in a store.
Well, let me ask you this.
Let me give you another example.
What they did to Harvey Weinstein, I think, is an absolute disgrace.
Now, I don't, again...
Me too.
I think it's disgusting.
Well, I don't like...
I don't know anything about Weinstein, but let me tell you a problem with that.
We're giving a different topic, but to give you an idea of how unfair this is.
If Harvey Weinstein is on trial for doing something to a particular woman in that particular case, you should stick to those facts.
Not bring up a woman five years ago, three years ago, that he did something kind of similar to, who never was the basis of a charge.
Why are they doing this?
The jury says, oh, you mean he's done this before?
So what they're saying is, oh, no, no, we're not doing that in order to prejudice him.
We're showing you a common pattern.
Why is it allowed then?
Why is it allowed?
That's my...
I don't know.
Because of the woke movement?
Because I know that before, they were pretty, pretty tough with what was allowed in or not.
Like, they wouldn't allow previous crimes or anything into certain criminal trials.
But why are they doing it now?
It's a different environment, isn't it?
Let me give you the theory behind it.
Let's assume, for example, you're a bank robber.
And every time, and we know you rob banks, and you wear a particular hat, you say a particular thing, you use a particular gun, you have an MO, modus operandi, every time you've done it.
We have a new bank robbery case, but we don't know it's you.
But this one does everything you did before.
So I can put on evidence of past crimes, not to show that you're a bad person, not that you have a criminal propensity, but to show that this is your MO.
Okay, maybe.
So under that rule, they always stretch it.
And they're saying, well, the reason why we're doing this with Harvey Weinstein is to show that there is a...
No, no, no.
We don't have any doubt as to who the person is.
There is no M.O. here.
They use it as an excuse to try to poison and taint the minds of the jury.
They want the jury to hate this person.
And they're going to throw everything out.
Now, let's go back to Diddy for a moment.
You know these escorts who were supposedly doing these things to Cassie?
The first question I would have for them was, did anybody offer you from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District, did anybody offer you immunity?
Because you're testifying under oath that you defiled her.
Remember, Diddy was watching.
You did this.
You did these acts.
I don't want to go into them now, but you did this.
So how are you testifying under oath and admitting to criminality?
And getting paid and walking out.
So they made a deal with you, right?
Did they threaten to prosecute you if you didn't testify?
Why are you doing this now?
On your own?
You're a good citizen?
No.
You were threatened most probably.
And you were granted immunity.
See, whenever somebody is granted immunity, the jury should know this.
This was brought during the Biden administration, this Department of Justice.
And I think, isn't Comey's daughter?
One of the prosecutors in this?
It comes down to the closing argument.
And this is the most important.
This is when both sides are arrested.
And you have a big poster up there.
These are the three charges.
Let's go through them, folks.
Number three.
Where was the evidence?
Not of somebody who traveled, but somebody who brought a woman across state lines, the Man Act, for prostitution?
No.
Is this prostitution?
Or are there people going to a party?
Hugh Hefner had these parties.
These are called orgies.
They've been doing this forever.
Why?
I don't want to get prudish.
It may not be your cup of tea, but if it's consensual.
Number two, if Diddy says, or if somebody says, let me tell you about these parties.
You know we did have security there.
You know why?
Not to keep...
The women in, but to keep people out.
We had a list of women around the block who couldn't wait to go to a ditty party.
Do you know how big this was?
Everybody, do you want me to, and I wish you would say, let me read a list of some of the names of the people who've been to these freak-offs, shall I?
Let him go through that.
Why aren't they doing that?
Maybe they will because he's not put his case on yet.
I don't know.
Remember, I'm not in court and I'm just kind of guessing.
But I would have loved to have said, Cassie, when you were there, did you see, go down the list.
Did you see this person there?
No.
Did you see this person there?
No.
This may be a surprise to you.
Let me back up a little bit.
Years ago, I was fascinated in my talk radio with swingers.
And they used to call them wife-swamping.
And at the time, I interviewed these people, and for them, it was a very natural thing, alternative lifestyle, not my cup of tea, but that's fine.
And I asked, I said, is this in any way against the law?
And they said, no, because we're adults, it's consensual, it's not prostitution, it's just...
And it was.
So what I'm trying to say is, if I went through this and I'm saying, I would say to Cassie, how can you say that there was anything wrong?
When people knew about it, wanted to go to it, and if you wanted to spend three days in a hotel room having sex with strangers and you're an adult, it's not against the law.
And if you want to use drugs yourself, that may be against the law, but that's what you're doing.
Diddy's not doing this.
Now, if you're going to try to...
My point is...
I would want to deconstruct this so that the jury would look at each other and say, why are we here?
What are we doing here?
This is not what I thought it was.
These were parties.
These were people.
Do you ever hear about his Hamptons white party?
Yeah.
He was the hottest ticket in town.
All of them are.
So this is a guy who said, excuse me, maybe you think I'm putting on these.
Bacchanals or these Bohemian Grove type of thing.
We knew about this.
And I also want you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to understand something.
In my lifestyle and where I live, this is the way we hang.
And you may not like it, but we do this knowingly with eyes wide open.
That's how they roll.
That's how they roll.
Exactly.
And remember, it's not about...
What you and I think is permissible or not, we have so little, you know, you would think, after all of the trials that we've seen, and the fact that we love true crime, and the fact that we're always talking about court TV, nobody knows anything about court.
Let me give you another example.
This makes, again, I'm changing the subject, but there was a fellow named Epstein.
And Epstein, this was a homicide.
Absolutely, positively, 100%.
Why are they charging him?
Let me ask this question.
Was Diddy the only one at these parties?
If you and I are involved, do you know if we rob a bank and I say, look, all I want you to do is just be outside.
When I come, just drive me away.
Be the getaway driver.
You are just as guilty as I am.
You are a principal in the first degree.
100%.
The people who were there, who assisted, who...
Who lured people in.
Other stars.
Why aren't they being charged?
Why is Diddy the sole organizer of this?
The only one?
Can you speak on that why?
Maybe somebody said, look, we'll give you someone.
Just go away.
We're going home.
Okay, who can you give?
Cat William.
No.
Diddy.
Diddy.
Okay, you know what?
That might do it.
Why not Jay-Z?
Jay-Z was part of this little group of R. Kelly, Diddy, and...
I have.
First of all, he has proved to be very...
He's hired a great lawyer.
He has been proved or alleged...
You can allege all day all you want.
But he has so far not been involved, implicated in any way whatsoever.
So I don't know why somebody's not involved.
I think they tried to, and then this case was dismissed, and other people were doing it.
I don't know.
But the point is, I can't tell you why.
Why him?
Why not him?
Why her?
Why did all of these people who were involved in this, why did all of these people decide over the years to just, they happen to be, I don't want to make a racist thing out of it, but why are they black?
I have no idea.
But what I'm saying right now is, as far as Diddy goes, this I do understand, of the charges they charged him with, I am still waiting to hear something about an enterprise, an organization, not a rehash of what amounts to a state court domestic problem.
That's what I'm wondering.
Which happened in California, by the way, because that happened in California.
Okay, so do you think that the reason why they charged them with racketeering and trafficking is because those state cases, like domestic violence, had already reached the limit of a statute of limitation and they weren't able to charge them under that?
Could be, or a lot of times they have to charge them because there is no federal version of...
Battery or domestic battery is always bigger.
For example, there's no such thing as murder, per se.
They'll charge violating someone's civil rights.
It's always couched in a different way.
I don't know.
In order to win, you look at what they are charging you with, and you basically tell the jury, forget whatever you thought based upon these charges.
In this case, he did not commit this offense.
That's it.
You're not being asked to talk about whether he hit Cassie, whether he's a nice guy.
These three charges.
Think of it as you being a radiologist.
You hold up an x-ray, if the bone is broken or not.
That's it.
You just look at it.
Is she pregnant or not?
Is he dead or not?
Just answer the question.
I don't know whose bone this is.
I don't know who's pregnant.
I don't know anything about this.
I'm a pathologist.
I'm a radiologist.
I just look at the slides.
And the juror just answers the question.
Has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt Trafficking, racketeering, in essence, conspiracy, and violation of the manic.
That's it!
End of discussion.
That's it.
Everything else you can worry about, whether he's a dirtbag.
The man's going to have nothing.
Diddy's been hit with 60. Where's his money?
Where did he make all this money?
How big was he?
There's no way with all of these...
I'm dying to know how these people really...
This is a different issue.
How they...
The thing is, I suspect the jury after Cassie is there saying to each other, what was that all about?
This is the victim?
How does she explain the racketeering?
How does she explain the sex trafficking?
I understand her case, and that's tragic, but who was she again?
And when she sent these texts, was she claiming she was the victim?
All of these...
These issues will be weighed by the jury and very well could...
See, here's the ultimate.
I want them to get a feeling of finally like, oh, this is enough.
I'm sick of this.
Not guilty.
It's called nullification.
I don't want to hear about it.
I'm done with this.
Not guilty.
I have doubts as of motivation, whether it was proved, why we're here.
You want to just wear them out.
You want them to get sick of this.
Because believe me, if this was a case involving children or people brought from other countries, people telling you stories about how they were kept in basements and chains and not fed, it would have been a plea.
They would have said, we're pleading guilty, that's it.
But I'm telling you, this is not the kind of case.
You know, when you think about, on a very serious note, when you think about what kids...
Have been through.
And the real, honest to God trafficking that exists today.
If you want to really go after trafficking, go after Homeland Security, go after ICE during the Biden era.
Look at Catholic charities.
Look at CPS in various states.
How kids are disappeared into systems.
That's what we should be going after.
Labor trafficking in this country is so huge.
People don't think about it.
People are from other countries.
They don't know any better.
Their passports are taken.
And you're going to be somebody's maid in Brooklyn.
And if you say anything, we'll disappear you.
This happens all the time.
This happens all the time.
So that's the part that annoys me.
The fact that our government, with limited resources, would spend this much time on this guy?
For these miserable people?
People who wanted to be violated?
Who wanted to be...
They wanted...
This woman was...
She's famous today because of him!
How much did he...
And a multi-millionaire.
And I know people say, well, he beat her up and everything.
Oh, would you say, no!
Then leave!
Then just leave!
When you have a criminal charge and you have the chance to escape...
And you didn't.
You know, one of the whole notions of kidnapping, which is by analogy, kidnapping or false imprisonment, is the fact that you couldn't leave.
That's what makes it kidnapping.
You couldn't leave.
And if you could leave, why didn't you?
It makes it more, not that it didn't happen, but it gives the jury more of a reason to doubt it.
Especially when somebody is writing to their captors and they are also concomitantly enjoying incredible fame.
By virtue of this.
So, in that respect, all of these things have to be taken into account.
So remember, all of this stuff they talk about in all the other shows, it's fantastic.
The Tootsie Roll this and all that.
And it's nothing to do with the three charges that are talking about.
And if you keep that in mind, you will do well.
Remember, Diddy doesn't have to prove anything.
If he says, if you have one reasonable doubt, a doubt you can attach a reason to.
For example, if you find...
Sorry, Lana, but don't you think that from what are people saying?
Because I hear very people that I like and they're usually very level-headed.
For example, Megyn Kelly.
I love Megyn Kelly.
And I do watch Nancy Grace because I love her passion.
But I find that these big channels are more concerned on getting the guy than getting the guy for the right reasons.
Because for me, at least, they're setting up very bad precedent.
If they get him like that.
Well, anytime you violate the law and anytime you break the law and anytime you are in a position where the law is not followed to get the guy, nobody benefits from that.
That is a very serious problem.
Look, I can't understand the motivation behind it.
That's a different story.
My take is always different.
During the course of the OJ case, years ago, this is way back, I was able to handle both.
I could say, here's what I think is up, here's what's down.
I know he killed these people, but the question is, can you prove it?
See, the thing is, is that if I...
It's one thing for me to say, you hit somebody, you killed somebody, you ran over somebody, that's pretty easy.
Federal says, you killed somebody, that's part.
Wait a minute.
Now you just made it unnecessarily complicated.
So I might find you not guilty.
Not because you didn't kill anybody, but you added all of these other aspects to it, which you didn't prove.
If you don't prove it, let me ask you a question.
Let's assume, would Megyn Kelly or Nancy or anybody else, by the way, and their success speaks for itself, but would they agree that if, let's assume, that Diddy was charged with arson, You know, burning something.
And there was no evidence of fire.
Would they understand that it makes sense to find him not guilty?
Even though he's a terrible person who beat Cassidy up, if you said, look, there's no fire.
He never burned anything.
You charged him with arson.
Sorry, he's not guilty.
Not that he's a good person.
Not that he's innocent.
But he's not guilty of arson.
I think they would have no problem with that.
They would say, okay, it's arson.
There's no fire here.
I can live with that.
Well, that's what this is.
There may not be any evidence of...
An enterprise.
There may be Diddy and some guy who drives him and that's it.
They make it sound like there's some rocketeering this freak-off industry in order to lure people.
There may be a very serious doubt and if there is, he is by definition not guilty of this charge.
Not of his debauched livelihood or lifestyle.
That's it.
And I don't expect anybody to understand that.
Look, I've been doing this for a long time, and some people just hate them so much.
The point I'm trying to say is that when you decide you're going to charge somebody with something, you're stuck with it.
And it better be good.
And if it's good, I'll vote 100% guilty.
But if it's not good, you're going to have to live with it.
You pick.
There's a great line from Jack Reacher where he said, remember, you wanted this.
Okay, you wanted racketeering, you wanted this, go ahead.
If the jury comes back.
And it's very obvious that the prosecution has not been able to prove their case on the charges.
And that the jury just goes on a motion because of, you know, we don't like Diddy.
You know, what he did to Cassie because apparently there's only four star witnesses.
Can the judge overrule the verdict?
Yes.
Yes.
Absolutely.
At the end of the state's case, or the government's case, rather, there's something called a motion for a judgment of acquittal.
And the judge could listen to it and say, this case is so bad, I'm going to rule, I'm going to direct a verdict of not guilty, of acquittal, and it ends right now.
The defense doesn't even have to put on a case.
It's over.
He can also do it after the case is over.
He can also do it a variety of different ways.
Once the acquittal is there, then double jeopardy applies and you're stuck.
And by the way, remember something in terms of being commercial?
People who say what I do, people who are cautious, people who know the law, people who say, well, not yet.
Nobody wants to hear this.
You do better if somebody comes out and says, he's guilty and he's going to go to jail.
That's what people want to hear.
It's wrong.
We love, we love, we love, we love to hate people.
They look at Kathy and they're saying, why didn't you know?
Nobody's feeling sorry for her.
Nobody, because believe me, after she was kicked, after that, that's it.
And most people would say, you should have been done with it.
You should have been done.
Now, maybe it was, maybe it was after, but believe me, whatever their intention was of showing it, it'll backfire.
Because when you see it again and again and again, people start to say, wait a minute.
You lose his part of it, you start looking at her.
Why didn't she leave?
Or maybe she left immediately thereafter.
I don't know.
If I prosecuted it, it would be over in an hour.
Very simple.
State your name for the record.
Jonathan Smith.
And what did you do?
I arranged all of the young girls to be sent across straight lines for prostitution.
Thank you.
Your witness.
Count number two.
I always said, when it comes to cross-examining, don't cross-examine the witness.
That's somebody else's.
Just make it very simple.
Say, I've got nothing to say to you.
Why?
Because you have nothing to do with racketeering.
Why am I talking to some woman who has nothing to add about this?
I'll tell the jury later on.
You would have done that?
Is that how you would have gone about this with Cassie?
Really?
I might have also said something like, Cassie, when you said, when you wrote this, I'm going to freak off, was somebody putting a gun to your head?
So you did this on your own?
And you want us to believe that you didn't consent?
Okay, nothing further.
That's it.
End of, get them out, in and out, done, done.
The best thing is, no questions.
It's the biggest insult.
And then later on, you tell the jury, did you notice when I asked, said no questions, why?
Because she didn't say anything.
What, I, I, I didn't ask, if they brought the janitor in, I was, I don't have any questions either.
What does he have to do with anything?
It's like the ultimate dismissal.
Just would you have asked Cassie?
You were never threatened to travel, were you?
You were, you never traveled against your will.
Did you?
You benefited from this, didn't you?
When you wrote this idea, when you wrote, you wanted more of this, didn't you?
Yes.
Thank you.
Sit down.
That's it.
And then later on, tell the jury what that means.
Get her out of there.
Yeah, they don't even want to question her even further or money because they say they might not be with her today.
Because remember, because the longer you keep her on, you risk the jury liking her.
Feeling sorry for her.
Or maybe her repairing some mistakes she made.
Do you think that if the judge, if the jury comes back and doesn't really rule on the things, do you think he'll have the balls to say, I'm going to dismiss what the jury said because they did not follow the instructions?
Do you think he'll be able to do it?
If the jury comes back without a verdict, like a hung jury, he can send them back in Do you think
I'll have the balls for it?
Federal judges?
Oh, yeah.
Don't forget that.
People are really hating on Diddy.
And he might face a lot of backlash.
Federal judges, he is a lifetime appointment.
He's got nothing to worry about.
Federal judges don't care about what you like them, you don't like them, they don't care.
No, no.
Federal judges are notorious for doing whatever they want.
And if you don't like it, tough.
I'm here for life.
Also, remember one thing about federal court.
There's no parole.
You've got to do 85% of your sentence.
That's it.
Oh, really?
Oh, yeah.
I didn't know that.
Yeah.
Federal courts, federal is a different story altogether.
So you're not eligible for parole if you're conflicted.
They don't do parole.
No, they do it.
That's it.
You get 10 years, you do at least 85% and then we'll get you out.
Oh, they are notorious for that.
That's one of the reasons why you must avoid federal at all costs.
Remember, this jury, for the most part, comes from the Southern District, Manhattan and parts of Westchester.
A lot of these people tend to be, for lack of a better word, maybe more liberal.
And I think they might be able to, who knows, identify more with Diddy, perhaps.
I don't know.
And if they decide he's not guilty, that's it.
Judge has nothing to do with it.
He can say, well, not guilty.
That's it.
I can't change that.
A not guilty and acquittal is solid.
It's permanent.
That is, double jeopardy prevents it.
That's it.
Guilty, I can play with.
Not, not guilty.
If they come back, it's up to the jury.
That's it.
Period.
He walks.
End of discussion.
It's happened, but we'll see.
Again, a little too early to tell right now.
But if you could freeze from what I think has happened today for the rest of the trial, there's no way.
But when you have a victim who tried or willingly went to a party knowing what it was, knowing what was expected, maybe was excited and willing to participate for whatever reason, you're going to then claim that you didn't consent to this?
You're going to have to say you were drugged?
How do you know this?
20 years ago, how do I know you didn't take the drug?
Prove it!
It's harder than you think.
You remember this, man?
And where were you?
And what time of day was it?
How many people were in the room?
And how did you get there?
And did you try to give a false name to...
Oh, there we go.
Did you try to?
You see, all of these issues make it more difficult than you can realize to prove.
So that's the next step.
So we'll just see.
But so far, your verdict, if it keeps going like this, he might walk.
If it doesn't get better than this, and they don't break down Man Act violations, again, sex trafficking, or any kind of conspiracy to commit racketeering, or sex trafficking, We're not going anywhere.
This is going to be just a domestic violence case, which is wrong, but that's not what he was charged with.
Okay, my friend.
Well, here you have it and thank you for coming, Lionel.
I hope you come back again.
Thank you very much.
It was indeed a pleasure.
You have a wonderful day.
▲
Export Selection