Sean Combs faces a pivotal trial where prosecutors must prove racketeering and sex trafficking beyond domestic violence, relying on testimony from Eddie Garcia regarding $100,000 payments for assault footage and Kid Cuddy's account of a blown-up car. Experts debate whether witnesses like Cassie Ventura acted as coerced victims under Combs' financial control or consensual participants arranging encounters, with forensic psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes noting trauma bonding complicates credibility assessments. While defense attorney Matthew Fletcher argues the RICO statute is misapplied due to lack of evidence linking Bad Boy Enterprises specifically to sexual crimes, counter-arguments emphasize the power dynamics that prevented refusal. Ultimately, the jury's decision hinges on interpreting these inconsistencies as a pattern of criminal coercion or isolated domestic incidents, with analysts estimating a 75% conviction probability pending further financial evidence. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Reasonable Doubt and Criminal Agreements00:09:12
Here's the mistake everyone keeps making.
That woman who took the stand this month is not the woman we're talking about from 13 years ago.
There's no other evidence other than Cassie in this case.
He was in charge of her, yet she was cheating with Kid Cuddy, who was his former employee.
I'm not saying he's a great guy.
I've said very clearly he's a piece of but that's not what RICO statue was meant for.
What choice does she have?
I'm to a ton of people who try to go away from Diddy.
Are we going to be able to do that?
At some point in time, you have to take responsibility for your life.
It is her boss.
It is the man who is in control of her life.
I'm here to tell you today he will be convicted on a recall charge.
In a moment, we'll debate that with our expert panel.
The first with the very latest is Jesse Weber, the Attorney Law and Crime Network anchor and NewsNation contributor.
Jesse, good to talk to you again.
You are an expert in all things ongoing with this trial.
Where are we, do you think, with it?
And what have been the most significant developments in the last few days?
So, Piers, I would say the last time I spoke to you, I said I wasn't sure whether or not the prosecution was going to be able to prove racketeering or sex trafficking.
I think they have gone above and beyond that.
I mean, let's just even talk about what happened yesterday.
So, in order to prove racketeering, this criminal enterprise that Sean Combs led, prosecutors have to say there was a pattern of criminal activity, and they have to prove at least two underlying crimes.
Yesterday, Eddie Garcia, a former security officer at the Intercontinental Hotel where Sean Combs appeared to beat Cassandra Ventura on tape, which in and of itself is important evidence for sex trafficking, says that Combs paid him $100,000 for the footage.
And it was interesting because before he took the stand, he wanted to plead the fifth, you know, a right against self-incrimination.
He was granted immunity.
And I said, why would he want that?
Well, not only does he say he takes the money and then splits it with two others, he didn't report it on his taxes, didn't put it in a bank account, allegedly lied to investigators in June of 2024.
This is not somebody who has anything to gain by testifying, and clearly added a bit of credibility.
So if the prosecution is looking at proving bribery for racketeering, it seems like they got it.
Last week, Kid Cuddy or the week before, Kid Cuddy testified about his car being blown up by Sean Combs.
That's arson.
An assistant testified that she was kidnapped by Sean Combs back gunpoint.
That's kidnapping.
Cassie Ventura, that was all about the sex trafficking counts.
And I think the prosecution is really selling the idea, not only that Sean Combs was essentially this mafia figure, but that he was using the company's resources and his staff to facilitate and cover up a pattern of crimes.
They have been very deliberate in every witness that they've called.
Is Sean Combs likely to testify?
No.
Let me tell you this.
First of all, we all know that him taking the stand and being subjected to cross-examination by the prosecutors is going to be quite problematic for him.
But you also have to wonder what his judgment is.
Look, in the United States, it's his decision and his decision alone to testify.
But he's the same guy who thought it was a good idea two days after CNN published that footage of him back in 2016 to release an Instagram video apologizing for it.
So he basically forfeited any right to say that that video wasn't him or it was manipulated.
He admitted it.
So if that's the judgment of this criminal defendant, I don't think him getting on the stand will do any good.
Even though the defense has been saying this is all domestic violence, I think their best avenue is to strike at the credibility of these witnesses.
They've been doing a very good job at that and trying to say, even if this is a violent series of episodes, it's not sex trafficking.
It's not racketeering.
It doesn't meet those elements.
Those are where they need to go.
That's where they need to go.
And in relation to Cassie Ventura's testimony, a lot of debate about, Bill Maher did a big piece about this, and I interviewed the punisher who came forward.
And he certainly was of the belief that what was going on was very consensual.
And in fact, Cassie Ventura had been the one that liaised with him over payment and times and locations and so on.
You know, this all goes to this general argument of whether she was coerced by Sean Combs.
Where's that argument now?
Do you think?
I mean, the prosecution won that debate, do you think, in the eyes of the jury, that it is, it's been established it was coercion, or is there wriggle room there for Sean Combs?
No, it definitely hasn't been decided, and it's difficult to know what the jury might be thinking, but they have been doing an exceptional job at raising that and cross-examination of Cassie and also Mia.
So Mia was a former assistant who says that Sean Combs sexually assaulted her multiple times, and yet they confronted her with many social media posts and text messages where she's praising Sean Combs, that she even wanted to work for him.
There were messages with Cassie where she was appearing to set up these freak offs and encouraging these freak offs.
But then you remember the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a forensic psychologist who said this is a lot more complicated.
It may appear that victims are behaving in a way that's inconsistent with being abused, but not so fast.
There's a lot of complicated issues of trauma bonding, financial control.
Sometimes victims won't even recognize they are victims until years later with trauma.
So it's not an easy analysis.
It's not an easy discussion.
But I will tell you, his defense team, which are doing a fantastic job, they're great lawyers.
They're raising that kind of reasonable doubt because they are saying everything was consensual.
They were willing participants.
It may have been ugly.
It may have been different.
He may have been violent.
It may have been domestic violence, but that is not what this federal case is about.
So I imagine that when this goes to the jury, you are going to be seeing a long deliberation process, basically about whether or not these witnesses are credible.
Yeah, I mean, I guess the problem for Sean Combs will be the jury, when they see the video repeatedly of him attacking her in that hotel corridor, it's so awful.
And it goes right to the heart of his character.
This is a man who will beat up a woman in a hotel corridor.
You know, if I was on a jury seeing that, it'd be very hard to get that out of my head in terms of a man who has a violent hold over a woman he may be with.
So there are two things to that, right?
The jurors are human beings, and there's always been an argument, no matter what evidence is presented to them, and they're going to convict him because after eight weeks, they really, really don't like this guy and they want to punish him some way.
They're not supposed to do that.
The other way of looking at it, and I was thinking about it today, we're about to hear the testimony of Jane.
So Jane is alleged victim number two.
She makes up her own individual sex trafficking count.
She helps with the racketeering charge.
I went back to the opening statement and they basically say that Sean Combs was violent with her on multiple episodes.
And I said, how do we know if that's true?
You go back to the 2016 video.
That 2016 video arguably corroborates every one of these alleged violent episodes that you've been hearing from staff, from alleged victims, from Cassie.
That's the power of that video.
I said it to you before, I'll say it to you again.
You know, when Cassie Ventura came out with her lawsuit and these allegations that blew all of our minds, we said, how do we know if this is true?
Everything changed when CNN published that video because we saw Sean Combs in a light that we had never seen before.
And honestly, during the course of this trial, what we're learning, these allegations, if they're true, this is definitely a different guy than we all knew him in the public.
Yeah.
Okay, I'm going to put you on the spot like I will every time until this is over, Jesse.
Is he going to walk or is he going down?
Again, I think that he has a very difficult road to be found not guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution, up to 10 years in prison, transporting victims and sex workers just for prostitution, for sex work.
I think they've done that.
Sex trafficking, there are two key events in Cassie's account that I think prove that, the 2016 hotel tape and also a plane incident where she claims she was shown videos of freak offs by him and then was forced to engage in one afterwards.
I think that goes to threats.
So I think they might get a convict him of sex trafficking with Cassie.
I don't know about Jane.
We'll have to see her testimony.
And racketeering, I would say they're probably 75% there.
I think we need to learn a little bit more about the resources, the money flow, whether or not there was a criminal agreement with his staff to further criminal activity.
One of the things we're looking for is whether or not his former chief of staff will testify.
I see the building blocks.
I don't know if they've quite got a conviction yet for racketeering.
Jesse Weber, brilliant stuff, as always.
Thank you very much.
If you've ever felt like you're being watched online, it's unfortunately because you are.
RICO Overt Acts and Conviction Hurdles00:15:24
Hundreds of companies, so-called data brokers, watch and record everything you do on the internet.
Even if you're using incognito mode or private tabs, they can still access every purchase you make, every search you type, and much more.
Your data can be sold to advertisers, government agencies, or insurance companies who could use it to charge you more.
You could stand by and accept all of this, or you could reclaim your privacy, as I have done for many years with ExpressVPN.
The app redirects 100% of your online traffic through secure servers.
No data brokers and no third parties can see what you do.
ExpressVPN also hides your IP address, without which there is nowhere of tracking you and no point invading your privacy in the first place.
A new feature called ID Defender is free to all US customers.
ID Defender scours the internet to remove your information from the files of data brokers.
This is the number one rated VPN by experts at CNET, PC World, and The Verge.
And right now, you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free to scan the QR code that we're showing on the screen or go to expressvpn.com slash peers to get four extra months for free.
That's expressvpn.com slash peers.
Now, on with the show.
Could Diddy sensationally walk free after one of the most high-profile downfalls in Shobi's history?
To debate this, I'm joined by Matthew Fletcher, the former lawyer of Sugarnight, and Ariel Mitchell Kidd, attorney for a recent Diddy accuser.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Matthew, we've spoken several times about this case.
Let me just ask you, there's a growing kind of sentiment I'm picking up on from people who are following this, perhaps who know Diddy, who know the music scene, who know the characters involved here, that this is heading from being a sort of open, slam shut case for the feds to potentially a sensational acquittal.
What is your view of where we are with this?
It can go either way.
Good morning, by the way.
Here's my position.
Without question, they've not proven that there's been any corporation or organization that was organized for the purposes of satisfying P. Diddy's sexual needs.
Bad Boy Enterprises was formed, I think, in 1998.
And the government's alleging that this RICO statue covers those actions of finding bad boy productions.
So I think it has like 50 or 60 platinum albums before Cassie even came on the scene.
I think that's a horrible failure by them.
I don't know if he's walking on everything, but I can tell you I have real issues with the RICO part of this because it's silly to think that when he founded Sean John Jeans, he was really doing that with the knowledge that someday in the future he would meet Cassie Ventura, Cassandra Ventura, and then lure her into a life of warriorism and swinging and all of the things that went on it.
Understanding that right now, his jeopardy, the jeopardy he faces, is based upon the horrendous conduct of what he did to that woman in that video.
There's no other evidence other than Cassie in this case.
And everyone can sit there and wring their hands and say, oh, you know, poor Cassie, and I agree.
What he did was horribly wrong.
But Cassie also has opened herself up to a little bit of criticism when she says, it's not about the money, but I want $10 million from the Intercontinental Motel, which starts to make it seem like it's about the money.
And as these horrific images of the video kind of become not as hot as they were before, you start looking at facts and you go, wait a minute, he was in charge of her, yet she was cheating with Kid Cuddy, who was his former employee.
She was cheating with his former trainer.
She had her own apartment.
She had her own money.
And with eight men on the jury, this case might have been one of jury selection because I'm telling you, from the people I've listened to and many of the different people who've spoken about this, I think there's some issues about whether or not this is a proper case for a RICO charge.
Start to wondering if the only witness you have and the only charges you have is that he beat up that woman, which he certainly did.
But I'm going to tell you one thing: the defense is certainly going to tell the jury, please convict my client of every single charge of domestic violence there is, every one of them, because there are no charges of domestic violence.
And so when people start thinking he's going to walk, it's not because he's a great guy.
I'm not saying he's a great guy.
I've said very clearly he's a piece of bleepity bleep.
But, you know, that's not what RICO statute was meant for, that someone can say 12, 13 years later that I want you to pay me $30 million.
And I'll make this point very quickly.
If this case was so strong, it meant that there was a crime before November of 2023.
Yet before November of 2023, Puff Daddy wasn't accused of any crime until Cassie's people said, I need you to pay me $20 million or I'm putting this book out.
When they didn't put the book out, now all of a sudden the government says, aha, you've been committing crimes for 12, 13, 14, whatever number of years.
As the jurors sit there, they think about that.
That's kind of a chilling idea that it's not a crime until you don't pay me money.
And so I think the reason that Ray Jay Ann should have that opinion is because that's kind of the upswelling of opinion on the talk shows and talking to people around here.
Okay, fascinating.
Ariel Mitchell Kidd, you, like I said, was an attorney for a recent Diddy accuser.
You know, I did a sort of straw poll with my team today, which was split male, female.
And I was struck that most of the women thought there was a good chance he may be acquitted, not because he's anything but a loathsome individual who clearly beats up women.
And we all saw that with our own eyes from this horrific video.
But that is not part of what he's on trial for.
And I think as Matthew laid out there, when it comes to talking to the jury, and the distraction that the eyes are taken away from that because they have to by law, and they're left with just what he's been charged with, at the moment, it doesn't look like this is quite the slam dunk case that everybody assumed it would be.
In other words, have the feds just overreached here?
Do you think?
It's not to say, like I say, that he's not a bad person or a woman abuser, but is he guilty of these charges?
Is there enough that we've seen to justify the scale of the charges?
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
So first, hi, Paris.
Nice to see you again.
I dropped the kid.
I'm only Ariel Mitchell now.
So just moving forward.
Well, my apologies for misnaming you, which is the social crime of our age.
I will rephrase that.
Ariel Mitchell, please, over to you.
No worries.
So I find it very interesting how propaganda works.
And I'm watching propaganda occur in real time because there's no way that anybody who is really following the case, who's really reading the transcripts that are coming out from the testimony, who cannot, or how do I say this?
Most people don't understand what the proof or the burden of proof that the prosecution has to reach in a case like this.
RICO has things attached to it called overt acts.
So there are certain things, for example, that they have to address.
I'm sorry.
So they have to address in the RICO.
So there are certain parts of the RICO and the elements that they have to reach in order to be successful at trial.
If anybody is actually taking the time to read the transcripts, which are very long, instead of just reading headlines, they would see very clearly that the prosecution is doing an amazing job, a magnificent job, in my opinion.
So explain exactly.
Every testimony.
Give me some examples of why you should.
So you got predicated acts, right?
So there are certain acts that are enumerated in the U.S. Code regarding RICO claims.
So the RICO claims is codified in U.S. code, and then there's predicated overt acts that you have to do in order to further the RICO.
So there are things like fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, other things, you know, sex trafficking, drug trafficking.
All of these are part of, you only need one of these things to have a RICO, not all of them, but they are part of the predicated acts that must be shown in a RICO count.
So once you set out these things, what was the fraud?
What was the coercion?
What was the trafficking, be it sex, drugs, or otherwise, they are doing a good job of punching each one of those elements with every testimony.
And it's the lineup.
People haven't even paid attention to how masterful the lineup is that the prosecution, the AUSAs, have put on from the start of the trial with the, I believe it was the first male sex worker.
And then they went directly to Cassie.
And Cassie's testimony has pretty much set up the testimony from everybody else who's come after her.
And it set up the majority of the elements that was needed for the RICO claims.
Now, the only problem I see with the AUSAs right now is that they kind of are doing overkill, in my opinion.
I think they've already met their burden.
I believe they already met all of the elements they need to succeed on the RICO.
And I'll tell you here, and I'll tell you first, like I've said this whole time, back in July of 2024, I said Mr. Combs was going to get arrested and indicted, and I was correct.
When he did get arrested and indicted, I said that he would not ever receive bond, and he did not.
And I'm here to tell you today he will be convicted on a RICO charge.
Studies show that strength training burns more fat than cardio alone and is critical for maintaining muscle mass and bone density as we age.
Jacked Up Fitness has the perfect tool.
The Jacked Up Power Rack Pro is the ultimate all-in-one home gym system for a full body workout, and you can do it in your spare room or garage.
I'm delighted to say I now have one myself.
So if you're new to strength training, there is a whole library of full body video workouts.
You just press play and you follow along with top quality equipment, a first-class content.
Jacked Up Fitness makes your fitness goals accessible and convenient.
We've teamed up to give you 10% off the Power Rack Pro.
Visit getjacked up.com to sign up for the free program and use promo code PIAS, P-I-E-R-S, for your discount.
That's getjackedup.com.
Well, Matthew, back to you.
Pretty emphatic contra view there.
What's your response?
Well, I appreciate the passion.
I do.
But he's charged under the White Slave Trafficking Act, which requires that he paid somebody to come out here to have sex.
I haven't heard anyone testify or read in any transcript that anyone testified that Sean Combs himself paid anyone.
Have you heard that, Pierce?
I've never heard of it.
No, in fact, we had this character called The Punisher on, who was a male prostitute.
And he was actually a very eloquent guy to interview.
And he made it crystal clear that over an 18-month period, it was Cassie that did all the negotiating with him and facilitated all the payments.
And in fact, Diddy was a kind of bit part player sitting naked in the corner watching the Punisher having sex with Cassie, who had arranged everything.
So I can still see how that could be construed by a skillful lawyer as a form of coercion.
But as Bill Maher said at the end, you know, at the end of his show on Friday, when you have somebody like Cassie Ventura and she's talking about her love of freak offs and can't wait to do them, it is hard, I would imagine, to sit in the jury and think, why would she say that if she didn't actually enjoy them?
I need to go to the next one.
We can talk about well, quickly, Ariel, quickly, and I'll come back to Matthew on that point.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
I think the problem here with the question you just asked was the understanding of what being a woman in love with a man would do.
So I think a lot of this is being, of course, Ariel.
Let me be direct to you.
Let me be direct.
Sure.
I don't know anything about your life.
I don't know if you're married, not married, in a relationship with whoever.
But let me just ask you: would you arrange for somebody whose name is The Punisher to come and have sex with your partner for money?
If my man was a billionaire who had the influence, the reach, the power of someone like P. Diddy, and he not only is my man, but he is my boss.
And he has my life in his hand.
And that's what he told me he was into.
And that's what he told me he needed from me.
How do I not do that?
Whether or not I like it or don't like it.
What choice?
What choice do I have?
What choice?
Seriously, let's talk about it.
What choice does she have?
I know a ton of people who try to go away from Diddy, who tried to leave him, we'll call it.
And they were not successful.
He blackballed them.
He hurt them.
He tried to kill them.
I mean, it's, I think, the thought process of why people are being dense, like they don't understand what the punisher told me.
Listen, the punisher told me that she actively enjoyed it, that they had a really good time.
Over 12 months, they met a dozen times.
I'm sorry.
I think it was over.
I think.
Hang on.
It was actually a longer period.
It was actually a longer period.
I think it was over a two-year period.
And they met up to a dozen times.
And she was always, according to him, having a perfectly good time.
And did he know whether or not she was drugged?
The Man in Control of Her Life00:03:54
Yeah.
I mean, we all know she was not herself.
We all know she clearly had to go to rehab for some type of substance.
Let me bring Matthew in.
And I think for me.
Let me bring Matthew in.
Go ahead.
Okay, Matthew.
Here's the mistake every mistake everyone keeps making.
That woman who took the stand this month is not the woman we're talking about from 13 years ago.
She may be a perfectly spectacular mother, wife, significant other today.
The charges go back is whether or not she was calling men up who are the punisher and say, come over and do what you do and then paying them.
And the correct response, if someone says, hey, I would really like to do A, B, and C, you say, no, thank you.
I don't want to have someone do A, B, and C unless you want to do A, B, and C.
He is a domestic violence defendant or should have been without question.
You cannot say that when someone sets up a freak off when Diddy's not even there in between screwing his trainer and his other employee, that she's hopelessly helpless in this entire scenario.
And you have eight people on that jury who have unfortunately been through or know someone who's had someone who's cheated on them repeatedly.
And every part of this case is based upon whether or not Cassie is credible and believable.
And one day the defense is going to say, we're not talking about this wonderful, talented, pregnant woman here.
We're talking about the woman who, as Piers points out, called the Punisher to come back over and again over a period of years.
That's rather difficult to believe that this is...
While she was in a relationship with Diddy, like, are we going to be able to do that?
You choose to do something.
Okay, as Bill Morrison, at some point, she's not going to have a responsibility for her.
It's just not her man.
But it's just not her man, though.
It's just not her man, though.
He is her boss.
He is the man who is in control of her life.
So to just quantify it in such a way, where it's just her man, that is incorrect.
You know what's fascinating?
You know what's fascinating about this is actually the way you both blew up there is actually the crux of this whole case.
It's this, it's this.
It's whether the jury is going to view this as Matthew is viewing it, and many people I know are viewing it, or whether they're going to view it, Ariel, as you're viewing it, and many people I know share your view.
And it is split.
I know so many people who believe he's got a chance of walking despite being despicable and a woman abuser because they haven't proved their case and because it looks like she was consensually agreeing to love this stuff.
And there are other people who agree with you, Ariel, that they think it was a form of long-running coercion by somebody who, as you say, was a very powerful lover, but also a boss.
And I think it's going to come down to whether this jury agree with Matthew or agree with Ariel about what Cassie Ventura's mindset was when she agreed to do all these things.
I have to say, my own view slightly pivoted after that interview with the Punisher.
And that might be unfair and it might be wrong.
But I listened to him and I thought, wow, really?
For over two years, over a dozen meetings in hotels, she did all the transactional stuff.
She seemed to be really enjoying herself.
If I'm on that jury, I'm finding that quite difficult to get past.
But anyway, we shall see.
It's a fascinating case.
Thank you both very much indeed for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Uncensored Views on the Punisher00:00:25
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.