Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The
Diddy Diaries. Previously, we looked at things from the government's perspective,
but in these next few episodes, I'm gonna switch hats
and I'm gonna play Devil's advocate and I'm gonna look
at things from Sean diddy COM's perspective. And the reason
that this is going to be longer than the one
we did for the prosecution is because I've been talking
about the prosecution's case and their perspective as the trial
is commenced. Because the prosecution has done a very good
job laying out the case. But it's not all roses
and sunshine for the prosecution, and over the next few episodes,
we're going to explore why. So let's dive in to
the defense of Ditty, the false centerpiece of the government's case.
The Rico conspiracy charge is the beating heart of the
government's entire case. Without it, their structure falls apart. Without it,
the other charges sex trafficking, man Act violations and implied
obstruction stand alone as fragmented, difficult to prove, circumstantially thin events.
It's the Rico charge that allows them to tie years
of unconnected behavior into one ominous sounding criminal narrative. It
is the Rico charge that gives them the rhetorical license
to use the word enterprise instead of entourage, pattern instead
of coincidence, racketeering instead of recklessness. It is the Rico
charge that lets them suggest, with no direct evidence, that
Sean was not simply a powerful man in a chaotic world,
but the architect of a criminal empire. But the law
is not theater, and in law, a powerful label is
meaningless unless the elements of the charge are met with
actual proof, and that is where the government's case collapses,
not softly, but fatally. The first legal element the government
must prove to secure a Rico conspiracy conviction is that
an enterprise existed, an organization that had structure, continuity, and
an agreed upon criminal purpose. The statute is clear, and
enterprise can be formal or informal, but it must exist
in some discernible form beyond the normal associations of life
and business. Here is where the government's case is exposed.
For what it is a narrative of celebrity life passed
off as criminal conspiracy. What is the prosecution actually shown
in this regard? They have produced testimony from a revolving
dora of former employees, assistants, lovers, friends, security staff, business associates,
and acquaintances. The connections between these individuals are tenuous at best.
Some of them never even met each other. Some worked
for colms only briefly. Others were not employed at all.
The prosecution has presented them as members of an invisible
criminal organization. But what if they actually proven? Where's the structure,
Who reported to whom, who was in charge of what?
What were the ranks, what were the roles? Who recruited
new members, who disciplined old ones? Were the internal communications
that show organized crime not chaos? None exist? The prosecution
so called enterprise is nothing more than the standard ecosystem
of billionaire entertainer, an ecosystem that is by definition chaotic,
fluid and transactional assistance come and go, security is rotated,
Partners change, business associates, move on relationships prey. That is
not a criminal enterprise. That is celebrity life. More importantly,
where's the evidence that this ever functioned as a criminal
organization with a coordinated plan to commit crimes? Where's the agreement,
the documented policies, the continuity of criminal intent, the government's witnesses,
including Capricorn. Clark failed spectacularly on this point. Under a
cross examination, Clark could not describe any structure of an enterprise.
She could not identify members of the alleged conspiracy beyond
the loose circle of known names. She cannot point to
any meetings where criminal objectives were discussed. She cannot produce
any document showing organized planning of illegal acts. She admitted
that the people she work with were often in conflict,
that loyalty shifted constantly, that alliances were fragile and personal,
not institutional. That is opposite of what Rico requires. Well,
the prosecution has done is fundamentally dishonest. They have taken
the inevitable chaos of celebrity life, a life saturated with ego, wealth, power, sex, drugs, betrayal,
and dysfunction, and tried to reframe it as organized crime.
But without structure, without continuity of purpose, without organized action,
there is no enterprise. There is only noise. And in
a court of law, noise is not enough. But even
if for the sake of argument you granted the government
their imaginary enterprise, they would still face an even higher wall.
They must prove that John Colmes knowingly and will fully
agreed to participate in it, and that he agreed to
its criminal objectives. This is the most damning weakness in
their case. To prove conspiracy under Rico, the prosecution must
do more than show that a person was present at
events where bad things happened. They must prove that the
defendant knowingly entered into an agreement with others to commit
racketeering acts. They must prove that he intended for those
acts to occur and was part of the organization's criminal purpose.
Where is the evidence of that agreement? There is none.
Not a single text message, not a single email, not
a single audio recording, not a single document, not a
single eyewitness, not even a cooperator from within the supposed
enterprise who testified that Seawan Colmes brought me into his
criminal operation or coms ordered me to commit crimes. Not one. Instead,
what do we have? We have isolated stories. We have
former employees and acts partners making after the fact allegations
about individual acts acts A offer cannot tie to Colmb's
direct knowledge, much less is intent to conspire. We have
events separated by years, cities, and participants. We have vague
references to the way things were an atmosphere, a vibe,
a culture. But atmosphere is not agreement. Culture is not conspiracy.
Capricorn Clark, for all of her dramatics on the stand,
cannot provide a single instance where Combs agree to a
criminal plan, nor could Wea, nor could any of the
other so called insiders. The defense repeatedly forced this point
in cross examination. Name the agreement, describe the meeting, produce
the message, Identify the co conspirator who can testify to
an explicit or tacit criminal pack with Combs. Again and
again the answer with silence, evasion, or speculation. But speculation
is not evidence. The law demands more, and the government
is failed to meet that demand. Even if the government
had managed to prove the existence of an enterprise in
Comb's agreement to participate, which they have not, they would
still have to prove a pattern of racketeering activity, acts
that are related and continuous, and furtherance of the enterprise
criminal purpose. This is where the prosecution's case dissolves into absurdity.
The events they have cited as predicate acts under Rico
are a scattered, disconnected mess. A sex trafficking allegation from
twenty eleven, a flight in twenty sixteen, a party in
Los Angeles in twenty nineteen, a hotel stay in Miami
in twenty twenty, an alleged destruction of evidence in twenty
twenty two, different times, different cities, different alleged victims, different
alleged purposes, different alleged methods, No continuity, no pattern. What
they have produced is not a racketeering scheme. It's a
hodgepodge of unproven, inconsistent, and often contradictory allegations thrown into
a timeline and are retroactively branded a pattern. But the
law is clear. RICO requires that the racketeering acts be
part of an established practice, a way of conducting business.
The act must demonstrate both continuity and relatedness. The defense
dismantled this element with surgical precision. Through cross examination and
evidentiary challenges, we showed that the events cited involved different
sets of people with no proven criminal coordination, were years apart,
often separated by entirely different phases of colmb's career, were
not shown to be directed by Colm's or committed with
his knowledge, were not linked in any document, plan, communication,
or agreement, were consistent in method, target, purpose, and alleged participants.
In short, the prosecution's pattern is no pattern at all.
It is the pattern of a life lived in the
public eye, with all its inevitable messiness, not the pattern
of an organized criminal enterprise. And RICO does not criminalize messiness.
Let us speak clearly about what the government is really
doing with this RICO charge. They are taking the excess
of celebrity life, the VIP parties, the sexual promiscuity, the drugs,
the luxury, the NDAs, the entourage culture, and asking the
jury to convict not based on acts proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, but on their distaste for that world. They
are criminalizing culture. But the law does not permit that.
The constitution does not permit that you don't convict a
man because you don't like how he lives. You convict
only if the government proves that he broke the law deliberately, knowingly,
and in concert with others. And the evidence here shows
none of that. What it shows is a public figure
surrounded by people who made their own choices, some wise,
some foolish, some regrettable, people who stayed when they could
have left, people who took money, gifts, and access when
it suited them, and later cried foul when circumstances changed.
That is not an enterprise, that is not a conspiracy,
that is not racketeering. Throughout the trial, the defense has
attempted to systematically deconstruct the government's reco theory by doing
exactly what the law requires. First, we destroyed the government's
claim of an enterprise by exposing the lack of structure, organization,
and continuity in the so called criminal network, and what
was presented to the jury was a chaotic entourage, not
a crime family. Second, they obliterated the element of agreement
by forcing every witness to admit, either explicitly or implicitly,
that they could not identify a single moment when Chawn
entered into a criminal pact. Third, the defense dismantled the
alleged pattern of racketeering by showing that the acts cited
were disconnected in time, place, method, and participants, and had
no continuity of criminal purpose exists. Finally, the defense contextualized
what the prosecution called a criminal empire as what it
truly was, the dysfunction, volatility, and moral ambiguity of celebrity life,
not a conspiracy and certainly not a crime. The Rico
charge was always the government's lynchpin. Without it, the other
charges stand alone, weakened and disjointed. Without it, the government
loses its ability to weave together on related accusations into
one compelling, if false narrative, and the Rico charge is failed,
the evidence is not met the legal standard. The gaps
are too large, the connections too weak, the motivations to
self serving, the timeline too fragmented, the witnesses too compromised.
At the end of the day, the government has tried
to substitute culture for crime. But in this courtroom, where
the burden of proof matters, where the presumption of innocence matters,
where the law matters, that substitution is unacceptable by every
legal measure. The Rico charge must be rejected, all right.
So that's going to do it for this one. And
in the next episode we'll keep it rolling as we
take a look at the sex trafficking charge against Ditty
from Ditty's perspective four weeks in. All of the information
that goes with this episode can be found in the
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to
continue playing Devil's advocate and look at things from Sean
ditty Comb's perspective when it comes to answering these charges.
And in the first episode we were defending Diddy when
it comes to the Rico charges. Now we're moving on
to sex trafficking. Sex trafficking, there is no more powerful
phrase in the prosecution's arsenal. It evokes horror, it evokes outrage.
It is intended quite deliberately to bypass reason and drive
a jury straight to condemnation. The prosecution knows this. It's why,
even though their Rico case is foundational, they have leaned
so heavily on sex trafficking, knowing that jurors, like any
human beings, will feel a moral pull towards protecting the
vulnerable and punishing the predator. But courtrooms are not moral theaters.
They are venues of law, and law does not permit
conviction based on moral disgust. It demands legal proof, precise, specific, rigorous,
and beyond a reasonable doubt. And when we examine the
government's case under that lens, under the lens that matters,
the only lenses courtroom permits, what we see is not
a case of sex trafficking. We see a deliberate effort
to redefine messy, voluntary adult relationships as criminal conduct. This
is dangerous not only for Shawn Calms, but for the
integrity of the law itself, because if the government can
take the complex and often contradictory behaviors of adult women,
including years long relationships, consensual intimacy, and freely chosen participation
in the orbit of celebrity, and retroactively call that trafficking,
then the boundary between crime and bad memory no longer
exists in this court room. It must before we even
address the allegations, we must ground ourselves in the law.
The government has not merely accused Shawn Colms of being
a bad partner, a manipulative lover, or a toxic employer.
They have charged them under US Code eighteen, section fifteen
ninety one, the federal sex Trafficking Statute, one of the
most serious crimes in our system, carrying a mandatory minimum
of fifteen years and up to life imprisonment. To convict.
Under this statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that first Shawn Colms knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained,
or maintained a person. Second that he knew or recklessly
disregarded that force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion would
be used to cause that person to engage in a
commercial sex act. Third that the person did, in fact
engage in a commercial sex act, and fourth that the
conduct occurred in our affe, interstate, or foreign commerce. Every
one of these elements must be proven, all of them not,
some of them not implied, not presumed proven, and even
if one is not proven, the charge must fall. Now
let us turn to what the government has presented as
evidence of sex trafficking. The core of their case is
a collection of women, former lovers, occasional companions, and accusers
who now claim that their relationships with Calms were not
merely intimate, but coercive and criminal. They claim that they
were lured into these relationships by fame, money and power,
that they were subjected to sexual acts that they did
not truly consent to, and that they were given gifts,
flown across the country and provided luxury experiences in a
manner that the government argues was part of a sex
trafficking operation. This is the story that they want the
jury to believe. But here is what the evidence real.
Hard evidence actually shows these women voluntarily enter relationships with
Shawn Colms. Many of these relationships lasted months, even years.
The women traveled freely. They communicated affection, love, and gratitude
to Colmbs both during and after the alleged periods of abuse.
They publicly praised them, posted joyful photographs, accepted gifts, attended
events willingly. They continued contact long after the supposed coercion ended.
Nowhere in this record is their credible evidence of force.
Nowhere is their evidence of fraud is defined by the statute.
Nowhere is there evidence of coercion as the law defines
it threats of serious harm, physical restraint, or abuse of
legal process. What we see is something entirely different, the
complexities of adult relationships in a world of wealth and celebrity,
relationships marked by emotional imbalance, perhaps, but not criminal coercion.
Let us begin with force, the clearest and most easily
defined element of the statute. Not one accuser has testified
that they were physically resc strained by Shaan Colmes. Yes,
some witnesses have described verbal arguments, some have described pressure,
But under federal law, force means force. It does not
mean or regret. It does not mean disappointment. It does
not mean social or emotional pressure. The defense forced this
point repeatedly during cross examination. When did Colmes lock you
in a room? When did he physically force you to
do something? When did he restrain you? When did he
use violence to compel sex? Again and again the answer
was the same. He didn't. And because the government cannot
prove force, they must lean on other weaker elements. Next fraud.
To prove trafficking. Under fraud theory, the government must show
that Colms used materially false representations to induce these women
into commercial sex acts. Not flattery, not vague promises, not
emotional manipulation. Fraud and law is specific, provable lie about
material facts made with the intent to deceive. And here
the government's evidence falls completely. What have they produced? No
emails offering sex for success arrangements, no contracts applying quid
pro quo, no recordings of sleep with me and I'll
make you famous, no text messages promising anything in exchange
for sex. What they have produced is what happens in
many asymmetrical relationships. Hope, ambition, desire for proximity to power,
expectations is a career benefit, but that is not fraud.
Adults are allowed to hope, they are allowed to believe
in things that later disappoint them. That does not transform
their experience into a federal crime. The defense repeatedly confronted
witnesses on this point. Where were you told explicitly that
sex was required for opportunity? Where were you guaranteed advancement
in exchange for sex? Whereas the record of that fraud? Again,
no answers. And that's because no such record exists. And
so we come to coercion, the element the government relies
on most because it's the most elastic, the most subjective,
the easiest stretch beyond meaning. But the law is clear.
Coercion under Section fifteen ninety one means threats a serious harm,
physical restraint, or abuse a legal process, or schemes intended
to make the person believe they had no choice. Do
you believe any of the government's witnesses credibly established that
they did not. Instead, what they described under the careful,
relentless cross examination of the defense was a complexity of
relationship shaped by wealth, power, and emotional dependency. Women stay
with calms for months, even years. They traveled freely, They
communicated with them, affectionately, they expressed loyalty, they accepted gifts,
they returned to his orbit even after alleged abuse, And
when asked why they stayed, why they returned, why they
profess love, the answer was invariably emotional dependence, not physical
or legal coercion. The prosecution attempted to paper over this
weakness by invoking trauma bonding and by introducing the testimony
of doctor down Hughes, a psychologist whose job was not
the prove facts but to explain away inconvenient ones. And
doctor Hughes was clear in her intent to persuade the
jury that even when witnesses said yes, it wasn't really yes,
That even when they returned they weren't really choosing, that
even when they appeared happy, it was a mask of trauma.
But this is circular logic. It is the opposite of proof.
If trauma can explain any behavior, then nothing is disqualifying.
Consent disappears entirely. But under our system of laws, consent matters,
agency matters. Adults are presumed capable of making choices, even
bad ones, and when no force, fraud, or lawful coercion
is proven, the law requires acquittal. Finally, the government must
prove that sexual acts in question were commercial, that sex
was exchanged for something of value, and that this exchange
was arranged or orchestrated by Calmes. Again they fail. Yes,
these women received gifts, they flew first class, they stayed
in luxury hotels, but no proof was provided that these
benefits were conditioned on sex. No quid pro quo was documented,
No transactional agreement or arrangement was proven. And the men
who were flown in that was done because the women
wanted them there. It wasn't Shawn Colmes who was the
one arranging that travel, was it? And the defense made
this point again and again. Did you receive a gift
before or after sex? Were gifts given in the absence
of sexual activity? Did Colms ever state or imply that
gifts were compensation for sex. The answers were clear. Gifts
were given in the context of relationships, sometimes sexuals, sometimes not,
but never as an explicit exchange. This matters because under
the law, incidental benefit is not commercial trafficking. If it were,
every relationship involving wealth would be criminal. Every boyfriend and
buying a purse would be a trafficker. That is not
what Congress intended, and it is not what the law allows.
Perhaps the most telling collapse of the government sex trafficking
case lies in not what was presented, but and when
and why it was presented. Many of the key allegations
in this trial were not raised contemporaneously. They were not
reported to police. They were not disclosed to therapists or
attorneys at the time they allegedly occurred. They were not
even shared with family or friends in a timely manner. Instead,
they arose strikingly and predictably, in the shadow of new
legal opportunity the Adult Survivors Act, a statute designed to
allow civil claims to be filed long after alleged abuse,
and one accompanied by the lure of substantial monetary compensation.
Consider the timeline. For years, these witnesses remained silent. Some
maintain friendly relationships with Combs, some publicly praised them, Some
continue to attend his events. Some returned to his orbit
multiple times. Then, with the passing of the Adult Survivors Act,
civil attorneys began openly recruiting claimants. Publicity around the Act surged.
Civil lawsuits against homes were filed in mass settlements were sought,
and it was only in this atmosphere, driven by lawyers,
litigation funding, and coordinated media strategies, that these trafficking allegations
suddenly surfaced. The defense exposed this sequence with forensic precision
during cross examination. Witnesses admitted they consulted civil attorneys before
approaching law enforcement. Several admitted that the first public disclosures
were made through legal demand letters or in connection with lawsuits,
not the police or prosecutors. Some explicitly linked their cooperation
in this criminal case to ongoing civil litigation where millions
of dollars are potentially at stake. This is not to
say that the real victims cannot pursue civil justice, but
when the entire case depends on the credibility of witnesses
whose memories emerged only in the context of strategic litigation
after years of inconsistent behavior and under the guidance of
financially incentivized counsel, the jury is entitled, indeed compelled, to
weigh that timing and motive with the utmost skepticism. A
case that rests on testimony shape by profit cannot meet
the standard of proof required in a criminal court. Because
the government's trafficking case was fundamentally hollow, lacking force, lacking fraud,
lacking clear coercion, and lacking transactional proof. They turned, as
is increasingly common in such prosecutions, to trauma science to
fill the gaps. Doctor don Hughes was presented not merely
as an expert in trauma, but as the moral guide
for the jury. Her role was clear to explain away
every inconsistency, every contradiction, every piece of evidence that would
otherwise support a defense verdict. If an accuser that she
loved Colmbs, Hughes said, that's trauma. If she sent affection
in texts after an alleged assault, hugh said, that's trauma.
If she stayed for years, flew back, voluntarily posted joyful photos,
accepted gifts, trauma. If her memory of key events was
vague or incorrect, you guessed it trauma. If she failed
to report trauma. In effect, Hughes asked the jury to
disregard every normal marker of consent, agency, and voluntary choice,
to presume that all such evidence was not what it appeared,
but was instead the manifestation of a complex psychological wound,
invisible to all but the expert. The defense was unrelenting
in its cross examination of use. Her testimony was based
entirely on her interpretation of the accuser's statements, not independent evidence.
She conducted no forensic investigation into their claims. She was
compensated handsomely for her testimony and had appeared almost exclusively
for the proper execution in similar high profile cases. Her
methodology cannot reliably distinguish between trauma consistent with actual trafficking
and trauma consistent with a breakdown of a painful, consensual relationship.
Most importantly, the defense exposed the central flaw of her narrative.
It renders the burden of proof meaningless. If every possible
behavior staying, leaving, smiling, crying, speaking, silence, is consistent with trauma,
then no defendant can ever be acquitted, because no evidence
can ever be exculpatory. That is antithetical to the principles
of criminal law. Trauma may explain why some victims behave
in ways we might not expect, but it cannot be
used to override the presumption of innocence. It cannot be
used to license conviction when the legal elements of the
crime remain unproven, and here they remain unproven. The government
sex trafficking charges against Sean Combs collapse under the very
weight of their ambition. They sought to take the most
charged accusation available, trafficking, and retrofit it to the messy,
morally ambiguous, but ultimately legal reality of adult relationships in
the world, the power and fame. They failed. They failed
to prove force. They failed to prove fraud. They failed
to prove coercion. They failed to prove that any sex
act was commercial within the meaning of the law. They
failed to prove that Calms knowingly or intentionally engaged in
trafficking conduct. They failed to prove that the gifts or
flights were given as part of a criminal exchange. They
failed to prove that NDAs and settlements were evidence of
guilt rather than the legal tools of a man whose
reputation and fortune made him a constant target. What they
offered instead was a story, a powerful story designed to
move jurors emotionally, a story rooted in the redefinition of consent,
the weaponization of trauma science, and the convenient alignment of
financial motive with delayed accusation. But the jury's role is
not to believe stories. It is to assess proof, and
where a proof is required, the government has utterly failed
to meet its burden. Sex trafficking is a heinous crime,
but to convict a man of it requires more than narrative.
It requires evidence, clear, direct, unambiguous, beyond a reasonable doubt.
And in this courtroom, on this charge the evidence is
so far absent by the law the only permissible verdict
is not guilty. All right, folks, that's gonna do it
for this one. And in the next episode, I'm gonna
do my best to try and defend Diddy on the
Man Act. But man oh man, that's a tough one
and it's gonna be a very difficult sell. As for
this one, well, that's gonna do it. All of the
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box.