1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,000
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of The

2
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,879
Diddy Diaries. In the previous episode, talking about sex trafficking

3
00:00:07,960 --> 00:00:10,560
and defending Diddy, I was saying that we were going

4
00:00:10,599 --> 00:00:12,599
to take a look at the Man Act charge and

5
00:00:12,679 --> 00:00:15,160
try and formulate a defense for that. But I have

6
00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:17,519
to tell you I can't come up with a good

7
00:00:17,519 --> 00:00:19,879
defense for the Man Act considering we know for a

8
00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:24,399
fact that mal prostitutes were imported to several different states,

9
00:00:25,199 --> 00:00:29,359
allegedly at Ditty's behest. So it's almost impossible to defend

10
00:00:29,359 --> 00:00:31,320
the Man Act. Now, you could defend it when it

11
00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:33,399
comes to the women, right, but that's not what the

12
00:00:33,439 --> 00:00:38,039
government's alleging. The government's alleging that these male prostitutes were

13
00:00:38,039 --> 00:00:41,520
in fact imported over state lines for nothing more than sex.

14
00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:44,399
And I think that the testimony has done more than

15
00:00:44,439 --> 00:00:47,159
prove that. So I'll leave it to other people to

16
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,679
try and defend Ditty on that charge, and we're gonna

17
00:00:49,719 --> 00:00:55,439
move on to obstruction instead. There's an old prosecutor trick

18
00:00:55,679 --> 00:00:59,159
that every season defense lawyer recognizes when your case is

19
00:00:59,159 --> 00:01:01,679
weak on the law, when you lack the hard evidence

20
00:01:01,719 --> 00:01:04,519
to convict on the actual elements of the crime, you charged,

21
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,200
you pivot to narrative. You hint at things you don't

22
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:11,840
formally charge. You see suspicion where you cannot plant proof.

23
00:01:12,239 --> 00:01:14,719
You create the ghost of a crime, not to meet

24
00:01:14,719 --> 00:01:17,400
your burden, but to inflame a jury sense of outrage.

25
00:01:18,359 --> 00:01:21,519
And that is precisely what the government has done with obstruction.

26
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:25,200
In this case, Shawn Colms is not charged with obstruction

27
00:01:25,239 --> 00:01:28,719
of justice. The government had every opportunity to do so

28
00:01:29,439 --> 00:01:31,920
if they believe the evidence supported it. They did not,

29
00:01:32,760 --> 00:01:35,680
because it does not yet. Throughout this trial. In their

30
00:01:35,799 --> 00:01:39,159
enterprise letter, in witness questioning, in their reco theory, in

31
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:44,439
their opening statement, they have repeatedly invoked obstruction, destruction of evidence,

32
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:50,359
intimidation of witness, manipulation of legal process, silencing of victims.

33
00:01:50,879 --> 00:01:53,560
They cannot prove these things in accordance with federal law,

34
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:57,239
so they have not formally charged them. Instead, they use

35
00:01:57,319 --> 00:02:00,760
them rhetorically to poison the well, to dirty the canvass,

36
00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:05,400
to convert jury suspicion into juror conviction. But courts are

37
00:02:05,439 --> 00:02:09,240
not places for shadows. There are places for evidence. They

38
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:12,240
are not places for fear. There are places for law,

39
00:02:12,439 --> 00:02:15,199
and on that standard, the only one that matters the

40
00:02:15,319 --> 00:02:20,159
government's obstruction narrative collapses entirely to ground ourselves. Let us

41
00:02:20,199 --> 00:02:23,879
remind the jury of what obstruction actually is. Under federal law,

42
00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:28,800
obstruction requires that a defendant one knowingly engaged in conduct

43
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:33,080
intended to interfere with an investigation proceeding or official action.

44
00:02:33,479 --> 00:02:37,479
Two acted with corrupt intent, meaning with the purpose of

45
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:42,680
impairing the integrity of the justice process. Three to concrete

46
00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:47,319
identifiable acts designed to influence or prevent truthful participation in

47
00:02:47,319 --> 00:02:52,400
that process, whether through destruction of evidence, intimidation of witness, bribery,

48
00:02:52,719 --> 00:02:58,719
or coercion. Intent is critical, action is critical, Casualty is critical.

49
00:02:59,479 --> 00:03:03,919
Suspicion alone is not enough. Atmosphere is not enough. Celebrity

50
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:08,159
culture is not enough. The government must prove that Calms

51
00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:12,639
personally and knowingly engaged in obstruction with intent to subvert justice.

52
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,520
They have failed completely to do so. Let us begin

53
00:03:16,599 --> 00:03:19,800
with the centerpiece of the government's obstruction narrative, the use

54
00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:24,039
of non disclosure agreements and private settlements. The government is

55
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:28,039
suggested without formally charging that Colm's use of NDAs and

56
00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:32,840
settlements with accusers constitutes obstruction. They imply that he use

57
00:03:32,879 --> 00:03:36,199
these agreements to silence victims and to prevent the reporting

58
00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:40,000
of crimes. But here the law is clearer. Das are

59
00:03:40,039 --> 00:03:43,960
not illegal. They are a standard, lawful tool used by

60
00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:47,560
public figures in every industry and every sphere of American

61
00:03:47,599 --> 00:03:53,759
life to protect reputation, privacy, and brand settlements. Are not obstruction.

62
00:03:54,039 --> 00:03:58,960
There are civil agreements between parties represented by council, voluntary,

63
00:03:59,240 --> 00:04:03,319
legally binding, and recognized under every jurisdiction in this country.

64
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:07,199
To convert these tools into evidence of obstruction, the government

65
00:04:07,439 --> 00:04:10,520
must prove that they were used with corrupt intent to

66
00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:14,560
impair the justice process, not simply to resolve disputes or

67
00:04:14,599 --> 00:04:18,759
avoid reputational harm. And on this point the government's case

68
00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:22,439
is empty. Not one NDA produced that trial contains an

69
00:04:22,439 --> 00:04:25,680
illegal term. Not one contains an agreement to lie to

70
00:04:25,759 --> 00:04:29,800
law enforcement, not one forbids reporting a crime, not one

71
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:34,120
forbids cooperating with a legal process. In fact, most contain

72
00:04:34,199 --> 00:04:39,279
the very opposite standard carve outs for law enforcement cooperation. Moreover,

73
00:04:39,399 --> 00:04:43,319
many witnesses who signed NDAs testified that they did so willingly,

74
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,879
with independent counsel and with full understanding of the rights,

75
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:52,319
and the defense exposed this relentlessly in cross examination. No

76
00:04:52,439 --> 00:04:55,399
witness could testify that Combs or as attorneys forced them

77
00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:59,120
into an NDA under threat. No witness could testify that

78
00:04:59,199 --> 00:05:01,319
they were told not to report a crime to police.

79
00:05:01,959 --> 00:05:04,480
No witness could point to a single instance where an

80
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:09,360
NBA prevented them from cooperating with an investigation. NDAs are

81
00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:13,519
not obstruction, they are a legal defense, and to criminalize

82
00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:16,199
them would be to criminalize the very tools that American

83
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:20,720
legal system provides for private resolution of disputes. The government

84
00:05:20,759 --> 00:05:24,439
has also leaned heavily on a rhetorical flourish describing private

85
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:27,519
settlements as hush money, but this is not a legal term.

86
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:30,920
It is a narrative device designed to provoke dure or

87
00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:35,519
outrage rather than legal analysis. The reality is far simpler.

88
00:05:35,959 --> 00:05:40,439
In a world of celebrity litigation, risk is omnipresent. Reputational

89
00:05:40,519 --> 00:05:44,759
damage is as lethal as legal exposure, and when disputes arise,

90
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,839
especially disputes involving sex, money, or power, the path of

91
00:05:48,879 --> 00:05:53,800
civil settlement is not only legal, but often advisable. No

92
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:56,639
evidence was produced that any settlement was paid to prevent

93
00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:01,439
testimony in this case. No evidence was produced that any

94
00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:05,319
payment was conditioned on perjury, witness tampering, or the destruction

95
00:06:05,399 --> 00:06:10,000
of evidence. The settlements were negotiated through council, they were

96
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:14,720
entered into voluntarily, and they contained lawful terms. Again, this

97
00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:18,480
is not obstruction. The government has made much of an

98
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:22,120
allegation that Colms ordered the destruction of surveillance footage and

99
00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:25,199
other digital evidence. But where's the proof. There is no

100
00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:29,800
forensic report that was produced showing deliberate erasure traceable to Colmbs.

101
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:33,639
No witness testified credibly that Colmbs gave an order to

102
00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:37,519
destroy evidence. No chance of custody was presented showing that

103
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:41,160
evidence was destroyed while in colmb's control or in his instruction.

104
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:45,160
No subpoena was issued to Colmbs where he allegedly failed

105
00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:48,800
to comply. No video was subpoenaed and then destroyed after

106
00:06:48,879 --> 00:06:52,040
the subpoena. In short, there is no act of obstruction

107
00:06:52,199 --> 00:06:57,480
proven here. What the government relies on are innuendos, missing footage,

108
00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:01,600
gaps and timelines, former employees speck relating that something must

109
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:06,000
have been deleted. But speculation is not evidence. This is

110
00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:08,720
a smear, not proof, and in a court of law

111
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:13,839
that distinction matters. Another branch of the government's obstruction narrative

112
00:07:13,920 --> 00:07:18,439
involves alleged intimidation of witnesses, But again, where's the proof.

113
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:22,959
No credible witness testified that Shan Colms directly threatened them.

114
00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:27,000
No credible witness testified that he instructed others to threaten them.

115
00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:30,839
No credible witness testified that any threat prevented them from testifying.

116
00:07:30,879 --> 00:07:34,879
In the case, no credible evidence was presented of bribes, blackmail,

117
00:07:35,199 --> 00:07:39,720
or retaliation. The government's witnesses did speak of fear, but

118
00:07:39,839 --> 00:07:44,480
fear is not proof of intimidation. Public figures often inspire

119
00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:50,040
complex emotions, power, fame, wealth. These create atmospheres that people

120
00:07:50,079 --> 00:07:53,680
interpret in many ways, But the law demands specific acts

121
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:58,199
of intimidation, not subjective feelings, and the defense did their

122
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:02,399
best to expose this in cross examination. Witnesses admitted they

123
00:08:02,399 --> 00:08:07,360
traveled freely both before and after alleged intimidation. Witnesses admitted

124
00:08:07,360 --> 00:08:13,519
they cooperated with this investigation despite alleged intimidation. Witnesses admitted

125
00:08:13,720 --> 00:08:16,639
they spoke to the media, filed lawsuits, and posted publicly,

126
00:08:17,199 --> 00:08:21,480
not the behavior of individuals intimidated into silence. There is

127
00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:25,920
no act of intimidation proven here. None. Let's be honest.

128
00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:29,319
The real purpose of the government's obstruction narrative is not

129
00:08:29,360 --> 00:08:34,440
to prove obstruction, it's to salvage their reco charge. Without obstruction,

130
00:08:34,519 --> 00:08:39,120
the government's RICO pattern falls apart. Their alleged enterprise lacks continuity.

131
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:43,559
Their predicate acts are too sparse, too disconnected, and so

132
00:08:43,919 --> 00:08:47,159
they inject obstruction not as a charge, but as an

133
00:08:47,159 --> 00:08:50,759
atmosphere to glue the case together. But this is an

134
00:08:50,799 --> 00:08:56,120
abusive process. You cannot prove RICO with non charged, unproven obstruction.

135
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:00,279
You cannot convict based on shadow charges. You can use

136
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:04,639
suspicion where the law requires proof. The defense drove this

137
00:09:04,720 --> 00:09:08,399
point home. If obstruction was provable, why was it not charged.

138
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:12,600
If obstruction was provable, why was no forensic evidence produced?

139
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:17,080
If obstruction was provable, why did government rely on inference

140
00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:22,240
and implication rather than act in proof. Because they can't

141
00:09:22,279 --> 00:09:25,080
prove it, and the jury must not let them succeed

142
00:09:25,159 --> 00:09:29,320
through suggestion alone. And so after four weeks, the government

143
00:09:29,519 --> 00:09:32,799
is left with nothing but fog, no clear evidence of obstruction,

144
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:38,080
no forensic trail, no proven witness intimidation, no illegal NDAs,

145
00:09:38,399 --> 00:09:43,200
no illegal settlements, no proven destruction of evidence. What they

146
00:09:43,200 --> 00:09:46,840
have is a story designed to outrage, But outrage is

147
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:49,919
not an element of the offense In the courtroom bound

148
00:09:49,919 --> 00:09:54,000
by law not emotion. The obstruction narrative must be rejected

149
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:58,720
in full. Without obstruction, there are reco charged Withers without obstruction,

150
00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:02,840
their case return to what it is and incoherent collapsing

151
00:10:02,879 --> 00:10:07,600
attempt to criminalize celebrity life through implication not proof, and

152
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:10,879
that is not justice, all right. So that's going to

153
00:10:10,919 --> 00:10:13,240
do it for this one. And in the next episode

154
00:10:13,279 --> 00:10:15,480
we're going to bring it home and wrap this bad

155
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:18,279
boy up. All of the information that goes with this

156
00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:22,399
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,

157
00:10:22,519 --> 00:10:26,559
and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In

158
00:10:26,600 --> 00:10:29,159
this episode, we're going to wrap up taking a look

159
00:10:29,519 --> 00:10:34,480
at the defense that Diddy. The time has come. After

160
00:10:34,519 --> 00:10:38,080
weeks of testimony, after countless exhibits, after days of argument

161
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:42,279
and cross examination, the court room returns to its core truth,

162
00:10:42,639 --> 00:10:46,480
one truth that transcends all others. The burden of proof

163
00:10:46,799 --> 00:10:50,919
is not ours, it's the governments in this nation, in

164
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:54,080
this system of justice, no one, not the powerful, not

165
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:57,039
the famous, not the flawed, can be stripped of their

166
00:10:57,080 --> 00:11:00,840
freedom unless the government proves beyond the reason doubt that

167
00:11:00,919 --> 00:11:06,879
they committed the crimes charged, not suggested, not implied, not suspected, proven,

168
00:11:08,039 --> 00:11:10,879
And after all this time, after all this theater, after

169
00:11:10,919 --> 00:11:14,000
all these headlines, the government has not met that burden,

170
00:11:14,279 --> 00:11:17,879
not even close. They want to convict Sean Combs not

171
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:20,480
because the law demands it, but because they hope your

172
00:11:20,519 --> 00:11:23,519
heart will override your reason. Because they hope that if

173
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:27,960
they stir enough moral outrage, enough revulsion at celebrity excess,

174
00:11:28,240 --> 00:11:32,000
enough discomfort with the world Combs and habits, that the

175
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:35,200
jury will forget the standards that they swordw uphold when

176
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:38,759
they took their owth. This jurors, but this court room

177
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:41,919
is not a tabloid, It's not Twitter. This is not

178
00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:44,759
a place where we convict based on feeling. It's a

179
00:11:44,759 --> 00:11:48,200
place where we convict or refuse to convict, based on proof.

180
00:11:48,639 --> 00:11:53,279
And by that standard, this case is already over. The

181
00:11:53,279 --> 00:11:56,080
government built the case en Rico because they knew their

182
00:11:56,080 --> 00:11:59,720
individual charges were weak. They needed a grand narrative. They

183
00:11:59,799 --> 00:12:03,639
need a frame into which they could force disconnected, disjointed

184
00:12:03,679 --> 00:12:08,840
events and allegations. They failed after four weeks. What has

185
00:12:08,879 --> 00:12:12,720
been proven No enterprise, no structure, no hierarchy, no agreement,

186
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:16,519
no chain of command, no written plan, no verbal commitment,

187
00:12:16,919 --> 00:12:20,720
no criminal goals. What we saw instead was the chaos

188
00:12:20,759 --> 00:12:25,519
of a celebrity entourage, a world of shifting alliances, opportunistic actors,

189
00:12:25,840 --> 00:12:30,639
toxic relationships, and transactional dynamics. But not a criminal enterprise,

190
00:12:30,919 --> 00:12:35,440
not a rico pattern, not a conspiracy. The defense is

191
00:12:35,480 --> 00:12:41,000
demonstrated this with unrelenting force. Witnesses failed to describe any structure.

192
00:12:41,279 --> 00:12:44,080
No one can name an agreement. The so called pattern

193
00:12:44,159 --> 00:12:48,120
was a patchwork of isolated events, stretched across years and continents.

194
00:12:49,200 --> 00:12:52,440
This is not rico. It is fiction, a dangerous fiction

195
00:12:52,639 --> 00:12:56,480
used to leverage heavy penalties when the government cannot make

196
00:12:56,519 --> 00:12:58,960
the case on the merits and in the court room,

197
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:03,799
fictions must not prevail. The government sex trafficking case was

198
00:13:03,799 --> 00:13:08,519
a calculated gamble, an effort to trigger moral revulsion, to

199
00:13:08,600 --> 00:13:11,240
bypass the jury's reason and go straight for the gut.

200
00:13:11,799 --> 00:13:15,080
But when stripped of that emotional veneer, their case crumbles.

201
00:13:15,279 --> 00:13:19,480
Force not proven, no physical restraint, no violence compelling sex

202
00:13:19,759 --> 00:13:24,679
fraud not proven, no documented false representations, no explicit quid

203
00:13:24,720 --> 00:13:30,000
pro quo, no promises exchanged for sexual activity. Coercion not

204
00:13:30,159 --> 00:13:32,919
proven as the law defines it. What we heard were

205
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:37,480
stories of emotionally fraught relationships of adult women, making complex,

206
00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:43,679
often painful choices, but choices. Nonetheless, the prosecution's trauma expert

207
00:13:43,799 --> 00:13:48,279
was presented to excuse every inconsistency to override the presumption

208
00:13:48,399 --> 00:13:52,039
of agency. But trauma science, valid though it may be,

209
00:13:52,519 --> 00:13:55,639
cannot replace the legal elements the government failed to prove,

210
00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:59,240
and the core truth remains. No act of sex trafficking

211
00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:03,399
is defined by Section fifteen ninety one was proven beyond

212
00:14:03,399 --> 00:14:06,759
a reasonable doubt, not one. The failure of the Man

213
00:14:06,759 --> 00:14:10,679
Act charges. Here the government's desperation became clearest. They took

214
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:15,440
the most ordinary acts of celebrity life, travel, hospitality, intimacy

215
00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:18,840
and attempted to criminalize them. But the law is clear.

216
00:14:19,159 --> 00:14:22,159
The man Act requires proof of purpose at the time

217
00:14:22,159 --> 00:14:26,480
of transportation, not post hawk moral judgment, not guilt by lifestyle.

218
00:14:26,960 --> 00:14:30,679
And here again the government's case collapsed. Not one message

219
00:14:30,679 --> 00:14:35,480
from colmb's arranging prostitution, not one travel record proving illicit purpose,

220
00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:39,639
not one agreement conditioning travel on sexual favors. Instead, the

221
00:14:39,639 --> 00:14:42,559
government asked the jury to infer a purpose from outcome,

222
00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:47,759
a legally impermissible maneuver that the defense dismantled through meticulous

223
00:14:47,799 --> 00:14:53,279
cross examination. Adults travel adults make choices. The existence of

224
00:14:53,279 --> 00:14:56,240
intimacy after travel is not proof that the travel was

225
00:14:56,279 --> 00:14:59,279
criminal in purpose, and without such proof, the man Act

226
00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:02,919
charges cannot stand. But perhaps the most cynical element of

227
00:15:02,919 --> 00:15:06,039
the government's case was its use of obstruction, not as

228
00:15:06,039 --> 00:15:08,600
a charge crime, but as a cloud of suspicion to

229
00:15:08,679 --> 00:15:12,360
prop up they're a failing reco theory. But here too

230
00:15:12,639 --> 00:15:16,879
they failed. No direct evidence of obstruction, no forensic trail,

231
00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:22,039
no witness testifying to orders from Combs, no illegal NDAs,

232
00:15:22,480 --> 00:15:26,840
no illegal settlements, no proven destruction of evidence. What they

233
00:15:26,879 --> 00:15:32,240
presented was atmosphere fear, innuendo, a play to the jury's imagination,

234
00:15:32,639 --> 00:15:37,879
precisely what our system of justice forbids. The defense exposed

235
00:15:37,879 --> 00:15:40,679
this strategy for what it is and improper effort to

236
00:15:40,759 --> 00:15:43,799
glue together a case that cannot stand on its own,

237
00:15:44,799 --> 00:15:48,600
and the jury must not allow it. Beyond Shawn Combs,

238
00:15:48,799 --> 00:15:52,519
beyond the salacious headlines and public outrage, this case presents

239
00:15:52,559 --> 00:15:55,840
a deeper danger, one that threatens the integrity of the

240
00:15:55,919 --> 00:16:00,240
justice system itself, because if the government can convict here

241
00:16:00,320 --> 00:16:04,519
without meeting its burden, if it can convert lifestyle into conspiracy,

242
00:16:04,759 --> 00:16:10,120
agency into coercion travel into crime, legal tools into obstruction.

243
00:16:10,720 --> 00:16:15,360
Then no one is safe. Then every flawed relationship becomes trafficking.

244
00:16:15,879 --> 00:16:21,360
Then every lavish gift becomes prostitution. Then every settlement becomes obstruction.

245
00:16:22,279 --> 00:16:27,120
Then every celebrity becomes a target. And that is not justice,

246
00:16:27,440 --> 00:16:31,320
That is opportunism cloaked in moral rhetoric. The jury must

247
00:16:31,320 --> 00:16:36,080
be the bulwark against that abuse. And for the jurors,

248
00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:39,120
their role is not to right every wrong. It's not

249
00:16:39,159 --> 00:16:41,840
to punish every act that they dislike. It's not to

250
00:16:41,879 --> 00:16:45,720
reform the culture of celebrity. Their role is to uphold

251
00:16:45,720 --> 00:16:48,320
the law, to hold the government to its burden, to

252
00:16:48,480 --> 00:16:53,519
ensure that no man, however powerful, however famous, however flawed,

253
00:16:53,879 --> 00:16:58,000
is convicted without proof beyond the reasonable doubt. And when

254
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:03,840
you apply that standard here on rigorously, the conclusion is inescapable.

255
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:07,279
The government has not proven its case, not on rico,

256
00:17:07,519 --> 00:17:10,240
not on sex trafficking, not on the man Act, not

257
00:17:10,319 --> 00:17:14,039
on obstruction. And in our system, when the government fails

258
00:17:14,039 --> 00:17:17,799
to prove its case, there is only one verdict, not guilty.

259
00:17:18,079 --> 00:17:21,839
And now we leave you with these closing thoughts. When

260
00:17:21,880 --> 00:17:23,880
all is said and done, we come to the hardest

261
00:17:23,880 --> 00:17:26,759
part of the jury's task the part where the pressure

262
00:17:26,799 --> 00:17:30,359
of public expectation, the pull of personal feeling, and the

263
00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:34,440
moral gravity of the accusations may weigh heaviest upon them.

264
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:37,519
And it is precisely here in this moment where the

265
00:17:37,599 --> 00:17:41,680
jury's duty matters most. They're not here to deliver justice

266
00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:45,079
for headlines. They're not here to deliver justice for social media.

267
00:17:45,559 --> 00:17:47,759
They're not here to answer the calls of those who

268
00:17:47,759 --> 00:17:50,720
would see this man condemned not because the law demands it,

269
00:17:51,039 --> 00:17:54,960
but because they found him unsavory, or his lifestyle objectionable,

270
00:17:55,319 --> 00:17:59,599
or his world foreign to their values. The jury is

271
00:17:59,640 --> 00:18:02,079
here to uphold the one thing that separates a court

272
00:18:02,119 --> 00:18:05,960
of law from the court of public opinion, the presumption

273
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:10,599
of innocence, the burden of proof, the requirement of proof

274
00:18:10,680 --> 00:18:13,960
beyond the reasonable doubt. And if you allow feeling, if

275
00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:17,480
you allow moral outrage to replace that requirement, you do

276
00:18:17,559 --> 00:18:21,720
not merely convict one man unjustly. You damage the system itself.

277
00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:25,680
You signal that for some defendants, those who are famous,

278
00:18:25,839 --> 00:18:29,119
those who are wealthy, those who live outside the cultural norms,

279
00:18:29,559 --> 00:18:32,599
the presumption of innocence is hollow, that for them the

280
00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:36,799
standard is lower, that for them, story will suffice where

281
00:18:36,839 --> 00:18:41,240
evidence does not. But our system must be better than that.

282
00:18:41,559 --> 00:18:45,119
It must be. You are a difficult testimony. You are

283
00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:48,519
painful stories. Some of it may have disturbed you deeply.

284
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:53,960
But difficult testimony is not a license to convict. Inconsistencies remain,

285
00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:58,079
proof is absent, the legal elements have not been satisfied.

286
00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:02,319
You may believe John Colmes is arrogant, that he is selfish,

287
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:06,079
that he is morally compromised, that his lifestyle is repugnant,

288
00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:09,440
and you are entitled to those personal views. But you

289
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:12,119
are not entitled, not in this court room, not under

290
00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:15,359
this constitution, to convict him of crimes. You are not

291
00:19:15,480 --> 00:19:19,400
convinced he committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The law draws

292
00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:23,039
that line sharply, and your oath demands that you hold it.

293
00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:26,839
If you allow that line to blur, if you convict

294
00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:30,799
because you dislike them, because you feel for the witness,

295
00:19:31,039 --> 00:19:33,119
because you fear what the press will say. If you

296
00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:37,079
do not, the jury surrenders the very foundation of due process.

297
00:19:38,680 --> 00:19:41,920
You allow feeling to overwhelm fact, You allow narrative to

298
00:19:41,960 --> 00:19:45,200
override law. And I'll tell you this plainly, that is

299
00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:48,440
not justice. That is not what a jurors oath commands

300
00:19:48,759 --> 00:19:51,680
that is not what the law demands of them. The

301
00:19:51,759 --> 00:19:54,359
jurors may walk out of the courtroom with mixed feelings

302
00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:57,440
about the man who sat at this table. They may

303
00:19:57,480 --> 00:20:00,319
walk out believing that he lived recklessly, that he made

304
00:20:00,359 --> 00:20:03,799
grievous personal mistakes. He may even believe that he caused

305
00:20:03,839 --> 00:20:06,920
pain to people who trusted him. But unless you believe,

306
00:20:07,160 --> 00:20:10,640
truly believe, that the government is proven beyond a reasonable doubt,

307
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:14,640
every element of these charges everyone, then the jury is

308
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:18,319
bound by their oath to acquit not because Sean Colmes

309
00:20:18,359 --> 00:20:22,119
is perfect, not because he is worthy of admiration, but

310
00:20:22,200 --> 00:20:24,880
because the government did not meet its burden. And because

311
00:20:24,960 --> 00:20:28,200
our system depends on jurors, jurors who are willing to

312
00:20:28,279 --> 00:20:31,759
uphold the standard even when the title public opinion runs

313
00:20:31,799 --> 00:20:35,480
against it. That's the jury's duty, and in this case

314
00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:39,039
the duty is clear. There's no enterprise proven. There is

315
00:20:39,079 --> 00:20:42,319
no trafficking proven. There is no Man Act violation proven,

316
00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:46,839
there is no obstruction proven. There is feeling, there is outrage,

317
00:20:47,000 --> 00:20:50,599
there is a narrative, but there is no proof. And

318
00:20:50,640 --> 00:20:53,839
in this country, in this courtroom, without proof, there can

319
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:58,200
be no conviction. So when the jurors enter that jury room,

320
00:20:58,319 --> 00:21:00,799
they need to remember they are not the sword of

321
00:21:00,839 --> 00:21:03,480
the public. They are not the shield of law. They

322
00:21:03,480 --> 00:21:06,279
are not here to serve a story. They're here to

323
00:21:06,319 --> 00:21:09,559
serve justice. They are not here to punish a man

324
00:21:09,640 --> 00:21:12,519
for his failings as a human being. They are here

325
00:21:12,599 --> 00:21:16,359
to judge whether this man committed specific crimes as charged

326
00:21:16,599 --> 00:21:19,759
beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they hold to that standard,

327
00:21:20,000 --> 00:21:23,119
as the oath requires, then their verdict can only be

328
00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:27,519
what the law demands, not guilty on every count. All

329
00:21:27,559 --> 00:21:31,000
of the information that goes with this episode can be

330
00:21:31,079 --> 00:21:33,119
found in the description box.