Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Tuesday, June seventeenth. Testimony is underway
Speaker 1: as we speak, and the judge is pissed on what
Speaker 1: is now officially the sixth week, day twenty five of
Speaker 1: testimony in the Diddy trial. Welcome to this episode of
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ. We continue to be your one stop
Speaker 1: every day to get you all caught off on what's
Speaker 1: happening in the Diddy trial. And rogues once again, before
Speaker 1: testimony even starts, fireworks are popping off, and it seems
Speaker 1: like the judge, now, this is some of the strong
Speaker 1: he's amoonnaged some folks with behavior in the court. This
Speaker 1: is as strong a language as I've seen come out
Speaker 1: of the court room.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: He didn't even mince words. He addressed the defense and
Speaker 3: the prosecution and said someone is lying because he says
Speaker 3: there was a leak, there was information in an article.
Speaker 3: We don't know what the news article is specifically, and
Speaker 3: what the information he was upset about is, but he
Speaker 3: said this transcript was sealed and there was information that
Speaker 3: came out in a news report that no one else
Speaker 3: could have known except for the people who he was
Speaker 3: looking at. And both the defense and the prosecution denied
Speaker 3: leaking any information, and so the children, well, you know,
Speaker 3: and I feel like this happens a lot even in newsrooms.
Speaker 2: Or you start to say, who is the leak?
Speaker 3: Who is going behind closed doors calling in a tip,
Speaker 3: whether it's true or not, to skew public opinion, or
Speaker 3: to have an impact on public relations, for whatever your
Speaker 3: motivation is. We see this all the time.
Speaker 1: Somebody did it.
Speaker 2: Somebody one did it, and they all denied it.
Speaker 1: They all looked in the judge's face and said.
Speaker 2: Denied it.
Speaker 1: It wasn't us.
Speaker 3: So he said, one or more people who were here
Speaker 3: Friday in this courtroom, and I'm quoting the judge here
Speaker 3: flagrantly violated this court's orders, a violation.
Speaker 2: Of the court's ceiling order.
Speaker 3: But it wasn't just that the court imposed a gag
Speaker 3: order on the government. The defendant, all the attorneys for
Speaker 3: the defense, and anyone involved was made accountable.
Speaker 2: Accountable.
Speaker 1: That is like when they say sealed, that's what they
Speaker 1: actually literally mean. There's information that this group knows. That
Speaker 1: information is what we know, but then we're putting it
Speaker 1: in this document. It's going to be closed. Nobody else
Speaker 1: can know it outside of us unless they open that document.
Speaker 1: So what happened, Robes, what happened?
Speaker 2: Someone was trying to see a public opinion.
Speaker 1: He is pissed, but I don't.
Speaker 3: Know what the information is. I'm so curious as to
Speaker 3: what the information is. But he wasn't just angry. He
Speaker 3: said that he is going to investigate and whatever happens,
Speaker 3: he said, he will find out and it could result
Speaker 3: in civil or criminal contempt charges for all involved.
Speaker 1: That's serious, that is really serious. They're not playing when
Speaker 1: they say a gag order, when a judge tells you
Speaker 1: not to open your mouth, they are putting very s.
Speaker 1: This is a federal court. They sure don't play with
Speaker 1: this stuff.
Speaker 3: No, no, because this is someone's life is on the line.
Speaker 2: First of all.
Speaker 3: Diddy's life is on the line, is on the line,
Speaker 3: and the integrity of the court is also hanging in
Speaker 3: the balance, because if you can't operate, and that's the
Speaker 3: judge's responsibility, if you can't operate a courtroom that precedes
Speaker 3: the way it's supposed to, that's fair and protects certain information,
Speaker 3: then you don't have you know, that's the cornerstone, the
Speaker 3: foundation in part of our democracy and justice.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it is a big deal.
Speaker 1: And it can be the foundation of an appeal.
Speaker 2: Correct, it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: This is serious. So now you've who knows how much
Speaker 1: money the federal government, I say, federal government taxpayers have
Speaker 1: spent on this trial, and something like this trips it up.
Speaker 1: There has to be a mistrial. We have to do
Speaker 1: all this over. You understand why the judge is that
Speaker 1: piss He is looking at people. One of y'all lied
Speaker 1: to me. He doesn't know which one it is, and
Speaker 1: then you'll lie to me again when I ask which
Speaker 1: one he gives lining. Yeah, oh, this.
Speaker 2: Is It's like a parent to high his children. He said.
Speaker 3: There is no passing the buck anymore. He said this too,
Speaker 3: the prosecution and the defense. The buck stops with you.
Speaker 3: If anything happens, lead council is responsible. So if your
Speaker 3: client did something, or someone on your team did something,
Speaker 3: don't care. It's the lead council's responsibility. Man.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, he was heated in the court this morning.
Speaker 1: We did get and this is significant. You and I
Speaker 1: are looking at the calendar. Wait a minute, this this
Speaker 1: is overwin. Yeah, we are talking about this case possibly
Speaker 1: being in the hands of the jury as early as
Speaker 1: this time next week. The prosecution had been telling us
Speaker 1: for a little while they thought they were going to
Speaker 1: be done by Wednesday of this week with their case
Speaker 1: Friday at the latest. But they're holding to right now Wednesday.
Speaker 1: So as we sit here on Tuesday, Yes, as of
Speaker 1: this recording, court is going on in the robes. It's
Speaker 1: weird to think the prosecution could wrap its case tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Tomorrow, correct, and then Thursday is a federal holiday, It's Juneteenth,
Speaker 3: And so if say the prosecution does wrap up on Wednesday,
Speaker 3: the defense would begin on Friday. And they said they
Speaker 3: needed anywhere from two to five days to present their defense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so they said they're fill laying things out and
Speaker 1: adjusting some things. But to think that maybe we could
Speaker 1: see a Friday and a Monday or maybe to Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the defense putting on its case and then jury instructions
Speaker 1: and they could be deliberating in a week, in a
Speaker 1: week after all this, to think it's coming through the
Speaker 1: end like that feels odd.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: It's been with us.
Speaker 3: They've been with us, the stories, the jaw dropping testimony
Speaker 3: has been with us now for several weeks. So it
Speaker 3: just feels like it's a part of daily life now.
Speaker 3: So what's gonna happen next No, but you know, this
Speaker 3: has been basically a made for TV movie, a Netflix series,
Speaker 3: so to speak, because you can't believe what you're hearing,
Speaker 3: and it's been that shocking to find out what was
Speaker 3: happening behind the scenes for decades, even in this world
Speaker 3: that most of us couldn't even possibly imagine participating it.
Speaker 1: You say, a Netflix series, it's weird to be watching
Speaker 1: a story that none of us can actually see. We
Speaker 1: can't be in the courtroom. There is not a camera
Speaker 1: in a federal courthouse, so we're The way the story
Speaker 1: is being told leaves a lot to the imagination about
Speaker 1: gestures and facial expressions and energy and all that in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. This has been it to have such a
Speaker 1: watched case that we can't watch so fascinating.
Speaker 3: It's almost like reading a book or listening to an
Speaker 3: audiobook if you're listening to podcasts or reporters who are
Speaker 3: covering it. But that's kind of the best way to
Speaker 3: describe it. So I feel like I have a movie
Speaker 3: in my mind, and perhaps that's best because I don't
Speaker 3: know that I actually want to see the accompanying videos
Speaker 3: that the jurors have been forced to watch. We'll get
Speaker 3: into that in just a bit, because that's something that
Speaker 3: will never leave you, so at least it's just my
Speaker 3: own imagination. Perhaps that's a softer, kinder place. Now we
Speaker 3: mentioned the jurors during number six was removed, and the
Speaker 3: defense wanted to know what the judge told the other
Speaker 3: jurors that was important to them. How he explained to
Speaker 3: the other jurors why juror number six was removed, because there's,
Speaker 3: of course it concern that that could prejudice or taint
Speaker 3: the jury hearing that someone got removed for what reason,
Speaker 3: And the judge told them.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it. Yeah, don't worry about it. He's gone,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it, don't talk about it. Let's move on.
Speaker 1: He said. He didn't give him anything. He just said
Speaker 1: somebody was removed and not give any reasons for it,
Speaker 1: and told them do not discuss it amongst yourselves. And
Speaker 1: that's the end of story. So we got forty one
Speaker 1: year old black mail out was it fifty sixty.
Speaker 3: Seven year old white male architect from Westchester on the jury.
Speaker 1: So today is day twenty five of the case, but
Speaker 1: it's day one of being without that juror. So he
Speaker 1: is out of there, so the thing is now rode.
Speaker 1: So we got one new juror, we could get another
Speaker 1: new juror. I don't this is where does it sound
Speaker 1: like it's leaning with this other guy?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: So the issue with the Juror number seven is apparently
Speaker 3: that this juror and I believe they've used the pronoun he,
Speaker 3: so it's a male.
Speaker 2: Is accused of or.
Speaker 3: It's reported that he may have discussed the case with
Speaker 3: a coworker, and somehow that got back to the judge,
Speaker 3: and so now the judge told the defense and the
Speaker 3: prosecution that he was going to handle this other issue
Speaker 3: with Juror number seven at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: Today. I still think it's interesting, though.
Speaker 3: Because the jurors were told by the judge that they
Speaker 3: can't discuss the circumstances around Juror number six. They aren't
Speaker 3: allowed to discuss it even amongst themselves. But you know,
Speaker 3: that's got to be eating at them. This is someone
Speaker 3: who's been sitting with them for weeks and weeks and weeks,
Speaker 3: and all of a sudden poof.
Speaker 2: He's gone. You know, there are these conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: What did he do better?
Speaker 2: To say?
Speaker 3: How could they not discuss it. That seems really difficult.
Speaker 3: And now if a second juror goes, it's just it
Speaker 3: does it has to create a different atmosphere and a
Speaker 3: different tone within the jurors.
Speaker 2: I wonder how that affects.
Speaker 3: Their just app like overall thoughts about the case and
Speaker 3: how it's going.
Speaker 1: How could it affect their energy, what flow? Maybe they
Speaker 1: were all kind of in the same mindset before. Now
Speaker 1: you got two excuse me, just one right now, but
Speaker 1: potentially two new people coming into the fray, coming into
Speaker 1: the room, meeting people, starting to have lunch with them
Speaker 1: and interact with them. Maybe it throws the whole dynamic
Speaker 1: off in some way. Who the hell knows, but man,
Speaker 1: I can't. All of a sudden, there seems like chaos
Speaker 1: in the jury room. All of a sudden, there's another
Speaker 1: one that's being brought in. And when this one gets replaced, Now,
Speaker 1: this is now going to have an impact on the
Speaker 1: adversity of the jury. That were four white jurors to
Speaker 1: begin with. Now there's a fifth with the guy from
Speaker 1: wet Westchester. Right, you take out one more juror, you
Speaker 1: might end up who knows, But now you're looking you
Speaker 1: go from having a majority minority jury, so possibly a
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty split in a matter of a couple
Speaker 1: of days.
Speaker 2: And that could make a big difference in a case
Speaker 2: like this.
Speaker 1: Oh, my goodness, Yes, And what are they going to say,
Speaker 1: I mean, is I believe we can expect the motion
Speaker 1: from mistrial. The of course attorneys were saying, of course,
Speaker 1: there's jury number six guy dismissed. They were going to
Speaker 1: move for a mistrial if another one goes out.
Speaker 3: My goodness, every day there's something new and something that
Speaker 3: could potentially make a huge difference in the outcome of
Speaker 3: this trial. But we did have today Brendan Paul, who
Speaker 3: is the assistant to Ditty. He took the fifth he
Speaker 3: got immunity, so he is able to testify because he
Speaker 3: was the one who was originally arrested on drug charges
Speaker 3: around the same time that Didty was as well, So
Speaker 3: those charges have all been dropped.
Speaker 2: And now that he is.
Speaker 3: Actually cooperating with the prosecution in this testimony.
Speaker 1: Is now that y'all are not going to charge me
Speaker 1: for all this stuff I'm about to tell you all
Speaker 1: about in open courts. So yeah, and I forgot the process. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he has to go up on the stand and have
Speaker 1: to go through a whole process. He has to be
Speaker 1: sworn in, say I plead the fifth then granted immunity.
Speaker 1: So he's been up on the stand already this morning,
Speaker 1: but he's coming back down and the testimony continues now.
Speaker 1: The lease of Penland is a special agent with the
Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office. She was testifying yesterday. Continues their testimony
Speaker 1: today and what the Washington Post, Well, how do they
Speaker 1: quite dry testimony because they're having to go through all
Speaker 1: the charts and text messages and hotel receipts. They're just
Speaker 1: piecing this whole thing together, trying to show everybody that yes,
Speaker 1: did he was the one in control and funding this
Speaker 1: whole operation. So that's how they're making the case. So
Speaker 1: she's connecting the dots, but ropes. As always, some of
Speaker 1: the details start going out about some of these hotel
Speaker 1: nights and some of the hotel received charges and a
Speaker 1: few kind of jumped out at people already that it's
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 3: Yes, there were some, there was some we've heard these
Speaker 3: types of charges where there was five hundred dollars damaged
Speaker 3: to drapes and carpets at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Most likely,
Speaker 3: I'm going to go with baby oil. That's what we've heard,
Speaker 3: at least from other hotel room problems. Nine hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty dollars for deep cleaning at the Herge.
Speaker 2: Hotel, Hermitage Armitage Hotel.
Speaker 3: I know how to say that and then okay, so
Speaker 3: those are okay, not what any one of us would
Speaker 3: typically want to see on our hotel bill. But there
Speaker 3: was a big one from the Inner Continental Hotel from
Speaker 3: October fifth, twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: There was some penthouse damage to the.
Speaker 3: Tune of forty six thousand, seven hundred and eighty six dollars.
Speaker 3: What the actual f How could you do that much
Speaker 3: damage with a sex party. I'm trying to imagine what
Speaker 3: could cost that much and what.
Speaker 1: Penthouse at a nice hotel. Maybe he's a particular item
Speaker 1: that was damaged.
Speaker 2: A rug, maybe a really excited you know, maybe.
Speaker 1: That may was a piano in there. Maybe there was.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was actually something broken, because it's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine just damage to drapes or.
Speaker 3: Stained chandelier or someone could have been swinging off of it.
Speaker 2: I mean, who knows.
Speaker 1: To add that to the imagery, you know, I'm just.
Speaker 3: But I'm really trying to imagine how you could do
Speaker 3: almost fifty thousand dollars with the damage in one night
Speaker 3: or in a couple of nights to a penthouse. I've
Speaker 3: never heard anything like that in my life.
Speaker 1: The details. Again, we've been listening to this stuff literally
Speaker 1: now for six weeks. You think you have heard everything
Speaker 1: about these parties, and some new witness gives you some
Speaker 1: new detail and you go, what the actual hell all
Speaker 1: over again now, Robes. The prosecution really is wrapping up now.
Speaker 1: They have I think three witnesses left after the one
Speaker 1: that's currently on the stand. Again as of this recording,
Speaker 1: that person is still on the stand, but they have
Speaker 1: three to go. Brendan Paul we mentioned his assistant, another
Speaker 1: summary witness, and then another law enforcement agent. And that's
Speaker 1: going to be it to think that after all this
Speaker 1: and all all the investigation and all the raids and
Speaker 1: all the arrests and all the videos we saw of
Speaker 1: him being taken away in September, that we get to
Speaker 1: this moment that the prosecution says, Yep, that's our case.
Speaker 3: We rest Yeah, And I mean they have gone through
Speaker 3: they have been a very very thorough in terms of
Speaker 3: presenting evidence to the jury, yesterday.
Speaker 2: This was a big deal.
Speaker 3: For the first time, the jury was shown actual video
Speaker 3: of some of those freak offs, those sex parties, those
Speaker 3: hotel parties. Previously, they'd only seen still images and they
Speaker 3: heard audio of the encounters. But on Monday, they were
Speaker 3: shown three videos, and a couple of them were just
Speaker 3: like two minutes long, but there was one that was
Speaker 3: forty minutes long, and some of the courtroom reporters were
Speaker 3: describing the juror's facial expressions. It was uncomfortable, was what
Speaker 3: I heard, or at least read that. Some reporters said
Speaker 3: that they could see discomfort. And the point was the
Speaker 3: execution was trying to show coercion. That these were videos
Speaker 3: of Cassie and tour Fine in some of these sex videos,
Speaker 3: in the sex video, and they you know, obviously we
Speaker 3: don't know what the videos were. I don't want to imagine,
Speaker 3: but apparently it was they thought it was obvious that
Speaker 3: she was not enjoying herself, so there was discomfort, and
Speaker 3: then the jurors had to see that and take that
Speaker 3: in and again that's just something you can't unsee. I
Speaker 3: can't imagine what that was like. And everyone was wearing headphones,
Speaker 3: so the audio was not being played out in the
Speaker 3: courtroom for everyone to hear, and after.
Speaker 1: That, we don't have a good handle on how many
Speaker 1: folks the defense is planning to call. I think only
Speaker 1: one place they wanted to call the the like the
Speaker 1: Bad Boys Enterprises human resources person to the stand in
Speaker 1: defensive Diddy. So it is all going to continue to
Speaker 1: be fascinate.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying.
Speaker 3: There were also reports that possibly the defense may call
Speaker 3: Don Richard back up to the stand, but that seems
Speaker 3: so interesting because they already Frost examined her. But that
Speaker 3: is out there too that that may be someone who
Speaker 3: they are looking to call to the stand. Another bit
Speaker 3: of information I read was several high profile celebrities.
Speaker 2: Who believe that they could possibly be.
Speaker 3: Called by the defense are lawyering up to make sure
Speaker 3: they're prepared just in case their names are called to
Speaker 3: the stand in defense of Diddy. So we shall see
Speaker 3: if there are any big name celebrities who end up
Speaker 3: taking the stand. But I guess at this point anything's possible,
Speaker 3: but they can't.
Speaker 1: They said, you know what, this is why they they
Speaker 1: that's a big gap. We're going to be done in
Speaker 1: two days or we're going to be done in five.
Speaker 1: That's a big difference. I think they maybe they are
Speaker 1: leaving some room for filling in some gaps and still
Speaker 1: are filling in their witness list. But this thing is
Speaker 1: wrapping up, folks, and as crazy as it sounds, but
Speaker 1: the prosecution could rest as early as tomorrow. But we
Speaker 1: will be here and we will continue to be bringing
Speaker 1: you the latest one stop shop, as you say, robes
Speaker 1: and collecting all this We thanks to the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: the CNN reporter in the room, who else is in
Speaker 1: the room? USA? Today, we've been.
Speaker 2: Using NBC News.
Speaker 3: We've seen all the main outlets have a reporter in there,
Speaker 3: and so we've been checking all of the websites because
Speaker 3: each reporter has a very different vantage point, takes in
Speaker 3: different details. So we've been absorbing it all and then
Speaker 3: giving you hopefully the best of the best. So we
Speaker 3: appreciate you checking in with us and listening to us,
Speaker 3: and please stay tuned because we will continue to keep
Speaker 3: you updated on everything.
Speaker 2: On the Diddy trial.
Speaker 3: In the meantime, though, hope you all have a wonderful
Speaker 3: day to day