Speaker 1: I'm a homegirl that knows a little bit about everything
Speaker 1: and everybody.
Speaker 2: You know, if you don't lie about that, right, Lauren can.
Speaker 1: Hey y'all, it's Laura le Rosa and this is the
Speaker 1: Latest with Laura Le Rosa, where we get into your
Speaker 1: daily dig on all things pop culture, entertainment, news exclusives,
Speaker 1: and all those conversations that shake the room.
Speaker 2: Baby.
Speaker 1: Now a quick behind the scenes of the grind checking.
Speaker 1: I am tired, Okay, it is it's late. I got out.
Speaker 1: We got out of court so late today. Court began
Speaker 1: at two pm. It was late at least three times
Speaker 1: a day I left court. The sun was going down
Speaker 1: when I left court. That is the latest I have
Speaker 1: ever left court since this trout started. And then came
Speaker 1: right to film the podcast so I could get you
Speaker 1: guys the info. So thank y'all for tuning on in.
Speaker 1: I know it is am when you listen to this,
Speaker 1: so listen forgive me if I'm giving girl, you've been
Speaker 1: working all day energy because the girl has been going
Speaker 1: since three already this morning. But hey, that's the grind,
Speaker 1: that's how it go. So let's get on into the
Speaker 1: latest now.
Speaker 2: Because you knew your girl, I love to take y'all
Speaker 2: a court.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we are going to have a conversation about
Speaker 1: what did or did not happen when it comes to
Speaker 1: Ditty's charges, because no, there were no charges dropped against
Speaker 1: Sean Diddy Combs today now. Earlier this morning via the
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club, I reported this.
Speaker 2: So before we.
Speaker 1: Get into our next story, I do want to say
Speaker 1: it is seven fifty four am Eastern Standard time here
Speaker 1: in New York and there are reports circulating that charges
Speaker 1: have been dropped against Sean Diddy Combs. That is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent false. At this time, no charges have been dropped.
Speaker 1: I just want to clear that up because those those
Speaker 1: reports are starting to circulate and I literally just made
Speaker 1: a phone called a confirm that it is not correct.
Speaker 1: Now adding more context and clarity to what I reported
Speaker 1: this morning, because after this report, there were additional reports
Speaker 1: that said the complete opposite, that the charges were officially
Speaker 1: dropped and things of that nature. On the official PACER records,
Speaker 1: there are two documents that were entered last night, and
Speaker 1: these documents, the government was having a conversation about how
Speaker 1: they plan to basically approach the rest of the ending
Speaker 1: of the trial because after presenting their full case. They're
Speaker 1: looking around and they're saying, okay, let's just cut our losses,
Speaker 1: Like whatever is not going to stick best, whatever is
Speaker 1: not strongest, that's not what we're focusing on right now.
Speaker 1: If you've been listening to the podcast, if you've been
Speaker 1: watching my content, whether it's here wherever you're hearing this
Speaker 1: or seeing this, or it's over on the Breakfast Club,
Speaker 1: I appreciate all of it. But if you've been keeping up,
Speaker 1: you know that I had a conversation with you guys
Speaker 1: about Diddy's attorneys deciding to act for a dismissal in court.
Speaker 1: They said, look, if you're not going to drop the
Speaker 1: case entirely, here are certain things that we think that
Speaker 1: require more attention because these things should not be presented
Speaker 1: in front of a jury to have a conversation on,
Speaker 1: because the government simply did not do what they needed
Speaker 1: to do to prove be on a shadow of a
Speaker 1: doubt that these things happen, and that is the government's
Speaker 1: burden in this federal case that they've brought forth right,
Speaker 1: and they're having a conversation, they're going through the kidnapping
Speaker 1: that was one of the things they're going through. They
Speaker 1: bring up the arson, they're going through, the forced labor,
Speaker 1: they're going through. Like they break it down, some of
Speaker 1: the things that we're talking about here are not charges.
Speaker 2: These are like.
Speaker 1: Elements that make up the charge, right, so these are
Speaker 1: like your plus ones to the party, but they're not
Speaker 1: the main invite. For instance, arsin and kidnapping, these make
Speaker 1: up the bigger charge. So they're talking about all these
Speaker 1: things and they're like, look, if we're going to have
Speaker 1: this conversation with the jury, and we're being fair, these
Speaker 1: things were not proven. So we're asking that these things
Speaker 1: not be allowed, that these things be taken away, these
Speaker 1: things be dismissed. The government later that night posted this letter,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to read from one of the letters.
Speaker 1: They're judge the government respectfully rights regarding it's requested adits
Speaker 1: to the Court's.
Speaker 2: Proposed jury instructions.
Speaker 1: Now, I was in court today for the battle because
Speaker 1: baby it was given Real Housewives of Atlanta reunion in
Speaker 1: there today when it came to jury instructions, and we
Speaker 1: want to talk about that. But so they're basically saying, look,
Speaker 1: before we sit down and even have a conversation about
Speaker 1: what jury instruction looks like, we want to let you
Speaker 1: know where we think we're going with this angle wise,
Speaker 1: and when we enter in some of our objections and
Speaker 1: our conversations, we want you to know why. So, they say,
Speaker 1: the government understands the court's desire for streamlined instructions. The
Speaker 1: government has suggested ways to streamline those instructions. Specifically, the
Speaker 1: government has removed instructions from the charge relating to number
Speaker 1: one attempted kidnapping under both California and New York law,
Speaker 1: number two attempted arson under California law, and number three
Speaker 1: aiding and abetting sex trafficking. The government is no longer
Speaker 1: planning to proceed on these theories. The government is no
Speaker 1: longer planning to proceed on these theories. The government is
Speaker 1: no longer planning.
Speaker 2: To perceive on these theories.
Speaker 1: I said that three times because it is very important
Speaker 1: for where we're about.
Speaker 2: To go with explaining why.
Speaker 1: When I say no charges were dropped against Seawan Ditty Combs,
Speaker 1: that is fact and not fiction. The government has also
Speaker 1: attempted to simplify the language relating to Count one, a proposal,
Speaker 1: as explained in the government's comment bubbles, that the government
Speaker 1: hopes not only serves the purpose of streamlining the instructions,
Speaker 1: but also will avoid any confusion as to the operative
Speaker 1: agreement for count one. Now, listen, what the government is
Speaker 1: saying here is like, look, we know these up here
Speaker 1: are the charges, right, and within us having these charges,
Speaker 1: here are certain things that we say happen to prove
Speaker 1: that all of this went down. Right, So think about
Speaker 1: it like this, Like when it comes to a rico,
Speaker 1: there are multiple things that are alleged to make up
Speaker 1: the actual RICO charge.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So for Diddy, you have the government alleging that he
Speaker 1: kidnapped people. You have the government alleging that he committed arson,
Speaker 1: you have the government alleging that he committed bribery, all
Speaker 1: of these things. Now, after presenting their full case, the
Speaker 1: government is saying, listen, judge, we know that our arguments
Speaker 1: aren't the strongest when it comes to these these are theories, right,
Speaker 1: Because Diddy's team yesterday talked about the fact that the
Speaker 1: government leaned a lot of their charges on things that
Speaker 1: could be inferred like these big ideas, these big thoughts.
Speaker 1: That's what we talked about on the last episode of
Speaker 1: The Latest with Lona Rosa.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So now the government is saying that we are confident
Speaker 1: that this charge is a thing, because here's all the
Speaker 1: here's the theory, here's the narrative, here's what You mix
Speaker 1: this in applot, you stir it on up, and you
Speaker 1: have Deanentre. Right after presenting their case, the government is like, look,
Speaker 1: they don't say we're not the strongest here. They say
Speaker 1: they want a streamline, like, let's focus on what we
Speaker 1: know won't confuse the jury. We want to make it
Speaker 1: very clear, very simple. We want the instructions to lean
Speaker 1: in on that heavily. We want them to understand, here's
Speaker 1: exactly what we're alleging. Here's exactly the evidence that support
Speaker 1: that theory, that make it something that you know allegedly
Speaker 1: actually happened, so that you're you're able to make your decision.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that the charge that all those
Speaker 1: theories equal up to has been dropped. Now, could that happen?
Speaker 1: Because that is what Diddy's team asked for. It could happen.
Speaker 1: Has it happened?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: And the reason even this morning when I when I
Speaker 1: did this, when I mentioned this, I time stamped it
Speaker 1: because if you guys haven't noticed, like everything with court
Speaker 1: has been moving like even today. So today was a
Speaker 1: charging conference. In the charging conference, the jury is not there.
Speaker 1: It's the day off for the jury. But you have
Speaker 1: both sides. You have the prosecution and you have the defense,
Speaker 1: and you have the attorneys going through what the actual
Speaker 1: instruction will be given to like that is given to
Speaker 1: the jury for every single count. It has to be
Speaker 1: something that doesn't make you feel like the government is
Speaker 1: telling you something was true or false. And it can't
Speaker 1: be something that makes you feel like the defense is
Speaker 1: telling you something it's true or false either. But it
Speaker 1: can be something that like clarifies when it comes to
Speaker 1: this specific allegation. They talked about are Kelly's case a
Speaker 1: lot today, especially because they were trying to figure out
Speaker 1: how the wording around the sex trafficking conversation would be.
Speaker 1: Diddy's attorneys at a really, really good job today in court.
Speaker 1: I will say that it's not a slam dunk either
Speaker 1: way in my opinion. So I felt like when they
Speaker 1: rested their case so fast, I was like, wait, did
Speaker 1: I miss something? Why aren't they going harder? Like why
Speaker 1: aren't they like, I don't know, just something I expected something.
Speaker 1: Each attorney has like their things, so like Attorney Shapiro
Speaker 1: she's the one who presented the acquittal. You have Teeny Garrigos,
Speaker 1: who is a beast when it comes to evidence. You
Speaker 1: have Mark Agnofilio, who kind of is like the glue
Speaker 1: between them all. He's like one of the lead attorneys.
Speaker 1: You have Brian Steele who goes crazy on cross examination.
Speaker 1: Nicole Wes Morland as well goes crazy on cross examination.
Speaker 1: You have Attorney Donaldson, who they've also used a ton
Speaker 1: on cross examination as well. And they're in there and
Speaker 1: they're having a conversation about the sexual acts, right. The
Speaker 1: government was trying to argue and again this is them
Speaker 1: trying to frame it where if they feel like they're
Speaker 1: not strong on something, they're saying, hey, it's all about
Speaker 1: the wording and how the jury is instructed to think
Speaker 1: about this, which will in the end of this equal.
Speaker 2: A certain result.
Speaker 1: So the government was asking for in the jury instruction
Speaker 1: for it to be clarified that forced labor could be
Speaker 1: sex right, and did They's attorneys are.
Speaker 2: Like no, Like what no?
Speaker 1: And they're like this makes no sense because the government
Speaker 1: is like, well, I know, did They's attorneys tried to
Speaker 1: make it seem like forced labor. It's like you know,
Speaker 1: you're it's almost like an enslavement of sorts or you know,
Speaker 1: you have no other t choice and things of this nature,
Speaker 1: and it's not the physical act of sex. But then
Speaker 1: the government brought in R. Kelly and one of R.
Speaker 2: Kelly, the R.
Speaker 1: Kelly case as a landmark case that they refer to,
Speaker 1: and they're like, and the judges like, okay, was this
Speaker 1: used this way in R.
Speaker 2: Kelly's case.
Speaker 1: So the judge is like, no, I'm denying this because
Speaker 1: the judge is saying, if we give the joy this instruction,
Speaker 1: it makes them think that all sex is forced labor,
Speaker 1: which isn't fair because technically it depends on the facts
Speaker 1: of the case when you're having these conversations, right, So
Speaker 1: that was a win for Ditty's team, But there were
Speaker 1: other times where the judge denied things that Diddy's team
Speaker 1: was asking for it, and it was a win for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: But there was a big conversation around the sex trafficking
Speaker 1: and when I tell you, Diddy's lawyer, Attorney Shapiro, she
Speaker 1: was not backing down it. There was a young attorney
Speaker 1: that was like kind of like assisting her. Oh my god.
Speaker 1: They were eating it up. Okay, the back and forth
Speaker 1: between attorneys is so easy because everything is based off
Speaker 1: fact in case and they just be spitting spit and
Speaker 1: spit and spitting. So the conversation around sex acts commercial
Speaker 1: sex acts, what Diddy's team was making a point to
Speaker 1: try and say was was like, look, when this case
Speaker 1: was first presented, from the minute day that the government
Speaker 1: did their opening statements, they've been presenting this sex trafficking
Speaker 1: charge in these sexual commercial acts as completed acts, right, like, as.
Speaker 2: They actually had sex.
Speaker 1: Or had sexual interaction of some sort and they were
Speaker 1: paid for it.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: But Diddy's team is like, but now in the jury instruction,
Speaker 1: they're trying to take a step back and say sexual
Speaker 1: commercial commercial sexual acts do not have the actually mean
Speaker 1: actually mean a completed act. And Diddy's attorney was like,
Speaker 1: that is not fair. We've spent weeks in this courtroom
Speaker 1: with this case being presented this way. She read some
Speaker 1: of the opening statements to the judge which mentioned that
Speaker 1: she talked about the night at the Intercontinental. They talked
Speaker 1: about several different times when the government has presented these
Speaker 1: commercial sexual acts as being defined as actual sexual intercourse
Speaker 1: or sexual interaction complete it like a completed sexual act
Speaker 1: of some sort. The wording that the government wants and
Speaker 1: the jury instruction is is they want the jurors to
Speaker 1: be instructed by the judge to understand that a sexual
Speaker 1: act doesn't have to mean that it was completed. So
Speaker 1: you didn't have to actually have sex, you didn't have
Speaker 1: to actually do anything oral or finish either one of
Speaker 1: them for this to be considered a commercial sexual act.
Speaker 2: And the defense was not going.
Speaker 1: Baby Diddy's attorneys immediately shot up and were like, that's
Speaker 1: not true. The whole time they've been talking about that night,
Speaker 1: they talked about it as if a freak off.
Speaker 2: This was a freak off. The judge is like, I.
Speaker 1: Don't think that the government ever tried to imply one
Speaker 1: way or the other that you know, uh, sexual a
Speaker 1: commercial sexual act should not be talked about as something
Speaker 1: that's only completed. Right, And there again did't seem a
Speaker 1: specially back there, like that's not true, that's not true.
Speaker 2: That's not true, that's not true. So then did these
Speaker 2: team stands up.
Speaker 1: This is one of the younger attorneys, and he says, look,
Speaker 1: if we're going to have a conversation about this, the
Speaker 1: real issue here is whether it's con consensual or not.
Speaker 2: We're arguing.
Speaker 1: We're arguing, and we can send you some cases, we
Speaker 1: can send you some actual transcript from what has been
Speaker 1: actually said in this courtroom by the government. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: we also have to look at the fact that, like
Speaker 1: all of this is a conversation too about something being consensual,
Speaker 1: and the way that this is worded right now in
Speaker 1: the jury instruction, even if things are consensual in the beginning,
Speaker 1: they can start off consensual and then.
Speaker 2: End up not.
Speaker 1: And they're like, even if you want to talk about that, okay, fair,
Speaker 1: And we're talking due process here.
Speaker 2: We're talking due process.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the commercial sexual and we're talking
Speaker 1: due process when it comes to the wording around the
Speaker 1: sexual acts too, when it comes to us talking about
Speaker 1: consensual and not consensual. And what I'm watching the prosecution
Speaker 1: do is, you know, they covering all their bases, They
Speaker 1: got in their eyes and crossing their te's and the
Speaker 1: defense was arguing that even on the conversation about the
Speaker 1: commercial sexual acts, the government is from what Diddy's team
Speaker 1: is alleging and how they're feeling, It's like, okay, y'all
Speaker 1: sitting over there and y'all cheers across from us. Judge
Speaker 1: in the middle like Andy Cohen and y'all are trying
Speaker 1: to make sure that no matter what, y'all get a
Speaker 1: home run. You cannot make this so vague where everything counts.
Speaker 1: It just can't go that way. So let's narrow this down.
Speaker 1: Let's really define what this means. Because if we define
Speaker 1: with this means based off what you guys have been talking.
Speaker 2: About, you haven't proven that.
Speaker 1: You haven't been able to prove that these certain things
Speaker 1: have happened. And that's why y'all are backing like backing away.
Speaker 2: Again. That backing away.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors and their letter said, hey, look, we want
Speaker 1: to streamline. Basically, we want your ay to focus, okay,
Speaker 1: focus on this right over here because it's over here, Uh,
Speaker 1: we ain't too sure about.
Speaker 2: And that is what that letter was. That is what
Speaker 2: the dropping was.
Speaker 1: It was the dropping or backing away from certain theories
Speaker 1: that were used to make up a crime. We gonna
Speaker 1: lean on what we're gonna lean on first, which is honestly,
Speaker 1: like to be completely honest with you guys, most of
Speaker 1: the time when you do something like this, like a
Speaker 1: rico like this or just charges In general, most prosecutors'
Speaker 1: offices want to really take their time before indictments come
Speaker 1: down or charges drop because they.
Speaker 2: Don't want to get in front of a jury or.
Speaker 1: A judge and can't really provide hard, tangible, concrete evidence
Speaker 1: that these things are happening and.
Speaker 2: Not just big theories. So I don't know. I was
Speaker 2: confused about that.
Speaker 1: But the whole time I've been confused, and I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if it's because the actual prosecutor who charged or who indicted,
Speaker 1: did he that changed when the trial actually started.
Speaker 2: I don't know what it's been. I wouldn't. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm very interested to see if anything is acquitted whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I don't think that Diddy is going to walk scott
Speaker 1: free from this. There will be some charges that he
Speaker 1: will not walk away from, and that he will whatever
Speaker 1: that consequence may be. He will have to do whatever
Speaker 1: that consequence is. I don't think that he's going one
Speaker 1: hundred percent walk Scott free. What that looks like, we
Speaker 1: will honestly find out within the next week. They did
Speaker 1: not directly address at all. What will be dropped won't
Speaker 1: be dropped? Is the acquittal happening, dismissal of this. They
Speaker 1: didn't get to that at all today. But to clarify,
Speaker 1: there have been no charges dropped against Sean Diddy Combe
Speaker 1: as of June twenty fifth, twenty twenty five, at nine
Speaker 1: or five pm from my last update. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, there's always a lot to talk about,
Speaker 1: and I know we've been talking about a lot of Diddy. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've been going and we've been really going into depth
Speaker 1: on Sean Diddy Comb's. Diddy has been in our homes,
Speaker 1: on our TVs, on our radios, our phones, all of
Speaker 1: that for a very very long time. So I think
Speaker 1: that's why, you know, people are so invested in this
Speaker 1: and I get it. Doing my best to bring y'all
Speaker 1: the best information first and foremost, and you know, clarity
Speaker 1: on some things.
Speaker 2: That is my word of today. Child. I had a
Speaker 2: day to day.
Speaker 1: When I did that report, but all the other reports
Speaker 1: says something else. But that's a part of the game.
Speaker 1: When you're good at what you do, you good at
Speaker 1: what you do. When your sourcers are valid, there are that.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate y'all for being right here with me,
Speaker 1: because y'all could be anywhere else. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day talking to anybody about these things, because there
Speaker 1: is always a lot to talk about. But you guys
Speaker 1: are right here with me, Low Riders, and I appreciate
Speaker 1: y'all for that. I will catch you guys in my
Speaker 1: next episode.