Speaker 1: Hey there, folks, it is Tuesday, July the eighth. Yes,
Speaker 1: did he heard the verdicts last week, but today he
Speaker 1: had another very important court hearing in his case. It
Speaker 1: lasted all of two minutes, but we got some very
Speaker 1: important information out of it, and we found out that
Speaker 1: Diddy has changed his mind. And with that, welcome to
Speaker 1: this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ.
Speaker 2: Robes.
Speaker 1: Who were anticipating one thing from the defense team and
Speaker 1: we got something else today.
Speaker 3: Yes, it was actually very confusing to a lot of folks,
Speaker 3: some journalists and everyone was huddled around, even in some
Speaker 3: listening rooms trying to hear what was happening for a
Speaker 3: scheduled sentencing, like a pre sentencing hearing, I guess.
Speaker 4: Is what it was called.
Speaker 1: They called it a conference, a virtual conference. It was
Speaker 1: supposed to be for them to discuss, yes, when we
Speaker 1: can actually sentence its correct.
Speaker 3: So here's what we were anticipating. It had been said
Speaker 3: that the defense and the prosecution had actually agreed to
Speaker 3: I guess hasten the sentencing hearing from October third to
Speaker 3: September twenty second, So everyone was expecting defense attorneys and
Speaker 3: federal prosecutors to submit this September twenty second sentencing date
Speaker 3: to the judge, but just before the hearing, attorneys for
Speaker 3: both sides then sent another letter, joint letter to the
Speaker 3: judge saying never mind, we'll just go ahead and keep
Speaker 3: the October third, the original sentencing date done. And then
Speaker 3: they were asked, would you like to talk about anything else?
Speaker 3: Is there anything else to discuss? Most folks were expecting
Speaker 3: other business to be talked about, and they both said, nah,
Speaker 3: we're good.
Speaker 1: That was essentially a phone call. They say Diddy was
Speaker 1: on the call, but it went just a couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: Now surprising heroes because as soon I mean, as you
Speaker 1: know what we just reported this. Markgagnfield when he kind
Speaker 1: of had an epiphany the day before the verdicts were read,
Speaker 1: he realized, you know what, he's been found not guilty
Speaker 1: on these other accounts. He's guilty on the prostitution. So
Speaker 1: let's get a bail request ready. As soon as they
Speaker 1: heard the verdicts, they would like, hey, we want to
Speaker 1: get this guy out of jail. The judge said no.
Speaker 1: They were immediately Hey, we want to get the sentencing
Speaker 1: done as quickly as possible. They were so quick to
Speaker 1: be on top of that and today a total turnaround.
Speaker 4: That's what's confusing.
Speaker 3: So last week we heard from Mark Agnfilo telling the
Speaker 3: judge that Diddy was actually experiencing exceptional circumstances. They actually
Speaker 3: cited that specific claim because they said if he had
Speaker 3: to wait until October third, it was a problem. Because
Speaker 3: they brought up the fact that Comb's romantic partner, Kim Porter,
Speaker 3: died back in twenty eighteen, and so that his twin daughters,
Speaker 3: who were sitting behind him in the second.
Speaker 4: Row throughout most of the trial.
Speaker 3: They're eighteen years old, but they have been without a
Speaker 3: parent for some time now, and so that was part
Speaker 3: of the reasoning. We heard Diddy's defense attorney say, hey,
Speaker 3: we need an expedited sentencing date.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if that ever works. Does that I mean,
Speaker 1: if there are young children, that's one thing, but that.
Speaker 4: Is they're adults technically by law.
Speaker 1: I mean, they brought it up as if they thought
Speaker 1: it might make a difference. I mean, they know what
Speaker 1: they're doing or was that.
Speaker 3: Just a maybe it was an emotional reaction maybe, But
Speaker 3: also other thing that I was kind of confused by.
Speaker 4: So if the judge is.
Speaker 3: Ultimately going to decide whether or not he serves what
Speaker 3: they're asking for about two years behind bars versus what
Speaker 3: the prosecution is hoping for, which is five years behind bars.
Speaker 3: How moving up the sentencing date changes when he gets
Speaker 3: out of prison, because at the end of the day,
Speaker 3: he's getting credit for time serve. So that was also
Speaker 3: maybe just him having peace of mind knowing how much
Speaker 3: longer he has.
Speaker 4: Maybe that has a.
Speaker 3: Mental health benefit to him to his daughter's just to
Speaker 3: know sooner rather than later, how long he's going to
Speaker 3: be spending.
Speaker 2: Bye.
Speaker 1: But he's not getting out of jail anytime soon. This
Speaker 1: is what we're talking about. He's going to be sentenced.
Speaker 1: I think there's a consensus from all the experts and
Speaker 1: everything we've been reading he is going to spend and
Speaker 1: maybe even some significant time in prison. So even if
Speaker 1: they let him out on bail now, he's going to
Speaker 1: end up going right back inn So it's not a
Speaker 1: matter of the girls are about to get their dad
Speaker 1: back in the long term anytime soon. He is going
Speaker 1: to He is staying in prison, and it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of how long that's going to be. But to
Speaker 1: your point, Robes, it seemed almost I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was a gut reaction, immediate reaction or not a
Speaker 1: well thought out reaction to the judge at the time
Speaker 1: last week. And then now they realize, Okay, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter to rush it. We might as well take our
Speaker 1: time and get it right, because this is now the
Speaker 1: ultimate decision. Convictions were one thing, and the verdicts were
Speaker 1: one thing, but now this is the most important thing
Speaker 1: to try to get right, to convince the judge to
Speaker 1: not go on the high end.
Speaker 3: Right. But so to that point, it's very interesting because
Speaker 3: Comb's dues face technically a maximum sentence of twenty years
Speaker 3: in prison, ten years for each of his conspiracy what
Speaker 3: was the transportation for prostitution. He could face a maximum
Speaker 3: of twenty years behind bars, and initially the prosecution said
Speaker 3: that's what they were going to go for. Now it
Speaker 3: appears they're saying, okay, maybe five years would be enough,
Speaker 3: and again the defense wants two years. But it's been
Speaker 3: made very clear the judge can do whatever he wants.
Speaker 4: He doesn't have.
Speaker 1: To abide by whatever guidelines they keep talking about. Correct,
Speaker 1: to do whatever he wants as long the only thing
Speaker 1: he can't do is go over ten years for each count.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: That's the only thing. That's the only requirement. So the
Speaker 1: thing is now the judge has indicated he is indicated
Speaker 1: by not allowing him out on bail after the verdicts.
Speaker 1: He has indicated that he feels that Sean Diddy Combes
Speaker 1: is still a threat to the community in some way.
Speaker 1: He said it flat out from the bench and his
Speaker 1: move to not allow him to go home in the meantime,
Speaker 1: he won't even let him go home for a couple
Speaker 1: of months until the sentencing, right because he thinks he's
Speaker 1: such a threat.
Speaker 2: To the community.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, he mentioned the fact that he does
Speaker 3: have enough power and wealth and means to flee even
Speaker 3: though he would surrender for his passport. Still when people
Speaker 3: have private jets and all sorts of other access that
Speaker 3: most of us don't.
Speaker 4: Know anything about. That is one thing.
Speaker 3: But he also did specifically point out to the fact,
Speaker 3: point out the fact, excuse me, that he was violent,
Speaker 3: even by his own admission, after he knew he was
Speaker 3: under investigation with Jane, So Jane testified to it. He
Speaker 3: admitted it, and others also testified to witnessing it that
Speaker 3: even when he knew federal investigators were on him for
Speaker 3: all of this alleged abuse. He still continued to abuse
Speaker 3: his then girlfriend. That was enough for him to say, Hey,
Speaker 3: this is a guy who, even when he knows he
Speaker 3: might be watched, when he knows he might be monitored,
Speaker 3: he's still committing violent acts.
Speaker 4: So no, you cannot be out on bail.
Speaker 1: So the jug and the prosecutors are asking the judge
Speaker 1: to consider that and to consider conduct he was acquitted for. Right,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter like whatever technicality on racketeering, it didn't
Speaker 1: follow the exact law and the jury didn't go along
Speaker 1: with it. Okay, fine, we still saw the video of
Speaker 1: him beating somebody. We still heard all the stories that
Speaker 1: we actually believed. So when you put all that together,
Speaker 1: it is a I mean, he comes off as a
Speaker 1: scary dude that, if unleashed back into society, could still
Speaker 1: be a menace of some kind. I'm looking for the line,
Speaker 1: help me hear ropes. There was a line that judged
Speaker 1: used about his propensity for violence behind closed doors. You remember,
Speaker 1: I'll hear it is quote. This type of violence which
Speaker 1: happens behind closed doors in personal relationships, sparked by unpredictable
Speaker 1: bouts of anger, is impossible to police with conditions like,
Speaker 1: there's nothing I can say and say stay at home
Speaker 1: at twenty four hour monitoring. There's nothing he could say
Speaker 1: that the judge that would make him feel comfortable about
Speaker 1: putting this guy back on the street.
Speaker 3: That's wild and that is telling and will be very
Speaker 3: interesting to hear. How then he is going to rule
Speaker 3: on sentencing. He's got some time obviously between now and then.
Speaker 3: Now it looks like October third. But one of the
Speaker 3: big stipulations that happens during this time is there's an
Speaker 3: investigation of sorts. I mean actually an investigation, a sentencing investigation,
Speaker 3: and federal prosecutors were adamant that that should not be eliminated.
Speaker 4: They shouldn't go straight to sentencing.
Speaker 3: They should actually have the time to let it run
Speaker 3: its proper course, which involves a pre sentenced report from
Speaker 3: probation officials, which includes an interview with Diddy, and so
Speaker 3: heres want that to happen. So that interview, then the
Speaker 3: judge would be privy to to read all of those transcripts,
Speaker 3: and that's an important part of the process to determine
Speaker 3: whether or not or how long someone should stay behind bars.
Speaker 2: And at this point, Robes.
Speaker 1: I have now right, he had the victory, and it
Speaker 1: was a big and it was that's not in all
Speaker 1: circles he was facing life.
Speaker 2: He could possibly be getting a couple of years.
Speaker 1: That's a week less than five, and we get it.
Speaker 2: That is a win for him.
Speaker 1: However, now I'm hearing so many legal experts, the folks
Speaker 1: out there who are doing all the analysis of this,
Speaker 1: are talking more and more about the judge using his
Speaker 1: discretion and using some of the things he wasn't convicted
Speaker 1: for against him to still use his like almost this
Speaker 1: common sense test of this is a bad dude, and
Speaker 1: giving him just two years after up all this shit
Speaker 1: we just heard wouldn't be just.
Speaker 3: I can't help but think about how the judge truly felt.
Speaker 3: It may have seemed small, but it stood out. And
Speaker 3: I think a judge especially knows when someone's trying to
Speaker 3: sweet talk him or smooth talk him, especially someone who's
Speaker 3: known to be charismatic and had the abilities somehow to
Speaker 3: have a lot of women doing whatever he wanted them
Speaker 3: to do despite his violent behavior.
Speaker 4: So someone who is charismatic and possibly.
Speaker 3: Manipulative, how the judge felt, when did he took the
Speaker 3: moment to tell him to tell the judge thank you?
Speaker 3: And I think you're doing a really good job. I
Speaker 3: wonder how much impact if that had, And I would
Speaker 3: think you would have done something negative, not something positive,
Speaker 3: because the judge obviously is a smart man, And I
Speaker 3: wonder how much that made him feel like, is this, dude,
Speaker 3: somebody I really want to go easy on, somebody I
Speaker 3: want to be fair?
Speaker 4: Are someone who I want to teach a lesson to.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that I just can't help but
Speaker 3: feel like that could have had a negative impact.
Speaker 1: It's it's they call them judges for a reason. They
Speaker 1: are judging folks. They are referees to make sure each
Speaker 1: side gets to play fairly, but they are in judgment
Speaker 1: of the person sitting there and how the proceeding is
Speaker 1: supposed to go right his judgment about Diddy? Is everything
Speaker 1: right now? That moment it went one of.
Speaker 2: What three ways?
Speaker 1: It had a positive impact, a negative impact, or absolutely none.
Speaker 1: It could have just rolled off. He could have been dismissive.
Speaker 1: He might have seen that and said, you jerk, you
Speaker 1: look you ass or is there any chance. I think
Speaker 1: it's least likely that he was impressed by it in some.
Speaker 4: Way, like, oh, it's hard, that's hard to imagine, Oh
Speaker 4: my god, he he thinks I'm doing a good job. Wow,
Speaker 4: that's so cool. But I did, like you, and I
Speaker 4: have covered plenty of trials. Have you ever ever seen.
Speaker 3: A defendant have the no one's come let's just say that,
Speaker 3: or perhaps the hubris to to do that.
Speaker 1: I've seen some arrogant defendants, but not so to do that.
Speaker 4: I want to let you know what a good job
Speaker 4: you've been doing. You're welcome.
Speaker 2: We had to read.
Speaker 1: All we had all our All we could do was
Speaker 1: read it. Oh we could do is read So who
Speaker 1: knows how it actually came across. It could have been authentic,
Speaker 1: It could have been sweet, It could have been nice,
Speaker 1: It could have been awkward.
Speaker 2: We don't exactly know.
Speaker 1: All we were able to do is actually read it
Speaker 1: based on what was coming out of the courtroom.
Speaker 3: So it read arrogant. It read arrogant and manipulative. Yes,
Speaker 3: it read both of those things. To me, who does that?
Speaker 3: And what Judge actually is swayed by that?
Speaker 1: I think that I just think he's smart enough to know.
Speaker 1: This smart guy is not going to be sweet.
Speaker 2: I mean just saying thank you, Judge.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Oh man, this is the moment us standing out to.
Speaker 3: My mom always told me everyone's favorite subjectors themselves. So
Speaker 3: if you know he took that, if he took that, yeah,
Speaker 3: flattery will get.
Speaker 4: You everywhere, right, it absolutely will. So who knows. I
Speaker 4: don't know. It'd be interesting.
Speaker 3: I'm very fascinated to see what this judge decides.
Speaker 4: He's got time to go through it.
Speaker 3: Well, obviously he'll have the interview with Ditty. I don't
Speaker 3: wonder how that will go.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing, folks, he is going to be
Speaker 1: deciding judgment on how long Diddy should spend in prison
Speaker 1: after being convicted on a law that many people say
Speaker 1: is racist, shouldn't be on the books, and Diddy shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been charged with in the first place, the Man Act.
Speaker 2: Do you know what that is?
Speaker 3: Welcome back everyone to this Tuesday. Did he trial addition?
Speaker 3: Because we had a hearing that turned out to be
Speaker 3: basically just a two minute quick Hey never mind, judge,
Speaker 3: you know when you said you wanted that sentencing hearing
Speaker 3: to be on October third, Yeah, cool, that's that's what
Speaker 3: we both want now anyway.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so that's what happened today.
Speaker 3: The big Ooh, what's the defense going to argue, what's
Speaker 3: the judge going to say?
Speaker 2: Nothing? Nothing, the least dramatic day of all the days.
Speaker 1: Absolutely loved the Diddy trial, and this is when we
Speaker 1: were anticipating, like something dramatic.
Speaker 2: What are they going to do? Nothing? Nothing, nothing today?
Speaker 2: And that's okay.
Speaker 1: We've had a lot of dramatic days in this in
Speaker 1: this case, we could take a break, but still we
Speaker 1: learned a lot, and that's why we're hopping on. So
Speaker 1: at least you give the update because it is relevant,
Speaker 1: it is significant, it is meaningful that they have decided. Now, hey,
Speaker 1: never mind, we don't want to push this thing, rush
Speaker 1: this thing. Maybe they're just being a little more deliberate,
Speaker 1: but they know he's going to be spending significant time
Speaker 1: in jail.
Speaker 4: Probably yes, at least two years. That would be the
Speaker 4: defense's hope. So another year behind bars.
Speaker 2: You had the numbers off the top of your head.
Speaker 3: Twenty one to twenty seven months is what the defense
Speaker 3: appears to be asking for, and it looks like the
Speaker 3: prosecution is hoping anywhere from four to five years behind bars.
Speaker 4: So he's already served ten months. By the time we
Speaker 4: get to this sentencing hearing.
Speaker 3: It will actually be a little bit over a year,
Speaker 3: So subtract a year and a month, basically thirteen months
Speaker 3: from whatever the sentence is, and that is how long
Speaker 3: he will be behind bars.
Speaker 2: Sweet spirit.
Speaker 1: It's possible if the judge goes the low end and
Speaker 1: what the defense is asking, he'd be out within a
Speaker 1: year of the sentencing date.
Speaker 4: That would be best case scenario.
Speaker 1: A year we're talking about summer of twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: getting out of jail. The high end though, five years
Speaker 1: from the prosecution, so four years, so twenty twenty nine,
Speaker 1: somewhere around there. And then you have to consider the
Speaker 1: judge can do what he wants, and he has given
Speaker 1: some indication that he does not like this guy's propensity
Speaker 1: for violence behind closed doors.
Speaker 2: He has given signals that he could.
Speaker 1: He could go high on the high end or even higher.
Speaker 2: Are some of the signals he's given.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he certainly has. And so it's anyone's guess what
Speaker 3: the judge is going to do.
Speaker 4: Uh, you know. And I think maybe that.
Speaker 3: Could have played into the reasoning behind the event, just saying, hey,
Speaker 3: you know what, judge, what you wanted, Let's just do
Speaker 3: what you wanted.
Speaker 4: Let's do this on your timeline. We're cool.
Speaker 1: We need a minute to figure out right convictions now
Speaker 1: on something you keep hearing transportation to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 1: Those are the two counts he was convicted of, maximum
Speaker 1: of ten years in prison for each count. But it's
Speaker 1: based on something called the Man Act. You keep hearing
Speaker 1: that the Man Act, the Man Act, the Man Act.
Speaker 2: In ropes.
Speaker 1: This is a an incredibly controversial century old law that's
Speaker 1: been on the books, and part of its history is
Speaker 1: steeped in racism.
Speaker 4: It certainly is.
Speaker 3: And I didn't realize this, but when you start looking
Speaker 3: at so these the transportation to engage in prostitution, those
Speaker 3: two counts that he was convicted of are a part
Speaker 3: of the Man Act, which was acted back in nineteen ten,
Speaker 3: and it was originally known as the White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 4: White Slave Traffic Act.
Speaker 3: It criminalizes transporting individuals across state line four.
Speaker 4: And here's the catch, prostitution.
Speaker 3: But it originally said prostitution or debauchery or for any
Speaker 3: other immoral purpose.
Speaker 2: Who gets to decide what an immoral purpose?
Speaker 4: Correct? And a woman correct?
Speaker 3: And so there was a very high profile case against
Speaker 3: black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson.
Speaker 2: First ever black heavyweight champ, not just any.
Speaker 4: Guy here back in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 3: So guess what, he had a white girlfriend, and guess what,
Speaker 3: Black champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson took his girlfriend across
Speaker 3: state lines. And so that is why and how he
Speaker 3: was convicted in this Man Act, which obviously is steeped
Speaker 3: in racism. So they were this Act allowed prosecutors to
Speaker 3: bring charges against people who had unlawful premarital, unlawful extramarital,
Speaker 3: unlawful at that point in a racial relation.
Speaker 4: So they were able to take this.
Speaker 3: Act and apply it in very gray areas for this
Speaker 3: whole immoral purpose.
Speaker 1: So it was one of their arguments is that this
Speaker 1: case was being brought against one of the most successful
Speaker 1: black entrepreneurs we have ever seen in this country.
Speaker 2: And they thought it was they're going after him for
Speaker 2: some kind of racial prosecution. Yep.
Speaker 1: The judge actually was pissed and shot that down in court.
Speaker 2: Anytime there was a suggestion that this was about race,
Speaker 2: or they brought it about race.
Speaker 1: But that plays for the pubblic it does praise for
Speaker 1: a jury.
Speaker 3: Now it also we should point out this Man Act
Speaker 3: was used against R and B singer R Kelly. It
Speaker 3: was used against Galaine Maxwell in the whole. Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 3: the longtime confident of Jeffrey Epstein. But still there's no
Speaker 3: denying that that specific act absolutely absolutely is Steepson races.
Speaker 1: I'm storry to put you on the spoting I'm social star,
Speaker 1: but I think you're going to know it.
Speaker 2: What is it about?
Speaker 1: They changed some language and took out some component that
Speaker 1: made it vague, right, They updated the language of the
Speaker 1: law at some point to make sure it wasn't so
Speaker 1: vague and it could be used against interracial culture.
Speaker 4: So this is what I can see right now.
Speaker 3: So the law was meant to punish common sex work,
Speaker 3: but it was removed from the Act by an amendment
Speaker 3: in the eighties about the immoral purpose because.
Speaker 4: That was vague.
Speaker 3: So when they used a moral purpose, that's when they
Speaker 3: could say, oh ah, black man and a white woman,
Speaker 3: that's a moral.
Speaker 2: That wasn't what the eighties.
Speaker 3: Well, it took until the eighties before that amendment was dropped.
Speaker 4: Babe.
Speaker 3: When I first was a reporter in Charleston, South Carolina
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety five, it was on the books.
Speaker 4: It was illegal if you.
Speaker 3: And I had met and fallen in love in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety five at our first job whatever.
Speaker 4: You would have been younger than me.
Speaker 3: Don't point it out, but we would not have been
Speaker 3: able to legally technically be married.
Speaker 4: In the state of South Carolina.
Speaker 3: Nineteen ninety five, the Confederate flag was flying atop the
Speaker 3: state House in Columbia, South Carolina, and technically, legally it
Speaker 3: was on the books that white and black folks could
Speaker 3: not marry.
Speaker 4: Damn, how crazy is that?
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty two, when we first started dating.
Speaker 4: Sorry, everybody also wanted to point out this is interesting.
Speaker 3: I didn't realize this, so we mentioned, of course, what
Speaker 3: this whole Man Act, that it went against Jack Johnson
Speaker 3: back in nineteen thirteen. I didn't know this, but President
Speaker 3: Trump Hip positumously pardoned him Boom in twenty eighteen, Boom
Speaker 3: for that crime. He was convicted under the Man Act
Speaker 3: for taking his girlfriend across the state line.
Speaker 1: So wait, you're telling me that the current president has
Speaker 1: actually already pardoned a famous black man who was convicted
Speaker 1: under the Man Act.
Speaker 4: I am saying, I am saying that very thing.
Speaker 2: He's done this before.
Speaker 4: You never know what I am telling you that, And
Speaker 4: that's how.
Speaker 2: We're gonna leave it.
Speaker 1: Today, folks, I've been saying this, all right, well that's
Speaker 1: just wait for it. And with that, folks, we're gonna
Speaker 1: keep hopping on. When we do get some did they updates,
Speaker 1: and they do trickle in the next one. We anticipate, right,
Speaker 1: a couple of briefings are going to be filed with
Speaker 1: some updates, and yes, the prosecution is expected maybe even
Speaker 1: to up their ask for how many years they want
Speaker 1: ditties to spend behind bars. But when we do get
Speaker 1: the updates, we'll continue to hop on here for you,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate you all continuing to listen. We continue
Speaker 1: to do these because we do know that you are listening,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate you coming us.
Speaker 4: All right, I'm Amy Robot and on behalf of my
Speaker 4: partner T J. Holmes.
Speaker 3: Have a wonderful Tuesday, everybody. She the Tcherna