Diddy Trial: The Feds Call Two More Federal Agents To The Stand Before Lunch On Day 24 (Part 1) (6/16/25)

Whenever one of these famous people finds themselves in hot water, their go to narrative is something like this:  "I've realized that I have done some things that are bad, but now I'm getting help.  I've found God and I'm in therapy."    Diddy is no exception.    In his latest attempt to try and change the narrative, he released a ridiculous apology video where he does everything but apologize to his victims.    In this episode, we take a look at that apology and at the story overall and see where things currently stand now that the video has hit the public sphere.(commercial at 10:34)to contact me:[email protected]:Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs apologizes in a statement for assaulting Cassie Ventura | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A forthcoming Peacock documentary titled "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy" delves into serious allegations against music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs, currently incarcerated on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. The 90-minute film, premiering January 14, features interviews with individuals from Combs' inner circle—such as former bodyguards, childhood friends, and associates—who provide disturbing accounts of his alleged misconduct. One anonymous source claims that rooms illuminated in red signified sexual activities, often involving underage girls. Additionally, testimonies suggest that women were coerced or threatened into participating in these encounters.Combs' legal troubles have intensified since his arrest on September 16, 2024. He faces multiple civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault, with some plaintiffs accusing him of drugging and assaulting them. His legal team has vehemently denied these accusations, labeling them as false and defamatory. The documentary aims to shed light on these serious allegations, challenging viewers to reconsider their perceptions of the influential music figure.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy responds to upcoming Peacock documentary featuring members of his inner circle | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kaya Jones, a former member of the Pussycat Dolls, has made several claims regarding Sean "Diddy" Combs and his associates:Pressure to Engage in Sexual Activities: Jones has shared that during her time with the Pussycat Dolls, she felt pressured to engage in sexual relationships with powerful figures in the music industry, including those linked to Combs.Abuse by Combs' Inner Circle: In interviews, she recounted uncomfortable encounters with individuals connected to Combs, suggesting that the environment around him was part of a larger pattern of industry misconduct.Industry-Wide Exploitation: Jones has emphasized that the issues surrounding Combs reflect a broader culture of abuse in the entertainment world. She believes that the recent lawsuits against Combs could lead to meaningful change and accountability in the industry.Her comments add to the ongoing conversation about Combs' alleged misconduct and underscore the systemic nature of exploitation within the music business.   In this episode, we take a look at what she had to say.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me:[email protected]:Pussycat Dolls star Kaya Jones says the powerful men on Diddy list are the same 'suits' who abused her | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs’s defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution’s efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    The second witness to take the stand before lunch on June 16, 2025, was Special Agent DeLeassa Penland from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. She served as another "summary witness," dispatched to help organize and present the vast trove of digital evidence to the jury. Penland walked jurors through charts and data, including additional phone and text message logs—this time highlighting communications between Combs, his bodyguard “D‑Roc,” and former assistant “Mia.”to contact me:[email protected]:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the morning session, Judge Arun Subramanian formally dismissed Juror No. 6—a 41-year-old Black man—due to “lack of candor” after he gave conflicting statements about living in the Bronx versus New Jersey, which raised concerns about his eligibility for juror service in the Southern District of New York.   Combs’s defense argued that this dismissal reduced the diversity of the panel and was racially motivated, filing a letter and threatening to seek a mistrial if the removal wasn't reversed.   Judge Subramanian denied both requests, stating that the decision was based strictly on the juror's factual inconsistencies, not race, and quickly seated a White accountant from Westchester County as a replacementAfter the jury reassembled, prosecutors called Ananya Sankar, a paralegal specialist from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a summary witness. Before lunch, Sankar began presenting and walking jurors through a collection of text messages and call logs—including communications between Combs, his staff (like chief of staff Kristina Khorram), and his ex-girlfriend “Jane”.    These messages covered topics such as organizing “Wild King Nights,” procurement of MDMA (“Molly”), and discussions of explicit encounters—part of the prosecution’s efforts to organize the voluminous digital evidence ahead of closing the case this week.    The second witness to take the stand before lunch on June 16, 2025, was Special Agent DeLeassa Penland from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. She served as another "summary witness," dispatched to help organize and present the vast trove of digital evidence to the jury. Penland walked jurors through charts and data, including additional phone and text message logs—this time highlighting communications between Combs, his bodyguard “D‑Roc,” and former assistant “Mia.”to contact me:[email protected]:Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror’s perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government’s action is not a legitimate concern about the juror’s qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Subramanian regarding United States v. Combs, the defense addressed the government’s intent to introduce out-of-court statements during Casandra Ventura’s (Cassie’s) testimony under Rule 801. Following the Court’s directive from the April 25, 2025 pre-trial conference, both sides met and conferred on the matter. The government provided the defense with a chart outlining the statements it wishes to admit along with its proposed legal justifications. In turn, the defense submitted detailed objections to certain statements, which they attached as Exhibit A for the Court’s review.Additionally, the defense used the letter to elaborate on its opposition to the government’s attempt to introduce prior consistent statements through Ms. Ventura’s testimony, arguing that their admission would be improper. The defense also objected to new exhibits the government has indicated it intends to present during Ventura’s testimony, raising concerns about their admissibility and relevance. The letter signals an effort by the defense to limit what it views as prejudicial or legally unsupported material from being placed before the jury through Ms. Ventura’s account.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.397.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes from MTV’s Making the Band 2 and a member of Da Band, filed a $60 million lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging a pattern of sexual harassment, battery, psychological abuse, and professional sabotage. Rivers claims that Combs subjected her to degrading treatment throughout her time on the reality series and beyond, including groping her without consent, making sexually explicit comments, and mocking her bulimia. She further alleges that Combs controlled contestants' food, sleep, and movement, orchestrated humiliating stunts like the infamous "cheesecake walk," and forced her into uncompensated labor under exploitative conditions. According to the complaint, Rivers was made to sleep in exposed, unsafe quarters with male co-stars and denied basic dignity and protection.The lawsuit names more than two dozen other parties, including executives at Bad Boy, Universal Music Group, MTV, and even Combs's mother, asserting that they either enabled or failed to intervene in the abuse. Rivers accuses Combs of deliberately dismantling Da Band to assert dominance and retain control of her earnings, effectively sabotaging her career. She asserts that this behavior was not isolated but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and intimidation that targeted young, vulnerable performers. Combs’s legal team has dismissed the suit as meritless and opportunistic, noting it was filed just before the deadline under the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The case joins a growing list of lawsuits and criminal investigations currently surrounding Combs.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.