Diddy Trial: Diddy Is Found NOT GUILTY On 3 Of The Five 5 Counts (7/2/25)

In recent court filings, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team invoked former President Donald Trump's legal experiences to argue for his release on bail. Facing charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs' attorneys highlighted that Trump, despite facing multiple indictments, was granted bail and allowed to remain free during his legal proceedings. They contended that Combs should receive similar treatment, emphasizing that he poses no flight risk and is committed to addressing the charges against him.Additionally, Combs' lawyers referenced Trump's use of public statements and social media during his legal battles, noting that such communications did not result in revocation of his bail. They argued that Combs' attempts to influence public opinion should not be grounds for denying his bail, asserting that he has a constitutional right to free speech. This comparison aims to underscore perceived inconsistencies in the judicial system's handling of high-profile defendants and to advocate for Combs' release pending trial.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy compares himself to Trump in bizarre court filing as he begs judge to grant him bail for Thanksgiving | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to quash filed by Warner Bros. Discovery in response to a subpoena issued by Sean Combs’ legal team. The subpoena demanded raw footage and outtakes from the CNN Presents: The Scandalous Rise and Fall of Sean “Diddy” Combs documentary. Warner Bros. argues that the subpoena should be quashed on multiple grounds, primarily invoking journalistic privilege, First Amendment protections, and undue burden. They emphasize that the outtakes are protected newsgathering materials and that forcing disclosure would undermine the editorial independence of journalists and chill investigative reporting, especially in cases involving high-profile figures like Combs.Warner Bros. further contends that Combs has failed to meet the high bar necessary to overcome these legal protections. They argue that the subpoena is overly broad, not narrowly tailored, and lacks specificity about what exactly is being sought or why it's essential to Combs’ defense. They also highlight that much of the material is duplicative of what was already publicly aired, and that Combs can obtain the information he needs from other sources. Ultimately, Warner Bros. frames the subpoena as an attempt to use litigation to intimidate the press, stating that granting it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving media organizations.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.219.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 7:37)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to a lawsuit, Combs allegedly sexually assaulted a Los Angeles businessman during a Cîroc Vodka party in 2022. The businessman claimed that Combs made inappropriate advances and assaulted him during the event. An athlete, who was present at the party, reportedly intervened during the alleged assault.This allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims..Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:[email protected]:'Well known' athlete intervened as Diddy groped young man at Ciroc vodka party, lawsuit claims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dawn Richard, a former member of Sean "Diddy" Combs' music groups Danity Kane and Diddy - Dirty Money, has filed a lawsuit accusing Combs of sexual abuse and alleging that she witnessed him physically assaulting his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Richard's attorney, Lisa Bloom, stated that Richard was "absolutely terrified" of Combs, citing instances where he groped and physically assaulted her, withheld promised payments, and prevented her from eating and sleeping.Combs, currently held in Brooklyn on sex trafficking and other charges, has denied these allegations, with his attorney dismissing Richard's claims as false. Bloom also mentioned representing another individual with similar accusations related to Combs' "freak-off" parties. Combs’ attorney refuted the claims, labeling them as fabrications made for financial gain.(commerial at 8:50)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy's protégée Dawn Richard who accused him of sexual abuse was 'absolutely terrified' of him | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger, 30, pleaded guilty today to the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students—Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—as well as to felony burglary. During the hearing in a Boise courtroom, he answered “yes” when asked if he was guilty of each murder, confirming to the judge that he understood the charges and was admitting guilt voluntarily. In exchange for the plea, prosecutors agreed to remove the death penalty from consideration. Kohberger will now serve four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus additional time for burglary. He also waived all rights to future appeals, ensuring the case will not drag on through years of litigation.The courtroom was tense and divided, as some victims' families expressed outrage over the deal while others saw it as a necessary step toward closure. One family boycotted the hearing entirely, feeling blindsided by the plea and excluded from the process. Others said the plea spared them from the pain of a prolonged trial and the emotional toll of revisiting the murders in graphic detail. While the deal guarantees Kohberger will die in prison, it also means the full motive behind the killings may never be revealed in court. The community remains unsettled—relieved that the case is closed, but haunted by the unanswered question of why these four young lives were taken.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Despite Bryan Kohberger’s guilty plea to the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, a loud corner of the internet remains in absolute denial. These die-hard defenders—many of whom spent over a year spinning elaborate conspiracies—have refused to accept reality. Instead of acknowledging the confession, they’re now claiming he was coerced, framed, or railroaded into pleading guilty. Some insist it was a "tactical move" or a "ploy to expose the real killer," despite there being no legal precedent, factual basis, or courtroom indication supporting any of it. The DNA evidence, cell phone data, surveillance footage, and now his own words aren't enough for this fringe crowd that’s emotionally invested in his innocence.What’s most baffling is the persistence of the "he’s still innocent" narrative, even as Kohberger’s own legal team has moved toward sentencing. For these online truthers, the guilty plea isn't a conclusion—it’s just another chapter in a fantasy where they get to play internet detective and cast doubt on grieving families and surviving victims. Many of them had built parasocial attachments to Kohberger, painting him as an intellectual, an underdog, even a victim of the justice system. Now that he’s confirmed what the evidence already screamed, their response isn’t to reflect or admit they were wrong—it’s to double down on delusion.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, the jury delivered a split verdict after three days of deliberation. Combs was found not guilty on the most serious charge of racketeering conspiracy (Count 1) and also acquitted on the sex trafficking charges. These counts had carried the potential for a life sentence had he been convicted. The jury appeared unconvinced that the prosecution met the burden of proving Combs led or participated in an organized criminal enterprise under the RICO statute.However, the jury did find Combs guilty on two counts of violating the Mann Act, specifically for transporting individuals across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. These convictions stem from incidents involving Cassie Ventura and another woman known as "Jane." While not carrying the same weight as the RICO or trafficking charges, these convictions are still felonies and expose Combs to a potential sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. Sentencing will be scheduled at a later date.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.