Before we start the show, I want to say a quick thank you for being a listener, and to explain a little bit more about why my colleagues and I hope you also subscribe to The Washington Post. The Post Newsroom has published more than 100 scoops so far this year. Exclusive stories recorded by our newsroom, holding power to account and keeping you informed, that's what drives our work. And it's the kind of work that you support as a subscriber. If you're not one already, this is a great time to take this step. Our Memorial Day Sale is still happening. You can unlock your subscription for just $2 every four weeks for a whole year. And after that, it's just $12 every four weeks. You can cancel anytime. So hit pause right now and go to the subscription link in our show notes. Or to washingtonpost.com slash subscribe. In a few minutes, you'll have more of what's happening in the world right at your fingertips. This offer is good for a limited time, so really do not wait. We're excited to welcome you as a subscriber. Now here's the show.
To warning, we will be discussing sex, sexual assault, drugs, and violence in this episode. Now we're speaking on Friday morning and you were in court this week. We heard from former employees of Combs and other alleged victims. And so I'm just wondering out of all of that, what really stuck out in your mind from the testimony this week? This stuck out to me was how much of this week's testimony really corroborated stuff that Cassie Ventura had said on the stand. This is audio producer Sabi Robinson and reporter Anne Brannigan. They've been reporting from the federal courthouse in Manhattan, where Sean Diddy Combs is on trial. The music mogul is charged with five criminal counts of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could face up to life in prison.
At the end of this third week of testimony, Sabi and Anne reflected on the people who took the stand and how their testimony compared to that of the government star witness, Cassie Ventura. Ventura is a singer and Combs' ex-girlfriend, and she had talked about years of abuse, including, she says, being forced to participate in freak-offs, which were days long sex parties with male escorts. So we had a few people, a couple personal assistants who used to work for Combs, one celebrity stylist who was employed through Bad Boy. Talk about instances of physical violence that they witnessed Cassie Ventura experience. We had the celebrity stylist, a man named Deontane Ash, talk about Cassie not wanting to go to a freak-off. They also spoke quite a bit about the sort of force and coercion they personally felt as employees of Combs.
在第三周的证词结束时,Sabi 和 Anne 回顾了那些作证的人,以及他们的证词与政府明星证人 Cassie Ventura 的对比。Ventura 是一位歌手,也是 Combs 的前女友。她谈到了多年来遭受的虐待,包括她所说的被迫参与“怪异派对”,这些是历时数天、与男性陪同者参加的性派对。我们听到了几个人的证词,包括以前为 Combs 工作的个人助理以及曾在 Bad Boy 工作的明星造型师。他们讲述了目睹 Cassie Ventura 经历的肢体暴力事件。那位明星造型师,一位名叫 Deontane Ash 的男士,还谈到 Cassie 并不想参加“怪异派对”。他们也大量提及作为 Combs 的员工,个人感受到的压迫与胁迫。
So this ranges from physical and sexual abuse in the case of Mia, Mia being a pseudonym. And she related a few instances, but she made clear that there were more and that she couldn't remember all of them. But the celebrity stylist and another assistant named Capacorn Clark also talked about intimidation, you know, physical assaults they experienced at the hands of Sean Combs. Also, the women talked about repercussions they feared if they ran afoul of his wishes and of the professional rewards if they remained loyal and did the things that he wanted them to do. I think one of the things that really stood out to me this week that we also saw from former employees that have testified before is just how complicated this relationship with Combs is. How they were talking about the affection they had towards him, and I wonder what impression that's left on you.
I found it really striking because we're talking about racketeering conspiracy, and so these employees and their accounts and their recollections are incredibly important to either corroborate or undermine the government's case and to lay out this picture of what it was like to work for Sean Combs, a man who they describe as an icon, as an authority figure, as someone they loved and respected but very clearly feared, right? And they described a range of ways that he would punish them, right? And he had described being put on leave without pay for going to a party with Cassie Ventura, a party at Princess House. And so it's this really complicated relationship where there's this reverence, but also this fear. And we're seeing a condensed version of what is the years of experiences like in this environment.
From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm L.I.E. Zadi. It's Friday, May 30th. Today, we're continuing our coverage of the trial of Sean Combs, also known as Diddy, Puff, Puff Daddy. We'll be bringing you episodes most Fridays. If you have them in keeping up with this case, our latest episodes go over the testimony from big witnesses the government is calling, including Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.
But in today's episode, I wanted to do something a little different. Ann and Saby already caught us up with the major takeaways from trial this week, but for the rest of the episode, I'm trying to another colleague of mine, Federal Courts reporter Shana Jacobs. Even before this trial started, I've had a lot of questions about the specific charges being brought against Combs. Like why is he being charged with racketeering conspiracy? Isn't that usually something the mafia gets?
Or why isn't he being charged with some of these other things that have come up, like assault? As the trial has gone on, I keep coming back to these questions. So today, I thought it'd be helpful to take a step back and really unpack the legal framework around Combs' trial. So we can really understand the testimony we're hearing. Hi Shana, thank you so much for joining me today. Thank you for having me.
You're someone who's been covering the justice system for a while. We've covered many federal trials for the post. And today, I wanted to take some time to go over the charges in this case and also ask you about how both the government and defense side are doing in terms of proving or disproving these charges so far. So Shana, I thought we could start with the racketeering conspiracy charge. This is one we've talked about on the podcast already and we broadly understand it as it's illegal to have an enterprise or organization conspired to commit a bunch of illegal acts.
But this is a pretty complicated charge and a lot of the testimony seems to be speaking to it. So I'd love to do a bit of racketeering 101. So first, Shana, just what does racketeering encompass? It's a broadly encompassing law that covers a wide range of criminal activity from, as we see now, you know, sex trafficking, forced labor type allegations to classical organized crime, the mob, the mafia, street gangs, drug gangs. I mean, it runs the gamut.
The actors have over time figured out how to apply it to a variety of just criminal networks that are organized in some fashion. And in this case, that organization starts with Shandady Combs and it encompasses the people surrounding him from his employees to the people who are just supporters in his network. The theory is that they are all working to serve him and to carry out, in this case, his sexual desires, but to carry out his criminal activity for him, with him and for him.
And I feel like I keep hearing about racketeering charges in the news over the last few years and a lot of different types of cases. Like, there was Donald Trump in Georgia and also the rapper Young Fug and his associates of his record label also in Georgia. And I'm just hearing racketeering being used in all these different situations. Is racketeering being used more broadly now? There is a sense that it is being used more broadly now.
It is a quite invaluable tool for the government because of how creative you could get with it and because of how broad, because of how encompassing your case can be. So you can bring in a wide variety of people. You can bring in a wide variety of crimes. In some cases, you don't even need to really prove the crimes beyond reasonable doubt. So if you have an organization of some type, whether it is a mafia or a gang or whether it is, you know, people in an inner circle of an influential person, you can bring it there if you want to.
Oh, that's really fascinating. So it's this idea that there is a network of people who are charged with tasks that enable criminal activity. Yeah. And it's about the agreement, too. The government is going to try to show that there is an agreement among these people to support criminal activity is really where this is going. And so, Shayna, in this case, it's racketeering conspiracy, right? How is that different from charging someone with just racketeering? What's the difference?
So, I mean, I think the racketeering conspiracy is more about the agreement in the organization. You've got to establish that the system was in place as opposed to everyone involved was beyond reasonable doubt doing everything that you're accusing them of. Of course, you're still accusing them of these things, but it's just a slightly different standard. I see. So it's like you just have to prove that they agreed to do this rather than it was established in operating.
That is generally the case, right? You're proving that this agreement existed. They do not have to fully prove the criminality itself. In reality, the jury needs to see that criminality was happening. How else will they know that there was an agreement to carry out criminality? So that's, I mean, in practice, the government is going to try to show that and that's clearly what they're doing here. I mean, the violence, the sexual abuse, the rape, the drugs, so they have to really support the conspiracy and the agreement with evidence of criminality.
So this is the part I don't always understand when we're talking about racketeering charges. It's also referred to as RICO. Why is it that combs would be charged with this racketeering or racketeering conspiracy, but not the criminal activity itself? Like I'm not seeing charges against combs for arson, assault, drugs, all these other things. But if the government is saying, look, he had an enterprise to enable criminal activity. Why aren't they charging him with the criminal activity itself?
Well, they are. That's, I think, with the sex trafficking and the prostitution charges are about. So they are supporting it. They may not be charging with absolutely everything. I don't know exactly what their thinking was, but it's possible they just went with what they were completely sure about. There's a very nuanced analysis that goes into it. So it could be that they don't feel they could prove certain charges, certain counts, or it could be that this is strategic.
This is like, let's give the jury the most, can say, sample of things. Also, if the top chart is carry a stiff enough sentence and that's what you're going for, you don't really need to pile on. I see. I see. I mean, you're going to get a significant prison sentence on the top count most likely, in any case. So I mean, there's not necessarily a need to have so many more conviction counts on top of it.
And so how exactly do prosecutors successfully argue rackitarian conspiracy? Well, I think you bring in all of these people like they're doing now who are talking about what others did to enable Sean Cump's. I mean, you bring in, you know, for instance, Capricorn Clark, his former personal assistant also had worked for him in several other capacities over the years, who says she was kidnapped by combs in that during various confrontations threatening violence.
So I mean, she's helping to establish that there's people in his circle who are supporting and enabling his crimes. You know, for instance, some of the male escorts who testified, they're talking about the violence that they witnessed. So I mean, there's, it's very nuanced at times, but you're trying to show things like coercion, post-innosexual and non-sexual capacity, and you're trying to establish this layer below what's happening at the top.
Because so far the testimony that we've been talking about on the show and the evidence, it's prosecutors attempting to paint this picture that combs is sitting atop, one person used combs as kingdom. You know, this idea that he's directing and everyone, his employees and others are deferring to him and carrying out all these tasks and activities on his behalf. Right. Like a mob boss, essentially.
Yeah. And as just a reminder, we are still in the part of the trial where the government is presenting their case and the defense will have an opportunity to call witnesses and dig in further beyond just cross-examining the witnesses, the government is calling. But based on what you've seen so far in the courtroom and during this trial, Shayna, how do you think the defense will try to counter this narrative that Shondady Combs, you know, was top of this enterprise, or had people agree to commit acts of criminality on his behalf or enable criminality?
I think a big part of it is to try to show that there was no criminality happening. That is where in the defense opening statements we heard, while the conduct involved in the case may have been domestic violence, it didn't amount to sex trafficking and it certainly didn't amount to recurring conspiracy that centered on sex trafficking and prostitution. Those things were consensual. The women who are part of the case were there for freak-offs voluntarily with consent.
Breaking down that is, I think, a big part of their strategy. And if you can interfere with the idea that there was any crime happening, you have less of a burden breaking down whether there was an organization or not. If there are no crimes happening, there's no organization to support it. So I mean, cast out on some of these accounts. Some of these things happened 20 years ago. It is people's memories as we know are not always so solid.
So I mean, that's one of the things they may go after. They may try to show that these people were just, if they were doing anything at all, if they were really threatening victims on coves as behalf, if they were really setting fires to people's cars or whatnot, that they were acting on their own or that they just didn't do it at all. Oh, and that the car thing is referencing the car explosion that rapper Kid Cudi, who's really Miss Scott Mascady, testified about and we talked about the car explosion on last week's episode. Yeah. The defense is likely going to argue whether Miss Scottie's car was set on fire or not. It had nothing to do with coms and that they can't pin it to coms or any of his associates.
It depends on how the evidence is going to shake out. They have to see what these people are going to say and how it's going to play before they can commit to a defense is generally how it works. Oh, interesting. So as the trial proceeds, the defense, they may have gone into this trial with a very specific strategy, but they'll have to be nimble and adjust as the trial proceeds. Yeah. I mean, they have a tremendous amount of evidence, but what happens in the courtroom is not always predictable. So this is a very organic process. They're reading these people and they're reading how it's playing to try to put together the most effective defense at the end of this.
They are also probably trying to decide who's going to testify for them. I mean, maybe they have 10 witnesses on deck and depending on how the government's case shakes out, they may call one or they may call 10 or they may call none. Yeah. It's totally fluid. Racketering conspiracy. Is it usually pretty hard to win a conviction on a racketeering conspiracy or just racketeering charge? The reason it's such an intimidating case for coms and anyone else in his situation is because it's pretty broad. I mean, there are a lot of options for the government to establish that there were agreements to commit certain crimes. You don't, again, you don't have to prove the crimes. So it's probably considered pretty, you know, a pretty favorable situation for the government.
After the break, Shayna and I talk about the other major charge in this trial. It's trafficking. We'll be right back. Shayna, let's talk about the sex trafficking charge against coms. What is the definition here and why are prosecutors charging coms with this? It is a bit of a broad definition. There have to be elements of interstate commerce. So you've got to sort of have the traveling part of it, which it's not even sure at least when all sorts of places with Sean Combs and the US included. So the other element is that he would have forced her into this conduct through any, really any sort of threatening behavior or physical force or abuse or coercion, especially in recent years, it is pretty widely viewed.
It can be psychological manipulation. It can be physical abuse. It's often both. So those are things that the government is going to be trying to establish is the coercion and the methods that were used to force Kessie Ventura and the other victim into unwanted sexual activity. So does it have to involve the exchange of money? It does have to involve some commercial aspect. So there's a couple of aspects of sex trafficking that the government has to establish, the commercial aspect and also the coercion, the forced manipulation. And the judge is going to have to explain to the jury what a commercial sex act entails.
So Shina, the defense so far has suggested in their arguments that, you know, Combs was maybe like a bad boyfriend. He may be guilty of domestic violence, but not sex trafficking. Just first of all, could Combs be charged with domestic violence? I don't believe so. Domestic violence is typically a state, you know, it would be assault. And I mean, some states probably have specific domestic violence laws. But generally, statutes of limitation for things like assault are a few years. So it sounds like any state where a domestic violence related case could have been brought against Sean Combs, there would be an unlikely case for that. He and Kessie Ventura ended their relationship in 2018. So that was quite some time ago.
And it does seem like there is no real option for a state domestic violence case. Also, probably harder to prove that considering how old it is if you were to try to do it that way. Shayna, you've covered a lot of trials before. And I'm wondering, as you're watching this trial unfold, does this one remind you of any others you've covered before? How does this one sit with your experience as far? In some ways, it reminds me of the Harvey Weinstein case, which was not sex trafficking, but it did involve a system of people around him who allegedly enabled him to have unwanted sexual encounters with various women and the coercion aspects. The powerful, very, very powerful and very famous person. And the still people who feel potentially feel inferior to him, given his clout, his power, his fame, his money.
It is also kind of similar to a couple of cult cases I followed. Cult cases. Yeah. Yeah. So this trial is making you feel like as you're watching witnesses testify, they were, they had a deep devotion to Sean Dady Combs. Absolutely. It's very clear from the testimony of some of the employees that this was much more than a job for them. This was, I'm not identity for them. And I mean, some of these systems worked essentially seven days a week, all hours of the day. This was their life. And there's all sorts of ways in which they described justifying some of what they did for him. Or justifying situations they were, whether they are technically part of the conspiracy or not, they were not probably not good situations for anyone. So yeah, there's a deeper devotion than just people who are, people who are in a professional setting. It's, it's a deeply unprofessional in a lot of ways.
Wow. Well, Shayna, that's so fascinating. Thank you so much for joining us and taking time to explain on this. Thank you. Shayna Jacobs is a federal courts reporter for the post. You also heard style reporter Anne Branigan, an audio producer, Sabi Robinson in this episode. Sabi contributed reporting from New York and also produced this show. If you want to catch up on our other episodes about this trial, you can find a link to a Spotify playlist in our show notes.
That's it for post reports. Thanks for listening. Today's show was edited by Reena Flores and mixed by Sean Carter. Thanks to Carla Spardoz. If you're finding this coverage of the Combs trial valuable, help other people discover our show by leaving a rating on Spotify or a rating interview on Apple podcasts. We really appreciate it. Our team includes Martin Powers, Colby Icoiz, Maggie Penman, Ted Maldon, Lucy Perkins, Alana Gordon, Ariel Platnik, Reni Strenovsky, Emma Talkov, Peter Breznan, Laura Benchoff and Renita Jablonsky. I'm Ella Hay-Ezaddi. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.