The Mega Edition: Diddy And The Freak Off Tapes (3/27/26)

0:00How to have fun, anytime, anywhere. Step one, go to ChambaCasino.com. ChambaCasino.com, got it. Step two, collect your welcome bonus. Come to Papa, welcome bonus. Step three, play hundreds of Casino's dial games for free. That's a lot of games, all for free. Step four, unleash your excitement. Woo-hoo! Chamba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade, so claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chamba Life. Visit ChambaCasino.com. No purchase necessary VGW group voidware prohibited by law in 2021 plus terms and conditions apply. Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast, Lunatic in the newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking, and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and gasp and horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable. Lunatic in the newsroom. Listen today.

1:00What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. Over the past 24 hours or so, we heard from Diddy's team that they want the videos of Diddy and Cassie Ventura to be made public. So before we dive into any articles talking about the topic, let's lay that foundation and see what Diddy and his legal team have to say to the judge. And then we're also going to get the response from the prosecution as well. Case number 24-CR-00542-AS. Dear Judge Submarinean, we write on behalf of our client, Sean Combs, to request a modification of the terms of the protective order, docket number 26, to require the government to electronically produce videos described in paragraphs 12A and 12C of the indictment. The protective order includes a novel provision

2:00making this video evidence available for inspection only and not electronically produced. Docket number 26 had 5 and 3. Having reviewed these videos, it's now abundantly clear that they confirm Mr. Combs innocence and that their full exculpatory value cannot be investigated and used unless they're electronically produced. Rule 16A1E expressly requires production of copies of such materials to the defense and there's no plausible good cause to restrict access to them under Rule 16D1. Accordingly, they should be produced in the normal course so that the defense may evaluate and use them in the same manner as the other Rule 16 and Brady material. The nine videos that issue are the so-called free-goff tapes with victim one that the government has repeatedly referenced causing wild speculation in the media. Contrary to what the government has led this court and the public to believe, the so-called free-goffs were private, sexual activity,

3:01between fully consenting adults and a long-term relationship. Like many Americans in the privacy of their own bedroom, they sometimes film their sexual activity. These videos unambiguously show that the person alleged in the indictment to be victim one, not only consented, but thoroughly enjoyed herself. Next part redacted. These recordings corroborate what witnesses have told the government, namely that victim one, redacted. Docket 84, example A at three, filed under seal. The recordings also directly refute the allegations that Mr. Combs kept these videos as collateral. These recordings were not on Mr. Combs devices and were not seized from his homes. Rather, victim one kept these videos on her own device for years and produced them to the government herself. The protective order requires the parties to meet and confer regarding any disputes over the government's designations, after which the defense may seek de-designation by the court.

4:03Docket 26 at 10. We have conferred with the government council who opposed this request. Moreover, contrary to the innumerable sensationalistic media reports, the videos do not depict sex parties. There are no secret cameras, no orgies, no other celebrities involved, no underground tunnels, no minors, and not so much as a hint of coercion or violence. Far from the government's lurid descriptions, the video show adults having consensual sex plain and simple. At bottom this case is about whether victim one was or was not a willing participant in her private sex life with Mr. Combs. The videos confirm that she plainly was background. Soon after Mr. Combs was charged, the parties began negotiating the terms of a protective order. During those negotiations, the government insisted over defense objection that certain videos obtained from victim one and depicting alleged freak offs would not be electronically produced

5:03and would instead only be made available for in-person viewing while monitored by law enforcement. The government explained that victim one, whose attorneys gave these videos to the government, requested that they not be produced to protect your privacy and the government would honor that request. To ensure we would receive discovery without further delay, the defense agreed to receive the discovery under those conditions while reserving the right in the proposed order to later seek modifications of designations from the court. On October 7th, 2024, the court so ordered the proposed protective order, docket 26. After spending four weeks attempting to schedule a viewing of the evidence, the defense was finally able to watch the videos under the supervision of law enforcement on November 20th, 2024, and December 13th, 2024. The evidence consists of nine videos depicting six unambiguously consensual sexual encounters. Next part redacted. In all six of these encounters,

6:03victim one is not only consenting, she's evidently happy, dominant, and completely in control. Next part redacted. There's no evidence of any violence, coercion, threats, or manipulation whatsoever. There's no evidence that anyone is incapacitated or under the influence of drugs or excessive alcohol consumption. There is certainly no evidence of sex trafficking. The government also included for in-person inspection. Certain explicit photos, victim one, sent to Mr. Combs. The government redacted these photographs from the copies of communications between victim one and Mr. Combs that were produced in discovery, even though such photographs do not fall within the scope of footnote three of the protective order. These photographs also appear to reflect entirely consensual sexual activity. Part two. Rule 16 requires electronic production of the videos and there is no good cause to withhold production. Rule 16 requires the electronic production of these videos.

7:06Specifically, Rule 16 A1E provides that the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy data that is within the government's possession, custody, or control, and that is material to prepare the defense. As direct evidence undermining the core of the government's case, CE91824. Freakoff activity is the core of the case. These videos are unquestionably material. See United States vs. Clark 979 F.3D 82 97 Second Circuit 2020. Evidence is material if it could be used to counter the government's case or to bolster a defense. United States vs. Stevens 985 F.2D 1175 1180 and 81 Second Circuit 1983. See also United States vs. Arena 989 F.S UPP 2D 253 SDNY 2013. Rule 16 burden for materiality is not heavy.

8:07The court's authority to enter or modify a protective order stems from Rule 16D1, which provides that at any time the court for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer, discovery, or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. See also in terrorist bombings of US embassies in East Africa 552 F.3D 93122 Second Circuit 2008. It explaining that Rule 16D grants district courts the discretion to establish conditions under which the defense may obtain access to discoverable information. Under Rule 16D, the party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists for issuance of that order and good cause remains the standard, even where parties consent to a stipulated protected order. See United States vs. Smith 985 F.S UPP 2D 506 522 and 23 SDNY 2013. A party can demonstrate good cause for the issuance

9:10of a protective order when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly defined specific and serious injury, such as compromising the privacy interests of innocent third parties, causing a risk of harm to law enforcement or others or impeding ongoing government investigations. See United States vs. Jackson, number 21-CR-537-LTS-2022-WL-582-700-2-SDNY. February 25, 2022. The government cannot meet its burden. There's no good cause to prevent the electronic production of these highly exculpatory videos, because this case does not involve classified information or CP. There is no authority to restrict defense counsel's possession, review, and analysis of the videos. See US Code Section 30509-M, Walsh Act Restrictions on Discovery of CP. US Code 18.

10:11Applications 3, Section 4, Classified Information Procedures Act Restrictions on Discovery. Nothing in the Crime Victims Rights Act provides similar discovery restrictions on an exception to Rule 16, see US Code Section 3771-A&A. Moreover, any concerns regarding victim ones' privacy interests are adequately protected by the remaining provisions of the protective order, there's no greater risk in granting defense counsel a copy of the files for the preparation of its defense, under a suitable protective order than exists in the government's maintenance and use of the files and preparation of its own case. United States vs. Codec, 423f.supp2d13EDny. 2006. Granting the defense motion for copies of a ledge CEP in a case predating an act of the Walsh Act. The government is free to designate the material as attorney possession only, APO, which would require the material be maintained

11:13in a safe and secure manner by defense counsel. She'll not be possessed by the defendant, except in the presence of the defendant's counsel, and she'll not be disclosed in any form, except pursuant to the terms of the protective order. Docket 26 at 7. Indeed, the APO's designation of the precise purpose of addressing potential risk to the privacy or safety of victims or witnesses and sufficiently mitigates any risk of disclosure. All right, we're gonna wrap up with part one here, and in the next episode, we're gonna finish off with a letter here from Diddy's team and get to the response by the government. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're picking right back up where we left off with a letter sent by Diddy and his team to the judge. Hey, it's Cole Swindle, and when I spend 200 days a year rolling down the highway, the bus can start to feel smaller than a guitar case.

12:15Everyone wonders how I stay chill while the hours crawl by. Truth is, one good luck spent on Chamba, and suddenly the trip does a whole lot shorter. Found in your space, even when there isn't much to spare. Need some chill? Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary, VGW Group Boyd were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply, sponsored by Chamba Casino. This is Mike Voileau of Lexicon Valley. And I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to true over the history, culture, and many mysteries of English. Plus some ice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts. Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a longtime reporter and an on-air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world

13:18and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it. Asking where this is all going, they come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, and meetings with your colleagues, and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Even if there were some remaining privacy concerns, any hypothetical risk that the videos would be disclosed in a contravention of this court's protective order, is substantially outweighed by the real and substantial risk that Mr. Combs defense will be hampered by limited access to the videos. Unless the protective order is modified to require the government to produce copies of the videos the defense will not be able to effectively make use to this critical evidence at trial. The videos include audio recording, but much of it is inaudible on the device provided for inspection, and what is barely audible requires headphones to hear.

14:20On certain videos, the lighting is also very bad, and the images are quite dark and grainy. Mr. Combs needs to use defense experts, including inter-elia experts who could enhance the quality of the audio and video and analyze the metadata associated with the videos, including when the videos were created or modified. The government has offered to use a neutral expert to enhance the audio and visual quality of the videos. This novel proposal is inconsistent with Rule 16 and due process, as it would restrict Mr. Combs from retaining and directing experts of his choosing and requiring him to unfairly preview his defense. It also does not account for the other ways Mr. Combs seeks to put the evidence to use. For example, Mr. Combs may need to show the recordings to other experts or witnesses, consistent with the terms of the protective order. Mr. Combs will also need to extract portions of the videos to create trial exhibits, stills, and transcripts.

15:21All of these tasks will be impossible without obtaining copies of the video evidence. In some, there's a much greater likelihood that the defendant would be harmed and his ability to prepare for defense by limited access to materials on the government's terms, then there is that the materials will further be distributed by the defense in contravention of the court's order, cadet for 23f.supp at three and four. Mr. Combs is entitled to put this evidence to use for trial. Part three, the videos constitute exculpatory Brady material, and the restrictions on Mr. Combs' ability to use them in his trial preparation violate due process. Brady also requires the government to produce copies of the videos. Under Brady, the government has a constitutional duty to disclose favorable evidence to the accused where such evidence is material, either to guilt or to punishment. United States vs. Jackson 345, F.3D5970, Second Circuit 2003.

16:23It requires production of information such that a defendant can take advantage of exculpatory evidence in time for its effective use at trial. United States vs. Coppa 267F.3D132, 135 Second Circuit 2001. Lecha vs. Portonondo 257F.3D89100, Second Circuit 2001. An item is material to preparing the defense. Under Rule 16, if it could be used to conduct or counter the government's case or bolster a defense. United States vs. Stevens 9852D. 1175, 1180, and 81 Second Circuit 1993. It is troubling that the government has had this evidence since December 2023, and nonetheless, brought these charges. The video evidence refutes the claim that victim one was forced to participate and can only be squared with her account if one assumes as the government apparently does, that certain women cannot consent

17:23despite all indications to the country. See Bell Appeal Hearing at 15. Arguing that when women are motivated by the loss of their livelihood and housing or experience abuse outside freakoffs, they cannot consent. And that is sex trafficking. The government's view also depends on the characterization of freakoffs is dirty, disgusting, or inherently unsavory, and therefore must have involved some amount of coercion. See indictment 12a. Describing freakoffs as elaborate and produce sex performances that were arranged, directed, and sometimes lasted multiple days. We're referring to various freakoff supplies, including baby oil and lubricant. The premise that freakoffs are inherently dangerous. Bell Appeal Hearing at 13. Shows that the government seeks to police non-conforming sexual activity and that it assumes, despite the evidence to the country, that a woman's willing participation must have been coerced. Any fair-minded viewer of the videos will quickly conclude that the prosecution

18:25of Mr. Combs is both sexist and puritanical. It is sexist because the government's theory perpetuates stereotypes of female victimhood and lack of agency. The prosecution reflects a paternalistic view that the government is here to protect women who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about sex and they're not capable of consenting to sex, as the prosecutor's view, as outside the norm. These videos depict clearly consensual sex among willing adults in a decades-long relationship and fundamentally undermine the government's case and victim ones' claims. Indeed, they are entirely consistent with redacted. They are unquestionably Brady material notwithstanding the government's outlandish theories. And we anticipate that the undisclosed audio portions and metadata will contain Brady material as well. At a minimum, they are certainly not ultra-sensitive materials that need to be subject to extreme restrictions outside the normal course of discovery in criminal cases. Finally, preventing Mr. Combs defense team

19:27from obtaining copies of the video so he can prepare his defense a trial would violate the due process clause and his right to present a meaningful defense. See United States, verse Fischenko, number 12, CV 626 SJ 2014, WL 558 7191 at 1 in 2, EDNY November 3, 2014. Courts must ensure the constitutional rights when fashioning discovery protections. United States, verse Lind, 198f.suppp2d739742, Eastern District, Virginia, 2002. In determining whether to accord protection and the extent of such protection, court should weigh the impact this might have on a defendant's due process, right to prepare and present a full defense at trial. Even interest is strong as the state secret privilege. A much greater interest than the reported interest here must in certain cases give way. To a criminal defendant's right

20:29to present a meaningful defense, United States, verse Abu Jihad, 630f.3d102 141, Second Circuit, 2010. Because there is no good cause to restrict defense counsel's access to the videos and because the videos must be disclosed, pursuant to Brady in rule 16, we respectfully request that the protective order be modified to require the government to electronically produce the videos of Mr. Combs and victim one to Mr. Combs Council with the attorney's possession only designation under the protective order. This document was signed by Mark Agnafilo and Danny Garagos and it was dated January 14th of 2025. All right, now moving on to the government's response to that letter. Dear Judge Submaranian, the government respectfully submits this letter to request that the court direct that the defendant's January 14th, 2025 letter of motion to amend the protective order see docket 126 or motion

21:31be removed from the docket and refiled with the appropriate redactions that comport with the requirements of the protective order in this case. See docket 26. The motion seeks an amendment to the protective order related to certain videos that have been made available to counsel and the defendant for inspection only and not electronically produced the videos. In making this motion with incomplete redactions, however, the defendant has violated the protective order he seeks to amend. The videos which depicts sexually explicit content and nudity are designated attorney's eyes only by the protective order subject to the carve out, making the videos available for the defendant's inspection. See docket 26 at 8. All visual depictions of sexually explicit content or nudity will be designated aeo regardless of whether it has been designated as such by the government. At the discretion of the government, certain aeo material depicting sexually explicit content or nudity may be available for in-person inspection only.

22:35The protective order makes clear that the defense shall not share any aeo material or the content of the aeo material with any other persons subject to the carve out allowing for the defendant's inspection of the videos. Further, aeo material is also designated sealed under the protective order, meaning that any portion of such material cannot be publicly filed on the docket unless it's filed under seal or the party's first confer regarding the seal designation. Under the protective order, no portion of the video should have been filed on the public docket without being filed under seal or without the defense first conferring with the government as to the designation. Neither occurred. Instead of conferring in advance or adapting all content related to the videos, the motion blatantly violated the protective order when it left unredacted descriptions and characterizations of materials designated aeo. There is no alternative reading of the protective order other than one, the substance of the aeo material cannot be shared with any other persons and two,

23:38aeo material is otherwise designated sealed, meaning that it cannot be filed on the public docket. While the public dissemination of aeo material substantially impacts the privacy and safety of victims, filing aeo material under seal and no way prejudices, the defendant as the full substance of the motion will still be before the court. The protective order thus serves to protect victims' interests and to prevent the defendant from, as he did here, selectively and improperly disclosing evidence to the public in advance of the trial. The government therefore respectfully requests that the court remove the motion docket 126 from the ECF and direct counsel to refile the motion with redactions that comply with the protective order. With this motion, the government also submits under seal for the court's review proposed redactions that comply with the protective order. After the motion was filed, the government immediately contacted defense counsel requesting that additional redactions be made in accordance with the protective order

24:38and counsel responded only that they disagreed with the government's view of the protective order. Finally, the government respectfully requests that it be permitted to file its opposition to the motion within two weeks that is by January 28th, 2025. The defendant takes no position to this request. This was signed by Edward Kim and it was dated July 14th, 2025. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. Previously, we were talking about the letter that Diddy filed with the court asking for the so-called freak off tapes with him in Cassie Ventura to be released to his legal team. And somehow, in the news media, that all of a sudden morphed into Diddy asking for the tapes to be made public. There's only one problem with that. That is not what the motion was asking. What the motion was asking is to turn over the videos,

25:41the actual hard copies of the videos to Diddy's defense team so that they could go through them and look at them and look at the unadulterated versions. Not that they're going to be public so that you and I can go on Twitter and watch them. But of course, the salacious ass news media has to make it out like these videos are about to go public, where everybody is going to have access to watch them and that's just not the case. And it's just another example of why we actually go and read all of the orders themselves or the motions that are filed with the court. That way we don't have some journalist trying to interpret for us what's going on. We see it all for ourselves. We get a good full look. We don't need any kind of dressing on it, right? No salacious BS, just give us the news and it always boggles my mind when people try and make stories like this more salacious than they already are. Like we need this story to be more scandalous. Today's article is from the Daily Mail and the headline. Diddy's infamous freak off tapes could be made public

26:42if rapper gets his way. So that's literally not the case and not what's going on. There's zero chance that the court is ever going to release those tapes and make them public. Now at the trial, they're going to play them I'm guessing, but there's not going to be some sort of repository where you can go and check these tapes out. That is just not going to happen. This article was authored by Joe Hutchison. Diddy is demanding that authorities hand over videos of his so-called freak offs alleging that they will prove he is completely innocent. Well, let's not conflate the issue. They're not talking about the freak off tapes, meaning all of the tapes that were allegedly recorded. They're talking about the tapes that have to do with Cassie Ventura. So to say that he's asking for all of the freak off tapes, that's not true either. In a letter to Judge Aaron Submarineon on Tuesday, his lawyers asked the judge that have prosecutors to produce the nine videos he has said

27:43to have partaken in for them. Prosecutors have described them as elaborate and produce sex performances arranged and directed by combs while he masturbated and often recorded them. Now according to the defense, everything was consensual. And when you read the filing and go through the filing that we just talked about, that's exactly what they're pitching. And we knew that this was going to be their defense from the very jump. Everybody was consenting. These were all adults. And all you see here is a bad grab from all these people who are accusing Diddy. And they say that these videos will prove that point. Now let's be very clear. Diddy's team has already seen these videos. And that's what initiated them to file that motion because they say what's on those videos is exculpatory and should be admitted as evidence. And the response from the prosecution was, well, you've had access to those videos. You saw them. We gave them to you in a digital copy. But that's all they want. They want the actual video. They want the physical copy.

28:46Looking for excitement? Chambukasino is here. Play anytime, play anywhere, play on the train, play at the store, play at home, play with your board. Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Chambukasino is free to play. Experience social gameplay like never before. Go to Chambukasino right now to play hundreds of games, including online slots. Lingo, Slingo, and more. Live The Chumble Life at ChumbleCocino.com. No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law at 21-plus terms and conditions apply. This is Mike Voilo of Lexicon Valley. And I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to true over the history culture and many mysteries of English, plus some life cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts.

29:47His lawyers say they absolve him of any wrongdoing and show private sexual activity between himself and then partner Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refused to hand over the videos after Combs was charged, and his lawyers only got to see their contents in November and December. Oh, the humanity. I mean, are you for real? You don't get the evidence until discovery. This isn't new. What his team's trying to do is set Diddy up as the victim. And they're going hard in the paint to do so. Everything they're doing, everything they're saying is right in line with what Maxwell tried to do with the accusers that ended up sending her bitch asked a prison. So Diddy is charting the same course right now. And if he keeps it up in my estimation, he's gonna end up in the same destination. The videos have been kept under wraps due to the attorney of Ventura requesting they not be produced to protect her privacy to which the government agreed. So what they mean here is they don't want those videos in the hands of Diddy's attorneys

30:48because they feel like Diddy's attorneys will disseminate those videos. That's what they fear. They fear that Cassie will be put on blast and Diddy will use those videos to intimidate her and try and embarrass her. So yeah, those videos should be kept under seal, but Diddy's team should have full access to them but under the strict constraints of the protective order. And if there's any fuckery, then there should be sanctions. Due to such constraints, Diddy's lawyers are only able to view them under the supervision of law enforcement and are now asking for better access. It goes on to add Ventura, named in the indictment and court documents as victim one, not only consented, but thoroughly enjoyed herself. And what they think they're doing here is taking a shot at Cassie, but what they're really doing is stepping on their own dick. I promise you, we have seen this kind of behavior from lawyers before in this exact courtroom with this exact judge. So I don't know what they're thinking here, but it's not going to turn out the way I think that they hope

31:48and I think that you're making you're already difficult pathway to victory, even more difficult here by attacking the victim or alleged victim and saying that she thoroughly enjoyed herself. I mean, let's put that in perspective real quick, okay? We're talking about somebody who says she was trafficked, she was coerced, and she was abused. And then you have Diddy's team saying that she enjoyed all of that? I'm sure juror John and Jane, they're gonna love to hear that narrative inside of the courtroom. Their filing says these videos unambiguously show that the person alleged in the indictment not only consented, but thoroughly enjoyed herself. The recordings also directly refute the allegations that Mr. Combs kept these videos as collateral. See, they're conflating that. Not the Cassie videos, the other videos were kept as collateral. How many other people have come forward and said that Diddy allegedly recorded them? So don't conflate it and act like this is the only person coming forward with these allegations.

32:48So far, this is all the indictment says, but there are many, many other people who have accused Diddy of that exact thing. The recordings also directly refute the allegations that Mr. Combs kept these videos as collateral. These recordings were not on Mr. Combs devices and were not seized from his homes. Rather, victim one kept these videos on our own device for years and produced them to the government herself. Well, evidence, what she's gonna destroy them? Now I understand what Diddy's team's trying to do here that she was hanging onto him for her own enjoyment and that she had a good time when she was making these videos with Diddy, but I don't think anybody's buying it. Let's remember, these are the same people that said that the video of Diddy beating the shit out of Cassie was edited. How that worked out for them? How have all of the claims made by Diddy's big shot lawyers worked out so far? We already know that none of their bullshit nonsense has worked. So why are they doing the same thing? Well, unfortunately for them,

33:49when you don't have anything else to go on, this is the strategy that you have to use. It says there are no secret cameras, no orgies, no other celebrities involved, no underground tunnels, and not so much as a hint of coercion or violence. His lawyers say the videos are unquestionably material at the core of the case against Diddy and his material necessary and preparing their own defense. So look, I'm not disputing that his defense should have the videos they should. But, like I said before, it should be with the stipulation that their underprotective order and if they do get leaked, it should set motion rule 11 sanctions right away. There should be no argument, there should be no hearings, nothing. It should be in writing that if these videos get out of the hands of his lawyers and into the hands of anyone else that Agnafilo and Garagos, well, they should feel it and those sanctions should be harsh. His lawyers say the videos are unquestionably material

34:49at the core of the case against Diddy and his material necessary and preparing their own defense. They say Diddy will need to extract portions of the videos to create trial exhibits, stills and transcripts. It adds there is no good cause to prevent the production of the videos as the case does not involve classified information or CP and you all know what CP stands for. In what seems to be the first insight into the content of the videos, they add that the clips are largely inaudible. On certain videos, the lighting is also very bad and the images are quite dark and grainy, it continues. His lawyers add any fair-minded viewer of the videos will quickly conclude that the prosecution on Mr. Combs is both sexist and puritanical. Well folks, I guess we're witnessing a modern day Salem witch trial with Diddy as the witch. That's what his team's trying to contend here that this is all just a big ass railroading of Diddy and that he's a great guy and he would never do anything like this

35:50that he's never done anything like this before and just ignore the video of him beating the ever-living shit out of Cassie and realize that this is nothing more than sexist and puritanical for $2,000 an hour or whatever these idiots are charging, that's all they can come up with. It's sexist because of the government's theory perpetuate stereotypes of female victimhood and lack of agency. The prosecution reflects a paternalistic view that the government is here to protect women who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about sex and are not capable of consenting to sex, that the prosecutors view as outside the norm. So all this is is a big misunderstanding and Diddy's just a freak. Diddy just has that proclivity to do wild shit but everybody was consenting so it's all good. The problem is the people that they're saying we're consenting are saying that they weren't. So Diddy's team can yell and scream about consent, consent, consent until the cows come home but I don't think it's gonna be effective. Combs 55 remains locked up at Brooklyn's

36:52infamous Metro police and detention center in New York after he was arrested in September of last year. Prosecutors have said that he openly engaged in the freakoffs which are said to have involved baby oil in the use of drugs. Diddy's associates would allegedly apply victims with drugs to keep them compliant and would make threats against anyone refusing to engage. He's pleaded not guilty to the charges alleging he coerced and abused women for years aided by associates and employees and silence victims through blackmail and violence including kidnapping, arson and physical beatings. Earlier this week a woman came forward claiming that she was drugged and raped by combs after being lured into his car when she was a teenage babysitter. The lawsuit is among more than 20 civil suits filed against combs in New York, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Combs was denied bail three times by two separate judges and will remain in jail until his criminal trial, which is set for May 5th.

37:53He's facing life in prison if he's found guilty of the racketeering charge. All right, so there's some context on the motion that was filed by Diddy and where I think things currently stand. And like usual, we'll keep an eye on the docket and when we have some more information, we'll get it added to the catalog. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. Hey, it's Cole Swendell. After I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal, I usually take five before jumping into the next track. And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time. Some folks grab coffee. I hit a quick, good look spin. Next thing you know, the break is just as fun as land down the track. A better break makes for a better take. Need a break? Let's chumble. No purchase necessary. BGW Group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply, sponsored by Chumba Casino.