P. Diddy: Porn Addict or Predator?

Shawn Combmes was back in court today. arguing his convictions should be tossed. out. What exactly did his team say? How. did he look? What can we expect next? And by the way, this is all in. anticipation of next week when he's. going to officially be sentenced. Is. that even going to happen anymore? And. what will that sentence be? Could he be. going to prison for the next few years? Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. [Music]. A big hearing has just wrapped up in the.

Shaun Diddy Combmes case that we need to. talk about. He is trying to get his. convictions thrown out. Now, this is in. advance of next week where the rat mogul. turned convicted felon is officially. going to be sentenced on two charges of. transportation to engage in. prostitution. This comes after his. bombshell trial a few months back. the. trial where a jury of his peers may have. found him guilty of those charges but. not guilty of sex trafficking and. racketeering conspiracy which by the way. carried really significant prison time.

Here for the charges that he was. convicted of he faces a maximum of 10. years in prison on each charge. Although. most legal analysts would suggest that. is highly unlikely that that's what he. would receive. I will tell you that. But. federal prosecutors they have previously. suggested four to five years in prison. They may ask for even more. Comb's. defense team has asked for around 14. months and after already sitting in. federal lockup at the Metropolitan. Detention Center since September of. 2024, he's always been denied bail if.

the judge sides with the defense's. recommendation. Then Combmes would be. essentially released immediately. And by. the way, just real quick, we're going to. talk about what happened today, but I. want to highlight something about the. sentencing before we talk about what. happened today. So, his attorneys. submitted a 182page sentencing memo. laying out their argument for a lesser. sentence. They go into Comb's history. and upbringing by discussing how his. father was shot to death, that this had.

a tremendous impact on Shawn Colb's. life, how he has had this dedication to. his family and career and built a family. for his colleagues and friends out of. his business. how he has been an. inspiration to others that if you have. to consider different factors like drug. use and addiction and certain medical. conditions that were redacted in this. filing, but that may all play a role in. his anger. And we know the defense. definitely tried to explain away a lot. of those angry moments, right? The.

infamous Cassie Ventura beating, that. video back in 2016. The defense went. into what he was convicted of, how it. doesn't warrant significant prison time, that Cassie Ventura and Jane, the key. victims and accusers in this case, were. part of a consensual sexual relationship. with Shawn Combmes. That's the argument. I mean, and remember, he wasn't. convicted of sex trafficking despite the. evidence of freakoffs and wild king. knights. So, the defense hammers home. that there was no force, fraud, or.

coercion. that the male escorts that. make up the transportation to engage in. prostitution convictions, they were. freely consenting to what happened. They. argue, quote, "This is the only case. we've identified where the government. claims professional consenting adult. males were manact victims." The man act. refers to transportation to engage in. prostitution. They emphasize, and by the. way, this comes up again today, that. Commes didn't earn any money as part of. this prostitution. They emphasize how.

the guidelines say 6 to 12 months should. be the sentence. How the court cannot. use any evidence from the racketeering. or sex trafficking parts of the case in. sentencing him for prostitution that it. would be unconstitutional. They fought back on the enhancers that. prosecutors have argued for a more. strict sentence. They can't argue fraud, coercion, that col wasn't a leader. organizer. And again, they say look at. what he was acquitted of. That would. suggest that. And they argue, look, he. has already experienced enough.

punishment by sitting at the notoriously. bad MDC for over a year. So they argue. for a 14-month sentence. And by the way, in anticipation of sentencing, people. have submitted letters of support for. Shawn Combmes to the court. You have a. letter from his mother, Janice Combmes, who writes in part, I'm writing this. letter to implore your honor to please. have mercy on my son. Shawn has always. been a loving and caring son. On. December 21st, I will be 85 years old. goes on. I would like to be able to. spend the last few years of my life with. my son Shawn. Unfortunately, my son has.

made some terrible mistakes in his life, which I know he recognizes. His adopted. sister, Kesha Combmes, wrote, "I pray. that this moment is not the end of. Shawn's story, but a turning point. toward a more purposeful and honorable. life." You even have letters from fellow. inmates. You have one from a Raymond. Castillo who writes, "Mr. Combmes has. saved me. Not only striving to better. himself, but to better everyone he. encounters as a whole and leave a. positive impact in everyone's life. Even. behind bars and with limited resources,

I have witnessed this man do magical. things in a place of segregation. I have. seen Mr. Combmes bring unity to all. races and ethnic groups, no matter the. background, as a united front. You have. another inmate who writes, "Because of. Mr. Combmes, everybody in the unit is. treating and acting positively towards. each other. And for many people, that's. a step forward in becoming a better. person for when they get out of prison. So with all of that in mind, right, that's sentencing. Is it even going to. happen or is his convictions going to be. thrown out? Because we got to talk about. what happened in today's hearing where.

Combmes tried to get those convictions. thrown out. And for that, let me bring. on once again Law and Crime Network's. reporter, Elizabeth Milner. Elizabeth, so good to see you get a chance to talk. about this again. It's been a few. months. Um, thank you so much. First of. all, it was a crazy scene getting in. There was a lot of people who tried to, right? You were there since like 6:00. a.m. >> Yes, I was there bright and early. 6:30. a.m. got there and there was already a. line. Now, it was mainly a lot of press, but then we had this moment where we. could just like put our names down on a. list, come back later, and then when I. came back, it was just so many more.

people. And I was surprised to see how. much interest they had for just kind of. what I felt to be like a standard. procedural hearing. But so many people, I think, wanted to get one of their. final glimpses of Shawn Combmes before. they eventually or before he eventually. learns his fate. >> Yeah. And how did he look? Cuz they they. we have the courtroom sketches. In my. opinion, he looks skinnier. >> Yeah, I was thinking that too. Now, I. don't want anyone to mistake what I had. said like I had did last year with. astonishingly thin. None of that. But I. did feel like he did look slimmer from.

trial. But I did think he was kind of in. an oversized um MDC jumpsuit, which I. which I was really surprised he was. wearing as opposed to kind of the what. had been ordered by the judge, which was. the sweaters, the slacks, all of that. stuff. So he came in in the tan khaki. suit. He kind of beamed up with smiles. I was surprised given how long it's been. since he's seen probably all of us, but. I think it was more so the smiles for. his family. But. >> his family was there. >> His family was there and the entire. family, too. So that included Kesha. Combmes, Lwanda Lane, who's been um kind. of taking care of the twin girls um.

while um Shawn Combmes has been. incarcerated, Sharah Sarah Chapman, who. is the mother of Chance Combmes. Chance. Combmes was there, the twins were there, Janice Combmes, Shan Combmes's mother. was there, Charli, who's been a fixture. every single day of trial and we've had. him on Sidebar. I've interviewed him and. so he was there as well as Quincy Brown, Justin Combmes, Christian Combmes, and. um Christian Combmes's girlfriend. So it. was a really pretty stack. And that was. just excluding um or that was just. including the family. There were still. some loved ones there to support too. >> Let me ask you something. Have you ever.

walked out of a meeting and you thought, "Wait a minute. What do we just decide. after all of that?" Or maybe you sat. through a really good discussion, but. you kind of lost track of the action. items later on. Look, I've been there. I. no shame in saying it. But that's why I. want to bring your attention to our. partner, Plaude AI, and their newest. product, the Note Pro. This thing right. here is an AI meeting assistant designed. for leaders. It's about the size of a. credit card. It's slim. It's portable. Oh, and by the way, look at that. Attaches right to your phone. I love. that. Now, I will tell you, I can keep. mine with me for brainstorming sessions. when we're planning new episodes of.

Sidebar or interviews. It picks up. voices from up to 16 ft away. It filters. out background noise, and it can record. non-stop for up to 50 hours. But here's. the real game changer. It captures. absolutely everything. audio pictures, written notes, highlights, and then the. app turns it all into the structured. summaries with insights and clear to-dos. that you can then share with your team. And with Ask Plaude, it's like having a. second brain. It can draft follow-up. emails, pull up data reports, even help. you brainstorm. And it's all based on.

the context of your meetings. Plus, no. pro gives you peace of mind. There's a. display screen that shows your recording. status. It has Apple Find My. It has. fast file transfer. And it meets the. highest privacy standards. So, I know. and I feel secure using it even for the. most sensitive of topics. And look, if. you're like me and you want to make the. most of your time, it's time to try the. Plaude Note Pro. And right now, you can. get 10% off of Plaude's other features, note and note pin with code Jesse. Just. click the link below or scan the QR code. on screen. Okay, so we have to talk.

about what the main argument was today. The main argument centered around this. motion for judgment of a quiddle. basically when a defense attorney uh. defense council says look there was not. enough evidence to convict this person. and this is regarding the two. convictions that he got right two. charges of transportation to engage in. prostitution I mean it basically says. what it is it's transporting people. across state lines for the purpose. for the purposes of sex work there. doesn't have to be force fraud or.

coercion it was literally transporting. men Cassie Jane that's it. >> okay first issue I understand was about. the timing. >> of that motion, right? What happened. there? >> Yeah. So, initially the government was. kind of making the um argument here and. it was first starting off with Meredith. Foster because I think a lot of people. have to remember the lead prosecutor in. this case, Marine Comey, was no longer. there because she has been um dismissed. from her job, which has been reportedly. nothing to do with this case or anything. like that. That's another story for. another day. But Meredith Foster was.

making these arguments for the. government and it seems like at first. they were kind of talking about. challenging the jury instruction um. particularly and they cited some cases. one from 2025 USA versus Kelly and how. the defendant in that case argued on. appeal that it was unconstitutionally. vague for man act and RICO conspiracy. But the government was pretty much. arguing that this should have been. raised pre-trial. They were citing cases. from 2003 1973 just about the broader. concerns. But the government was saying. it felt like the defense was kind of. taking a second bite of the apple. They.

were encouraging or um the government. was saying that the defense is. encouraging the defendant to raise these. claims afterwards. It says that the. defense didn't raise these issues until. even after trial and it says that it. should have been kind of raised during. the indictment phrase during the. indictment phase. Um whereas Alexander. Shapiro who was making the defense. arguments, she was saying that the law. on rule 12 is extremely restrictive and. she says that there's no way to make. this argument. and at an earlier point. because this was kind of an a result of. the acquitt because he was found not. guilty of RICO conspiracy and sex.

trafficking. Um victim one and um Jane. victim one being Cassie Ventura and so. the defense was saying that they were. unable to make that argument any earlier. and so they were kind of trying to do it. now because that was the most. appropriate time for them. >> You put that to the side about the. timing of the judge. Okay, put the. timing aside. I go now to the substance, whether or not there are substantive. real grounds to throw these convictions. out. One of the arguments, and I have to. say a lot of these have actually been. consistent with arguments that were made.

in prior filings by the defense. >> One of them is, and if I'm understanding. correctly, Shawn Combmes didn't make any. money off of this prostitution or he. didn't pay for it himself. Right. There's like a commercial aspect. argument. What did they say? >> Yeah. So that so initially they were. going to be asking kind of four. questions then that um both sides had to. answer these questions. So this was. brought up during question two about. whether or not the man act prosecution. had a financial motive and whether or. not the defendant kind of um fall under.

the second liability which is something. I completely didn't know about because. I'm not a lawyer or anything like that. But it was interesting kind of hearing. those arguments. So the defense starting. off that also being Alexander Shapiro. she was saying that the statute should. be construed narrowly to pimps and. prostitution. She said that Mr. Combmes. was an alleged consumer and that this is. just kind of a wire type of case. And it. seemed like that's what the defense's. whole argument was that he was just. financially giving the money, but it. wasn't that he was necessarily making. the money. And so the judge said, "Well, why wouldn't Colbmes be liable for.

willfully um under that willfully. causing theory?" And the defense said no. because it's talking about the. transportation aspect and the men's ray. is that people would engage um. >> intent. >> Yes. Exactly. and the intent that people. would engage in prostitution. You can't. say that he's willfully doing that. necessarily because he in essence was. just watching two people have sex um. pretty much. And so the defense was. talking about the money aspect and how. they previously argued that you know the. money was for time. It wasn't.

necessarily for sexual purposes. It. wasn't that typical pimp prostitute. situation like that they were trying to. make that comparison to. And so the. defense was saying that it seems to. imply that um Shawn Combmes's conviction. was based off the money transaction. because if you remember from those. summary flight charts, it was very easy. for the jury to draw those conclusions. about this is how much money was paid. This is what this um when this flight. happened. And we um the jury found in. essence that when these hotel nights. were happening that this was for the.

pretty much the um process of. transporting people across state lines. for the purposes of prostitution. Whereas the government was saying that. the conviction should still stand, that. the defense is challenging the vagueness. and the definition of prostitution. specifically. And so the government said. that this issue isn't whether the. defendant himself engaged in. prostitution and specifically in sexual. acts. It's whether the defendant. transported a person across state lines. or international lines for the purposes. of sex. And so the government argued. that he facilitated the transportation.

with intent. And even though Cassie and. Jane, and that's kind of where that. first liability, secondary liability. come in, where Cassie and Jane were the. ones um that the government was kind of. saying were the ones who were contacting. these entertainers or these escorts, but. it was Diddy um or Shawn Combmes who had. that second liability because he. watched, but he also provided the money. >> like he aided and abetted. >> Exactly. And so they argue. >> because it's not like a traditional case. where someone, you know, had this. organization. >> that was shipping off prostitutes to.

different people and this wide network. Yeah. But that doesn't that's not. necessarily what's required of this law. It's did you transport people. >> across lines for the purposes of sex. work? Um and I hear that and I hear that. argument. >> and yeah. Oh, I was going to say and the. defense kind of, you know, brought it. back too later where they were saying. that the government hasn't raised to the. jury the secondary liability and that. speaks volume. So, Alexander Shapiro. making that argument and she says that. they don't contest that the money came. from Shawn Combmes. That's what I.

thought was interesting in their. argument. >> because don't you remember during the. trial how much evidence was there. >> that the money either came from him or. he was on the phone or there was voice. notes or messages, right? That he was. directing all it, you know. >> Exactly. Exactly. And so in kind of that. last harrah to save this argument, the. defense said that the man act. historically is an embarrassment to the. United States because that's where they. kind of brought in that racial undertone. of that it was. >> Can you explain that? They they've said. consistently it's racist. What did they. say about that and then we'll get into.

the constitutional arguments which I. think are really interesting. But before. that, what did they say about it being. racist? >> Well, this is an argument that they've. made previously, right? This is an. argument that they've been making for. months on end where essentially the law. was drafted a long time ago in different. times and different ages where it's. really just kind of talking about the. slave trade and um transporting persons. across state lines. Um and so what the. defense was pretty much saying that the. purposes of this um law in general in.

2020 in a 2025 lens is not intended for. what it was initially made for. And so. what they're saying is nowadays that the. DOJ, Department of Justice, is pretty. much only prosecuting um where it is. kind of that typical um sex trafficking. in a way um people across state lines or. minors. And so I think the defense's. whole point that they were trying to. drive home was that these were. consenting adults who were coming across. state lines. What I thought was. interesting too, Jesse, is I'm wondering. if the money transaction wasn't there, if there was if the prosecution wasn't.

able to find these money points, would. we even be sitting here today? >> Commercial just means something of. value. >> So, if the escorts were receiving. something of value to engage in this. work or the argument would be Jane or. Cassie were receiving something of value. in exchange, >> like a fancy gift. >> Yeah, I think they could make uh that. argument. But you also do have money as. well. I mean, they did make the argument. in prior filings suggesting he's a. prominent black man who's being.

prosecuted for this that it's not a tag. along of uh like like you see in other. cases of a large sex trafficking. network. It's he was convicted of that. and that alone. And it does raise the. question if all they ever had were those. charges and not racketeering and not sex. trafficking, would they even would they. have even brought this case? >> Yeah. And that's what the defense also. pointed out today, too. >> We have to get into this First Amendment. argument. Now, I've talked about this on. a previous sidebar because it was in um.

one of the defenses filings. This is a. novel argument. This is very. interesting. >> They're basically saying he is protected. by the First Amendment and that this is. simply voyerism. Explain this to us. >> Yes. And so that came up in question. four, which was answered before question. three. So just a little bit of out out. of order, but the question was whether. the records show if every time an escort. traveled across state lines or. international lines was these in were. these encounters, hotel nights, freakoffs, were they always filmed? And.

so um and the other part two of that. question was does it even really matter? And so the government in essence was. saying that no, it doesn't really matter. and that escorts were routinely filmed. and that the evidence at trial showed. that while he frequently filmed the. hotel nights or the freakoffs. They also. talked about the exhibits um showing the. sex tapes and those exhibits also um. correlate with the travel records, but. the government says it's irrelevant, especially to talk about it because the. man act is all about transportation and. not necessarily filming. And so the. government said that the act um that.

violated the law was transportation. And. so when he transported the individuals. across state lines, it was for the. purposes of sex that he's not just this. amateur porn producer. Whereas the. defense says, well, it doesn't matter if. he um always filmed the freakoffs or. not, that he was a producer and a. consumer of pornography or amateur porn. as they had called it. Um and that's. protected by the first amendment. And so. Alexander Shapiro, she said that he had. a right as a consumer in order to I. guess take pardon him in a way, I should.

say. um and that adults have the right. to consume pornography. Jane even. brought it TV um something that we heard. during testimony during the trial so. that way they could watch it during. their movie nights, just videos of them. um in their hotel nights. And so the. judge was like, well, what does this. really have to do with um the conviction. for first amendment issue? And then the. defense kind of brought up only fans and. just essence that it's not illegal to. consume it because he wasn't necessarily. partaking in it. But I thought it was. kind of an interesting argument. I I.

think their strongest part is is not. every encounter was filmed, right? If. you're saying, "Well, he was just. filming. It's for personal use." Well, that not every one of them was filmed. Then they say it's about criminalizing. traveling for prostitution, traveling. for commercial sex. They talked about uh. the Supreme Court case O'Brien. Um and. that's where the Supreme Court upheld a. federal law that said it was illegal to. destroy draft cards. There was no First. Amendment protection. And the court. created what's called the O'Brien test. for determining whether expressive.

conduct or symbolic speech does it merit. being protected by the first amendment. The government would need to show. significant government interest here. So. here. >> what do they say? What is the. government's interest in policing this. in criminalizing what he did? What is. it? It's that just to regulate. Yeah. Well, honestly, first, Jesse, you should. have been inside that courtroom to give. us all that little like rundown of what. O'Brien because I truly was like, O'Brien, O'Brien, just write down. O'Brien so I could find it in my notes.

because again, no phone, no computer, nothing. Wasn't able to Google it. But. the government said that they um that. regulating prostitution is a um of. government interest. They say it's. important to discourage violence against. women, illegal drug use, preventing. sexual assault, and they say um within. all 50 states, there are laws regulating. prostitution in all 50 states, depending. on which state you're in, determine if. there is a if there is a substantial. issue. And so, the government was. arguing that prohibiting transportation.

can help with the goal of thwarting. prostitution because I know people and. the defense specifically have kind of. just been chalking up the case to this. is just a private matter. this is what's. going on and the government's trying to. police what's going on in adults's. bedroom. And so the defense said, well, this is expressive conduct that's. protected by um the First Amendment and. that the DOJ, the Department of Justice, um and their policy confirming as such. That's what the defense was arguing. And. so, um, the defense argued that the DOJ,

they prosecute cases with minors and. specifically with sex workers because, again, remember, even though they call. the men entertainers or escorts, the. defense has been very adamant that these. men were not prostitutes. And even um, the ones that testified um, the Punisher. as well or Shereé Hayes and Daniel. Phillips, they had testified that they. were paid for time, that they weren't. necessarily prostitutes, but did admit. that they do, you know, do specialized. um, events in those um, that sort. that. the defense said that these were. consenting adults. It occurred in the. privacy of hotel rooms or in someone.

else's um home. It wasn't like that they. were at a massage parlor or a room um. kind of in you know that I'm talking. about. And so the defense argued that. this was pretty much a private matter. And so the government came back and said. that this was laid out in several. previous submissions that the defense um. put in and that they were all denied. But um but it was interesting just kind. of hearing those arguments about O'Brien. and learning more about O'Brien today. Did you glean anything from the judge, Judge Arun Subbermania about which way. he's going to rule on this? Because I.

understand he didn't make a decision, but he did like didn't at one point he's. like if you have a businessman. >> who uh you know pays for his client to. be with a prostitute. >> and the bis and the client participates. in sexual acts with this prostitute. Is. the businessman liable or is this. businessman um a pro or Yeah. >> Is it transportation to an own way? prostitution and what and I mean he. asked that because and and what was the. response but also did it give you a.

sense that he's not believing the. defense's arguments? >> Well, I think there were little tidbits. where I felt that way sometimes like and. I feel like Judge Arun Submarinian he. does a very great job in really just. kind of fleshing out what both sides. want. He's always doubling and asking. questions, making sure like, okay, if. I'm understanding this correctly, you. want this and this. So, to answer your. first question, the defense said that. no, it's not prostitution. And again, they believe that that's where their. client's position really is. And so, I. felt like from what I could.

>> think, you know, because I'm not in the. judge's mind or anything like that, it. seems like he's leaning toward maybe. possibly leaning towards no on the. defense motions. I feel like sentencing. will go on as usual on October 3rd. And. the reason I say that is because he. said, "I'll see you guys next Friday.". So, I think he already has in his mind. that sentencing will go forward. But. whether or not um he'll side with the. defense at sentencing or the government. at sentencing will be interesting. >> So two points there. A he said what that. he'll make come a decision. He might.

make a decision on this soon. >> But nothing today about sentencing. >> Nothing today about sentencing. Not even. a time. We don't even know the time yet. >> But it is October 3rd. >> It is October 3rd. Yeah. >> You're going to be there. >> and I will be there. And and one thing I. will say about sentencing, and I think. that this might work to the advantage of. the prosecutors, the disadvantage of the. defense. Yes, they can make the argument. that these charges, these convictions. are minor considering what we're talking. about with racketeering and sex. trafficking, uh, what he was acquitted. of, but I've always said I think it's.

the amount of times. >> Yeah. >> The amount of times that he did this. It. wasn't a one-off. It was multiple times. with multiple sex workers. And I I I did. anything come out today about that? Did. they mention that the prosecution? >> Yeah, absolutely. The government kind of. in their last um part of their arguments. overall, they were pointing out that. Shawn Combmes also had a history of. violence during the breakoff. So, you. talked about the 2016 Intercontinental. Hotel incident and what happened there. Um what happened as late as June of 2024.

with Jane. And so, the government um in. their last um kind of argument to the. judge before we were all dismissed was. that Shawn Combmes had planned these. out. he had coordinated these all for. his sexual pleasure. So while the. defense was kind of pointing out that it. was maybe Jane or Cassie who had been in. communication with these escorts or. entertainers, they said it was all. because it was at the direction of Shawn. Combmes for his sexual pleasure and. sexual gratification. And the government. said don't forget why we were here. This. has been going on for years, 15 years.

they pointed out 2009 to 2024. So, it. seems like for me, and again, not a. lawyer or anything like that, but it. seems like when the judge takes into. consideration the sentencing, he might. take into consideration the full scale. of everything from the trial and not. specifically the flight logs or that. some um seemed more willing to. participate in than other time. So, it'll be interesting to see. >> We'll see if we're right or wrong come. next week. Elizabeth Milner, great to. see you again. >> Great to see you, too. Thank you. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so.

much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcasts. You can follow me on. Instagram or X. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll. see you next time. [Music].