102
10 year max per guilty charge, so he’ll probably get five in total and then get let out early on good behavior.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
102 points (99.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13918 readers
850 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Assuming the groper in chief doesn't give him a pardon.
I imagine that would go down with Trump ranting about how Diddy was unfairly targeted, but he’d also throw in some thinly-veiled racism at Diddy.
I thought his charges were state charges?
Federal
Yeah I would be shocked if he does the full sentence.
Also there’s probably like a dozen label execs waiting in the wings to pay his bail as soon as they can
So he's not getting sentenced for the sex trafficking just the driving there to do the trafficking
That post made it seem like there's some differentiation between trafficking and prostitution. Which would presumably be to say they were not coerced.
Yeah that’s crazy to me.
How tf you transport a woman for prostitution but that's somehow not considered sex trafficking
CW: sex assault
transport for prostitution generally means you're a pimp but you're nice about it
sex trafficking generally means you're a pimp and you're violent
(level of niceness/violence to buyers, not to the women being trafficked.)
is that true? idk NY law but CA law trafficking has a component of forcing someone to do prostitution against their will
In this (and most cases) there's an ocean between the law as written and how it actually gets applied. This was a pretty cut and dry example of trafficking, even including situations where victims definitionally could not give consent and yet here we are.
If, despite all the efforts of the DNC and the GOP, a good law (like a bill meant to protect vulnerable individuals) somehow manages to make it onto the books, it immediately gets effectively repealed through interpretation by the judiciary until it becomes a waste of ink on the code books.
Add that the average jury is composed almost entirely of reactionary treatlerites who are easily swayed by the theatrics of highly-paid lawyers and this is what you get.
This is how you get billionaire celebrities getting a verbal warning for their 27th DUI.
In the US, juries are allowed to make any factual findings of guilt/not guilt, even if they are contradictory.
Mo money, no problems!
So I guess here's an example of class trumping race, no?
Looks like the only charge that stuck is the one which required Cassie to admit during her addiction she 'consented' to being trafficked. Insane
No shit, just like Epstein, the ghouls always get away one way or another. I wonder how much bribes the jury gets out of this.
I hope all of those jurors got a nice bribe out of the deal
I'm going to guess that the text message exchange between Diddy and Cassie Ventura, brought up as evidence by the defendants, killed the prosecution's case for sex trafficking to the jury, given that the prostitution charges stuck and the sex trafficking ones did not. Diddy's legal team released those messages (despite them being very embarrassing) to portray Ventura as a willing participant in the "freak offs". Very sadly this worked.
Besides passive glance at headlines, I haven't followed the story closely at all. Here's the Rolling Stone exposé for anyone who has some catching to to do (published 05/2024)
Diddy's output will continue to be relevant to people who value what he produces. We make him irrelevant to us by valuing those who output our values: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/us-revokes-visas-of-bob-vylan-over-free-palestine-chants-at-glastonbury/
Free free!
I didn't really follow this, but if a jury said not guilty isn't it at least somewhat reasonable to assume the evidence wasn't that strong? Or I guess the prosecution could have intentionally made a weak case, but idk
I figured he would go down hard as a scapegoat for the rest of the (white) people involved. Maybe Diddy had enough blackmail or something to wiggle out of it, but also I'm not quick to assume the jury got it wrong if they got to see evidence and hear testimony we didn't. I typically just trust a jury more than the prosecution, cops, government in general, etc.
Politely, juries are full of morons who couldn't skip jury duty and busybodies who want to judge others.
They screen specifically for that. You need to be the type of person they perceive to not be on any side so if you show strong reactions to something you won’t make it. Fence sitters, or “centrists” are very much preferred.
In a satanically fascist society screening for neutral individuals gives you the most satanically fascist treatlerites to ever walk the earth
That's what I've been hearing about the case. I haven't followed the nitty gritty too closely, but know people who do. The general consensus I've gotten is that the prosecution came under prepared for as big of a case as they're trying to make. I'm also assuming that they got less evidence than they would get out of court because individual evidence has to be stronger when you're in court (at least if the defense lawyer is any good).
Reminds me of Casey Anthony's trial. Everybody was so pissed at that jury because it was so obvious that she did it, but if you see the case the prosecutors made against her it becomes very clear very quickly why she was found not guilty.
In short, fuck cops
To my knowledge the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was like that too, as in the prosecutors messing up big time.
"Messing up" implies a lack of malfeasance.
Not to mention the judge not allowing them to show his social media posts about wanting to shoot people or tell the jury he beat up a girl at his school.
sure, I get the impulse, but who selects the jury and controls what they see?
Yeah, I get what you mean, I even said the prosecution could have brought a weak case. Both the defense and the prosecution teams choose jurors, so if the prosecutor was basically throwing the case then they would certainly try to choose a favorable jury. The court ultimately decides what the jury sees.
I'm just not convinced the government would orchestrate a complex conspiracy to get Diddy on lesser charges instead of just like...not charging him at all in the first place? Allowing him to take a favorable plea deal? Idk there are a lot of ways they could have handled this that seem less complicated than fixing a jury trial.
Can you please add a CW to this? Thank you.
Needs nsfw tag and cw