2.Defense Closing (Part 1)

MR. AGNIFILO: I am, Judge. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. This is a test as much as it is anything else. I'm passing so far. I move around. I can't stay in one place. That could get me yelled at today, but I'll do the best I can. This trial is a tale of two trials. It is a trial told from the mouths of witnesses. It is a trial told from the text messages. There's the trial told from the videos. In a word, there's a trial that's told in the evidence. That's one trial. The second trial is a very different trial. The second trial is the trial as told from the mouths of the prosecutors. And the trial told from the mouths of the prosecutors is very different, nothing like the trial told from the evidence. Now that you've heard the evidence, I'm going to ask you to reach certain conclusions, and I'm going to back them up over the next few hours. The first conclusion I'm going to ask you to reach is that this case is badly, badly exaggerated. It's made up, in a word.

From the mouths of the witnesses, from the evidence, from the text message, what do you see? What is that trial? What's the trial of the evidence? It's personal-use drugs. That's what it is. That's just what it is. It's nothing else. What's the trial of the evidence? The trial of the evidence is a lifestyle. You want to call it swingers, you want to call it threesomes, whatever you want to call it, that's what it is. That's what the evidence shows. That is not what the prosecutors are saying to you. The prosecutors have charged one of the most serious, complicated, comprehensive statutes on the books. They have charged personal-use drugs and threesomes as racketeering. That is the other trial. That, I submit to you, is the false trial. That is the exaggerated trial. That is not the real trial. And you have sat here for a long time, and I want to start by saying I have done this -- you can tell, this is not my first one of these.

I rarely have seen a group of people as dedicated, diligent, prompt, paying attention, and as a credit -- I mean a credit to the jury system, to jury service and to our country. And so I want to start, before I say anything else, by thanking you. I want to thank you. And I'm going to try and put that thankfulness into action. I would love to speak to you for days. I would. I'm not going to. You wouldn't love that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. It's Friday. All right? So I'm going to try to be efficient with my time with you. I am. I have to cover a lot of ground. I do. But I'm going to be efficient with my time with you, and I'm going to talk to you not about all the evidence, because I can't possibly do that. But I'm going to talk to you about the most important parts. And the most important part is Sean Combs. Let's talk for a second about what the evidence shows about Sean Combs.

Sean Combs has become something that is very, very hard to become, very hard to be. He is a self-made, successful Black entrepreneur. I don't know how many there are. I hope there are tens of thousands. I don't think there are, but he's one of them. He's one of them. And he's done something that's very, very hard to do. He has built wonderful, sophisticated, real businesses that have stood the test of time, businesses that are so outstanding that other, larger, more established businesses create business relationships with them. We heard that from Derek Ferguson when he testified -- wonderful businesses that employ people, that give people livelihoods and then make people part of a family. That brings me to something that's even harder. How many of the government witnesses came in here and said to you that they were moved? I'm going to use the word "love" in a second. I'm going to tell you what I mean by love. They were moved by Sean Combs. They were moved by Sean Combs.

What does that mean? Each of them put it in their own words. You heard some of the personal assistants, what they said. Being with him was like going to Harvard Business School, one of them said. Being with him from a business standpoint was like drinking from a firehose, one of them said. Being with him was the single greatest experience of my life, one of them said. He made my world so much bigger, someone said. He taught me to have a work ethic, someone said. He did things in business that I found absolutely fascinating, someone said. I learned so much from him, someone said. He pushed me harder than I thought I could push myself, someone said. Did they always like him? No way. Let's not even go there. Did they always like him? They didn't always like him, but they loved him. They loved him. Even the ones who are suing him, and I'll get to this in a minute -- you know I will -- because this case is a lot about money. But I'm talking about love for now. They loved him.

They didn't want to leave him. When they had to leave him, they talked about being suicidal. That's what the woman who testified in this courtroom as Mia said. And just by the way, I'm not going to call her Mia because her name's not Mia. I'm going to call her the woman who testified as Mia, because that's what it is. She was suicidal when she had to leave. K.K. had to talk her down. They loved him. But there's more. There's more, and everybody knew it. And you know who told you about it? Derek Ferguson told you about it. Remember Derek Ferguson? Handsome Black gentleman from the Bronx, came into this courtroom, went to Stuyvesant High School, went to University of Pennsylvania, went to Harvard Business School. I stood right over here, and he was sitting right over there, and I said to him, you could go anywhere in the world. You could probably have any job you want. Why did you want to go to Bad Boy Records? Why did you want to go there of every place in the world?

You know what he said? Because there weren't a lot of places hiring people like me, from my neighborhood, and so I went to Bad Boy Records. That was his answer. And he was there for 19 productive, wonderful years. And when he left, as he told you on the witness stand, he was thankful for everything that he learned. And this is a smart man. To teach this man something, I submit to you, you yourself have to be something special. And he was very clear. He learned a lot. He learned a lot. He had a world of knowledge and experience from being with Sean Combs. There's something more to these businesses than that they're just successful, that people loved being there. And I submit to you there's not a single person -- was it always easy? No. Did they always like him? No. It was hard. Sometimes the real things in life are hard. The lesson that you learn in life is that the lessons in life come from showing that you can do something hard. No one remembers the easy days.

Maybe a vacation here and there. But other than that, you remember the hard things. You remember when it was hard: I can't do that. And then you do it, and you know you can do it again. And then you do it again. And that is how you build character. That's how you have a real life. These people didn't always like him, but they grew, and he was important to them. And it was real and it was diversity. We're trying now to do something that we've given a label to -- diversity, equity and inclusion. He was doing this in 1993 as a 24-year-old, by himself. Not because some government told him to, because that's who he was. That's who he was. That's who he is. That's what his businesses are. That's what the evidence shows you his businesses are. That's not what the government says his businesses are. What did the government said his businesses are? Racketeering enterprise. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

You heard -- did any witness get on that witness stand and say yes, I was part of a racketeering enterprise; I engaged in racketeering as part of an enterprise? You didn't hear that from the evidence. You didn't hear that from a witness. You heard that from the prosecutors alone. That's the fake trial I'm telling you about. That's the fake trial. So what happens? He gets arrested, as you heard. They do these search warrants for parts of some of them. They destroy his property. They run these special -- SRT, special response team. Remember those guys? SRT. They move so clandestinely, you can't even follow them with a camera. Remember when the agent said that? How come you can't tell us that the guns were in the safe, oh, you know, those SRT guys, can't even follow them with a camera. SRT guys run rampant on his properties, where his children live, one of the agents said that. By the way, second row, six of his seven children, the seventh being an infant, and his mother, here today.

And you should know that. And the reason you should know that is because you should know who he is. Not who the government says he is, who he is. And you are starting to see that even in the evidence, even without me pointing out who's in the courtroom. Let me show you some things already that you know already about this man's character. Jane has a beautiful house. She has a beautiful house for her child, who I am sure loves and deserves the beautiful house. That's the evidence from the trial, the real trial. What's the evidence from the fake trial? That's coercion. Come on, please. The man takes care of people. That's what's in the evidence. Jane came up here and testified against him. I don't know what she's doing today. I hope she's having a nice day. But you know where she's doing it? In a house he's paying for. And I hope they're having a nice Friday. His family's here because he took care of them too, because he takes care of people. He takes care of people. That's who he is.

But the government executes these search warrants, hundreds of agents, special response team, and I guess it's all worth it because they found the Astroglide. They found it in boxes, boxes of Astroglide taken off the streets. Whew, I feel better already. Artificial lubricant, not for me. Boxes of Astroglide, in the garage, I think. I think that's where he was keeping it. But they got it. The streets of America are safe from the Astroglide. You know they are. And they got the baby oil, and they found the personal-use drugs. They did it. It's all worth it. Thank goodness for the special response team. They found the Astroglide. They found the baby oil. They got, like, what, five Valium pills. Way to go, fellas. Photographing you, I understand why you can't do that. When you're doing work like that, whoa. You guys just do you. They took Astroglide and they took baby oil, and that ends up being the evidence in this case, because his businesses are outstanding.

There's nothing about the businesses to find. There's nothing about the businesses to make into a criminal case. So what do they do? They take yellow crime scene tape, figuratively, and they wrap it around his bedroom. Crime scene -- your bedroom, your hotel rooms, where you go with your girlfriends. Crime scenes. A lot of yellow tape. Every one of these hotels where he went with one of his girlfriends is a possible racketeering act. Hundreds? How many? 200? 300? Racketeering acts. That's a lot of crimes. I know it's the 50th anniversary of jaws. We need a bigger roll of crime scene tape, because that's just not going to be enough. So that's what they do. They go into the man's bedroom. They go into the man's most private life. Where is the crime scene? The crime scene is your private sex life. That's the crime scene. And keep in mind something else -- nobody invited the government. Nobody went to the police. Every phone that I know of has a 9 and a 1 and a second 1. Nobody calls 911.

Nobody calls the FBI. No one calls Department of Homeland Security. Nobody calls anybody. They do call somebody, though. They call civil plaintiffs' lawyers. That's who they call, because this isn't about justice. This isn't about a crime. This is about money. It's about money. And that's another part of the big themes in this case -- money. Money. Cassie Ventura sued Sean Combs for $30 million because Sean Combs had $30 million. If he doesn't have $30 million, there's no lawsuit. She sues him for $30 million because he had $30 million. And you heard that this investigation, this very investigation, came out of that civil case. No $30 million, no lawsuit. No $30 million, no lawsuit, no criminal case. That's why we're here. We're here because of money. It's really true, and I want to make this point to you time and again, and you'll see that I'm right.

This case is about five things, I submit to you, none of which is racketeering, none of which is sex trafficking, none of which is conspiracy. Five things. It's about love. I know you guys are keeping, like, notes in your pad. If you're keeping really, really good notes, you will know that the word "love" has been spoken at this trial 881 times. 881 times the word "love" appears in the transcript of this trial. You know it's not about, like, stock fraud. This trial is about love. The trial's about jealousy, so much about jealousy, so much about jealousy. It's about infidelity, related to jealousy, but maybe a different angle of jealousy. It's about money, as I've said, and it's about a third thing that I want to say right off the bat, because it's one of the things we led with in the openings, and it's one of the things I want to say to you now. Because one of the things my colleague, Ms. Geragos, has said -- she said it in the opening -- is we own -- we own -- the domestic violence.

We own it. I hope you guys know this, and I'm sure you do. When Ms. Ventura testified, I don't think we asked her a single question to challenge anything she said about being hit, being kicked, being dragged. And the government's going to say, well, that's because it's a video. It's not all on video. You see how this works. Witness gets on the stand, talks on direct testimony, the defense gets up: Oh, you're exaggerating; you didn't do this; you didn't see that; this was a different date; you know, this didn't really happen. We didn't do that. We just did not do that with her, period. We didn't do it with Jane either. I mean are we, do we have an obligation? Can't be ineffective. Do we have an obligation to put things in the right context? Yes, we do. But in terms of owning just as a matter of personal responsibility, matter of personal responsibility and accountability, owning the domestic violence, we own it. It happened. That's not charged. That's the part of the false trial.

As we said in the opening, if he was charged with domestic violence we wouldn't all be here having a trial because he would have pled guilty -- because he did that. He did not do the things he's charged with. He didn't commit racketeering. He just didn't. He didn't commit racketeering conspiracy or sex trafficking. He didn't kidnap anybody. He didn't obstruct justice. He didn't bribe anyone. I'll tell you why in about, like, an hour he didn't do these things. He did what he did, but he's going to fight to the death to defend himself on what he didn't do. And that's what this trial is about. So the issue for Cassie was domestic violence, and I'm not the first person to say that to you in this courtroom. The first person to say that the issue is domestic violence was Cassie Ventura. A long time ago, you might not remember it all, but if you remember, she made an Instagram post.

Right around the time that -- so, that the video, sort of a version of the video that we call the CNN video, kind of came out, you know, in the spring of last year. She makes an Instagram. She testified about it. She makes an Instagram post, and what she says is -- I want to get my words exactly right -- thank you for your love and support. She thanks people for loving and supporting her. The domestic violence is the issue. The domestic violence is the issue. She could have said anything. She was sitting at her computer or on her phone or on her tablet, wherever she's writing. She could have said anything. It's about the video that the government showed you yesterday and that I'm going to show you a little bit about in a little while. She could have said anything about the video. She could have said sex trafficking is the issue. She could have said having coerced sex with men is the issue. She could have said running away from freak-offs is the issue.

She was very precise and very clear about what the issue was for her -- her, who was there. The prosecutors weren't there. The issue for her, who was there, domestic violence is the issue -- her words to the world in an Instagram post. And as they say, and as I ask you to do as well, believe her. Believe Cassie. Believe her. What she says to you, domestic violence is the issue, I am asking you to believe her. And I'm asking you to believe her when, in that moment, in that context, watching that video on TV, watching herself -- and let's just, let's look at the world from her perspective for a second. Imagine what that's like. Because it's horrible. It's just -- we're going to be real today. That's horrible for her and her parents. This video comes out all over the world, and there she is. It's a terrible moment. It's a terrible moment, and she could have said anything.

I'm glad she said something, but what she said rings true not only for her but for this trial, and I most respectfully submit, for all of you. Domestic violence is the issue, is what she said. Let's talk about Sean Combs and Cassie for a second. To see their relationship is to see everything that a racketeering enterprise, everything that a racketeering conspiracy is not. It's a relationship. I don't expect to see you guys -- you know, don't feel disappointed. I am not going to go through a ton of text messages with you. I am not going to show you any charts. You guys have seen charts. You have seen the text messages. I've seen the close attention you're paying. You don't need me to do that. There's a couple of points I want to make. I'm going to make them and I'm going get out. I'm not going to put up charts. We're not going to have a lot of screen time. Screen time is unhealthy anyway, I'm told. No. We are just going to talk.

I am going to talk to you guys, and I'm going to tell you guys the story of this case. If there's one thing you see in the evidence, Sean Combs and Cassie Ventura have a relationship. It's a relationship, and they are in love. It's a real relationship, and they are in love. And so let's talk about parts of it. You remember how it started. They meet each other. Cassie has a boyfriend. She's had a boyfriend for three years; he's ten years older than her. But she meets Combs and he meets her, and they're off to the races. She has to sneak away from her boyfriend, so she comes up with a ruse, and the ruse is I'm hosting a party in Miami. But there's no party in Miami. But she comes up with a flier. Hey, I'm -- flier -- Cassie hosting a party in Miami. And it works. Gets on a plane. She goes to Florida. She hangs out with Mr. Combs. Mr. Combs rents a boat, she said. They go out in the ocean, or at least not too far. And they make love for the first time.

And they're in a really intense, highs are high, lows are low, loving, beautiful relationship for 11 years. Now, I say it's a relationship because the government, I think, is trying to get you to believe this is some one-sided, oppressive thing. And we're going to talk a lot about Cassie. Cassie is nobody's fool. She is sitting somewhere in the world with $30 million. All right? So if you had to pick a winner in this whole thing, it's hard not to pick Cassie. Cassie, at a certain point, just flat won. And Cassie flat won. No secret. He's in jail. You guys probably know that. The handsome gentlemen behind him, members of the United States Marshals Service, wonderful, wonderful people. And they've certainly done a good job of keeping him safe. But they are keeping him safe in jail. Cassie won. It's like a slaughter. It's not even close. It's a hundred and up.

So anyone who's telling you: Yeah, Cassie, she's a victim; Cassie, she's naïve; Cassie, she couldn't see what was coming -- let's look at the facts. That's why he loved her. That's why he loved her. Cassie's no joke, and that's why he loved her. She matched him. She was like him. He was at a certain level. Cassie was at a certain level. They're in love with each other, and in my opinion, it's one of -- it's kind of a great modern love story. They didn't write love stories like this in the 1800s because they didn't have a lot of these problems. He has six kids at the time. Most of the time he's with Cassie he has six kids. He has women, you know, at the time that he's taking care of, and so it's complicated, as they say. And it's complicated, but they are truly in love with each other. They're truly in love with each other. And that is what defines their relationship more than anything else. It's a relationship based on love and intensity.

I think at one point Cassie was talking about herself, I think she said she was young and insanely jealous. You know what? That's exactly how you should be. You want to love somebody? You love them. And they loved. They loved out loud. At one point when they're breaking up, and I don't know that they help your deliberation process that much, but if you want to read some beautiful, beautiful language, if you're just kicking back in the jury room, nothing to do, don't want to go home, read the text messages around their breakup. You'll cry. You will cry. You will read evidence with an exhibit sticker on it and you will cry. They're some of the most beautiful things I've ever read, and you will feel the same way, because it's truly, deeply tragic. They really loved each other. And that's not irrelevant to the charges. And I'll tell you why in a little while. They truly, truly loved each other. They were truly looking to be as selfless as they could with each other.

And when at some point it just wasn't going to work, it wasn't going to work for all of the sort of original sins of their whole relationship -- Mr. Combs had other women; he just wasn't going to give them up, and you heard that in the evidence from, like, five different witnesses. Gina, wouldn't quit Gina. Just wouldn't quit her. Add Gina. Didn't come here, but she's out there, and she wouldn't quit. Gina wouldn't quit. And all these other women, and it was just too much. And at one point she just had her last straw. And then, Kim Porter passes away, and she goes to the memorial service. They're broken up. They're broken up. They're not together. She's with her now husband. She went to the memorial service, and Sean Combs says that Kim Porter was a saint.

MR. AGNIFILO: (Continued) And that was the bridge too far. Between that and Gina who wouldn't quit, Cassie made an adult choice. She made the right choice for Cassie probably. Who's to say? But she made a choice. She made a definite choice. She said, you know what? I just can't do this any more, and I'm not going to do this any more, and she left. Like she could always leave. And ask yourself, what happened? Cassie leaves. I've had enough. Does anything happen to her? No. Every witness here, you know, if I would have done something, something could have happened. Something would have happened to me. I was afraid that something would happen. Did anything in this case happen ever? Was there one thing that ever happened? She was always free to leave. She chose to stay because she was in love with him, and he was in love with her. And if you have any doubt, just pick a random -- pick a random message from August, September, October 2018 and just read it.

And you will see these two people loved each other. They were deeply in love, and there was nothing -- if racketeering conspiracy had an opposite, it would be their relationship. They are truly, deeply in love with each other, for real. And they met. They were their best selves when it came to sex. They fought when it came to other women. There were times Sean Combs was impatient. There was times Sean Combs was proud. I think that's probably the right word for what I'm trying to convey. He was proud. I don't like the way you spoke to me. You're not treating me with enough respect. You hurt my feelings. He gets his feelings hurt because he feels disrespected, but the thing they really argue about, what they tend to fight about is jealousy and infidelity. That's where they were not so good. But where they're really, really together, they're together when it comes to sex. They just are. They just found each other's match. You know, and that's a beautiful thing when it happens.

And it happened to them. There is not -- I submit to you there is not -- I don't know how many text messages there are between Cassie and Sean Combs in this case, maybe thousands. You won't find one, you won't find one where she is like, I didn't like that sex. I am not attracted to you. I don't like our sex life. I don't like -- it's just not for me. Now, it's an eleven-year relationship, and sex is important in any relationship. So is it perfect? It's not perfect, but if you look at the text messages, you see what the issues are. And the issues are jealousy, other women. They are together. They match up when it comes to sex. And I guess if you had to sort of give their sex life a label, I guess you could call them swingers? I guess you could call it a lifestyle? What do you see in the evidence? You see a lot of things in the evidence. You see Cassie reaching out to Garrett from Cowboys4Angels saying: Do you know of any swingers clubs? I mean, this was their life.

No one is forcing her to do this. She is a woman who actually likes sex. Good for her. She is beautiful. She should. She is intense. She's unafraid. I mean, if you had to give Cassie one word, the word that comes to my mind, unafraid. She's unafraid. I'm unafraid. I'm just going for it. And she is unafraid about everything. Let's talk for a minute about Kid Cudi, and it's important that you understand that Cassie is unafraid. Kid Cudi came in here -- and, by the way, I'm going to tell you guys a story. This is not -- I'm not meaning to be judge-y or -- but I'm trying to give you guys facts. I'm trying to give you guys respect. Cudi comes in here, gets on witness stands and says: "Cassie played me." She played him. She played him good too. She played him good too. She played them both. And that's just not something anyone can do. Think about the Kid Cudi situation for a second. They're together -- they're not broke -- Cassie, oh yeah, we're broke -- that's not what anyone else says.

They're together. She's like, you know what? I met this guy. Sean put with him. We're going to make some records together. Hey, no ring on my finger, I'm going for it. She goes for it. The government wants you to believe, I'm scared. She's scared to death of Sean. Scared to death of Sean Combs. Scared to death of Sean Combs. Afraid of his temper. Afraid of what he might do. She lied to him for a long time over and over and over as she had a relationship with another singer-songwriter under his nose. She's not afraid of him because you know why? I can handle it. She can handle it. She could handle it. Was there anything in evidence that led you to believe that she was about to tell one of them on the other? Nothing. Nothing. Cassie is keeping it gangster. Cassie is like I'm -- I'm going to pull this off. I'm going to lie to him. And I'm going to lie to him. And not only that, I'm so in this for the long haul, I'm getting myself a burner phone. Woa. A burner phone. Finally.

It sounds like what you would expect in a criminal trial. Someone got a burner phone. She got a burner phone because she is leaning into the deception. She is not -- Cassie Ventura is not afraid, not afraid. How am I going to pull this off? I can't do it with my normal phone. He might go through my phone, and he'll find messages with Cudi about hiking. I think they went hiking. Cudi said they went hiking. I think they went hiking, that's why I say it. I need a burner phone. That is just not a decision that everyone makes. Your average person, if you need a burner phone, maybe you shouldn't do it. Maybe that's where the line is. If I need a burner phone, maybe this is not a great idea. Not Cassie: Burner phone. She's nobody's fool. Let's go one step further. We'll get to this in a minute. The morning, the morning of December 22, 2011, the whole thing was like Cudi and all that stuff. Remember what Cassie told you? You might have forgotten. This was a long time ago.

I had two hotel rooms. Woa. She has two hotel rooms: One where she's having a freak-off with him. What's in the other hotel room? The burner phone. The burner phone. She got a second hotel room for the burner phone. She never really made clear what the second hotel room was about, or why the burner phone was in the second hotel room, but she said it. So if any of you think for a second -- I think the word yesterday from the prosecutors was naïve. She's naïve. Come on. She got a second hotel room to hold her burner phone. She can handle it. And had he not gone through her phone that morning, she was not going to tell anybody nothing. She had this covered. He goes in her phone, and he finds out. All right. We're going to start talking about racketeering acts now. So the way -- and the judge is going to give you a legal charge later today, assuming after I finish my summation. So the racketeering conspiracy charge has a number of its own predicate acts to it.

And the first one is the 2004 kidnapping of Capricorn Clark. And I really can't wait to talk to you about this one. Let's talk about Capricorn Clark for a second, because Capricorn relates to two of the racketeering acts: The 2004 kidnapping and 2011 kidnapping. So let's talk about Capricorn Clark for a minute. Capricorn Clark said something, I don't know what it was, five or six times, might have been a little more. When she was on the stand, she said: I just wanted to get my life back. Remember that? I just wanted to get my life back. And she said it enough times that I said, what does she mean? What does that mean, and is it relevant for her testimony? I wanted to get my life back, and she told -- so let's unpack that, as they say. What's something else that she said? She said tragically — and I say this with the utmost respect — her parents passed away when she was young, okay? She said that. We didn't hear about any of the other witnesses parents. Why?

Because this is important to her. This is defining stuff. And so for you to understand who she is, she felt the need. And I'm glad she said it because you need to understand who she is. You know, my parents passed away before I was fully grown up. She didn't give an age, but at a point that was young and significant enough for her that she felt the need. And I'm happy she did to talk about it at the trial. So what did she say? She said, I moved to the Bronx. I moved to New York, and I meet Sean Combs, and he's a friend. We're hanging out. This is before I worked for him -- with him. You know, it's me, him, and there's another girlfriend, and we're hanging out. And she says, oh, he -- I asked her what her relationship was. And she goes, we're super platonic friends. Now, I don't know what super platonic means. But what I think it means is we're way more platonic than I want. That's what super -- and I think she said it three or four times.

She said it on direct and cross: We were super platonic friends. What's the significance? She likes him. I mean, he's -- he's up and coming. It's 2002, 2003, he's making a mark in the world. And Capricorn -- I mean, listen you guys have to size her up for yourself. And I'm going to say something, and you tell me if you think this is right: She's a little -- there's something a little off kilter about Capricorn. I think she's fundamentally a good person, but she's a little out there. And we'll talk about why; you can see that in the evidence. Super platonic friends. She goes on later, at one point she was trying to get back with Sean Combs, and she says in a text message from June 15, 2021, and so she's talking about what was going on like 20 years earlier. You know I had the biggest crush on you. I think we misused our dope chemistry. All right. The first one is pretty self-explanatory. She had the biggest crush on him. The second one is more than that. We misused our dope chemistry.

The way that I really stay close to you, I didn't do it. It didn't work. I see how it goes. Your close long term with the women that you're with in that way; the women you have a romantic relationship with in that way, and the misusing of the dope chemistry is that just didn't happen for her that way. She was a great worker, and she kept coming back over and over, and we'll talk about that. But she didn't stay in his life long term. So when she is saying on the stand, I just wanted to my life back, she's talking about him. Not him maybe as a person, but the world that Sean Combs created and is at the center of. That's the life she wants back. Because mostly when she said it, it was when I said, well, why -- you got kidnapped twice, once at gunpoint, like, come on, the really fat guy, the five-time wider than you guy was going to throw you in the East River. It's terrifying. Then you got kidnapped at gunpoint. Why do you want to go back and work for him?

And what she said was: I wanted my life back. So there's two things related to that. We're going to talk about both of them. One: That other stuff didn't just happen, at least not the way she's saying it. And the second is that's the life she wants back. So with that, let's go to the 2004 kidnapping. So the way she says it is that she and Mike B, she and Mike B, who's working, I think she might have been a stylist, she said back at the time are getting like their nails done. I don't know. They're doing something. They're doing something. And she has jewelry in her backpack. And then the jewelry is gone. And so what she does — this is a very important part — what she does and I want to get it because I want to get it exactly right. When she realizes the jewelry is gone, this is a quote, "I called everybody at 1440 and I told them to lock everybody in and search them."

That's what she says: That she calls 1440, their main office, I said, "Lock everybody in and search them," Capricorn said. What goes on to happen is lie detector tests. Polygraph examinations are administered. And she says she got one. And we'll talk about hers in a second. And Mike B got another. And what she says about hers is that it lasted all day long for five days. And the polygraph examiner who is this humongous man, five times wider than her threatened to throw her in the East River, okay. A couple of things about this -- this is a kidnapping. She's not like that she was like harassed or that, you know, she was inconvenienced: She was kidnapped. She went home every day. So what is the government alleging? Is the government alleging five consecutive kidnappings? Here's the Monday kidnapping. Here's the Tuesday kidnapping. The Wednesday kidnapping. The Thursday kidnapping. And finally the Friday kidnapping. They just allege one kidnapping.

So was she kidnapped when she was home by herself? She said Paul Arthur drove her home. A door-to-door kidnapping. That's great. This is charged. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is charging this as a kidnapping. A polygraph examination from 21 years ago where she goes home every day. That's just not a kidnapping. She is going home. So whatever happens, even if the building locks from the outside, even if a New York City building locks from the outside and she is locked up there in the sixth floor getting a lie detector test for ten hours a day for five consecutive days, she's going home. It's just not a kidnapping. And what did she say? She said: I kept doing it because I wanted to pass. And get back to my job. Now, I have no doubt that a lie detector test is unsettling. It's the most -- that's the whole reason investigators use it, it's unsettling. So I have no doubt that she was unsettled. She was not kidnapped.

Of course she was not kidnapped because the kidnapper doesn't drive you -- so how does it work? I mean, let's be honest for a second. You guys are stuck in here for long hours. At one point, the day ends, you go home, you come back. Anyone feel kidnapped? You are not kidnapped. You're about as kidnapped as she was kidnapped. She wasn't kidnapped, and neither are you. So that's just silly. But even aside from that, she said Combs had nothing to do with it. He didn't even know about it. Did she speak to Sean Combs at the end of this? No, never came up. He's charged -- he's charged with kidnapping. That's real. The government wants you to go in the jury room and sit around the table and go, well, I wonder if he kidnapped her. We're going to have to think about this. I'm going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out if he kidnapped her in 2004 when she went home and see if he knew anything about it. That's a charge in a racketeering case. It doesn't get more serious.

Now a couple of things — and this is important — Capricorn Clark says when she got to the office and she met Sean Combs in 2004, he was starring on Broadway in the play Raisin in the Sun, played the starring role of this seminal, seminal play. And she had some involvement in this. She was involved along with him in the Vote or Die campaign in advance of the 2004 presidential election. He was also running several multimillion dollar businesses, so the idea that he would take time away from starring on Broadway -- you know, some people just star on Broadway and don't do much else. That happens in the world. He's starring on Broadway. He is involved in the middle of a very significant voter drive campaign called Vote or Die. He is running all these companies. Do you really think he is waiting on the edge of his seat: How's that lie detector test coming back? I can't wait to see if she passes it. He couldn't care less.

He had nothing to do with this because he is plainly doing other things. Now, David James testified as well. He was given two lie detector tests; not kidnapped, but he did get lie detector tests. And he was very clear, the lie detector examiner was a former FBI agent. He was from the FBI, that's what he said: A former FBI agent. There's no reason to think that they have multiple polygraph examiners. He had no problem with the -- he said it was unsettling. They put stuff on my chest. They wanted to see how I was breathing. It's unnerving because that's the whole point of it. The point is it's just not kidnapping. They charged it as kidnapping. And you know what you guys have the right to do? You guys have the right to say, huh, that seems like a stretch. I wonder why they're doing that. I wonder why they're making such a stretch.

Why charge a kidnapping where the evidence is that he didn't have anything to do with it, where the witness says I never spoke to him about it, where he's doing 15 other major things and where the witness goes home every night? Why charge him? You are allowed to ask that question. And you can come to whatever answer you think is the right answer. She leaves -- Capricorn leaves for awhile. She leaves for about a year because she makes more money, and then she comes back. And now let's talk about the December 22, 2011, the morning of that day. So who are the players? The players are we have Sean and Cassie, okay. They're in a hotel room having a freak-off, okay. We have Kid Cudi. We don't know where Cudi is. Cudi doesn't say where he was in the morning. It probably doesn't matter all that much. We have Capricorn, who is presumably in her apartment. And we have Police Officer Ignacio. Police Officer Ignacio, a 17-year LAPD officer, patrolling the beat that he's familiar with.

So let's take a look at the morning of December 11 -- I keep saying December 11 -- December 22, 2011. As I say, Cassie has two hotel rooms. She has her burner phone in one of the hotel rooms. Combs goes and gets access to her non-burner phone, looks in it, and sees messages with Capricorn about Cudi. Might have been called Scott in the message, it's hard to know, and possible hiking. Next thing we know, it's 5:30 in the morning, according to Capricorn, and Sean Combs is at her door, okay? Never been there before. She says, he's never been to my house before. 5:30 in the morning he's at her house, and he has a gun. I'm going to go through five reasons why he didn't have a gun. Five reasons why he did not have a gun. Reason number one, why would he have a gun? Let's start with that one first. Why would he have a gun? Capricorn loves this man. She probably been waiting for him to come over at 5:30 for years. Finally. Finally came over at 5:30.

If he asked her to take a trip to the moon, she'd go, and he knows that. He doesn't need a gun. He needs to put a gun against Capricorn to get Capricorn do anything? She's so honored that he came over. He doesn't need a gun. He doesn't think he needs a gun. He doesn't need a gun. He didn't have a gun. Second, Capricorn says he wanted to know where Cudi's house was. Here's why it doesn't make sense. Because Cudi said Cassie told Cudi that Cassie already told Combs. Okay. So you following that? I know it was a couple of steps. Let's go through it again. Cudi testified that when Cassie called him, Cassie said, "I'm worried I gave Sean your address. I think he might go to your house." That's something that's going to stay in Cudi's mind. I submit to you, that's an important piece of information. It's early in the morning, presumably being woken up. He's being told, "I gave Sean your address and he might go to your house." So let's say that's true.

He doesn't need the address from Capricorn. Third reason, Sean Combs has everything to lose and virtually nothing to gain from having a gun. I mean, it's 2011. He's already Sean Combs. He's going to an apartment building that has security guards. He's going to have to get out in the street. Capricorn says he's sort of disheveled. It's not like he has a holster. He shoves a gun down the front of his pants. I submit to you, there is no way on God's green earth that he is going to take a gun out of a car, walk through the streets, get through security guards, and go see Capricorn with a gun. It's just not going to happen. Number four: Capricorn would not have stayed employed had he really pulled a gun on her. That's just -- it just didn't happen. There's no way that Capricorn -- you know, I want my life back is one thing. You pulled a gun on me, and I'm the victim of an armed kidnapping? Just didn't happen -- there was no gun. He didn't have a gun.

And the fifth, and the best reason why he didn't have a gun, is because Cudi and Cassie say that Capricorn never said gun. All right? So let's break this down. This is important. I really want -- you guys need to understand this. Capricorn says: I wanted to warn Cassie and Cudi, and so I called Cassie. She says she called her on her burner phone. I don't know that's possible, and I'll tell you why in a minute, but she says: I called Cassie. I want to make sure I get the statements exactly right. Okay. What she says is: "Puff came, got me with a gun. Brought me to Cudi's house to kill him." So Capricorn when she testified said: I made a phone call. I said: Puff came, got me with a gun. Brought me to Cudi's house to kill him. That was her statement. Cudi got on the stand and said what Capricorn said was: Sean Combs and an affiliate were in my house. She was in the car. All right. No gun. All right? Had Capricorn said gun, Cudi would have remembered gun. You're not going to forget gun.

Gun is one of the clearer words in our language. You say gun, you're going to remember gun. Had Capricorn said to Cudi what Capricorn says she said to Cudi, Cudi would have remembered gun. He would also have remembered kill. Another really clear, single syllable word that you tend to remember. Cudi didn't say that. Cudi didn't say that Capricorn said that because Capricorn didn't say that. And there is no reason if Capricorn sees a gun, and if the whole point of calling Cudi and Cassie is to warn them about danger, I'm warning you about danger, she is going to say gun. But Cudi and Cassie don't hear gun because gun was never said. So working backwards, they didn't hear gun. When Cudi speaks to the police officer, he doesn't tell the police officer anything about a gun, doesn't say anything about gun to Officer Ignacio. Didn't say Combs had a gun because no one told him Combs had a gun because Combs didn't have a gun. It works backwards.

So when Capricorn says that Combs had a gun, that's not possible because if he would have had a gun, she would have said gun, Cudi would have said gun, Police Officer Ignacio would have written gun in his report, and he wouldn't have written it up as a trespass, which is what he did. He writes it up as a trespass. Had he believed that Sean Combs had a gun, he wouldn't be writing this up as a trespass. So there's no gun. Capricorn didn't say gun because she didn't see a gun because there was no gun. Okay. A few more reasons why her story falls apart. The times don't line up. She says Combs come to him at 5:30, and then she says she makes the call at 6:15. 6:15 a.m. Capricorn says: I make the call to Cassie at 6:15. Cassie and Cudi at 6:15. What do we know from Police Officer Ignacio? He gets the call at 8:20. He gets the call at 8:20. And when he gets there, the Escalade is in front of the house, so it's just not 61:5. And that's literally the difference between night and day.

I mean, it's not like she's off by 15 minutes or 20 minutes. I mean, one is 6:15 and one is 8:20. So it can't be both, and she's clear as a bell that she called at 6:15. One other thing she says, it was a car chase. Let me read to you her testimony about the car chase. "A. We heard a very fast-moving engine coming up the hill. "Q. What happened next? "A. Out of the corner of my eye, I could see that it was Cudi. Puff looked at my face. I guess I gave him a visual cue that it was him. And he goes, There's that N-word right there. "Q. What happened next? "A. Cudi pulled up next to the Cadillac Escalade, came to a complete stop, looked, and then took off and sped up the hill. Puff and Rube jumped in the car and we started chasing him. "Q. How long was this chase? "A. It felt like forever, but couldn't have been longer than a minute. "Q. What, if any, other cars did you observe while you were driving at this time? "A. Cudi lost us. We turned south, down Laurel Canyon.

We heard sirens and we passed the police. "Q. In what direction were the police headed? "A. They were headed north on Laurel Canyon. We were headed south on Laurel Canyon." Do you think Cudi forgot he was in a car chase? He seems like a pretty together guy. Do you think he was in a car chase where he whizzed by police, and he just forgot to mention that to you? Officer Ignacio had enough wherewithal to get the license plate; missed the car chase. There was no car chase. There was no car chase. She is giving vivid detail about a car chase that didn't happen, and you guys have to keep that in mind about all of her testimony. The Judge is going to give you instructions, give you a lot of instructions. One of the instructions I think he's going to give you is if you find that a witness lied in regard to some material aspect of their testimony, you are free, if you think it's appropriate to do so, to disregard all of the witness's testimony. All of it. You goes don't have to.

You guys can do whatever you want, but it's going to be one of the instructions the Court gives you about how you can, if you see fit, look at a witness's credibility. And that's all you really need. I mean, she is saying -- her sworn testimony is that she saw a car chase, and there objectively, conclusively was no car chase. There just wasn't because we have a police officer saying there was no car chase, and we have Cudi saying there was no car chase. A few other things small things, but maybe it's not so small. She says, yeah, from where I could see when the gate was open, I could see into the house. Okay. Police Officer Ignacio says you can't. My money is on Police Officer Ignacio. Between Capricorn and Police Officer Ignacio, I'm going with Police Officer Ignacio. You cannot see into that house. As I said, the statements are different. And the final thing. What's up with this call to Lauren London? Remember this? She mentioned this for the first time on the stand.

She says: A matter of life and death, I have to warn Cudi and Cassie that Puff's here with a gun. And then I started asking her: Well, did you call Lauren London? Yes? No? Maybe? Yes, I called Lauren London. Was Lauren London on the phone when you were talking to Cassie and Cudi? Her answer was it's possible. It's possible. Man, you are -- it seems like everything is possible with you. That there was a third person on the call? She was clear as a bell. She is clear as a bell on the stand. She called Lauren London. And I asked her: Tell me exactly, exactly what you said to Lauren London. And her answer was: "I came up here with Puff. I want to run away." Who remembers what she was afraid of? Mountain lions. I'm afraid of the mountain lions. That's what she said. Puff brought me up here. I want to run away. But I'm afraid of the mountain lions. Now I'm not saying mountain lions are not scary. But if you were just kidnapped at gunpoint, you wouldn't be talking about the mountain lions.

You just wouldn't. I'm afraid of Sean Combs with a gun. I'm afraid because I just got kidnapped at gunpoint. What she said, what she said she said, I'm afraid of the mountain lions. I think we're done with this. There was no kidnapping. Can I tell you what I think probably happened based on the evidence? Combs comes to her house, it's early. They talk. If he gets there at 5:30, they're probably in her apartment for -- because they have to be there at 8:20 because Ignacio is right, Ignacio is right, so they are there at 8:20. So if Combs comes to her house, apartment at the time she says, and we don't know that that's right either, say, at 5:30. They're hanging out for two hours, and then they go over. That's the only thing makes sense because what we know is true, what we know for a fact is true because Ignacio got the license plate, so we know that's right, we know the Escalade was there at 8:20.

She doesn't give any explanation for how the Escalade is there at 8:20, but we know it's there. So what I submit to you makes sense is that this is not a kidnapping, but she doesn't want to give the impression that she is like part of this volitionally. He pulled a gun. He pulled gun on me because the only way to make this against her will is to go gun because anything short of gun, she went on her own volition, which is actually what happened, but she doesn't want to say that. Maybe it's loyalty to Cassie. Maybe it's loyalty to Cudi. I have no idea. But she doesn't want to say I went there of my own volition, so she makes up gun, because if you say a gun, I got to go, not my choice any more. I got to go if there's gun. There was no gun. She went on her own. And, listen, and I'm not the man telling you that the rest of it's wrong. You following me? He went there. He went there. He was mad at Cudi. He wanted to fight him. Because that's who he is.

He wanted to fight Cudi, and Cudi wanted to fight him. Remember what Cudi said? I'm going to say it: Motherfucker, you're in my house, right? And these are two grown men who are going to have a fistfight because he's not a coward. He's not afraid to fight. And Cudi for his credit, he's not a coward. He's not afraid to fight either. So at the risk of sounding sexist, they're going to do what men do: They are going to have a good, old-fashioned fistfight, which is why you know he didn't do anything to that man's car because that's not his style. He's a fighter. He's a fighter. You have a problem with me, I'm coming to your house. I'm coming to your -- you're messing with my girl, I'm coming to your house, and we're going to fight. No weapons. We're going to fight. One of us is going to punch the other in the nose and get punched in the nose, and we're going to have a good old-fashioned John Wayne 8:00 in the morning Hollywood Hills fight. That's who he is. He went there to fight.

Now let's talk about this nonsense with the Porsche. There is no evidence. I mean no evidence that he had anything to do with the Porsche. Nothing. Let me tell you what evidence is. DNA is evidence. Fingerprints are evidence. Credible eyewitnesses - evidence. Who else would do it? Not evidence. Because he wouldn't do it. He would affirmatively not do it. If he wanted to fight Cudi, they would fight. Blowing up a man's car or what happened with that Old English bottle is cowardly. It's a coward's way out. I'm afraid to fight him so I'm to blow up his car. Come on. Be a man and fight him. That's who he is. He's going to fight him. He's not going to blow up his car. So let's talk about the Porsche. You saw the pictures -- I swear on myself, I'm going to show you little as little stuff as possible. There's two things in that Porsche, only two. Two things are in that Porsche: There's a Molotov cocktail, and there's a single glove. Now, Cudi keeps a neat car. There are no bubblegum wrappers.

There's no Easy Pass receipts. I don't know if Easy Pass gives receipts, they probably don't. There's nothing. No trash in the car. Take a look at the car. It's crystal clean. There's two things in it: The Molotov cocktail that didn't work out, and there's that one glove. And remember Lance Jimenez was his name. He testified as expert witness in fire science or whatever he testified as an expert in. Remember what he said to you? He showed you a bunch of pictures. Recognize what these pictures are? I think there was 38 of them. Yeah, these are the pictures that my partners took that day. These are all the pictures? Well, it's not all of them because we had to show you the picture of the glove. I know what you're thinking, incident in California involving a glove? Really? But it's true. We had to show you a glove. Why would he withhold the picture of the glove? Is there a good reason to not show the glove? They're showing you 38 pictures. Why not show you the picture of the glove?

Why take the picture of the glove and say, you know what? They won't notice. Yeah, these are the pictures blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Not all of them. They plucked the glove from the pictures. Now, am I suggesting something? I'm suggesting the investigation stunk. That's what I'm suggesting. It's a terrible investigation. Let me tell you why it's terrible. He told you, he says, we recovered two fingerprints. Well, what happened to them? I don't know. Okay. He's charged with arson. That's real. You're going to go in the jury room, and you're going to determine his fate on arson charge. And Investigator Jimenez told you: I don't know what happened to those two prints. No idea. I can't give you any help at all. Two prints. No idea. Okay. There was a what he called a hit, his words. There was a DNA hit. That's what he said. That's what he testified to. There was a DNA hit. Now it wasn't enough DNA to indicate a person but it was consistent with a female contributor.

So let's keep our definitions nice and tight, okay. Partial DNA profile, meaning we don't have a person. Consistent with a female contributor. Looking back trying to remember what he was like on the stand, did you find him kind of unhelpful? Did you think he was just not real -- he wasn't really helping the process that you guys have to do? You would think this man never heard of the letters D and N and A being in the same sentence. I have no idea. I don't do it myself. No one thinks you do it. You send it out to a laboratory like every police department in America. Of course you don't do it. My partner sent it out. Where did you sent it out to? I don't know. Can you imagine what his testimony would have been if it came back with his DNA? Do you think it would have been like that? He would have known everything about DNA. DNA is my middle name. But partial female contributor, I don't even know when the results came back. Sent it out to a laboratory. I have no idea.

DNA, finally in this case there's evidence of something. And Investigator Jimenez couldn't care less. Never followed up on the fingerprints. Never followed up on the DNA. But he did two things, and I wonder if it's a coincidence. He tried to track down Cassie. He tried to track down Capricorn. Are they men or are they women? Huh. I wonder if that's a coincidence. Now, naturally, because he's a man, he's like, yeah, you know, I -- but remember what he said about Capricorn? He said: I spoke to her brother, and he fought with me. He says: He obstructed my investigation. That's what he said. He said: Capricorn's brother obstructed my investigation by being whatever -- however difficult Capricorn's brother was. Now I'm not saying Capricorn -- please, when I tell you I think something, I'll tell you. I don't think Capricorn did it. I don't think Cassie did it. I just think the investigation doesn't reveal to you who did it. That's all we're here to do. We're not here to solve a world crime.

You guys look at evidence, okay? Now, another thing he's trying to track down Cassie, he goes to the point of calling her father. Remember that? He called her father, who's a fireman, and they kind of had a fireman-to-fireman talk. Hey, can you get your daughter to call me? Nobody ever called him. Maybe that's why he was so upset. He seemed upset on the stand. I'll let you guys figure it out. No one called him back. Capricorn's brother obstructs the investigation. He speaks to another fireman. Can't get the daughter to call him. The one thing is very clear, he had nothing to do with anything. Now, I have heard at this trial they keep saying that Sean Combs said he was going to do it. He was going to like blow up the car, and what they're talking about is this. They're talking about this; they're talking about this email. This email is B like boy 315. It's a Government Exhibit. They're talking about this email.

Let's read this very important email and see if it says anything about I'm going to blow up a car. It's from Veronica Bang, which is, I don't know, Cassie's name to Capricorn and to her mother. "The threats that have been made toward me by Sean Puffy Combs." Let's stop right there. What's going on there? Why is she calling him Sean Puffy Combs? She knows who he is. Capricorn works for him. She doesn't have to say Sean Puffy Combs like she is memorializing something for some future reason perhaps. You know, Sean Puffy Combs, I'm surprised she didn't put his social security number, last known address. "Are that he is going to release two explicit sex tapes of me." Now that was part of the evidence. I think that was said. I think he was angry, and I think he said it. He didn't do it. He would never do it. But let's say he said it. "One on Christmas Day, maybe before or right after, and another one sometimes soon after that." This is the important part.

"He has also said that he will be having someone hurt me and Scott Mescudi physically. He made a point that it wouldn't be by his hands. He actually said he'd be out of the country when it happened." I'm a little more dubious on that one because I don't think he would pass up the opportunity, if he had the opportunity to beat up Scott Mescudi himself. But there is nothing about a car. So this is what they're talking about. He didn't say he was going to do anything with a car. He's saying he was going to -- what that says, he was going to hurt them. Nothing about a car. So this whole notion that somehow he confessed before the point is ridiculous. It just didn't happen. We're going to talk about a -- there's an allegation that Cassie was kidnapped and was kept in the London Hotel. Okay? She never talks about the force. She never talks that somehow she was taken to the London Hotel by some forcible means. What she actually says was what she wanted was she wanted to stay at Sean's house.

Here we have another one for the ages: Kidnapping, where rather than staying at Sean's house, she has to stay at the London Hotel. Let's look at the testimony on this. It's from page 769, line 16. I'm going to read it to you, but you can read it yourself. "Q. You mentioned that you said you wanted to stay at the house? "A. Um-hmm. "Q. Who didn't allow you to stay at the house? "A. Sean didn't." Here's the weird thing about this. Each kidnapping is a little weird. The first gets to go home at night, and now she's like I want to escape the London Hotel to go to his house. I mean, it's just not a kidnapping. It's not a kid -- when you want to go to the house of the guy charged with the kidnapping, you know what that means? It means it's not a kidnapping. And she doesn't say anything about force. She doesn't say anything about that. And I submit to you that, listen -- and we're going to take the domestic violence, let's take the domestic violence. Obviously, something happened.

Obviously, there was some physical event, and she had injuries, okay? So she goes to the hotel as much for her own good as anyone else's. She doesn't -- they don't want this in the press. They're public people. Something has gone on at this trial that really is unfair, which is that every like event that could be sort of scandalous or bad press is only about Combs. That's just not true though. Cassie is a public persona as well. And when we get to what happens with the videotape, you're really going to see that because Cassie says something that's very important, which is: I don't want that videotape in public. I have a movie coming out. So let's balance this out and see it for what it is. They don't want bad press. This would be bad press. I submit to you, listen, she probably would rather be at his house, but that doesn't make it a kidnapping. so this is not a kidnapping because what she really wanted was to go to his house. Okay.

Bribery of the security guard at the Intercontinental. Let me read you the jury charge on this. This is the charge at page of 26. 1. The conspirator gave or offered or promised a bribe to a witness, or a person about to be called as a witness, or a person about to give material information to a law enforcement official about a crime. A law enforcement official about a crime. 2. The conspirator acted with the corrupt intent to persuade the witness or person to agree that the bribe would unlawfully influence the testimony or information that the witness or person would give. This is about law enforcement. This is about influencing law enforcement. This is not about making sure you don't get bad publicity, okay. And that was everybody's motive that day. Everybody was moved to make sure we don't get bad publicity. Now I want to read -- before I go any further, I want to read you guys something that was testified to by Mr. Kaplan. And I'm looking now at page 2332, line 19. "Q.

So you had some measure of distrust for the hotel staff that they might release something? "A. A large measure. "Q. A large measure of distrust for the hotel staff? "A. Mmm. "Q. And why did you have this large measure of distrust for the hotel staff? "A. Because money's involved and people want a payday. If they steal security footage or if there's a security guard who leaks footage or any number of permutations, that could be like that would have been severely compromised, and it would have been a terrible look on me, and it's not what I wanted. I didn't want his reputation to be compromised. "Q. You think that would be unfair? "A. I think that's the way the world works. "Q. I mean, you used the word payday? "A. To, like, sell the video or the imagery to a news outlet in exchange for money as a hotel employee." That's what they're worried about. He testified to it. That's what they're worried about. They're worried not about the police. They're not worried about the police.

I mean, listen, it's a horrible video. It's a misdemeanor. They're worried about terrible publicity. And that's what he says. That's what he says. And guess what happened? Footage never made it quite to the trial. He's right. He was right to be worried. He was right to be worried that people are going to get a payday. He's right to be worried that if the hotel -- if a hotel employee, you know, gets something that could get him some money or her money, that they might do it. It happens. And it happened. So that's what they're worried about. They're not worried about the police. The police are nowhere near this situation. There's no -- the police are not called. Cassie doesn't want the police called. Mr. Combs obviously doesn't want the police called. No one calls the police. There's no police. Now, is Combs acting — I'm going to say it; be mad at me when I say it — kind of like a fool when he's calling Cassie, "Oh, they're about to arrest me."

He's just trying to get her attention because she's angry. Damn straight she's angry. She should be angry. There would be something wrong if she wasn't angry. You saw that video. She's angry, and he's calling her, and she's freezing him out, as she should. And he's just trying to get her attention. But there is no police. Now, at one point he leaves and he goes to her apartment and he's banging on the door, maybe with a hammer, maybe -- let's say it's a hammer, all right. He's back banging on the door with a hammer. It's very clear, I think it was Kerry Morgan who said one of the neighbors called the police. That's why the police come. The police come because he's banging on the door. It's like 6:00 at night. It's four hours later, she testified. We're going to go through this in detail. They come four hours later because of what happened at the apartment. The police aren't investigating what happened at the Intercontinental. No one called the police. There were no police involved.

But when he's banging on the door, Kerry Morgan says a neighbor called the police, so that's why the police are there. Don't mix this. It's apples and oranges. The police have nothing to do with Intercontinental. The Intercontinental had no police, period. And if there's no police, period, I submit to you he cannot be guilty of bribery under California law, as the Judge will read it to you. One other thing. Yesterday when the government was summing up, they put up a slide. And the slide I think looks something like this. It had the top of this, and it had the bottom of this, okay? I can see you guys remember, okay. And what they said when they showed you part of this and part of this is that this agreement said that no one can tell anybody. No one can tell anybody about like what happened. If they would have showed you both pages of this, which they didn't, you would know that's not true. Because of let's read the second page. It wasn't on the slide which they didn't tell you about.

This is going to be a theme. We're going to see about a dozen of these over the next few hours. What does this say on the second page? A disclosure of any confidential information in response to a valid order by a court or other governmental body, or as otherwise required by law, will not be a breach of this agreement or a waiver of confidentiality for other purposes, provided, however, that the recipient provides prompt prior written notice thereof to company and enable company to seek a protective order or otherwise prevent the disclosure. What this says is they can very much tell the police. They can very much do whatever the law requires, but we want an opportunity to go to the court and say maybe this still shouldn't be in public. Maybe they go to a court, and they win. Maybe they go before a court, and they lose. But that's very different than what the government told you that agreement says yesterday. Why didn't they show you that part? Why didn't they tell you what it said?

I mean, they want you to convict him of bribery. And they weren't straight with you. And that's a big deal. And we're going to come back to this a few times. Why don't they show you what the second page said? Yes, it's in evidence. I get it. You can go back and dig up this stuff on your own, but they didn't show it to you in summation. In the summation they said it wasn't true. They said you can't tell anybody. That's just not right. It's not right, and it's not true. Here's another thing. Witness tampering. The woman who came into this courtroom and testified under the false name Mia, okay? They say I think that D-Roc was trying to pay Mia. D-Roc was trying to give Mia money, and in the context of things, that's tampering with a witness. Here's what they didn't tell you. And, yeah, I know it's in evidence, and you can dig it up and find it, but they didn't tell you about it.

I'm going to read the whole message to you because part of the reason I'll read the whole message to you is there's this notion that the government is that she's like somehow scared and battening down the hatches and all this stuff, but listen to this message to D-Roc. Aww D, miss you so much. I know how much shit you deal with from all over and in every direction and staying in your bubble is super smart to protect your mentality from any more bullshit than you need. We've all got our own bullshit to take care of, right? And sometimes when we are natural caretakers, we tend to ignore our own needs and everyone assumes we're okay, but we need help, love, and empathy too. So just know it's okay or not to be" -- you know what? I'm not going to read the whole thing. It's just too damn long. I'll read the second to last paragraph. But I do chartable shit here, like helping out local families grow small business, building their little houses, whatever they need, et cetera.

That I ask physically do because I'm out of skrillo money. I'm out of skrillo money. Why does D-Roc offer her money — which we'll get to in a minute — because she's telling him "I'm out of it." Do you remember them telling you that yesterday? They didn't tell you that yesterday. Yes, I know. They can come up on rebuttal and say, yeah, it's in the evidence, but they didn't tell you. They want you to go back and deliberate about witness tampering, and they didn't put it right in front of your face, right in front your face, that she says "I'm out of skrillo money." What does D-Roc say back? I'm so proud of you. You're my sister for real. If you need anything, I can help. I'm not rich, but I'm not broke either. I love you, let's talk sometime tomorrow. Come on. You guys have got to decide this case on the actual evidence, and you guys know that. They should make that job easy for you. They shouldn't make you have to go find things in the evidence. They should have showed you that.

They should have showed that you she said I'm out of skrillo money. All right. The other witness tampering that they say happened is with Jane. This is in regard to those two recorded phone calls. So let's talk about that. This is right on the heels of the Cassie lawsuit. And I submit to you, the big issue at the time was I'm going to -- holy shit, are we going to get sued again? Are we going to get sued again? What the heck. From six years earlier, Cassie comes back and sues me for our life together, you know, for our life together. Is this happening again? He's not thinking -- first of all, there's no evidence in the record that there's a federal investigation at the time of these recordings. None. There's no evidence in the record that there's a federal investigation, and there's certainly no evidence that he thinks there's a federal investigation at this early stage. I think it's November 19. I think the Cassie lawsuit had come out like two days earlier.

And the Judge is going to tell that, you know, it's obstructing a federal investigation. And I submit to you there's nothing in the record to indicate (A) that there is one or (B) that he is even thinking that way. But what there's every indication to believe, what there's every reason to believe is that he's afraid of getting sued. And so, listen, is it, you know -- those recordings sound terrible in my opinion because he's trying to stave off a lawsuit, but that's what it is. He's trying to stave off a lawsuit. He's not trying to do anything with a criminal investigation because there is no criminal investigation. But he's worried that he might get sued. And guess what? When it comes to Jane, he still might. We'll talk that in a minute. Forced labor. Capricorn and Mia. Capricorn.