Bill Murray says Bob Woodward's Nixon reporting ‘soiled' because of ‘inaccurate' book on John Belushi
Iconic comedian Bill Murray joked that famed Watergate reporter Bob Woodward could have "framed" former President Richard Nixon because his book about John Belushi was "completely inaccurate."
Woodward, who shared a Pulitzer Prize with Carl Bernstein for the Washington Post's coverage of the Watergate scandal that helped uncover details that resulted in Nixon's resignation, also penned the 1986 book, "Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi," which Murray does not approve of.
"I read like five pages of 'Wired,' and I went, 'Oh my God. They framed Nixon,'" Murray said on "The Joe Rogan Experience."
'Animal House' Star John Belushi 'Didn't Have A Prayer', Couldn't Escape Drugs: Co-star
Murray had a years-long friendship with Belushi, who was found dead of a drug overdose in 1982. Woodward's book explored the comedian's life and drug addiction years after his reporting helped push Nixon out of office.
"If this is what he writes about my friend that I've known, you know, for half of my adult life, which is completely inaccurate, talking to like, the people of the outer, outer circle, getting the story – what the hell did that could they have done to Nixon? I just felt like if he did this to my friend like this, and I acknowledge I only read five pages, but the five pages I read made me want to set fire to the whole thing," Murray said.
Read On The Fox News App
"I went, 'If he did this to Belushi, what he did in Nixon's is probably soiled for me, too.' I can't, I can't take it," he continued. "And I know you say, well, 'You could have two sources and everything like that,' but the two sources that he had, if he had them for the 'Wired' book, were so far outside the inner circle that it was, it was criminal."
Nixon Foundation Demands Correction From '60 Minutes' After Segment Says He 'Sought To Destroy' Wh Tapes
Fox News Digital has reached out to Woodward's team for comment but has yet to receive a response.
Nixon resigned from office on August 8, 1974. He left the highest office in the land in the face of likely impeachment amid the Watergate scandal, which involved his administration's cover-up of spying activities on the Democratic Party's headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. during the 1972 election.
Woodward was played by iconic actor Robert Redford in the 1976 film, "All the President's Men," which was based on the book he co-authored with Bernstein about their Watergate reporting.
He has written at least 21 books, including bestsellers on the last 10 presidents. Former Presidents Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and President Trump have all been covered by Woodward.
Fox News Digital's Christine Rousselle contributed to this report. Original article source: Bill Murray says Bob Woodward's Nixon reporting 'soiled' because of 'inaccurate' book on John Belushi
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Demis Hassabis On The Future of Work in the Age of AI
WIRED Editor At Large Steven Levy sits down with Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis for a deep dive discussion on the emergence of AI, the path to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and how Google is positioning itself to compete in the future of the workplace. Director: Justin Wolfson Director of Photography: Christopher Eusteche Editor: Cory Stevens Host: Steven Levy Guest: Demis Hassabis Line Producer: Jamie Rasmussen Associate Producer: Brandon White Production Manager: Peter Brunette Production Coordinator: Rhyan Lark Camera Operator: Lauren Pruitt Gaffer: Vincent Cota Sound Mixer: Lily van Leeuwen Production Assistant: Ryan Coppola Post Production Supervisor: Christian Olguin Post Production Coordinator: Stella Shortino Supervising Editor: Erica DeLeo Assistant Editor: Justin Symonds - It's a very intense time in the field. We obviously want all of the brilliant things these AI systems can do, come up with new cures for diseases, new energy sources, incredible things for humanity. That's the promise of AI. But also, there are worries if the first AI systems are built with the wrong value systems or they're built unsafely, that could be also very bad. - Wired sat down with Demis Hassabis, who's the CEO of Google DeepMind, which is the engine of the company's artificial intelligence. He's a Nobel Prize winner and also a knight. We discussed AGI, the future of work, and how Google plans to compete in the age of AI. This is "The Big Interview." [upbeat music] Well, welcome to "The Big Interview," Demis. - Thank you, thanks for having me. - So let's start talking about AGI a little here. Now, you founded DeepMind with the idea that you would solve intelligence and then use intelligence to solve everything else. And I think it was like a 20-year mission. We're like 15 years into it, and you're on track? - I feel like, yeah, we're pretty much dead on track, actually, is what would be our estimate. - That means five years away from what I guess people will call AGI. - Yeah, I think in the next five to 10 years, that would be maybe 50% chance that we'll have what we are defined as AGI, yes. - Well, some of your peers are saying, "Two years, three years," and others say a little more, but that's really close, that's really soon. How do we know that we're that close? - There's a bit of a debate going on in the moment in the field about definitions of AGI, and then obviously, of course, dependent on that. There's different predictions for when it will happen. We've been pretty consistent from the very beginning. And actually, Shane Legg, one of my co-founders and our chief scientist, you know, he helped define the term AGI back in, I think, early 2001 type of timeframe. And we've always thought about it as system that has the ability to exhibit, sort of all the cognitive capabilities we have as humans. And the reason that's important, the reference to the human mind, is the human mind is the only existence proof we have. Maybe in the universe, the general intelligence is possible. So if you want to claim sort of general intelligence, AGI, then you need to show that it generalizes to all these domains. - Is when everything's filled in, all the check marks are filled in, then we have it- - Yes, so I think there are missing capabilities right now. You know, that all of us who have used the latest sort of LLMs and chatbots, will know very well, like on reasoning, on planning, on memory. I don't think today's systems can invent, you know, do true invention, you know, true creativity, hypothesize new scientific theories. They're extremely useful, they're impressive, but they have holes. And actually, one of the main reasons I don't think we are at AGI yet is because of the consistency of responses. You know, in some domains, we have systems that can do International Math Olympiad, math problems to gold medal standard- - Sure. - With our AlphaFold system. But on the other hand, these systems sometimes still trip up on high school maths or even counting the number of letters in a word. - Yeah. - So that to me is not what you would expect. That level of sort of difference in performance across the board is not consistent enough, and therefore shows that these systems are not fully generalizing yet. - But when we get it, is it then like a phase shift that, you know, then all of a sudden things are different, all the check marks are checked? - Yeah. - You know, and we have a thing that can do everything. - Mm-hmm. - Are we then power in a new world? - I think, you know, that again, that is debated, and it's not clear to me whether it's gonna be more of a kind of incremental transition versus a step function. My guess is, it looks like it's gonna be more of an incremental shift. Even if you had a system like that, the physical world, still operates with the physical laws, you know, factories, robots, these other things. So it'll take a while for the effects of that, you know, this sort of digital intelligence, if you like, to really impact, I think, a lot of the real world things. Maybe another decade plus, but there's other theories on that too, where it could come faster. - Yeah, Eric Schmidt, who I think used to work at Google, has said that, "It's almost like a binary thing." He says, "If China, for instance, gets AGI, then we're cooked." Because if someone gets it like 10 minutes, before the next guy, then you can never catch up. You know, because then it'll maintain bigger, bigger leads there. You don't buy that, I guess. - I think it's an unknown. It's one of the many unknowns, which is that, you know, that's sometimes called the hard takeoff scenario, where the idea there is that these AGI systems, they're able to self-improve, maybe code themselves future versus themselves, that maybe they're extremely fast at doing that. So what would be a slight lead, let's say, you know, a few days, could suddenly become a chasm if that was true. But there are many other ways it could go too, where it's more incremental. Some of these self-improvement things are not able to kind of accelerate in that way, then being around the same time, would not make much difference. But it's important, I mean, these issues are the geopolitical issues. I think the systems that are being built, they'll have some imprint of the values and the kind of norms of the designers and the culture that they were embedded in. - [Steven] Mm-hmm. - So, you know, I think it is important, these kinds of international questions. - So when you build AI at Google, you know, you have that in mind. Do you feel competitive imperative to, in case that's true, "Oh my God, we better be first?" - It's a very intense time at the moment in the field as everyone knows. There's so many resources going into it, lots of pressures, lots of things that need to be researched. And there's sort of lots of different types of pressures going on. We obviously want all of the brilliant things that these AI systems can do. You know, I think eventually, we'll be able to advance medicine and science with it, like we've done with AlphaFold, come up with new cures for diseases, new energy sources, incredible things for humanity, that's the promise of AI. But also there are worries both in terms of, you know, if the first AI systems are built with the wrong value systems or they're built unsafely, that could be also very bad. And, you know, there are at least two risks that I worry a lot about. One is, bad actors in whether it's individuals or rogue nations repurposing general purpose AI technology for harmful lens. And then the second one is, obviously, the technical risk of AI itself. As it gets more and more powerful, more and more agentic, can we make sure the guardrails are safe around it? They can't be circumvented. And that interacts with this idea of, you know, what are the first systems that are built by humanity gonna be like? There's commercial imperative- - [Steven] Right. - There's national imperative, and there's a safety aspect to worry about who's in the lead and where those projects are. - A few years ago, the companies were saying, "Please, regulate us. We need regulation." - Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. - And now, in the US at least, the current administration seems less interested in putting regulations on AI than accelerating it so we can beat the Chinese. Are you still asking for regulation? Do you think that that's a miss on our part? - I think, you know, and I've been consistent in this, I think there are these other geopolitical sort of overlays that have to be taken into account, and the world's a very different place to how it was five years ago in many dimensions. But there's also, you know, I think the idea of smart regulation that makes sense around these increasingly powerful systems, I think is gonna be important. I continue to believe that. I think though, and I've been certain on this as well, it sort of needs to be international, which looks hard at the moment in the way the world is working, because these systems, you know, they're gonna affect everyone, and they're digital systems. - Yeah. - So, you know, if you sort of restrict it in one area, that doesn't really help in terms of the overall safety of these systems getting built for the world and as a society. - [Steven] Yeah. - So that's the bigger problem, I think, is some kind of international cooperation or collaboration, I think, is what's required. And then smart regulation, nimble regulation that moves as the knowledge about the research becomes better and better. - Would it ever reach a point for you where you would feel, "Man, we're not putting the guardrails in. You know, we're competing, that we really have to stop, or you can't get involved in that?" - I think a lot of the leaders of the main labs, at least the western labs, you know, there's a small number of them and we do all know each other and talk to each other regularly. And a lot of the lead researchers do. The problem is, is that it's not clear we have the right definitions to agree when that point is. Like, today's systems, although they're impressive as we discussed earlier, they're also very flawed. And I don't think today's systems, are posing any sort of existential risk. - Mm-hmm. - So it's still theoretical, but the problem is that a lot of unknowns, we don't know how fast those will come, and we don't know how risky they will be. But in my view, when there are so many unknowns, then I'm optimistic we'll overcome them. At least technically, I think the geopolitical questions could be actually, end up being trickier, given enough time and enough care and thoughtfulness, you know, sort of using the scientific method as we approach this AGI point. - That makes perfect sense. But on the other hand, if that timeframe is there, we just don't have much time, you know? - No, we don't. We don't have much time. I mean, we're increasingly putting resources into security and things like cyber, and also research into controllability and understanding of these systems, sometimes called mechanistic interpretability. You know, there's a lot of different sub-branches of AI. - Yeah, that's right. I wanna get to interpretability. - Yeah, that are being invested in, and I think even more needs to happen. And then at the same time, we need to also have societal debates more about institutional building. How do we want governance to work? How are we gonna get international agreement, at least on some basic principles, around how these systems are used and deployed and also built? - What about the effect on work on the marketplace? - Yeah. - You know, how much do you feel that AI is going to change people's jobs, you know, the way jobs are distributed in the workforce? - I don't think we've seen, my view is if you talk to economists, they feel like there's not much has changed yet. You know, people are finding these tools useful, certainly in certain domains- - [Steven] Yeah. - Like, things like AlphaFold, many, many scientists are using it to accelerate their work. So it seems to be additive at the moment. We'll see what happens over the next five, 10 years. I think there's gonna be a lot of change with the jobs world, but I think as in the past, what generally tends to happen is new jobs are created that are actually better, that utilize these tools or new technologies, what happened with the internet, what happened with mobile? We'll see if it's different this time. - Yeah. - Obviously everyone always thinks this new one, will be different. And it may be, it will be, but I think for the next few years, it's most likely to be, you know, we'll have these incredible tools that supercharge our productivity, make us really useful for creative tools, and actually almost make us a little bit superhuman in some ways in what we're able to produce individually. So I think there's gonna be a kind of golden era, over the next period of what we're able to do. - Well, if AGI can do everything humans can do, then it would seem that they could do the new jobs too. - That's the next question about like, what AGI brings. But, you know, even if you have those capabilities, there's a lot of things I think we won't want to do with a machine. You know, I sometimes give this example of doctors and nurses. You know, maybe a doctor and what the doctor does and the diagnosis, you know, one could imagine that being helped by AI tool or even having an AI kind of doctor. On the other hand, like nursing, you know, I don't think you'd want a robot to do that. I think there's something about the human empathy aspect of that and the care, and so on, that's particularly humanistic. I think there's lots of examples like that but it's gonna be a different world for sure. - If you would talk to a graduate now, what advice would you give to keep working- - Yeah. - Through the course of a lifetime- - Yeah. - You know, in the age of AGI? - My view is, currently, and of course, this is changing all the time with the technology developing. But right now, you know, if you think of the next five, 10 years as being, the most productive people might be 10X more productive if they are native with these tools. So I think kids today, students today, my encouragement would be immerse yourself in these new systems, understand them. So I think it's still important to study STEM and programming and other things, so that you understand how they're built, maybe you can modify them yourself on top of the models that are available. There's lots of great open source models and so on. And then become, you know, incredible at things like fine-tuning, system prompting, you know, system instructions, all of these additional things that anyone can do. And really know how to get the most out of those tools, and do it for your research work, programming, and things that you are doing on your course. And then come out of that being incredible at utilizing those new tools for whatever it is you're going to do. - Let's look a little beyond the five and 10-year range. Tell me what you envision when you look at our future in 20 years, in 30 years, if this comes about, what's the world like when AGI is everywhere? - Well, if everything goes well, then we should be in an era of what I like to call sort of radical abundance. So, you know, AGI solves some of these key, what I sometimes call root node problems in the world facing society. So a good one, examples would be curing diseases, much healthier, longer lifespans, finding new energy sources, you know, whether that's optimal batteries and better room temperature, superconductors, fusion. And then if that all happens, then we know it should be a kind of era of maximum human flourishing where we travel to the stars and colonize the galaxy. You know, I think the beginning of that will happen in the next 20, 30 years if the next period goes well. - I'm a little skeptical of that. I think we have an unbelievable abundance now, but we don't distribute it, you know, fairly. - Yeah. - I think that we kind of know how to fix climate change, right? We don't need a AGI to tell us how to do it, yet we're not doing it. - I agree with that. I think we being as a species, a society not good at collaborating, and I think climate is a good example. But I think we are still operating, humans are still operating in a zero-sum game mentality. Because actually, the earth is quite finite, relative to the amount of people there are now in our cities. And I mean, this is why our natural habitats, are being destroyed, and it's affecting wildlife and the climate and everything. - [Steven] Yeah. - And it's also partly 'cause people are not willing to accept, we do now to figure out climate. But it would require people to make sacrifices. - Yeah. - And people don't want to. But this radical abundance would be different. We would be in a finally, like, it would feel like a non-zero-sum game. - How will we get [indistinct] to that? Like, you talk about diseases- - Well, I gave you an example. - We have vaccines, and now some people think we shouldn't use it. - Let me give you a very simple example. - Sure. - Water access. This is gonna be a huge issue in the next 10, 20 years. It's already an issue. Countries in different, you know, poorer parts of the world, dryer parts of the world, also obviously compounded by climate change. - [Steven] Yeah. - We have a solution to water access. It's desalination, it's easy. There's plenty of sea water. - Yeah. - Almost all countries have a coastline. But the problem is, it's salty water, but desalination only very rich countries. Some countries do do that, use desalination as a solution to their fresh water problem, but it costs a lot of energy. - Mm-hmm. - But if energy was essentially zero, there was renewable free clean energy, right? Like fusion, suddenly, you solve the water access problem. Water is, who controls a river or what you do with that does not, it becomes much less important than it is today. I think things like water access, you know, if you run forward 20 years, and there isn't a solution like that, could lead to all sorts of conflicts, probably that's the way it's trending- - Mm-hmm, right. - Especially if you include further climate change. - So- - And there's many, many examples like that. You could create rocket fuel easily- - Mm-hmm. - Because you just separate that from seawater, hydrogen and oxygen. It's just energy again. - So you feel that these problems get solved by AGI, by AI, then we're going to, our outlook will change, and we will be- - That's what I hope. Yes, that's what I hope. But that's still a secondary part. So the AGI will give us the radical abundance capability, technically, like the water access. - Yeah. - I then hope, and this is where I think we need some great philosophers or social scientists to be involved. That should hopefully shift our mindset as a society to non-zero-sum. You know, there's still the issue of do you divide even the radical abundance fairly, right? Of course, that's what should happen. But I think there's much more likely, once people start feeling and understanding that there is this almost limitless supply of raw materials and energy and things like that. - Do you think that driving this innovation by profit-making companies is the right way to go? We're most likely to reach that optimistic high point through that? - I think it's the current capitalism or, you know, is the current or the western sort of democratic kind of systems, have so far been proven to be sort of the best drivers of progress. - Mm-hmm. - So I think that's true. My view is that once you get to that sort of stage of radical abundance and post-AGI, I think economics starts changing, even the notion of value and money. And so again, I think we need, I'm not sure why economists are not working harder on this if maybe they don't believe it's that close, right? But if they really did that, like the AGI scientists do, then I think there's a lot of economic new economic theory that's required. - You know, one final thing, I actually agree with you that this is so significant and is gonna have a huge impact. But when I write about it, I always get a lot of response from people who are really angry already about artificial intelligence and what's happening. Have you tasted that? Have you gotten that pushback and anger by a lot of people? It's almost like the industrial revolution people- - Yeah. - Fighting back. - I mean, I think that anytime there's, I haven't personally seen a lot of that, but obviously, I've read and heard a lot about, and it's very understandable. That's all that's happened many times. As you say, industrial revolution, when there's big change, a big revolution. - [Steven] Yeah. - And I think this will be at least as big as the industrial revolution, probably a lot bigger. That's surprising, there's unknowns, it's scary, things will change. But on the other hand, when I talk to people about the passion, the why I'm building AI- - Mm-hmm. - Which is to advance science and medicine- - Right. - And understanding of the world around us. And then I explain to people, you know, and I've demonstrated, it's not just talk. Here's AlphaFold, you know, Nobel Prize winning breakthrough, can help with medicine and drug discovery. Obviously, we're doing this with isomorphic now to extend it into drug discovery, and we can cure terrible diseases that might be afflicting your family. Suddenly, people are like, "Well, of course, we need that." - Right. - It'll be immoral not to have that if that's within our grasp. And the same with climate and energy. - Yeah. - You know, many of the big societal problems, it's not like you know, we know, we've talked about, there's many big challenges facing society today. And I often say I would be very worried about our future if I didn't know something as revolutionary as AI was coming down the line to help with those other challenges. Of course, it's also a challenge itself, right? But at least, it's one of these challenges that can actually help with the others if we get it right. - Well, I hope your optimism holds out and is justified. Thank you so much. - And I'll do my best. Thank you. [upbeat music]
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dean Cain says men shouldn't compete in women's sports; releases heartwarming film on girls' soccer team
Friday marks the nationwide release of family-friendly sports film "Little Angels", a triumphant story of a team of athletes and an unyielding coach, written, directed and produced by actor Dean Cain. "Little Angels" unfolds the story of Jake Rogers, a Division I college football coach, played by Cain, with $5 million and a take-it-or-leave-it chance for redemption on the line. A male-centric statement hurdles the lead into a reflective arc and, when writing the script, the red-card comment "soccer is for girls," was definitive, according to Cain. "It's always a joke I make," Cain told Fox News Digital. Dean Cain Says He Turned Down Being One Of The Highest-paid Actors On Tv To Raise His Son Alone "Soccer is the world's game and I make fun of soccer because I played as an American football player and that's just what we do. We make fun of soccer. We make fun of rugby." In 1988, after his collegiate football career at Princeton, Cain was signed to the Buffalo Bills as a rookie. His professional NFL career came to a halt when he injured his knee. Read On The Fox News App While the on-air declaration that soccer is for girls kicks off Rogers' journey to softening in "Little Angels", the topic of men in women's sports is not a cornerstone of the film. However, Cain is firm in his position that, after a certain age, boys and girls should not compete together. "I'm a huge, huge supporter of women's athletics," Cain told Fox News Digital. "I don't think men or boys have any business once they're past the age of 7 or 10 competing together." "When you get to those higher levels, I don't think that men should be competing with women, period, end of story," Cain said. "Many of my ex-girlfriends have been professional athletes, and I really have tremendous respect for women's sports. I think it's hugely important to have women be able to compete against women and do that." Dean Cain's New Christmas Movie Celebrates Faith: A 'Trip Back In Time To Bethlehem' The benchmark theme of "Little Angels" is purpose and perspective and reserves the plot for a heartwarming tale of teamwork and family. "There's a lot of me in that character," Cain said of Rogers. Despite public perception, Rogers cannot be defended from his offside remark about female athletes. "College football coaches get looked at sometimes like they're a deity of something, like they're a God of some kind," Cain said. Rogers is met with an ultimatum: coach a team of 12-year-old girls or lose $5 million. Films like "A League of Their Own," "The Mighty Ducks" and even the true underdog story of "Dodgeball" echo a similar sentiment and evoke childhood memories across generations. Dean Cain Says He 'Had To Get Out Of California': 'Land Of Ridiculousness' The timeless tale in each of these movies follows a team of misfits bonded together by both their love of the game and a defeated coach who finds inspiration through group aspirations. This narrative conjures wistful affection in a way that other genres outside sports dramas cannot. "Take a guy who is flawed in a situation where he doesn't want to be," Cain said. "Through human experience and being with these young ladies and other people, he teaches them teamwork and the value of team and family." The movie, starring Lou Ferrigno, Bryan Callen and Swedish actress Helena Mattson, began casting during the COVID-19 pandemic. "You hope that you get them together and they have chemistry," he said of the athletes. "They are the heart of the story." "The young actresses were phenomenal," Cain said of a cast including Alex Jayne Go and "Role Models" actress Alexandra Stamler. Cain's niece and goddaughter also star in the film as athletes. "I've been called Superman forever and that's great. I love it," Cain said. "If people call me Coach Jake after this, 'Hey Coach Jake,' that's a warm fuzzy for me. It's a big-time warm and fuzzy." Cain is working on four films this year, including a golf-centered movie that he is co-directing with his son. The world premiere of "Little Angels" was featured at the International Christian Film Festival (ICFF) in May. There, Cain was awarded with the ICFF Lifetime Achievement Award. "I've been producing for a long time and directing," Cain said. "Man, I don't feel like I'm anywhere near getting a Lifetime Achievement Award, so, I think they were just being nice to me." "Little Angels" hits theaters nationwide on Friday, June 6, article source: Dean Cain says men shouldn't compete in women's sports; releases heartwarming film on girls' soccer team
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Billy Bush says Diddy's alleged balcony incident echoes 'sick' behavior in hit TV show
Jurors in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal trial heard testimony this week about Cassie Ventura's friend allegedly being dangled off a balcony at the hands of the rapper. The explosive testimony echoed similarities between Diddy and one of television's greatest hits, "The Sopranos," according to Billy Bush. The "Hot Mics with Billy Bush" podcast host exclusively told Fox News Digital that Diddy's violent history may have been on display, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a guilty verdict. Diddy's Defense Attorney Challenges Government's Narrative In High-stakes Federal Trial Cassie Ventura's friend, Bryana "Bana" Bongolan, testified this week that Diddy held her over the edge of a 17-story balcony in 2016. While on the stand Wednesday, Bongolan confirmed she spoke about the incident during various government meetings. Bongolan said Diddy was yelling at her loudly, "You know what the f--- you did." She testified that to this day she doesn't know what the rapper was referring to. Read On The Fox News App "Her allegations are that he hung her over a balcony, which is like, what are you watching too much 'Sopranos' here?" Bush said. "Like, this is such mafia sick s--t. It's, I can't believe it, but it reminds me of like when Michael Jackson had "Blanket" over the balcony in some Rome or Paris hotel (sic). And then Suge Knight hung Vanilla Ice over the balcony." In a 1999 episode of "Behind the Music," Vanilla Ice clarified that the balcony allegations against Suge Knight were unfounded. "He didn't hang me off from any balcony," the rapper said. "The story's been kind of blown out of proportion, and I want to clarify that Suge and I have no bad feelings towards each other." 50 Cent Warns Trump About Diddy After President Is Asked If He'd Consider Pardon "It's the ultimate, like, it's the ultimate gangster move," Bush added of Bongolan's allegations against Diddy. "Who makes that up? I mean, he clearly did, and it's sick. So I think it was helpful as far as painting him as extremely violent." Bush continued, "I still don't know if Diddy is a sealed, done deal. He's not arguing that he's a domestic violence perpetrator and general bad dude." Allegations about the incident were detailed in a November 2024 lawsuit Bongolan filed against Diddy where she requested $10 million in damages. Bongolan filed the lawsuit to "seek justice for what happened to me," she told the court. She said her lawyer wrote the complaint and that the words were not the same as what she had testified to. Her recollection of the events that night were marred, according to Diddy's lawyers. Nicole Westmoreland, a Diddy defense attorney, asked Bongolan several questions about Cassie's 29th birthday. Bongolan replied, "I don't remember" to most of the questions, which included if she was on drugs. She later told Westmoreland that she couldn't remember telling the government if the incident happened at a party or if they were just hanging out. Like What You're Reading? Click Here For More Entertainment News "Drug use is not great for memory, and we're dealing with a marginalized character here," Bush said. "At the end of the day, I don't think the drug use thing is a big shocker to anyone on the jury … and you know, Diddy definitely partied with the drugs." WATCH: BILLY BUSH LIKENS DIDDY ALLEGATIONS TO MAFIA TACTICS He added, "I don't think that is going to come into account at all. It's just the actions of what happened. They don't excuse his actions. And I don't think that they discount her claims either. I really don't." In a federal indictment unsealed on Sept. 17, Diddy was charged with racketeering conspiracy (RICO); sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and transportation to engage in prostitution. If found guilty, he faces a minimum of 15 years behind bars or a maximum sentence of life in prison. Click Here To Get The Entertainment Newsletter He has maintained his innocence throughout the trial, in which witnesses have testified to alleged rape, sexual assault, severe physical abuse, forced labor and drug trafficking. The trial is expected to wrap by July 4. During the opening statements of Diddy's trial, defense attorney Teny Geragos asked the jury to consider the federal charges, not the choices of an at-times violent man. "Sean Combs is a complicated man, but this is not a complicated case," Geragos told the court. "This case is about love, jealousy, infidelity and money. This case is about voluntary adult choices made by capable adults and consensual relationships. This case is about those real-life relationships, and the government is trying to turn those relationships into a racketeering case, a prostitution case and a sex trafficking case. It will not work." Geragos told the jury that they would hear the "basics" through the lens of various witnesses and evidence. Most importantly, though, jurors would get the opportunity to "finally" hear the facts about the case. "I say that because this case is not about what you've heard on the news, read in the news or have seen on social media for the past year and a half," Geragos said. "This case is not about what civil attorneys looking for a payday are trying to make my client out to be. There has been a tremendous amount of noise around this case for the past year, and it is time to cancel that noise and hear and see the evidence that will be presented in this courtroom." She noted that Diddy "has a bad temper" and at times gets "so angry or so jealous that he is out of control," but she emphasized that the "Victory" rapper was not charged with "being mean." "He is not charged with being a jerk. He's charged with running a racketeering enterprise," Geragos told the jury. "And though there was violence that you are going to hear about, you already have, that violence is not part of any RICO. That violence is not connected to sex trafficking and that violence is not prostitution."Original article source: Billy Bush says Diddy's alleged balcony incident echoes 'sick' behavior in hit TV show
