Diddy trial livestream: Why you won't be able to watch the verdict
Unlike several other, similarly high-profile trials like that of Johnny Depp or O.J. Simpson, these proceedings have not been televised.
As Combs faces federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering and a jury weighs his innocence, eager eyes will have to rely on courtroom sketches and reporter dispatches from inside for their news feeds.
USA TODAY has livestream coverage outside of the courthouse as the jury returns its verdict.
No, turn off that Court TV stream; no video snippets of the Combs trial or verdict are coming from inside the courtroom.
So why have cameras been shut out of the courtroom? Because Combs faces federal criminal charges, the presence of "electronic media" is expressly banned by a procedural rule passed in 1946.
Entitled Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, the statute bars both photographs and broadcasting from the courtroom of a federal criminal trial. R. Kelly's federal criminal trial, on similar charges, was also not televised.
Two of the prosecution's key witnesses also testified under pseudonyms, in an aim to protect their identities, further bolstering the air of privacy that is meant to surround such a sensitive case.
The rules around federal civil proceedings are slightly more flexible, allowing for recording in some instances at the discretion of the judge. Some criminal trials at the state level, like in the closely watched case of Alex Murdaugh, allow for cameras in the courtroom.
Diddy trial is ending, jury deliberation underway: What to expect
Diddy is charged with two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and one count of racketeering.
Racketeering is the participation in an illegal scheme under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute, or RICO, as a way for the U.S. government to prosecute organizations contributing to criminal activity.
Every lawsuit and sex abuse allegation against Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Using RICO law, which is typically aimed at targeting multi-person criminal organizations, prosecutors allege that Combs coerced victims, some of whom they say were sex workers, through intimidation and narcotics to participate in "freak offs" – sometimes dayslong sex performances that federal prosecutors claim they have video of.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Diddy trial livestream: How to watch verdict
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Utah building explodes into the sky after vehicle crashes into business, causes fire
A building at a strip mall in Herriman, Utah, exploded late Saturday after police said a vehicle crashed into the structure, causing the fire and subsequent explosion. The explosion sent the building's blazing roof into the sky and prompted temporary evacuations nearby because of gas leak concerns. Several people were reportedly injured by the fire and explosion in the Salt Lake City suburb, FOX 13 reported. The Herriman Police Department said a vehicle crashed into a business, causing the structure fire and explosion. "We are working jointly with Unified Fire and Riverton PD. 13400 S will be closed in both directions until further notice," the department wrote on X. Video footage posted online shows what appears to be an area of the strip mall with a Jimmy John's and a Domino's Pizza before the roof of one of the businesses burst into flames and shot into the sky. The news outlet said a reported gas leak prompted those within a one-mile radius of the strip mall's address to evacuate. "Residents on Terra Cruz Lane and Parasol Lane should evacuate to a safe location due to concerns for a gas leak," the police department wrote on social media. "Residents outside of that immediate area do not need to evacuate at this time but should remain ready to evacuate if necessary." The order was lifted just after 1 a.m. local time.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
DEA Cannabis Poisoned, Zero Oversight-Massachusetts Lab Scandal: A Case Study in DEA's Regulatory Collapse
Poisoned Cannabis, Zero DEA Oversight The DEA's mission statement is a sham under Thomas Prevoznik's watch. Americans are being poisoned by untested state cannabis operators while terminal patients are denied potential cures. WASHINGTON, D.C. / / July 6, 2025 / The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exists to "prevent, detect, and investigate the diversion of controlled substances while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply for legitimate medical, commercial, and scientific needs". Yet under the leadership of Deputy Administrator Thomas Prevoznik, the DEA's Diversion Control Division has catastrophically failed this mission. Instead of protecting public health, the agency has allowed contaminated cannabis to flood state markets-poisoning consumers-while simultaneously blocking federally compliant pharmaceutical research that could save lives. This is not just bureaucratic incompetence; it is systemic negligence bordering on malpractice. 1. DEA's Mission Failure: Poisoned Cannabis, Zero Oversight The Massachusetts Scandal: A Case Study in Regulatory Collapse In Massachusetts, Assured Testing Laboratories-a facility responsible for testing 25% of the state's cannabis-was caught falsifying safety reports, concealing contamination, and approving products that should have failed for yeast, mold, and microbial toxins. Thousands of tainted products reached consumers, yet the DEA: Took no enforcement action Issued no national recall Failed to intervene despite its mandate to prevent diversion and ensure safety. This is not an isolated incident. Across the U.S., unregulated cannabis markets operate like the "Wild West"-with no federal quality control, no uniform safety standards, and no accountability. The DEA, under Prevoznik, has abdicated its duty, leaving Americans exposed to dangerous products while offering no recourse. 2. Blocking Medical Breakthroughs: The DEA's War on Science While turning a blind eye to contaminated street cannabis, the DEA has actively obstructed federally approved pharmaceutical research. MMJ BioPharma, a company developing cannabis-based treatments for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis, has faced seven years of bureaucratic sabotage despite: Holding FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) approvals Securing Orphan Drug Designation for Huntington's therapy Passing DEA security inspections. Yet, Prevoznik's division refuses to grant MMJ a bulk manufacturing license, citing a retroactive "Bona Fide Supply Agreement" (BFSA) requirement that creates an impossible Catch-22: No supplier will sign a contract without DEA approval. DEA won't approve without a signed contract. This obstruction is not just regulatory failure-it's deliberate stonewalling. As MMJ's legal filings reveal, DEA Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) operate in a structurally biased system, where registrants win only 20-25% of cases, and the DEA overturns nearly all pro-registrant rulings. 3. The Human Cost: Patients Suffer While Illicit Markets Thrive The DEA's hypocrisy is staggering: Patients with epilepsy, cancer, and neurological disorders are denied access to standardized, pharmaceutical-grade cannabis112. Meanwhile, unregulated THC products-laced with pesticides, mold, and heavy metals-flood the market, making consumers sick 15. Prevoznik's DEA has created the worst of both worlds:No protection for consumers from tainted pathway for research into life-saving medicines. 4. Time for Accountability: Fire Prevoznik, Overhaul the DEA The solution is clear: Remove Thomas Prevoznik for gross negligence and regulatory malpractice. Transfer cannabis oversight to the FDA/NIH, where science-not stigma-guides policy. Investigate DEA's Diversion Control Division for systemic bias and corruption. As MMJ BioPharma CEO Duane Boise stated: "The DEA's Diversion Control Division, under Prevoznik's leadership, has failed to protect the public, failed to uphold science, and failed to meet even the most basic standards of competence." Fire Thomas Prevoznik: A Call to Action The DEA's mission statement is a sham under Prevoznik's watch. Americans are being poisoned by untested cannabis while terminal patients are denied potential cures. Congress must intervene, the courts must act, and the public must demand accountability. Enough is enough. It's time to end the DEA's obstructionism and put public health over bureaucracy. MMJ is Represented by Attorney Megan Sheahan and Associates CONTACT:Madison Hiseymedia@ SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CT elections enforcement dismisses decade old complaint against Ted Kennedy Jr. What to know.
More than a decade after his opponent accused then state Senate candidate Edward M. Kennedy Jr. of using a politically engineered loophole to bypass campaign spending limits, the State Elections Enforcement Commission has reached a not unexpected decision: Complaint dismissed. The dismissal, in a case arising from a 2014 Senate campaign in Madison, removes an irritant for Kennedy, who has since walked away from Connecticut electoral politics. But it leaves unresolved questions about the loophole that was created by a murky legislative amendment and allows candidates campaigning with taxpayer money to exceed spending limits intended to keep special interest money out of elections. The SEEC decision, recently released by the commission, observes that 'justice delayed is justice denied,' but doesn't explain what the commission called its 'inexcuseable,'11-year delay in resolving the complaint. And in its written 'Findings and Conclusions,' the commission acknowledges it is dismissing the complaint in spite of 'significant' evidence that Kennedy violated the spirit of the state campaign finance reforms, known as the Citizen Election Program or CEP, by raising money for a state Democratic party committee with the understanding that the money would be transferred back to his campaign, in excess of spending limits. 'There is significant, though not uncontroverted, evidence that the candidate raised the funds for the party committee with the express understanding that the funds raised would be spent on his campaign,' the commission concluded. 'The funds raised by the candidate for the party committee were tracked and spent by the candidate's committee. In short, the evidence suggests that the candidate bypassed the CEP limits by doing indirectly what he could not do directly.' Charles Urso, a former FBI agent who was assigned to investigate the Kennedy complaint while working for the SEEC, was critical of the decision, both for the delay and its conclusion. Urso said the commission's own findings support the argument that Kennedy arranged to raise money for the state committee with the understanding that the money would be 'earmarked' for his campaign. 'As the initial investigator on this matter — I retired before it concluded — I am confused by the conclusion,' Urso said. 'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is yellow, it is earmarking. It made a mockery of the CEP and the fallout continues. With many of the safeguards from the origination of the program being eliminated or watered down it is time to end this costly experiment.' In 2014, Kennedy, a Democrat, was running against Madison Selectman Bruce Wilson, a Republican. Both applied for public financing and signed contracts promising to limit spending to grants of about $95,000 in taxpayer funds they qualified for under the Citizen Election Program. Campaign records show that Kennedy and the state Democratic Party ended up spending almost four times that much on his campaign, using the loophole opened by the abstruse amendment pushed through the Legislature the year before. Political observers said, then and now, that the amendment was designed to help former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who was worried about being out-spent by a privately financed opponent in his 2014 campaign. By the time the votes were counted in November 2014, the election commission reported in its Findings and Conclusions released late Wednesday that 'individuals associated with' Kennedy contributed $305,000 to the Democratic State Central Committee. Over the same period, the commission reported that the state committee paid $286,755 to cover the costs of the Kennedy campaign's 'organization expenditures.' Before campaign finance law was changed by the 2013 amendment, payments from outside committees for campaign 'organization expenditures' were limited to $10,000. Wilson, outspent by a margin of nearly 4-1, recalls driving himself and, while lugging posters and signs to campaign events, watching Kennedy arrive with a retinue of staffers and occasionally a consultant. After Kennedy won the race, Wilson's campaign manager, former Madison First Selectman Tom Banisch, filed the complaint with the commission, which eventually opened related investigations of both Kennedy and Malloy. When the investigation began, state Democrats challenged commission subpoenas for campaign records, attracting the interest of federal authorities. Among other things, FBI agents and federal prosecutors spent 15 months analyzing half a million emails in an effort to determine whether fund transfers that pushed spending over legal limits amounted to fraud on the public campaign finance system. In 2018, the justice department shut down its inquiry, conceding that the 2013 amendment made the find transfers legal. Even though the FBI was ordered to stand down, election reformers such as former state Comptroller Kevin Lembo, a Democrat, worried the that the amendment and resulting loophole had turned the Citizen Election Program, once thought to be among the country's most vigorous campaign reform packages, into a toothless means of delivering tax payer dollars to politicians. 'The flagship example of how this change defies the spirit of Connecticut's prior campaign finance reform is Ted Kennedy Jr.'s campaign for State Senate back in 2014,' the staff of the Comptroller's office wrote in a 2017 report. The 11-page statement of Findings and Conclusions the elections enforcement commission released Wednesday gives examples of exchanges of tactics and money between the Kennedy campaign and the Democratic State Central Committee, before concluding the practices didn't arise to a violation. At least seven months before the election, the commission said the Kennedy campaign was speaking with the Democratic State Central Committee about 'ways that the state central committee could assist the candidate's campaign.' As a result, it said the two 'collaborated on both contributions and expenditures to benefit the candidate's campaign,' according to the findings. The commission findings report that Kennedy's campaign manager, on loan from a major labor union, spoke regularly with the Democratic State Central Committee about paying for Kennedy campaign expenses and at one point 'simply directed' a senior state party officer 'to add two individuals the party committee's payroll to work solely on behalf of the candidate's committee.' In an email on the subject, the Kennedy campaign manager wrote to a senior DSCC staffer: 'Two employees need to be put on payroll for the state party …I don't know how your pay period's run, but both are to be paid the equivalent of $800 per week. We also want to reimburse for mileage at the standard State party rate.' One of the two men was later interviewed by the elections enforcement commission, which reported in its findings that he said he was hired by Kennedy, but paid by the state party. Within two months of being hired, he was working exclusively on fundraising for the DSCC. One example of area of cooperation was a 'luncheon reception' to 'honor' Kennedy hosted by two well-known Pennsylvania politicians, former Gov. Ed Rendell and former Judge Joseph Rocks. The two asked invitees in a letter 'to consider contributing $500, $1,000 or $1,500 to aid his cause' and closed by expressing the hope that guests 'can join us in supporting Ted Kennedy Jr.' 'In the cover letter and on the face of the actual invitation, there was no mention that the contributions would be going to the DSCC,' according to the elections commission Findings and Conclusions. 'The contribution form, which contributors were directed to return to Rocks, was titled 'Ted Kennedy Jr. for Connecticut State Senator.' In smaller type, there was language noting that checks should be made payable to DSCC and that this was a 'fundraising event for the Democratic Party of Connecticut.'' The elections enforcement commission reported in its findings that DSCC records show that Kennedy, or those working on his behalf, solicited about $308,000 from 188 donors for the state party. 'Throughout the course of the 2014 election cycle, the candidate raised money on behalf of the DSCC, beginning in April and continuing through the election in November,' according to the commission Findings and Conclusions. 'The amount of money that the candidate raised tracks almost directly with the organization expenditures that the committee made on his behalf. Although the individuals representing both the candidate committee and the party committee denied that there was a quid pro quo arrangement regarding 'contributions raised and money spent,' a strong correlation to that effect exists.' The elections commission said in its findings that the facts of the Kennedy case present a 'core' legal issue: Whether candidates running taxpayer funded campaigns can solicit money for a state party, knowing that the funds will be tracked and returned to the candidate. It said both the Kennedy campaign and the Democratic State Central Committed deny that happened and insist that any fund transfers were 'entirely legal.' 'Nonetheless, the factual ambiguity and legal complexity of the issues raised in this matter meant that this matter has remained unresolved for an inexcusably extended period,' the commission said in its findings. 'Moreover, the commission takes judicial notice that the candidate served only one term in the General Assembly and has not been in elected office since 2016, or nine years ago. 'And finally because this case was a case of first impression, the facts are contested, there has been an unreasonably long delay in the resolution of this matter, the commission has decided that justice requires that this case be dismissed without further action.' The commission voted to approve its decision Wednesday morning. Wilson and Banisch said they were not notified. Both men said that in response to their repeated inquiries to the commission about the status of the complaint over the last decade, they were told simply that it was under investigation. 'It really seems like it was a matter of expedience for them to get rid of the case rather than have to do anything about it,' said Banisch, who moved to South Carolina years ago. 'The fact of the matter is that Ted Kennedy screwed Bruce Wilson's campaign and the state of Connecticut.' Kennedy could not be reached and a staffer at the commission said no one was available to discuss the decision. Kennedy has previously said repeatedly that his 2014 campaign did nothing wrong.
