"If Somebody Was Mistreated...": Trump On Sean 'Diddy' Combs' Pardon
US President Donald Trump on Friday floated the possibility of pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs, stating that he "would certainly look at the facts".
At a White House news conference, Donald Trump said that nobody has asked him to pardon the hip-hop mogul. For those who don't know, in a 2012 episode of the reality show Celebrity Apprentice, Donald Trump said that he was friends with Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
"I think some people have been very close to asking. First of all, I'd look at what's happening, and I haven't been watching it too closely, although it's certainly getting a lot of coverage,' Mr Trump was quoted as saying by Reuters.
His statement came during the Oval Office press conference with the world's richest person, Elon Musk, who recently exited as the chief of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Mr Trump also highlighted that he has not seen Sean Combs and spoken to him in years.
"He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics... that relationship busted up, from what I read. I don't know -- he didn't tell me that, but I'd read some little bit nasty statements," he added.
Donald Trump added that he "would certainly look at the facts" in the much-talked-about case.
"If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact on me," he said.
Meanwhile, Sean 'Diddy' Combs has pleaded not guilty to five felony counts of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, as well as transportation to engage in prostitution.
Combs was taken into custody in September last year and has since been held without bail on multiple federal charges.
Donald Trump, who took office in January this year, has extensively used his power to pardon or commute sentences in cases where people have been accused or convicted of federal crimes. This is unusual compared to his predecessor, who usually waited until near the end of their terms to grant clemency.
Sean Combs, who faces life in prison if found guilty on all counts, is famous for elevating the hip-hop culture in America.
Dozens of lawsuits filed against him have accused him of sexual abuse. Federal prosecutors said that he coerced women to take part in drug-fueled sexual performances, dubbed "Freak Offs", over two decades. At least two women have testified that they were raped by him.
Although Sean Combs' lawyers have acknowledged him being abusive at times in romantic relationships, they argue that these women took part in the "Freak Offs" consensually.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
X factor: The rise and fall of Elon Musk as a political figure
Elon Musk has officially resigned from the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Although his role was only temporary and departure was not surprising, it follows his criticism of President Donald Trump's tax bill. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' would not improve America's finances, he said, and will undermine his efforts to cut back on unnecessary government spending. Was there a clear divide between Trump and Musk? Only seven months ago, at his victory speech on 6 November, Trump spent four minutes praising Musk. 'A star is born—Elon!" said Trump. Musk had invested nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in Trump's campaign, which could explain his influence on the Trump administration. It was possibly the most astute investment Musk ever made. He oversaw Trump's DOGE and also shaped a far-right discourse both domestically and internationally. Also Read: Electric debacle: Tesla's troubles started before Musk wore the MAGA cap Musk attempted to involve himself in several European political issues—in Germany and the UK especially. In February, Time magazine portrayed Musk as 'President Musk." Its cover illustration showed him seated at the Resolute Desk in the White House. However, it is evident that Musk has now drifted to the margins of Trump's world. 'Elon is from South Africa—I don't want to get Elon involved," Trump told his South African counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa, during a discussion at the White House recently. On 19 May, an analysis titled 'Why has Elon Musk vanished from the spotlight?' was published by Politico, which noted that Trump was posting messages about Musk on his Truth Social platform at an average of four times a week in February and March, but stopped doing so in April. Musk was included in nearly daily fund-raising emails sent by Trump's campaign team. However, save for a single email in May, this abruptly stopped in early March. Trump's top advisors and official White House accounts also stopped posting photos and content mentioning Musk. Musk, whose business empire includes Tesla, SpaceX and X, seemed to have got the drift. Amid mounting investor worries, he announced a major reduction in political spending. This was a public indication of the billionaire turning his focus back to his businesses. Also Read: Tesla's slump: When social intelligence clashes with artificial intelligence The main source of Musk's fortune, Tesla, has lost sales globally and suffered severe brand damage as a result of his political activities. His expressions of support for the far-right anti-immigration AfD party in Germany, for example, were noted across Europe. Tesla's sales in Europe dropped 49% in April, indicating a backlash against him. Towards the end of that month, Tesla reported a 71% dip in profits. In a call with Tesla investors, Musk said that he would begin stepping back from his position at DOGE in May. In the US and abroad, Tesla dealerships have been the target of protests and vandalism. Musk's move to impose harsh employment and spending cuts within the federal government on behalf of the Trump administration was dubbed 'one of the greatest brand destructions" ever by Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business. According to some surveys, most respondents disapproved of the way Musk and DOGE have handled federal government employees and slashed jobs. About 60% of respondents in a nationwide study conducted by Marquette University Law School last month had a negative opinion of Musk, while 38% had a positive opinion. The study found approval of Musk's DOGE handling at 41% and disapproval at 58%. Also Read: The US should stay away from gimmicks and tackle its real fiscal problem Musk may have recently met his political Waterloo in Wisconsin, where he contributed at least $3 million to making the Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign the most costly in US history. He even personally appeared in Green Bay sporting a cheese-head cap, a favourite among supporters of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team. But the Republican candidate he backed lost by a 10% margin. The Democrats mobilized people by calling it a 'People versus Musk' contest to highlight his intervention. Frankly, Musk's accountability has been non-existent, his loyalties seem inconsistent and his political intentions unclear. Trump might be well aware of this. Musk stood for six hours to shake hands with Democrat Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2014, Musk described himself as 'somewhere in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially liberal." He even advocated that Trump 'hang up his hat and sail into sunset" in 2022, arguing that he was too old to seek re-election. But then he started to tilt Republican. Also Read: A trade arrangement that leaves out the US could trump Trump's tariffs Thus, it was perhaps inevitable that Trump would grow weary of Musk. Since the president is accustomed to generating all his popularity himself, it would be easy for him to assume he needs nobody's help on that count. Then there is also the matter of Musk's unpopularity, which Trump may not want rubbing off on his own standing. However, Musk will still hold billions of dollars once Trump's term is over, not to mention the power of his social media platform. In the political sphere, his legacy may be a handy list of what the ultra-rich should do and not do. Or maybe he has left America's business class a model that no one else would dare imitate. The author is professor of statistics at Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump tariff hike threatens to impact $5 billion engineering goods exports: EEPC India
New Delhi: The proposed 50% tariff on all foreign steel and aluminium by US President Donald Trump could hurt India's engineering exports, as these metals and their derivatives account for nearly a quarter of the country's total engineering goods shipments to the US. The annual export of steel, aluminium and their derivatives to the US currently stand at around $5 billion. The 25% tariffs imposed by the US on steel imports (as per the proclamation order dated on 18th March 2025) have created a challenging environment for Indian steel exporters. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elegant New Scooters For Seniors In 2024: The Prices May Surprise You Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Learn More Undo Although India's direct steel exports to the US are relatively low, the tariffs have led to increased global competition and price pressures. The tariffs have also resulted in a shift in trade flows. 'In case the US goes ahead with its plan and impose a 50% tariff on steel, aluminium and their derivatives, exports of these key items will become costlier leading to a likely dip in shipments," said Pankaj Chadha, Chairman, EEPC India, in a statement. Live Events Chadha highlighted that the UK through its trade deal with the US recently got exemptions from 25% tariff on steel and aluminium and suggested that India should also ask for the same kind of waiver during the ongoing bilateral trade agreement (BTA) negotiations with the US. "This is perhaps not the opportune time to introduce such unilateral tariff especially when BTA negotiations are going on. It can make the work of the negotiators tricky. The proposed tariff increase by the Trump administration is likely to impact the engineering exports which are about $5 billion under this head," the EEPC India Chairman said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US remittance tax to revive hawala, hand cartels a financial lifeline
Hidden on page 1,054 of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a threat to impose a 3.5 per cent tax on all remittance transfers made by non-citizens to accounts outside the country. This is a dangerous, backward-looking provision, and will make Americans less safe without raising much revenue. It is easy to understand why a measure like this would appeal to the current administration. It makes migrants' lives harder, and that's enough for it to be worth passing into law. And it certainly will create difficulties for millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the US, as well as for their families outside. Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has been a vocal opponent, saying — correctly — that this is unjustifiable double taxation. Her country, the largest destination for such transfers, has a lot to lose. But other countries are also worried. India is the third-largest destination for remittances from the US, receiving about $18 billion in 2024; the Philippines and China aren't far behind, at $14 billion each. According to Capital Economics, US-based remittances support 3 per cent of the Philippines' GDP. The impact on migration-dependent areas of the world will be severe. For some countries in Central America, national income might fall by almost 1 per cent if this proposal is implemented. Meanwhile, some estimates suggest that even a higher 5 per cent rate would only increase the US' takings by 0.1 per cent. For the remittance tax's backers, that's beside the point. Vice President JD Vance, when he was still a senator, introduced a similar bill. At that time, he said that 'this legislation is a common-sense solution to disincentivise illegal immigration and reduce the cartels' financial power.' That argument is exactly backward. What common sense actually tells you is that if less money is available in some of the poorest parts of Central America, it increases the incentives for people there to try and move to the US to join their family members already there. As for the impact on criminal networks — well, history suggests that they'll welcome this. The world has spent decades trying to make legal transfers cheap and efficient. An additional levy might increase the cost of transferring even small sums four fold. This would reverse all our efforts to force this trade above ground. If legal transfers are made too expensive, illegal and informal networks take their place. Some people have happily assumed that Bitcoin will fill the gap. But, more likely, there will be a renaissance in simpler, older mechanisms for international transfers. In South and West Asia, we call these methods 'hawala.' But other parts of the world derived equivalents independently. In China, for example, such mechanisms are called 'fei-ch'ien.' From a customer's point of view, they're simple to use. All you need to do is find a well-networked trader and give them the cash to be transferred. That person then calls somebody in their clan or village back home, who gives the same amount of cash to the chosen recipient. The two members of the hawala network settle accounts between each other once or twice a year, through smuggling or perhaps through false invoices and shell companies. Naturally, such informal mechanisms to transfer value can be used not just to evade the remittance excise, but taxes in general. Worse, they are frequently used as conduits for terrorism and drug financing — which is why governments have spent decades trying to stamp them out. This was hard because, if enough people use these systems, they can be more efficient and cheaper than formal finance. The exchange rates that hawala traders offer are often more attractive, and their fees take less of a bite out of small transactions than many banks do. In spite of the best efforts of regulators and cops, hawala networks only really shrank when other routes became more competitive. Informal currency traders need a large volume of transactions to be efficient and offer the best rates to their customers, so when their custom shrank, they became less attractive. It's this self-reinforcing loop that the remittance tax threatens to break. Suddenly, hawala networks — and their equivalents in South and Central America — will become appealing again. And when this method returns to its former prominence, it will become easier to pay those who smuggle opiates or people. And, of course, criminal syndicates of various types will once again step in to run these systems, and profit accordingly. The vice president is, not for the first time, wrong: His administration's remittance tax doesn't attack the cartels, it empowers them.
