Could Diddy be next in line for a Trump pardon amid trafficking trial?
In a surprising twist that has everyone talking, former President Donald Trump hinted he might consider pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs, the music mogul currently embroiled in a high-profile sex trafficking trial in New York.
Trump acknowledges pardon talks, but no formal request yet
During a recent press conference, Trump said nobody has officially asked for a pardon yet, but he knows that some people have come close. While admitting he has not closely followed the trial, which began earlier this month, Trump acknowledged the case is attracting significant media attention.
Combs faces serious charges, including racketeering and coercion, that could land him in prison for life if he is found guilty. The allegations stem from a federal investigation prompted by multiple lawsuits, including one from his ex-partner Cassie Ventura accusing him of abuse and sexual assault.
Though Combs initially denied the claims, released CCTV footage in 2024 showed him physically assaulting Ventura, a fact his defence team has admitted while maintaining his innocence on other charges.
Past connections and a complex relationship
Trump also spoke about his past encounters with Combs, describing them as two New Yorkers who once had mutual respect. According to Trump, their relationship soured when he ran for president, with Combs reportedly making negative comments. Despite this, Trump insisted that any decision on a pardon would be based purely on the facts, not personal feelings.
Controversy awaits if a pardon is granted
If Trump were to pardon Combs, it would undoubtedly spark controversy, given the severity of the allegations and the public scrutiny surrounding the trial. Trump's history of pardoning celebrities, ranging from reality TV stars to rappers, and issuing blanket pardons for the January 6 participants shows he is willing to take bold, often divisive, actions.
As the trial unfolds, the possibility of a Trump pardon looms large, adding yet another layer of drama to an already intense legal battle.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
Aluminium industry body says Trumps move to double tariff will hurt sector
New Delhi, Aluminium industry body AAI has expressed concerns that US President Donald Trump's announcement to double tariffs on aluminium imports in that country will hurt the Indian manufacturers who are already under pressure from surging low-cost imports. On May 30, Trump announced that he would double the existing 25 per cent tariffs on aluminium imports from June 4. "The 50 per cent tariff announced by Trump will damage the Indian aluminium industry, which is already under pressure from surging low-cost imports," Aluminium Association of India said. The metal has strategic importance to the country and critical to industries such as defence, aerospace, energy transition, telecommunications, power and construction, it said, adding that both primary aluminium and poor quality scrap are entering the country in large volumes, threatening to create a surplus, suppress domestic prices, and undercut the viability of domestic producers. Though the government just announced a 12 per cent provisional safeguard duty on certain steel imports, AAI said there should be duty guardrails for the aluminium industry as well, which has so far invested more than Rs. 1.5 lakh crore to set up the current domestic primary aluminium capacity of 4.2 million tonnes per annum . FIMI Director General B K Bhatia stated that the major share of Indian exports of aluminium is accounted by US valuing about USD 946 million. A further increase in tariff is bound to have adverse impact on Indian aluminium exports market. "We are hopeful that this issue will get resolved during ongoing trade negotiations between India and USA," he said. In 2024-25, India exported iron, steel, and aluminium products worth USD 4.56 billion to the US, with key categories including USD 587.5 million in iron and steel, USD 3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel and USD 860 million in aluminium and related articles. This proposed hike is tariff comes under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if imports are deemed a threat to national security. Trump originally invoked this provision in 2018 to set the 25 per cent tariff on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium. He raised tariffs on aluminium to 25 per cent in February 2025. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
