
The Truth About Diddy Might Be Darker Than the Rumors
Over the past year and a half, I've kept finding myself in unexpected conversations about Diddy. Cab drivers, deli cooks, and far-flung uncles have all wanted to chat about the 55-year-old rapper who's now on trial for charges of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. There is, certainly, plenty to talk about: Federal prosecutors allege that the media mogul liked to throw baby-oil-slicked orgies—called 'freak-offs'—where abuse and exploitation regularly occurred. (He pleaded not guilty; his lawyers say he never coerced anyone into anything.) But the conversations tend to be less about Sean 'Diddy' Combs than about playing a guessing game: Who else was involved?
Some of the people I've spoken with had theories about Justin Bieber, citing rumors suggesting that the singer—a teenage protégé of Diddy's—had been preyed upon ('Justin is not among Sean Combs' victims,' Bieber's representative said in a statement last month). Others speculated that the Democratic Party, whose candidates Combs has campaigned for over the years, was in some way implicated in the case. Most of them agreed that Diddy was comparable to Jeffrey Epstein in that he was probably at the hub of a celebrity sex-crime ring.
Since the trial began a few weeks ago, it's become clear what these conversations were: distractions from the bleak, all-too-ordinary issues that this case is really about.
The wild nature of the conspiracist narratives surrounding Combs can't be understated. In January, social-media users wondered if the fires that swept through glitzy L.A. neighborhoods were meant to destroy evidence pointing to the participation of other celebrities. On Amazon last year, sales spiked for a salacious memoir purportedly written by the rapper's late girlfriend, Kimberly Porter, and published by a self-described investigative journalist using the pseudonym Jamal T. Millwood—the latter being the supposed alias that Tupac used after he, according to legend, faked his death. (Amazon pulled the book from its offerings after Porter's family lambasted it as a forgery.) One viral fake news story, based on no evidence at all, said that Will Smith had sold one of his children into Combs's servitude. On Truth Social last fall, Donald Trump himself shared a meme featuring a fabricated image of Kamala Harris and Diddy, with text reading, 'Madam vice president, have you ever been involved with or engaged in one of Puff Daddies freak offs?'
The media also stoked the fervor. A former bodyguard of Combs's gave an interview for a TMZ documentary saying that politicians, princes, and preachers were mixed up in the rapper's debauchery. The conservative influencer Charlie Kirk devoted a portion of one webcast to wondering, 'Maybe P. Diddy has footage of Barack Obama doing something he shouldn't have been doing?' Piers Morgan hosted a singer, Jaguar Wright, who insinuated that Jay-Z and Beyoncé had committed crimes much like the ones Diddy is charged with. After those stars issued a vigorous denial and threatened to sue, Morgan apologized and edited any mention of them out of the interview online—and then, in February, retired General Michael Flynn presented Wright with a 'Defender of Freedom Award' at Mar-a-Lago.
A few actual facts underlay all of this QAnon-esque speculation. For more than a decade, Combs's legendary White Parties attracted a medley of stars to the Hamptons, Los Angeles, and Saint-Tropez. Attendees often joked publicly about how rowdy the festivities could get. Over the past year or so, dozens of people—an array of musicians, workers, models, and others who have crossed paths with him since the 1990s—have sued Combs for a variety of offenses (all of which he denies), and some of those suits have alluded to alleged misdeeds by other celebrities. (One lawsuit naming Jay-Z was dropped after the star denied the claim; he has since countersued for defamation.)
Still, the speed and sheer giddiness with which conspiracist thinking eclipsed the known details of Combs's case confirmed a few bleak realities about the psyche of a country in which economic inequality and sexual abuse are both stubbornly endemic. A whole class of politicians, commentators, and media platforms exist to exploit the resentments that everyday people hold toward the rich and famous. Meanwhile, rates of sexual harassment and assault—reportedly experienced by 82 percent of women and 42 percent of men in the United States in their lifetime—remain as high as they were when the #MeToo movement erupted in 2017. Examining the real reasons for this is less fun—and, for many, less profitable—than imagining that Hollywood is a front for ritualistic sadism.
The trial itself, which began in Manhattan on May 12, has not yet revealed a network of super-famous evildoers. Although the testimony has surfaced vivid and bizarre details about the rarefied lives of celebrities, it's also told an intimate, human, oddly familiar story about how power can warp relationships in all sorts of ways. I realized that in the random conversations I'd had leading up to the trial, I'd heard a lot about the imagined villains, and very little about the people they were said to have hurt.
Combs's downfall in the public eye began in November 2023, when an ex-girlfriend, the singer Cassie Ventura, filed a lawsuit alleging that he had raped and physically abused her. The suit was settled one day later out of court, but many of its details are resurfacing now. Although the federal trial against Combs is expected to last at least eight weeks and feature dozens of witnesses, Diddy and Ventura's relationship has been central to the testimony. Prosecutors say Combs ran an organized criminal enterprise that served, in part, to assist in and cover up this one woman's subjugation.
Ventura, now 38, was a 19-year-old aspiring R&B singer when she met Combs around 2005. He'd heard her first-ever single, 'Me & U'; it would become a hit, but Diddy promised that he could guide her to a career of lasting success. He signed her to a 10-album deal with his label, Bad Boy Records, and released her debut album in 2006. It is still her only album to ever come out.
Their relationship soon evolved from professional to romantic. The singer said she'd initially rejected the rapper's advances but that she'd felt pressured to do what he wanted because her career was largely in his hands. He also reportedly provided her with gifts, threatened her with punishment, and supplied her with drugs until she felt he controlled her life. She said that he then used that control liberally, dictating what she wore, whom she socialized with, which medications she took.
He also beat her. Hotel security-camera footage from 2016 published by CNN last year—and used as evidence in the trial—showed Combs chasing Ventura down a hallway, throwing her to the ground, kicking her, and pulling her by her sweatshirt. The video is a small and terrible glimpse into their relationship. Diddy is in a towel and clearly furious; Ventura, starkly alone, makes no effort to defend herself. 'My behavior on that video is inexcusable,' Combs said in a filmed mea culpa last year; during the trial, his lawyers have acknowledged that he was violent toward her.
Other witnesses in the trial have testified that the hotel assault was not an isolated incident. One former assistant, Capricorn Clark, reported seeing Combs repeatedly kick Ventura after learning that she'd been romantically involved with the rapper Kid Cudi. Another former assistant, George Kaplan, described a 2015 altercation between Combs and Ventura on Diddy's private jet. He heard the sound of breaking glass in a private area, where he then saw Combs standing and holding a whiskey glass over Ventura, who was on her back. According to Kaplan, Ventura screamed, 'Isn't anybody seeing this?' No one on the plane intervened, Kaplan said.
The now-notorious freak-offs allegedly occurred against this backdrop of violence and intimidation. Ventura's lawsuit said that toward the beginning of Combs and Ventura's relationship, Combs hired a man to have sex with Ventura while Diddy watched. Encounters like that, involving sex workers and drugs, became regular occurrences that could last for days at a time. The freak-offs were, prosecutors say, 'performances' for Combs's pleasure. And they affected the performers; Ventura testified to having medical problems, mental-health issues, and drug addiction as a result of them.
Combs's defense argues that Ventura willingly participated in these events. His lawyers have cited text messages in which she appears to express enthusiasm: 'I'm always ready to freak off,' she wrote to him in August 2009. Other texts suggest a more complicated picture—in 2017, Ventura wrote, 'I love our FOs when we both want it.' She and prosecutors assert that whenever she tried to resist Combs's commands, he would bring her to heel with physical violence and threats of blackmail and financial harm. Ventura's lawsuit alleged that when she tried to break up with him for good in 2018, he raped her in her home (an accusation that Diddy's defense has concertedly pushed back on during the trial).
Ventura is not the only alleged victim of Combs's. His employees have shared particularly disturbing stories: Clark said that Combs kidnapped her twice; a former assistant identified as Mia testified last week that the rapper repeatedly sexually assaulted her. (Diddy's lawyers dispute that the kidnappings ever happened and have questioned Mia's credibility.) Prosecutors are pursuing racketeering charges on the theory that Combs didn't act alone: For example, they say he may have had someone set Kid Cudi's car on fire (the defense denies Combs's involvement in that arson). In this way, Diddy's case is also a story about what happens when it's easier to take the check and not ask too many questions.
But fundamentally, the trial is another highly public test of the definition of consent. It recalls the prosecutions of Harvey Weinstein, the movie producer who allegedly dangled job prospects to women interested in the film industry in exchange for sex (one of his convictions was overturned last year and is being retried now). It also evokes R. Kelly, the musician who wooed aspiring singers with promises of career help and then violently kept them—and other women—in sexual servitude (behavior for which he is currently serving 31 years in prison).
And the issues here transcend celebrity. When #MeToo erupted eight years ago, it forced many everyday Americans to reexamine experiences they'd had in their workplaces and homes. The movement has, by many indications, petered out or even curdled into backlash: Yesterday, one of Diddy's lawyers asked Mia whether she was looking for a 'Me Too money grab,' which suggests he thinks the very words Me Too might be tinged for some jury members. But to sit with the allegations against Combs—and the experiences of the alleged victims—is to again be confronted with the underlying reasons that movement happened. It's to be confronted with the intolerable things that happen when men are given the power to pursue their desires however they want, and to extract whatever they want from their underlings.
A lot of people would evidently prefer to turn away from that confrontation—and to focus on fantasy. Since I started paying attention to the case, my YouTube algorithm has become polluted by videos with AI-generated courtroom sketches of stars such as Will Smith and Jay-Z, paired with totally imaginary testimony about their involvement in Combs's crimes. The videos are yet another sign that our society is losing any shared sense of reality. They do, however, have disclaimers stipulating that they are fiction, which raises the question: Why is this the story someone wants to hear?
Perhaps because tales of demonic Hollywood cabals offer a simple, clear-cut narrative that doesn't ask us to reflect on how domestic violence and sexual coercion really get perpetuated—and perhaps because that narrative benefits certain agendas. Last month, I tuned in to Asmongold, a popular Twitch streamer who interprets the daily news for a large audience of young, often aggrieved men. He had a glazed look in his eyes as TV news footage related to the trial played on his screen. Then he said, 'I don't care about this case at all—until Diddy starts naming names.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
What Trump Doesn't Understand About Putin
Russian leader Vladimir Putin looks increasingly cornered. The Ukrainians just staged a stunning drone attack on strategic bombers in far-flung Russian air bases. Putin's battered troops are struggling to gain significant territory in Ukraine, and the frontline has barely shifted in two years. His economy is a mixed bag, with inflation slowing growth and other danger signs flashing. President Donald Trump, who has long admired Putin's brash leadership style, is now questioning the Russian leader's sanity and urging him to 'STOP!' his attacks on Ukraine. And U.S. lawmakers are mulling a heavy new sanctions and tariffs package aimed at Moscow — the type one senator describes as 'bone-crushing.' Given all these challenges, why won't Putin abandon his goal of conquering Ukraine? I have been asking former U.S. officials versions of this question in recent days. Finally, I realized it's the wrong question — and the wrong way to think about this whole war. Putin will never abandon his ambition of conquering Ukraine, and convincing him to do so shouldn't be the aim of Ukraine's global supporters. Instead, the goal should be to make it impossible for Putin to fulfill that ambition. In simpler terms: You can't make Putin walk away from Ukraine; you have to put Ukraine out of his reach. Trump and some of his top aides do not seem to understand this about Putin. They've sent mixed signals about their views of Russia's strongman, with Trump acting as if the carrots of economic deals and Truth Social posts can sway him. With new sanctions on the table, many Russia watchers hope Trump will seize the moment to show Putin that even if he can't control his ambitions, he can make it too painful for Putin to achieve them. But those same analysts warned that new sanctions alone won't make Putin back down. Neither will continued military aid to Ukraine, nor tough-talking posts on social media. Showing Putin that he absolutely cannot subsume Ukraine will require all these tactics and more. It will also require patience. 'That's why you do these missions, like Ukraine taking out some of their strategic bombers. That hurts. It's expensive,' said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former U.S. intelligence official. 'Can we impose enough costs that he eventually says, 'I cannot do this indefinitely?'' I'm not the first person to posit that Putin will never change his belief that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Putin's own writings make clear that he's convinced Kyiv must be under Russia's thumb if Moscow wants to achieve new heights on the global stage. Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested Putin's view is 'theological.' One analyst has argued that the West's best strategy on the war may require waiting until Putin dies. A White House official, in response to a request for comment from the administration, told me Trump 'has always been tough on Putin.' The official, whom was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues, added: 'This president's foreign policy is unique in that he can be tough on our adversaries, but he is simultaneously able to look anyone in the eye to try to deliver peace.' But many of Trump's words and actions indicate that he has limited appreciation for how hard-core Putin is about pursuing Ukraine. During the campaign, Trump declared numerous times that he could end the war in his first 24 hours back in office — a claim that he now says was in jest but which nonetheless cast Putin as easy to persuade. In the months since, the president has seemed bewildered that Putin isn't easing up on Ukraine. Trump recently said, with a tone of surprise, that the Russian leader has gone 'absolutely CRAZY.' Trump also seems frustrated with Putin's lack of seriousness in ceasefire talks. The tough talk from Trump is striking given his past efforts to win Putin over. But his methods are not always consistent. Trump came across as passive in a social media post Wednesday after speaking to Putin, saying the Russian made it clear he'd have to retaliate against the Ukraine drone strikes. 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,' Trump wrote, not saying if he'd urged Putin to avoid escalation. Comments and moves by others in the administration also suggest a lack of clarity about the Kremlin boss, who first invaded Ukraine more than a decade ago. Vice President JD Vance's dismissal of Ukrainian concerns that Putin will not uphold a peace deal — most famously in that awkward Oval Office meeting in February with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — indicates that he doesn't fully grasp the depth of Putin's desires. It also likely boosted Russian confidence that its efforts to drive wedges between Washington and its allies, including Ukraine and the European Union, are working. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that the United States may simply walk away from trying to resolve the crisis didn't exactly help Kyiv, either. It suggests the U.S. lacks patience and that the Russians should forge ahead in seeking a decisive edge in the war. And if there's one thing Putin believes he has on his side, it's time. What exactly is Putin's breaking point, or the point at which he'll give up on taking over Ukraine? 'This kind of stuff — it's very hard to quantify. It's the psychology of one man,' Eddie Fishman, a former State Department official who dealt with Russia sanctions, told me. Some of these Russia specialists said Putin is likely aware of the concept of 'TACO Trump' — the 'Trump Always Chickens Out' notion that's swept Wall Street and other realms. Trump's policy inconsistency and his frequent backtracking, such as on tariffs, may suggest to Putin that the U.S. president will try to drive a hard bargain but ultimately cave, giving Moscow wiggle room. The sanctions bill is a test of sorts for Trump and whether he truly understands Putin's mindset. It has garnered support from the majority of U.S. senators and includes harsh provisions aimed at choking off Russia's last major source of income: its energy exports. The legislation would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian oil, gas, uranium and other materials. It's questionable whether the 500 percent figure will survive talks between the White House and Capitol Hill. The tariffs would land on major U.S. trading partners in Europe, China and India and wreak havoc on the global economy. Still, whatever version of the bill survives could deal a major blow to Russia. If Trump signs the bill, the Kremlin should worry because it will mean he's not afraid to escalate things with Moscow. But if he signs the bill and then delays, waives or otherwise doesn't enforce the sanctions and tariffs involved, Putin will believe Trump is backing down yet again and that he can take advantage of the American leader's capriciousness. If Trump also fails to take other meaningful steps to help Ukraine, especially on the military aid front, it could further boost Putin's confidence that he and his troops can ultimately overpower Kyiv. Of course, the Kremlin chief could still agree to peace talks — he already has, in a way, though he tends to send powerless underlings to the sessions in his place. Those motions seem to be about buying time with Trump, a self-styled dealmaking expert who is eager for a compromise. Even if Putin agrees to a sustained ceasefire or other type of pause in the fighting, Russia analysts I spoke to believe he'll use the downtime to regroup and eventually make another move against Kyiv. One Trump tactic unlikely to work on Putin is promising him economic deals, should he come to terms with Ukraine. To be fair, Putin himself has raised this prospect in a bid to get sanctions relief from Trump, who largely sees the world through a business lens. The reality is that the Russian economy has been transformed since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is now heavily fueled by the war itself. There are signs that this cannot go on forever, but it has continued longer than many Western officials and analysts predicted. Putin is also likely aware that even if Trump were to lift all U.S. sanctions on Russia, American businesses are unlikely to jump into the Russian market anytime soon. There are too many risks, including the possibility that a future U.S. president could reimpose the sanctions. Besides, European sanctions are likely to remain in place. 'Given sanctions and export controls that need to be lifted, not to mention the reputational risk and the operating environment in Russia, it's hard to see that Western companies would be rushing to go back to that market,' Randi Levinas, a former chief operating officer of the now-dissolved U.S.-Russia Business Council, told me. Putin is in a corner. But while everyone is watching him, he's still got his eye on Ukraine — all of Ukraine.


Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What Happened to Yulissa on 'Love Island USA'? Here's What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Yulissa Escobar's sudden exit from Love Island USA during the second episode of Season 7 has stirred speculation among fans. The departure, shown without context or explanation, left her co-stars and viewers in the dark. The twist was revealed with show narrator Iain Stirling announcing "Yulissa has left the villa" about 18 minutes into the show, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Yulissa, who had been coupled up with Ace Greene, was then noticeably absent from the villa. What we know What the show didn't mention—but what fans already knew—was that Yulissa had come under fire online after old podcast clips surfaced revealing a use of racial slurs. In the recordings, which spread across social media as the show launched on Tuesday night, Yulissa can be heard using the N-word multiple times while discussing past relationships, as first reported by TMZ. Newsweek has contacted both Yulissa and Peacock via email for comment. Yulissa Escobar (left) exited "Love Island USA" in the show's second episode of Season 7. Yulissa Escobar (left) exited "Love Island USA" in the show's second episode of Season 7. Ben Symons/Peacock Her social media has remained silent since the episode aired, and she has not publicly addressed the backlash. What Else Happened in 'Love Island' Last Night? Episode 2 delivered on the drama promised in the season premiere, picking up right where host Ariana Madix left viewers hanging—with the introduction of two new Bombshells, Cierra Ortega and Charlie Georgiou. After a round of raised hands from interested Islanders, Cierra and Charlie each selected one contestant for an overnight hideaway date: Nicolas Vansteenberghe and Chelley Bissainthe. Sparks flew, with Nicolas and Cierra sharing a kiss. The villa also saw its first moments of tension. Jeremiah Brown confronted Huda Mustafa over whether she kissed another contestant during a game. After clearing the air in the morning, their relationship appeared back on track. Meanwhile, Taylor Williams and Olandria Carthen navigated a similar hiccup with ease when she admitted to kissing Ace Greene. As the day progressed, the Bombshells made their rounds, getting to know the rest of the cast. Jeremiah stayed loyal to Huda, despite a chat with Cierra, and Belle-A Walker gracefully handled Nicolas breaking the news about his new connection. Couples Cierra Ortega & Nicolas Vansteenberghe Huda Mustafa & Jeremiah Brown Olandria Carthen & Taylor Williams Chelley Bissainthe & Austin Shepard Single Belle-A Walker Ace Greene Charlie Georgiou The episode ended with a surprise recoupling at the fire pit. Islanders were asked if they wanted to stay in their current pairings or opt to recouple. Cierra ultimately chose Nicolas, while Charlie was left single after no women stepped forward for him.

Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
You're not Elon Musk: Here's how normal people should critique their superiors
Disagree with the boss? Badmouthing a higher-up publicly, like how Elon Musk this week called President Trump's signature bill "a disgusting abomination" on X, won't make sense for most people. But career experts said there are other, more practical ways to deliver negative feedback to a superior. "No one recommends taking to social media to criticize your boss," said organizational psychologist Alison Fragale, especially if your name is attached and you're seriously looking to drive change. "Though you might get a lot of thumbs up, it also comes with a lot of risky downside," Fragale told Business Insider. Getting loud generally isn't the best strategy As one of the world's richest men, Musk is uniquely insulated when airing grievances. The CEO of Tesla, Space X, and several other companies wields exceptional power and status, and being outspoken is part of his personal brand. For the rest of us, taking an offline, confidential approach to voicing discontent is generally best since it avoids embarrassing the recipient and inviting backlash, said Yale University management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. That's a lesson many big-company CEOs have used in recent weeks to push back against the president's significant tariff hikes. "They've managed through private collective action to get him to move considerably," said Sonnenfeld. "They went in with the facts. They didn't try to publicly humiliate him." Musk didn't call out Trump by name in his social-media posts criticizing the president's bill, which includes cuts to Medicaid and an extension of the tax cuts that Trump and Republicans enacted in 2017. His messages, though, land as a personal attack because Trump has been aggressively touting the bill, calling it "beautiful" and pushing for Congress to pass it. "It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far," Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. Musk has said that the bill will increase the nation's already bloated deficit, undermining the months of work he put in at the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. On Wednesday, Musk asked Americans to take action to try to stop the bill from passing. "Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL," he said on X. When and how to raise concerns In the workplace, career gurus generally advise people to only pipe up about concerns that impact multiple workers or a company at large. Personal grievances are best handled through a direct manager, human resources, or an employer's complaint hotline. "Not every truth needs to be said out loud," said Fragale. A collective voice creates legitimacy, which is why she also recommends gathering allies and having at least one by your side when you're ready to speak out. Consider whether you're the best person to raise the matter to someone at the top of the corporate ladder if you lack status or haven't earned the person's respect. "I have outsourced almost every aspect of my kids' education, not because I don't know how to swim or ride a bike, but because they won't listen to me," Fragale said. Meanwhile, keep in mind that you may not have all the facts as to why a superior made whatever decision you have beef with, said Bill George, an executive fellow at Harvard Business School. It's possible your criticism is unwarranted, so he recommends couching your critique as being based on what you know. "Sometimes CEOs have to make decisions for reasons that aren't apparent," George, who was CEO of the health-technology company Medtronic earlier in his career, said. "You have to understand the whole context." Only speak up to a superior when you have something meaningful to point out, said Candice Pokk, a senior consultant at human-resources consulting firm Segal. "It needs to rise to the level of their position," she said. Some business leaders say they are receptive to negative feedback as long as it's conveyed respectfully. When George was Medtronic's CEO, a manager privately told him that he'd hurt several employees' feelings during a group meeting. Though he stood by the substance of his remarks, he apologized for how he relayed them and said the feedback made him think differently about his communication style. "It caused me to reflect on it," he said. To share negative feedback, start with something positive and authentic about the individual before launching into critisicm, and keep it brief, Pokk said. "Executives want information that's bite-sized and easy to understand," she said. Dishing criticism to someone in a more powerful position can be nerve-racking, no matter how prepared and confident you are. "Couriers of bad tidings are often fearful that the messenger will get shot," said Sonnenfeld. Yet being forthcoming can pay off.