Will Sean ‘Diddy' Combs Be Convicted?
The sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs continues this week, featuring testimony from the rapper's most recent ex-girlfriend. Using the pseudonym, 'Jane', the accuser exposed what she alleges to be Combs' dark sexual fantasies. Combs' defense team submitted a request for a mistrial over the weekend, yet the motion was denied on Tuesday.
Former NYPD Detective and 'Hip Hop Cop' Derrick Parker provides his analysis of the case and explains what he believes the odds are of a Combs conviction.
Follow Emily on Instagram: @realemilycompagno
If you have a story or topic we should feature on the FOX True Crime Podcast, send us an email at: truecrimepodcast@fox.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio's innovative approach to protecting domestic violence survivors
A domestic violence awareness ribbon. (Stock photo from Getty Images.) People who are convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse or subject to a qualifying protective order aren't allowed to have firearms according to federal law, but actually separating them from their guns is another matter. Often, abusers can deny having or refuse to surrender their firearms, and in states that have not passed their own versions of the federal ban — which, among other limitations, does not itself mandate how or when subjects should relinquish guns they already have in their possession — the process can be even more precarious. Ohio is one of the states that hang in the balance. Judges in Ohio have the discretion to require the surrender of firearms because of a civil protection order — a temporary order to remove guns from a potentially dangerous person — but there is no legal statute requiring the relinquishment of firearms following an order. In Ohio, more than 188,000 people are victims of intimate partner violence annually, and the state loses $1.2 billion every year because of the pervasive violence, according to a 2025 report by the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. But Ohio is not unique; access to firearms is a key factor in the lethality of intimate partner violence. Research studies estimate that, in instances where a domestic abuser has access to a gun, a victim is five times more likely to die, and the rate of intimate partner firearm homicides in the United States is substantially higher than in other similar-income countries. The Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence through the Supreme Court of Ohio noticed that because of the disconnect in federal and state law, there was a gap in potential abusers surrendering their firearms. The committee came up with an unusual solution: paperwork. Members argued that the lack of legal follow-up after the issuance of protection orders could be remedied by the state's 10-F Form, implemented in 2021. When law enforcement goes to serve a protection order, they use the form to ask a subject if they have access to firearms, securing them if so, keeping them in storage, or noting whether they deny having access to weapons at all. Then the form gets placed in a court's docket, leaving a paper trail if there's a violation later. 'This really is a tool that can be used as a way to clarify, does someone have weapons, and if this person is lying, it could be the basis of another charge or a violation of that protection order,' said Alexandria Ruden, a member of the advisory committee and a supervising attorney with Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. Ruden, who has worked in domestic violence law for four decades, emphasized that shootings are among the most common ways victims are killed. She and her colleagues have participated in training sessions on the 10-F Form across Ohio. But she explained that there are roadblocks to successful implementation, like having a place to store weapons after they have been seized. Though Ruden emphasized the practicality of the form, she said the need for a state statute is crucial to truly protect victims. 'If we were able to codify federal law regarding qualifying protection orders, and the qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, then the implementation of this form would be much easier to work with,' Ruden said. The difference in state approaches can have significant consequences for victims. 'The place you live, not only the state but the county that you live in, can dictate what protections under the law that you have, and how safe you will be,' said Dr. April Zeoli, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health who has researched the relationship between firearm access and intimate partner violence. 'We see these differences when it comes to domestic violence protection order firearm restrictions,' Zeoli told me. 'States that have these restrictions see decreases in domestic violence partner homicide compared to states that don't, and that is very frustrating.' Different states are implementing strategies to address intimate partner gun violence. In 2017, Washington became the first state to alert domestic violence survivors when an abuser tries to buy a gun. Other recent efforts have focused on securing financial support for those at risk, like Colorado's voter-approved gun tax to fund services for domestic violence victims. Earlier this year, Illinois passed a law clarifying the surrender process, requiring law enforcement to quickly seize firearms from people with protection orders against them. In Louisiana, even as federal laws have weakened, local leaders are still committed to keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers. Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Lieutenant Valerie Martinez-Jordan spearheaded an innovative firearm divestiture program that has since spread across the deep-red state. (Read my colleague Alma Beauvais's story for more.) These varied approaches are innovative, but as in Ohio, they are not being implemented without challenges. Some of the Trump administration's recent budget cuts have targeted domestic violence services. The actions on the federal level will have residual effects for organizations throughout the country. Still, the state actions show momentum for addressing the relationship between firearm violence and domestic violence. The 10-F form is just one example of recent efforts that are focused on less punitive approaches. Ruden, who has worked in intimate partner violence law since the Domestic Violence Act was enacted in 1979, told me that she looks forward to the day that she's 'out of a job,' but that there's a lot of work left to do. Often, she said, creating policies to counter intimate partner violence is a process that takes two steps back after taking a step forward. Still, these innovations represent hope. 'I am hopeful even now that what we are able to do with this particular piece is to focus on getting law enforcement to ask' about guns when a protection order is served, Ruden said. ''Do you have weapons?' or 'Let me take your weapons.'' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Fox News
39 minutes ago
- Fox News
Soros-backed 'No Kings' rallies threaten America's cities with planned chaos
Get ready for the Summer of Love 2.0. The June 14 "No Kings" rallies may become the latest case study in how the radical left weaponizes protests, manipulates media narratives and enables organized chaos under the guise of peaceful resistance. If you lived through the "Summer of Love" like I did in Seattle, watching as my city collapsed into lawlessness in 2020, you should already know the blueprint. It always starts with a supposedly nonviolent, grassroots rally, but ends with Antifa and anarchists in masks, wielding hammers, launching assaults and torching property. And the media? They'll pretend they're just "mostly peaceful." The "No Kings" weekend protests are being staged by Indivisible and its partner organizations, including American Federation of Teachers, ACLU, Greenpeace and the Human Rights Campaign. Indivisible, a faux grassroots group that's been posing as a democracy-loving nonprofit since 2016, was created explicitly to resist Donald Trump's presidency. Like so many of these far-left outfits, it's backed by big money from progressive megadonors, including George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. Indivisible wants you to think its rallies are just a bunch of passionate Americans showing up for justice. In reality, they're running a sprawling network of interconnected activist groups, many of which are just rebranded arms of the same machine. You'll notice the same messaging, the same signage, the same faces — and yes, the same tactics — showing up at protests, whether the cause is abortion without restrictions, police defunding, gender surgeries for kids, or open borders. It's astroturf dressed up in grassroots drag. But Indivisible and like-minded groups don't get their hands dirty. That's what their militant allies are for. While most protesters this weekend may not show up intending to start fires or throw projectiles at cops, they will absolutely provide cover for those who do, if violence breaks out. That's the strategy. Professional activists — and I mean literal professionals, some on the payroll of activist nonprofits or political action committees — organize these events knowing full well that radical agitators will exploit the crowd. It's the same playbook we saw in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots — something I covered in detail in my book "What's Killing America: Inside the Radical Left's Tragic Destruction of Our Cities." I went undercover, infiltrating Antifa to expose what they were really up to, and I'm seeing the same tactics unfold in Los Angeles and around the country. Back then, activists would organize a supposedly peaceful protest and fill the streets with emotional, mostly well-intentioned people who bought the media's false narrative of police brutality and racial injustice. Then Antifa and anarchist cells would swoop in — masked, armed and ready for combat. They'd use the crowds as human shields, assault officers, destroy property and disappear back into the mass. That's not speculation. That's what they do. In fact, just last weekend in Los Angeles, police detained several people carrying weapons to a "protest" downtown — hammers, heavy-duty flashlights and leaf blowers, the latter of which are used to disperse tear gas during confrontations with police. Who brings that to protests? Rioters. These are the tools of rioters. And the media? They're not entirely wrong when they report that most people at these rallies aren't violent. But they're also not reporting in good faith. They know full well what's going on — and they refuse to call it out. Why? Because they sympathize with the goals, even if they may disapprove of the tactics. It's a symbiotic relationship. The radical left gives the media outlets the visuals they crave — emotional footage of "resistance." The media gives the radical left the cover they need — "peaceful protest turns violent after Trump needlessly sends National Guard." It's always the same script. KABC-TV Los Angeles anchor Jory Rand downplayed a riot, saying the scene "could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there the wrong way, and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators." Meanwhile, KREM-TV Spokane, Washington claimed police "deployed gas on a group of peaceful protesters outside the Spokane ICE office," without noting that those "peaceful protesters" were disobeying dispersal orders and illegally blocking traffic. Media seem incapable of directly calling out violence and lawlessness. And make no mistake, the violence isn't even directly about Trump. It's not even about ICE or immigration enforcement. These anarchists and Antifa thugs don't care about the actual issue. They care about chaos and have much larger goals. While most protesters this weekend may not show up intending to start fires or throw projectiles at cops, they will absolutely provide cover for those who do, if violence breaks out. That's the strategy. They are anti-capitalist, anti-border, anti-police, anti-American revolutionaries who seek to destabilize the country. They hate this nation, its founding and its principles. They crave destruction and collapse — and they hide behind the bodies of naive, college-educated white liberals and bored suburban moms carrying signs about "equity." It's all part of the "direct action" pipeline: organize, radicalize and agitate. But in the short term, Democrat lawmakers see this as politically beneficial. They said the bare minimum to condemn the violence, first spending days pretending it wasn't happening before switching gears and blaming the Trump administration for inspiring the violence. And their message? The best way to stop the violence is for the Trump administration to stop raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "This must stop. The president must call back these ICE agents. They must retreat in order for the locals to be given the opportunity to restore order, because that is what we are demanding right now," California Democrat Rep. Norma Torres explained on MSNBC, giving away the Democrats' strategy of now using the violence to achieve their own anti-ICE political agenda. As we head into the weekend, don't be fooled by the signs, slogans or Spotify protest playlists. This isn't a spontaneous uprising of grassroots frustration. It's a coordinated operation, backed by radical left money, bolstered by left-wing institutions and enabled by a media that's either willfully blind or actively complicit. We've seen what happens when we ignore these warning signs. Businesses burned. Officers injured. Cities hijacked by masked criminals who vanish into the night while MSNBC calls it a "mostly peaceful protest." I lived through it in 2020. And I'm telling you: get ready. Because "No Kings" is just the latest excuse. The goal is always the same — disruption, destruction and dismantling everything this country stands for. And we can't let that happen.
Fox News
43 minutes ago
- Fox News
CNN, MSNBC insist anti-ICE demonstrations have been ‘mostly peaceful' despite widespread unrest
CNN and MSNBC have bent over backwards to remind viewers that anti-ICE demonstrations and riots causing turmoil and unrest across the country were "mostly peaceful," according to a new study from the Media Research Center. Los Angeles, the epicenter of the anti-ICE chaos, has been hit with continued disorder and flash mob-style looting incidents as law enforcement has been forced to make mass arrests. Videos and photos of the disorder have taken the internet by storm and some businesses have even boarded up their shops. Anti-ICE protesters have also clashed with police in New York City, where several police vehicles were set on fire inside an NYPD parking lot overnight Wednesday. In Chicago, a car drove through a crowd of demonstrators Tuesday night as hundreds of anti-ICE protesters gathered, and multiple police vehicles have been vandalized in that city, too. While major cities such as L.A., New York and Chicago have received the most attention, there have also been anti-ICE demonstrations in Washington, North Carolina, Missouri, Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Georgia, and a variety of other areas. Through it all, CNN and MSNBC have continued to insist the demonstrations and riots were "mostly peaceful." The Media Research Center (MRC) analyzed all coverage from June 7-11 and found a staggering 211 examples of CNN and MSNBC personalities insisting the chaos was "largely peaceful," "mostly peaceful" or something similar. CNN was responsible for 123 claims that the riots were "peaceful," while MSNBC reminded viewers 88 times, according to the MRC. NewsBusters senior research analyst Bill D'Agostino, who conducted the MRC study, noticed that whenever there was violence, CNN and MSNBC attributed it to a nebulous, separate group that had no connection with the "peaceful protesters." D'Agostino told Fox News Digital he "counted any assertion that specifically [said] these riots or protests were 'peaceful,' 'largely peaceful,' 'mostly peaceful,' or any other permutation thereof," during segments in which the violence had been acknowledged or shown on screen. "No reporter acknowledged any link between the peaceful and violent elements of the crowds. The rioters were exclusively framed as 'rogue actors,' or 'lone wolves,' and there was never any assertion that they might share common cause with the more peaceful individuals," D'Agostino told Fox News Digital. "Conversely, there was also no instance in which a reporter acknowledged that the National Guard and Marines had been mobilized exclusively to address the violent elements of the crowd," D'Agostino continued. "There were numerous complaints about the use of military force against 'peaceful protesters.'" D'Agostino also only found one instance in which a journalist from CNN or MSNBC referred to the chaos unfolding in Los Angeles as a "riot," which CNN's Jake Tapper did on June 7.
