President Trump Teases Potential Pardon for Diddy If Mogul's Convicted
President Trump is weighing in on the Diddy federal criminal trial ... saying he would look into the case and consider a potential pardon if the jury returns a guilty verdict.
Trump just doled out a bunch of pardons and commutations this week to a slew of celebs ... and he was asked Friday if he would ever consider pardoning Diddy.
POTUS says he hasn't been following the Diddy trial all that closely and he would have to "look at what's happening" and "look at the facts."
Trump said if Diddy was convicted and if he felt Diddy was "mistreated," he might consider a potential pardon.
Those are some pretty big ifs -- Diddy's literally on trial right now and we're likely not even halfway through. Frankly, this all sounds a bit premature, even if Trump's recent batch of pardons prompted the question from Fox News' Peter Doocy.
Diddy and Trump are both big figures in New York and in 2012 on 'Celebrity Apprentice,' Trump said of Diddy, "I love Diddy ... You know, he's a good friend of mine, he's a good guy."
But Trump seemed to distance himself from Diddy in his answer ... saying they haven't seen each other or spoken to one another in years.
Trump says when he got into politics, his relationship with Diddy "busted up" ... though he says that would NOT have an impact when it came to considering potential clemency.
Diddy's pled not guilty to two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, and one count of racketeering conspiracy ... and he's currently on trial in Manhattan.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Americans ‘aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king'
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that Americans 'aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' referring to President Trump. 'Donald Trump has learned an important lesson, the American people aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' Jeffries said on CNN's 'State of the Union' to the outlet's Dana Bash. 'It's the reason why Donald Trump actually is the most unpopular president at this point of a presidency in American history,' he added. The president's approval rating currently sits at 45.9 percent in the Decision Desk/The Hill polling average, with 51.7 percent in the average not backing the president. The president recently went through consistent drops in his approval ratings, but his approval rating in the Decision Desk/The Hill average now sits above 2 points higher than it was at the start of May. Trump and his administration have taken swift action on issues such as how the federal government functions, immigration, trade policy, and LGBTQ rights in his first few months since returning to Washington. The action has drawn pushback from those on the American left and Democrats, but Democrats have also been criticized for a perceived lack of response to Trump administration moves. 'Democrats, of course, are the party that is determined to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers,' Jeffries said Sunday. Republican strategist Karl Rove said in a recent opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal that President Trump's tariff rhetoric could cost the GOP its majorities in Congress. 'Republicans should hope the president really believes in reciprocity—the policy that if countries lower their tariffs, we'll lower ours. He should have confidence that America can compete if the playing field is level,' he added. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.
American Military News
32 minutes ago
- American Military News
Trump sees Iran deal that allows US to destroy nuclear sites
U.S. President Donald Trump said he envisions a nuclear deal with Iran that would allow the destruction of 'whatever we want' in the country including labs, a version of an inspections regime that is likely to be rejected by Tehran. Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Trump briefly outlined his vision of a deal that is 'very strong, where we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever we want. We can blow up whatever we want. But nobody getting killed,' he said. Trump also said he believed a deal with Iran could be completed within 'the next couple of weeks' and that talks had made 'a lot of progress.' But his comments about destroying nuclear facilities highlight a major sticking point between the two over whether Iran should be allowed to produce its own enriched uranium. An adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, dismissed Trump's ideas. 'Accessing Iran's nuclear sites and 'blowing up infrastructure' is a fantasy past U.S. presidents shared. Iran is independent, with strong defenses, resilient people, and clear red lines,' Ali Shamkhani said in a post on X on Thursday. 'Talks serve progress, interests, and dignity, not coercion or surrender,' he added. It's not clear if the ability to dismantle or destroy infrastructure in the event that Iran is found to be weaponizing its enrichment capability is a demand that U.S. negotiators have formally put to Iranian counterparts in their current talks. Trump's comments came in response to questions about reports Israel has revived plans to attack Iran. He said he advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against that idea as it could disrupt ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran. Trump described an alternative that gave the U.S. the option to destroy infrastructure related to a weapons program that would be baked into an agreement with Iran. 'We can blow up a lab, but nobody's going to be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in the lab and blowing it up, right?' he added. After the 1991 Gulf War, a United Nations-led regime was imposed on Iraq in which inspectors were allowed to destroy nuclear and chemical weapons-related infrastructure. Iran has repeatedly warned the U.S. against threats of military action. Iranian officials insist their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and uranium enrichment is necessary for its nuclear power sector. Earlier on Wednesday officials in Iran said they'd consider allowing Americans to be part of International Atomic Energy Agency inspection teams under a future deal with the U.S., a walkback from a practice of excluding inspectors who are U.S. nationals. Trump's comments about being able to destroy nuclear infrastructure may make officials in Iran rethink the concession. Despite the apparent distance between expectations, Trump sounded optimistic about a deal, which his special envoy Steve Witkoff has been negotiating. 'They still have to agree to the final stages of a document, but I think you could be very well surprised what happens there, and it would be a great thing for them,' Trump said. 'They could have a great country into the future.' After talks in Rome on Friday, the Iranian foreign minister and lead negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, said they could lead to progress toward an agreement in the next couple of meetings. ___ © 2025 Bloomberg L.P. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
