Diddy Please: Yes, You're A Bozo For Cheering For Sean Combs
So, the verdict is in.
Sean 'Diddy' Combs has been acquitted of the most serious federal charges—racketeering and sex trafficking—but was found guilty on two lesser charges: transportation of former girlfriends for prostitution. While some in his corner are calling this a 'victory,' there's nothing victorious about a man found guilty of exploiting the women who loved and supported him, women that he coerced to live a lifestyle they truly weren't into. There's no parade coming for a predator and if you're out here cheering for Diddy like he just beat the system, then congratulations—you're officially a bozo.
Despite the dramatic shift in charges for the conviction, Combs will remain in custody until his sentencing this fall, with prosecutors seeking a four to five-year prison sentence. Many have taken to social media to express their opinion on the verdict.
What's wild is how many folks have hopped online to defend him, using the same tired tropes to deflect accountability: 'They're trying to bring down another successful Black man,' or 'This is just the system at work against us.' But the reality is this: there was no grand conspiracy to take down Diddy. The man didn't try to take him down; his choices did. What happened here was the slow collapse of a long-standing, heavily curated illusion.
He is a predator who should have gotten locked up and should remain behind bars for the years of domestic violence he inflicted upon a young woman he literally groomed—but there's no outrage. His supporters aren't considering the fact that despite his legal clearance, we all saw the video.
The brutal surveillance footage of Diddy attacking Cassie in that hotel hallway was not up for debate, interpretation, or conspiracy theorizing. It was violence—plain and simple. No editing. No agenda. Just a predator caught in the act. Yet somehow, people still find the energy to defend him, framing it as some sort of cultural persecution for his affinity for Freak-offs, when it was truly a fight for justice for people who had been silenced for too long.
Diddy wasn't some misunderstood visionary unfairly targeted. He was a grown man who made calculated choices over decades—choices to groom, abuse, harass, and intimidate men and women. Just because he escaped conviction on the most severe charges doesn't mean he's innocent. It means the justice system worked as it usually does for the rich and connected; it gave him a softer landing.
Still, no amount of baby oil is going to smooth over the stain on his legacy. That Bad Boy co-sign? Worthless. The industry is already keeping its distance, and even his so-called friends were nowhere to be seen during his trial, because everyone knows that association is currency, and no one wants to cash a check signed in scandal and accompanied by side eyes.
Diddy's power didn't just evaporate—it was stripped from him because people finally stopped looking away. And no, this isn't the same as some of the political takedowns we've seen. Donald Trump's impunity is powered by a broken, racist system that was never designed to hold him accountable. Diddy had our culture behind him—until he abused it. Until he abused us.
The most disheartening fact is that once again, folks tripped over headlines, ignoring facts and sending a message loud and clear that women aren't protected because men are out here scorned. The same energy that allowed Tory Lanez to continue harassing Megan Thee Stallion is back in full force—this time, applauding a man who was literally caught on camera assaulting his partner.
The public attack with no action from these same men who love to be loud and wrong was used by the Trump campaign last election season to taint the image of then presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris, once again proving that there's a serious discussion that needs to be had among Black people and it's about standards.
It's time we stop confusing 'cool' with character. Diddy is not a cultural martyr; he's a cautionary tale, and it's time our community recalibrates its standards. Somewhere along the way, we've gotten lost in this toxic pursuit of clout, cash, and assimilation.
There's nothing 'corny' about Cassie's husband standing beside her during weeks of grueling public scrutiny while she was visibly pregnant. But there is something deeply corny—and frankly pathetic—about a 55-year-old mogul lying through his teeth, still pretending to be 'acting bad,' all while hiding from accountability until evidence forced his hand. At this big age, if you can't admit your wrongs and make peace with the consequences, then what are we really defending?
That old 'bad boy,' 'rough-neck,' and newly rebranded 'YN' ideology is played out. We need to teach our young men to be more than performers of masculinity; they should be protectors of truth, defenders of women, and warriors for justice. We also have to teach our young women not to settle, how to support one another when faced with the challenges of coming forward, and how not to be so desperate to be desired that they throw another woman under the bus and victim-blame her for attention.
As the incomparable Lauryn Hill once said: 'How you gon' win when you ain't right within?'
This isn't just a Diddy issue; it's truly a culture check pointing out that the time for healing, reckoning, and real growth is now. Because if we're going to move forward as a community, it starts with holding all of us accountable, especially the ones we once called kings.
SEE ALSO:
There Is No Defending Diddy
Why Sean Combs Was Never Going To Be Fully Held Accountable [Op-Ed]
SEE ALSO
Diddy Please: Yes, You're A Bozo For Cheering For Sean Combs was originally published on newsone.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
‘You owe me an apology, you racially profiled me.' New details emerge in allegation against Milton official.
According to the unredacted report, Talbot told officers that Hall approached her in the Milton High School lobby before a town meeting on June 17. She said Hall grabbed her left elbow and told her she would 'appreciate it if you didn't snap when I was speaking.' Talbot said she replied, ''What are you talking about? Take your hand off of me,'' but Hall would 'not let go right away,' the report said. Advertisement Hall was apparently referring to someone else she had seen at the meeting the night before, Talbot told police. 'Later that night, Ms. Talbot said she walked up to the stage area in the auditorium and approached Ms. Hall and said, 'you owe me an apology, you racially profiled me,'' the report said. Hall is white and Talbot is Black. 'Ms. Hall replied, 'I have pictures that someone sent to me of you and two other women in the audience,'' the report said. 'It was reported that Hall then grabbed Ms. Talbot again.' Advertisement Talbot said she again told Hall not to touch her, according to the report. 'Ms. Hall then said, 'I don't even know your name,'' the report said. 'Ms. Talbot then said, 'that's why you should not touch me or put your hands on me.'' When Hall said, 'you were sitting with Beverly (Beverly Ross Denny) and some other black women,' Talbot responded 'you are racially profiling me,' the report said. When police spoke with Hall, she said she was told that three town meeting members who were sitting together at the meeting the night before had been 'making rude gestures and snapping their fingers' each time she rose to use the microphone. Hall 'was sent a photo of the three women sitting together but would not tell me who gave her the picture,' the report said. 'She said the picture did not show anyone snapping their fingers.' Hall also provided her own account of approaching Talbot in the lobby, police said. Hall indicated that she 'politely asked Ms. Talbot, 'it would be nice if you could be respectful and not snap your fingers when I go to the microphone,'' the report said. 'Ms. Hall then said Ms. Talbot got close to her and in her face and said she was not snapping her fingers and a lot of black people look the same.' Hall said she later 'put her right hand on [Talbot's] arm and said, 'I apologize if you were not the person snapping your fingers,'' the report said. 'She said she put her hand on her arm. Hall said to me, 'you know how you do this to calm someone down.' She said she did this in a caring gesture.' Advertisement After the meeting concluded, Hall told police, Talbot approached her and 'got in her face again and was angry and confronted her about the snapping of her fingers the night before.' Hall told police she touched Talbot's arm 'gently again to calm her down because she was upset and Ms. Talbot said, 'don't touch me again, your [sic] touching my arm, that's assault and battery.'' Hall then walked away, according to the report, which said police also pulled video footage at the school. The footage showed Hall approaching Talbot and 'placing her left hand on Talbot's right arm/elbow area at 7:30 p.m. by the entrance to the auditorium. The two began to talk and the conversation continued into to [sic] auditorium.' Additional footage captured the later encounter just before 11 p.m., after the meeting ended. Police said 'you can see Talbot come down to the stage and approach Hall to speak with her. During this conversation you can see Hall place her hand on Talbot again.' The conversation continued, and then the women separated, according to the report. 'A few moments later you can see Hall and Talbot speak again for a few moments and then go their separate ways,' the report said. Police said they also pulled footage from the night before, to see if anyone had been snapping their fingers when Hall took the mic. 'During these times on video you can see Talbot and two other women sitting together,' the report said. 'During the video the women are active in their seats but their [sic] is no visible evidence that Talbot or the other women were snapping their fingers during the times Hall was speaking.' Advertisement A week later, Talbot texted police to inform them she would like to pursue charges but then momentarily backtracked, the report said. Talbot wrote in a follow-up text that rather than press charges, 'she wanted to have a sit-down meeting with Hall and her 'representative,'' and that she wanted Hall to apologize for profiling her. That same day, police told Hall about Talbot's wishes, and Hall said authorities could pass along her contact information to Talbot, records show. Police later told Talbot they could email Hall her information as well. But Talbot then said 'she is not comfortable with Hall having her personal information or communicating with her directly,' the report said. Material from prior Globe stories was used in this report. Travis Andersen can be reached at
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
We need the moral courage to tell the truth about Cincinnati racial attack
On early Saturday morning, July 26, a violent mob of people reportedly assaulted an innocent couple on the streets of Cincinnati, Ohio, who were trying to enjoy a jazz festival. The attacks were brutal, and left this poor, defenseless couple bloodied, even unconscious. What's worse is that the attack seemed clearly motivated by race – the mob reportedly assaulted these people because of the color of their skin. Now I know what you're thinking. How could this possibly not be major, national news? A racial hate crime happening out in the open in the middle of a festival? Well, I've left out a key detail from the story: the alleged criminals were Black. The victims were White. And so, everyone from the mainstream media on down to the chief of police of the city of Cincinnati largely swept this incident under the rug – all because political correctness has run amok. We live in a time when political correctness is being put above truth, put above the law and put above common sense. Can you even imagine if the races were reversed, how quickly the attackers would have been identified, fired from their jobs and arrested? If the races were reversed, the news coverage would be wall-to-wall on every TV screen in America for months. There would be riots in the streets, and it would be declared the most heinous hate crime in recent memory. If the races were reversed, the police chief of Cincinnati would have come out swinging, saying we're going to throw the book at the thugs and that violence of this nature has no place in our city. But of course, none of that happened. Because the liberals who run that police office and the mainstream media have decided that it is not politically correct to say that when the criminals are Black and the victims are White. No, instead, the police chief said the videos we all watched were a misrepresentation. That we were taking these brutal assaults out of context. The mob of criminals who knocked innocent people out on the street was the real victim here. How drunk on social-justice-warrior, BLM dogma must the chief law enforcement officer of a major city be to put their liberal ideology and their dedication to political correctness above the law? We will cease to function as a society if we cannot find the moral courage to tell the truth. Now is not the time to bow to the PC police. We've done it, frankly, as a society for far too long, and it has led us to this moment. The truth here is that these assaults were the direct result of violence inspired by anti-White hatred and racism. And the people who committed these crimes belong in prison. That truth transcends race – it should not matter what race the criminals or the victims are. If you wander the streets looking for innocent people to assault, you should be locked up. Let's hope Cincinnati's police chief finds the moral courage to do the right thing. I won't be holding my breath.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Amid Epstein scandal, California navigates its own sex trafficking panic
With the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and Sean Combs trial jarring public attention around sex trafficking, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed a bill that aims to increase penalties for traffickers of teens and their customers. But more than three dozen civil rights, survivor and immigrant organizations — and even some legislators who voted for the bill — say the well-intentioned Assembly Bill 379 revives a vague, Jim Crow-era law that Newsom largely struck from the books three years ago because of its discriminatory application against Black and gay communities. And the opponents say that AB379 could inadvertently help the Trump administration deport California immigrants who have done nothing wrong. 'None of us want minors to be sex trafficked. None of us want anyone to be sex trafficked,' said Ann Block, a senior staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national policy organization that opposed AB379. '(But) this bill is so vague. … I can't imagine how this will not sweep up a lot of people who have nothing to do with prostitution.' AB379's emotionally fraught, five-month journey to becoming law underscores a political dichotomy: At a time when President Donald Trump is being hammered by his MAGA base for withholding the so-called Epstein files, in Sacramento it is the Democrats who are on the defensive regarding one of society's darkest crimes. Introduced in February by Assembly Member Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, AB379 sharpens criminal penalties against adults who solicit sex from teens and civil penalties against businesses that enable them. It does this by making the solicitation of 16- and 17-year-olds a 'wobbler' offense that prosecutors can charge as a felony if the perpetrator is more than three years older than the victim. The age-gap provision was added to make sure older teens and young adults wouldn't face sex-crime felonies for being in consensual relationships with younger partners, and quieted one of the first dustups over the bill. But the real battle erupted over a portion of the legislation that has gotten little media attention. AB379 also makes it a misdemeanor to loiter in a public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex, a crime the bill says can be evidenced by 'circling an area in a motor vehicle and repeatedly beckoning to, contacting, or attempting to contact or stop pedestrians or other motorists, making unauthorized stops along known prostitution tracks, or engaging in other conduct indicative of soliciting to procure another to engage in commercial sex.' Opponents say that language is so broad it can apply to day laborers, rideshare drivers, outreach workers and people who live and work in neighborhoods where prostitution occurs, an argument the impartial Senate Rules Committee bolstered in an analysis warning the definition 'may be constitutionally overbroad.' 'It could be (challenged),' said Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, one of only two legislators to vote against AB379. 'Loitering laws inherently raise potential constitutional issues, because they're so vague in terms of the behaviors that are being criminalized.' Wiener was the one to introduce Senate Bill 357 in 2022, which deleted the crime of loitering with the intent to engage in prostitution because of its fuzzy definition and discriminatory history against Black, brown and LGBTQ communities. A 2019 study by the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office found the charge resulted in hugely lopsided arrests of young Black women because of how they were dressed. When he signed SB357 in July 2022, Newsom pushed back against law enforcement criticism that it would legalize prostitution. 'It simply revokes provisions of the law that have led to disproportionate harassment of women and transgender adults,' the governor wrote in his signing statement, adding a cautionary note that he'd be watching 'crime and prosecution trends for any possible unintended consequences and will act to mitigate any such impacts.' Newsom, largely speculated to be considering a 2028 presidential campaign, did not release a signing statement for AB379. A month after SB357 took effect in 2023, San Diego's police chief claimed it prevented his officers from rescuing trafficked sex workers by arresting them. The California Penal Code includes multiple laws against human trafficking, pimping and pandering and prostitution. 'To be clear, the police don't need anti-loitering laws to protect or help survivors or hold traffickers accountable,' Jess Torres, a child sex trafficking survivor who was formerly incarcerated and undocumented, said during the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on June 10. 'Human trafficking continues to be illegal and we already have a trafficking law that criminalizes persons who pay for sex with minors.' Opponents have also raised the issue that the loitering misdemeanor can be a deportable offense and gives the Trump administration another avenue into California's immigrant communities, which have been under siege from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at worksites, courthouses, clinics, campuses and homes. 'ICE are going after people who are arrested, who enter the criminal justice system at all. They're arresting people at arraignment, without prior contact,' said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association, which opposed the bill. 'Just expanding the net of arrests for people, whether or not they're ultimately convicted, you are putting them in ICE's crosshairs.' Krell, who had her authorship stripped from AB379 during the bill's sharp-elbowed journey, contested that argument. 'I would love to see ICE go after sex traffickers, but they're not. And this bill won't change that,' she said. AB379's 51 registered supporters, including 25 law enforcement agencies and unions, as well as seven cities and some survivor groups, have also dismissed the immigration concerns as catastrophizing while shifting focus onto the bill's other changes. 'The most important aspect of this bill is creating a felony around solicitation,' said Yasmin Vafa, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Rights4Girls, an AB379 cosponsor. Vafa testified during committee hearings that this was a racial justice issue, involving affluent white male buyers and Black girl victims. 'If we were talking about white girls, this wouldn't be a debate.' In California, the federally funded National Human Trafficking Hotline said it identified 1,261 acts of sex-related trafficking among callers in 2024, a 10-year high and 48.5% higher than in 2015, the earliest year for which the hotline provided annual totals. The hotline, operated by the national anti-trafficking nonprofit Polaris, said its callers also reported the highest numbers of sex-trafficking cases occurring on the street (122) and in residences (111) since at least 2015 last year. According to the Human Trafficking Institute, California's federal courts saw 14 new sex-trafficking prosecutions in 2023, the second most behind Texas (21). Federal courts are where more trafficking prosecutions occur. Both the Human Trafficking Institute and Polaris caution that their numbers do not reflect the true prevalence of sex trafficking. Krell, a former deputy attorney general who prosecuted trafficking cases in the California Department of Justice, said she made sure AB379 only brings back the loitering misdemeanor in a way that can be used against sex buyers, not the sellers. 'It's targeted at those who are looking to buy,' said Krell, who has also introduced bills this session that would require social media companies to remove more child sexual abuse material and expand relief for people who were convicted of crimes as a result of being trafficked. 'It doesn't go after sex workers and it definitely doesn't go after victims.' But AB379 does make sex workers eligible for $1,000 fines that would go into a special fund for prosecutors and diversion programs like the one run by Community Against Sexual Harm, a bill co-sponsor and a survivor-led organization started by a Sacramento police officer in 2013. Republicans in the Legislature rallied around AB379, and have used sex trafficking as a cudgel to hammer away at the supermajority party and enhance their influence. 'I have to say, I'm tired of excuses,' Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Santa Clarita, said before the Senate's July 14 floor vote. 'We should all be able to agree on this. There is no moral or rational argument against protecting children from being bought and sold for sex.' While Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about reviving a loitering law that was first used against the state's indigenous residents in the 1800s, all but seven voted for AB379, with five abstentions, and expressed their wish that the issues be addressed after it became law. Wiener, who said he would have voted for AB379 if it was just about soliciting teens for sex and who said he endured slurs and death threats in the years he worked to repeal loitering, said he would not be the one to clean up the Legislature's 'mess.' Block, of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, characterized AB379's success as an instance where narrative overpowered the facts. 'In the times that we're in with the federal administration attacking California and many other states, perhaps this was a way of saying, 'Look, we're doing something about sex trafficking,' she said. 'That is something that is hard for legislators to vote against.'
