AB 379 passes committee despite opposition from progressive Democrats
After Democrats and Republicans argued for weeks, a California bill aimed at allowing prosecutors to charge suspects with felonies who solicit 16 and 17-year-olds for sex has passed through committee.
"You sit there and you water down the penalties," said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego).
Despite being introduced by a Democrat, progressives tried to tank the bill, claiming it could be used to abuse people of color and teens who are close in age.
"I've heard concern about, and this provision related to 16- and 17-year-olds in terms of how it's applied and whether it's applied equitably," said Assemblyman Nick Schultz (D-Burbank). "We all know that in the past, law enforcement has discriminatorily applied certain provisions of California law against particular communities, so I think that concern is real.
However, Gov. Gavin Newsom and some fellow Democrats weighed in and slammed their members. They said there should be no question that soliciting teens for sex should be a felony. State Republicans said Democrats who opposed the bill are out of touch.
"This is a no-brainer," said State Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach). "It's about protecting kids. I give credit to Gov. Newsom for weighing in on this."
In the end, Democrats backed down, pushing the bill through the committee with an exception in a rare case where the suspect is within three years of the victim's age.
"The important thing to understand, because there's been so much misinformation about this particular bill over the last 10 days, it is already a felony in the state of California to contact or communicate or attempt to contact or communicate with a minor to engage in sexual activity," Schultz said.
AB 379 must still pass a full vote in the Assembly and the state Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Jokes the Musk-Trump Feud Is Like if ‘Godzilla Was on Ketamine and King Kong Had a Combover'
Bill Maher vowed that he wouldn't 'pretend I can really think about anything other than the Trump-Elon thing' during his monologue on Friday's 'Real Time.' He was referring of course to the very bitter (and weird) public fight between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Maher compared the matter to ''Godzilla vs. King Kong'… if Godzilla was on ketamine and King Kong had a combover.' 'Man, these guys were so close, it was like Brangelina or benniffer,' Maher continued, joking that Trump and Musk also had their own couple name, 'Elump.' 'What happened… this has been brewing for a while, okay, people, the first sign was last week at Elon's little going away party. Remember that? And Elon showed up with a black eye…. he said it was because he was roughhousing with his kid and the kid clocked him. And yeah, I believe that,' Maher continued. 'And so Trump said, 'I offered him a little makeup… and he turned it down.' 'And then Trump said, 'which was interesting.' Yeah, weird. Elon, what sort of man turns down makeup?' Maher added, at which point he caught his audience up on the blow by blow. This included how Musk called Trump's 'big beautiful bill' a 'disgusting abomination,' how Trump said Musk has 'Trump derangement syndrome,' and how Musk said Trump's tariffs will cause a recession. Maher also amusingly flubbed the last bit, saying 'erection' to laughter from the audience before correcting to 'recession.' Maher also reminded viewers how Trump claimed Musk was only mad 'because I took away the mandate for his electric vehicles, which nobody really wants anyway,' and how Musk angrily declared Trump wouldn't even be president without his help. 'And then the s— got real. And Trump said, 'Well, you know what, Mars is, a s—hole planet,' Maher joked. Maher then noted how Musk has even claimed Trump is somehow implicated in the Epstein files and is actively covering it up, adding, 'now this is just a war that is going back and forth and back and forth, and the stakes are so high because the winner faces Blake Lively.' 'That's where we are with this. The latest update is tomorrow. Apparently, Elon is going to be coming by to the White House to pick up his CDs and the mixtape they made together… But it looks like it may go from a war of words to a you know, other stuff, because Trump is now saying he might cancel Elon subsidies and Elon's contracts. Cool. So I guess in the end, Elon did save the taxpayer money,' Maher quipped. You can watch the whole monologue below: The post Bill Maher Jokes the Musk-Trump Feud Is Like if 'Godzilla Was on Ketamine and King Kong Had a Combover' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How each Diddy victim testified and how it could sway the trial's outcome
At his ongoing trial, Sean Combs has been accused of physical or sexual violence by seven women. His lawyers call them bitter opportunists. Prosecutors call them victims of Combs' criminal racket. Here's what each of these seven women told the jury, and why it matters legally. Over the past month, seven women have taken the stand at the Manhattan trial of rap mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs to tell chilling personal stories of physical and sexual violence. Two are Combs' ex-girlfriends, three are his former employees, and two were on the periphery of his multimillion-dollar media, entertainment, and lifestyle empire. Defense lawyers call them jealous, or bitter, or greedy. They say all seven women were with Combs by choice and are now out for what one attorney termed "a 'Me Too' money grab." Prosecutors call them victims and say their stories are the heart of the trial. Here's how the testimony of these seven accusers has turned the tables on Combs, building a case for federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges that could imprison him for anywhere from 15 years to life. Cassie Ventura, his first sex-trafficking accuser R&B singer Cassie Ventura was celebrating her 21st birthday in Las Vegas when Combs, who had signed her to his Bad Boy Records label the year before, surprised her with the kiss that started their relationship. She told the jury that hundreds of times over the next decade, from 2008 until 2018, Combs forced her to meet him at luxury hotels, to dress up in wigs, heels, and lingerie, to take handfuls of drugs, and to have sex with male escorts as Combs filmed and masturbated to the dayslong performances. "I want you to be glistening," she said Combs would tell her as he watched, ordering Ventura and sex workers with names like "Jewels" and "The Punisher" to apply ever more baby oil. These so-called "freak off" performances were first revealed in Ventura's quickly settled 2023 lawsuit. (Combs paid Ventura $20 million.) Ventura's allegations have since been corroborated at trial by freak off videos she'd saved over the years, by hotel records, and by testimony from eye-witnesses, including sex workers. One exotic dancer told jurors he witnessed Combs beating Ventura twice during freak offs in Manhattan between 2012 and 2014. "Bitch, when I tell you to come here, come now, not later," the dancer recalled Combs saying during one of more than a dozen beatings recounted at trial by witnesses and Ventura herself. Prosecutors say Ventura was sex-trafficked, meaning coerced into crossing state lines to participate in commercial sex acts (commercial because they involved paid sex workers). They say the violent, 2016 InterContinental hotel hallway video is unavoidable proof that she was sex-trafficked by force. They will likely argue that other evidence, including her unprofitable record deal and Combs' threats to publicize her freak-off tapes, proves she was sex-trafficked by means of fraud and coercion as well. They will likely also argue that from Ventura's vantage point at the center of the Combs empire, she also witnessed multiple crimes that support the racketeering charge. These include not just sex trafficking, but narcotics sales, forced labor (she was never compensated for her mixtape, a producer testified), extortion (she says Combs threatened to release freak off videos) and kidnapping (she says that when she was 22, he forced her to stay at an LA hotel until the bruises on her battered face healed enough to be hidden by makeup.) The defense has challenged Ventura's credibility by pointing to her lawsuit windfall, to the many times she left the Combs relationship only to freely return, and to the years of texts and emails in which she expresses her love of Combs and the freak offs. But Ventura described being trapped in a cycle of drug addiction, financial and emotional dependency, and fear. And yes, also love. "I would do absolutely anything for him," she told the jury, explaining why she agreed to the first freak off at age 22. "And it never stopped, our whole relationship." "Jane," his second sex-trafficking accuser "Jane," a recent ex-girlfriend of Combs, testified that on their first date at a Miami hotel in 2010, she fell "pretty head-over-heels for Sean." The date lasted five days, she told the jury. Over the next four months, she said, Combs slowly introduced her to his sexual preferences. He loved baby oil and drugs that kept them up day and night. He loved it when she dressed in lingerie and "high stripper heels." He'd play pornography and tell her to fantasize about the men on screen. "Do you like what you see there?" she said he'd ask her of these men. "Do you want that?" Then one night in 2021 at his Miami mansion, as the pornography rolled, he told her, "I can make this fantasy a reality if you'd like that." She loved him, she explained, and agreeing made him so happy. So she said yes. Jane said she soon realized she'd opened up "Pandora's box." Gone were the romantic trips and dinner dates of their first four months. Combs wanted freak offs — by now he was calling them "hotel nights" — nearly every time they saw each other over the next three years, up until his arrest in 2024. "It was just a door I was unable to shut," she told the jury. Jane's testimony has so far described some of the elements of sex trafficking. She said she reluctantly crossed state lines, traveling from the East Coast to Miami to Los Angeles, to engage with paid sex workers. But her testimony, which continues next week, has yet to show that Combs sex trafficked her using force, fraud, or coercion, as the indictment requires. She instead described intensive psychological and financial pressure. She said she agreed to hotel nights because she loved him, and because he'd moved her to Los Angeles from the East Coast and was paying rent and other costs for her and her child. And when she told him she no longer wanted to do hotel nights, he would brush her off, or make what may or may not rise to the level of a coercive threat to withdraw that financial support. "If you want to break up, that's fine," she testified he'd tell her. "Do you need, like, what, three more months in the house? Because I'm not about to be paying for a woman's rent that I'm not even seeing." Prosecutors have said Combs defrauded Jane by promising romantic dinners and trips, only to renege and persuade her into another hotel night. They have also said Combs was brutally violent with Jane, though it's unclear how they plan to draw a link between that violence and sex trafficking by force. Meanwhile, the defense will likely use hundreds of affectionate and erotic texts between Jane and Combs to argue that she is a bitter ex who willingly suffered any demands and violence, and who continues to have her expenses paid by Combs in return. Asked late Friday who is currently paying her rent, Jane answered, "Sean is." Prosecutors have also hinted that Jane is a witness to obstruction of justice, one of the underlying crimes they can use to prove the racketeering charge. "You will hear him try to manipulate Jane into saying she wanted freak offs," Emily Johnson, an assistant US attorney, told the jury during May 12 opening statements, describing a phone call recorded after Ventura's lawsuit was filed. "You will hear him interrupt Jane when she pushes back," Johnson said. Prosecutors have also said he made a point of paying for Jane's housing — even after his arrest. "Mia," his rape accuser "Mia," a former Combs employee, told the jury about a night 15 years ago, when she slept in the employee bedroom at his Los Angeles mansion. She woke up with Combs on top of her, she said, telling her, "Be quiet." "It was very quick, but it felt like forever," she said, her voice breaking into quiet, gasping sobs. Mia, like Jane, testified under a pseudonym to protect her privacy. She told the jury that Combs raped or sexually assaulted her at least four times throughout her eight years working as his personal assistant and as an executive for his short-lived movie company, Revolt Films. As with Jane and Cassie, Mia described in dozens of texts and social media posts struggling with her financial dependence on Combs and her fear of his violent nature, even as she spoke warmly of him. Mia supported the Ventura sex-trafficking claim. She said she saw Combs throw Ventura to the ground and "crack her head open." But Mia was not herself sex-trafficked, according to prosecutors — she is instead a racketeering witness. Mia's testimony may be used to support an underlying racketeering crime of forced labor. She told the jury that Combs made her work as many as five days in a row with little or no sleep. Combs was a volatile boss who stole her phone and passport during arguments that turned violent, she said. Her testimony may also support an underlying crime of bribery and obstruction of justice. Mia told the jury that Combs' bodyguard, Damion "D-Roc" Butler, called and texted her repeatedly in the weeks after Ventura's lawsuit, spinning the "Puff and Cass" relationship as normal, and offering her "a gift." Capricorn Clark, his kidnapping accuser In her testimony, Capricorn Clark, Combs' former personal assistant and marketing exec, supported the Ventura sex-trafficking charge, describing Ventura as docile, trapped, and frequently subjected to beatings. During one beating, Clark said, Combs stopped briefly to warn her, "If I jumped in he was going to fuck me up, too." Clark is primarily a racketeering witness. Her testimony supports the underlying crimes of kidnapping and extortion. Clark said Combs was so enraged by Ventura's brief 2011 romance with rival rapper Kid Cudi that he forced Clark at gunpoint to ride with him and a bodyguard to Cudi's nearby house in Hollywood Hills. "He just said get dressed, we're going to go kill this —" and here he used the N-word. Cudi — whose given name is Scott Mescudi — told the jury that he arrived home to find his dog locked in the bathroom and a table full of Christmas presents unwrapped and rifled through. Clark also corroborated trial testimony by Ventura and her mom, Regina Ventura, concerning what prosecutors call a $20,000 extortion threat. The mom said she wired Combs the money after he threatened to release explicit sex tapes of her daughter. Dawn Richard, death-threat witness Former Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard testified to a brutal 2009 beating at Combs' rented Los Angeles mansion that supports both the Ventura sex-trafficking-by-force allegation and racketeering. Combs punched, kicked, and dragged Ventura during a fight over her not cooking him breakfast quickly enough, both Ventura and Richard told the jury. The next day, Combs called Ventura and Richard into his studio and locked the door. Inside, he tried to explain the incident, gave them some flowers, and what Richard said she considered to be a death threat. "He said that what we saw was passion," Richard testified. He told them, "he was trying to take us to the top, and that, where he comes from, people go missing," if they talk to the police, she said. "And then he gave us flowers." Prosecutors may call what happened next inside the studio extortion, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice, all underlying racketeering crimes. Kerry Morgan In her testimony, Kerry Morgan supported the Ventura sex-trafficking charge, describing two times she saw Combs beat Ventura, whom she called her best friend from their teenage modeling years. Once was when Ventura took too long in the bathroom during a 2013 Jamaica vacation. Morgan said Combs dragged a screaming Ventura outside by the hair and flung her down onto some paving bricks. For about 30 seconds, "I thought she was knocked out," Morgan testified. Morgan also supported the racketeering count by describing a $30,000 hush-money payment she received from Combs. In return for the money, Morgan said, she signed a non-disclosure agreement that barred her from talking about a 2018 assault she said happened earlier that year in Ventura's Hollywood Hills house. Combs was desperate to learn "who Cassie was cheating on him with," she testified. Combs let himself into Ventura's apartment, she said. "He came up behind me, and choked me when I got away, he boomeranged a wooden hanger at my head," giving her a concussion, Morgan said. Bryana "Bana" Bongolan, who says Combs dangled her over a balcony Bryana "Bana" Bongolan, a marketing director, told jurors she and Ventura are longtime friends. They shared a lot of drugs over the years, she said — including cocaine, ketamine, and GHB. They also shared trauma, she told the jury. She once saw Combs throw a knife at Ventura, who she said threw it back. "I'm the devil and I could kill you," she testified Combs told her in 2016, seemingly at random, when she and Ventura were with him on a Malibu beach. Combs, she said, gave no explanation for the threat. Bongolan's most important testimony — feeding the prosecution's argument that Combs stood at the head of a violent, criminal "racket" — described him picking her up and holding her over the railing of a 17th-story balcony in September 2016. "You know what the fuck you did!" she said Combs kept shouting as he hoisted her into the air. Asked if she knew what he meant, she testified, "I still have no idea." On cross-examination, defense attorney Nicole Westmoreland highlighted inconsistencies between what Bongolan has said in a $10 million lawsuit, in her interviews with prosecutors, and in her testimony. The defense lawyer also leaned into the defense contention that Combs' accusers have financial reasons to falsely implicate him. Westmoreland questioned Bongolan hard about her and Ventura's lawsuits against Combs. In one example, Bongolan's ongoing lawsuit accuses Combs of violent sexual assault, an allegation not made in her June 4 testimony — though Bongolan did tell jurors that Combs' hands cupped her breasts before he hoisted her up from under her arms. "It means a lot for you to become a ten-millionaire soon, doesn't it?" Westmoreland asked Bongolan, who answered, "I care about justice." Read the original article on Business Insider
