Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Isn’t this meant to be a unanimous jury decision? So all it will take is one juror thinking it was a sick abusive relationship, but ultimately consensual

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Isn’t this meant to be a unanimous jury decision? So all it will take is one juror thinking it was a sick abusive relationship, but ultimately consensual

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I don't really care. I am not sure what part of the charges the prosecutor is trying to prove with her testimony. Her texts saying she loves them would probably be used by defense that she consented to them. But this trial isn't about her consent so IMO these texts are irrelevant and are just noise.

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

I think she is very clearly all over the place as someone would be when they are in a co-dependent relationship based on trauma. She is trying to appease him to get back in his good graces because that is the dynamic he has created. I am confused by the defense strategy where they are highlighting texts where she is asking him to stop abusing her and clearly does not want to be doing any of this. They keep highlighting he was on drugs. So what. He's not accountable because he was on drugs or drunk?

Some of you have clearly never had a front row seat to one of these types of relationships or been in one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

She testified that she participated in the freak offs to make him happy, and that it was like a secret he shared with her and that she didn’t want him to find someone else to replace her. Also, he would threaten her with exposing videos if she didn’t do what he said. So it makes sense, that she would say those things to appease him.

The defense is now making their argument, they are claiming that it was just a sick twisted relationship, but nothing criminal. Maybe they will mention those texts specifically again for this argument , but so far they have not.

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of the texts where she’s saying she loves freak offs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How in the world is sex trafficking the same as paying someone for sex? Strippers and escorts work perfectly legal jobs.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking/sexual slavery - pimping someone out /forced sex as a moving enterprise (key word: moving enterprise). Women that are sex trafficked do not have their own luxury apartments in NY and LA and certainty aren’t able to enjoy time on another coast 6 hours away from their pimp . They are driven from van to van or house to house literally shackled by fear and without any finances to leave sometimes not even knowing where they are or who is sleeping with them. Cassie still had the escorts phone number, the escorting companies numbers, and had the ability to see her parents, her friends, and travel to and fro throughout the entire decade. That was not trafficking and it’s an insult to real victims for her to say it was

One of the charges against Combs is literally transportation of prostitutes. This charge doesn’t need consent or coercion. He directed/paid for/ orchestrated the transportation of prostitutes for sex across state lines. This is separate from sec trafficking.

This transportation charge can qualify as the criminal enterprise/activity for the RICO charge. Also a sex trafficking charge doesn’t need coercion if the person is a minor (not sure if that will come up in trial but it is the exception to coercion, threat element).

Traffickers do not pay for sex work/escorts. Escorts and the sex work pay them.

Diddy was a client. The escort agency is the trafficker who sent the escort “across state lines”.

Yeah, your logic doesn’t work. But in your ridiculous theory, the agency is literally the agent of Diddy, working at his request and payment. Your money laundering example doesn’t work. Diddy is the john and bring the john is illegal.

Please go to law school. Your trolling is insane. But it did give me a good laugh.

I am not trolling. That’s like arresting the drug addict instead of the drug dealer/trafficker. The escorts were not sent by Diddy. They were sent by their employer. If escorting is trafficking, then the agency owners are the traffickers. He is just the rich pervert client

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How in the world is sex trafficking the same as paying someone for sex? Strippers and escorts work perfectly legal jobs.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking/sexual slavery - pimping someone out /forced sex as a moving enterprise (key word: moving enterprise). Women that are sex trafficked do not have their own luxury apartments in NY and LA and certainty aren’t able to enjoy time on another coast 6 hours away from their pimp . They are driven from van to van or house to house literally shackled by fear and without any finances to leave sometimes not even knowing where they are or who is sleeping with them. Cassie still had the escorts phone number, the escorting companies numbers, and had the ability to see her parents, her friends, and travel to and fro throughout the entire decade. That was not trafficking and it’s an insult to real victims for her to say it was

One of the charges against Combs is literally transportation of prostitutes. This charge doesn’t need consent or coercion. He directed/paid for/ orchestrated the transportation of prostitutes for sex across state lines. This is separate from sec trafficking.

This transportation charge can qualify as the criminal enterprise/activity for the RICO charge. Also a sex trafficking charge doesn’t need coercion if the person is a minor (not sure if that will come up in trial but it is the exception to coercion, threat element).

Traffickers do not pay for sex work/escorts. Escorts and the sex work pay them.

Diddy was a client. The escort agency is the trafficker who sent the escort “across state lines”.

Yeah, your logic doesn’t work. But in your ridiculous theory, the agency is literally the agent of Diddy, working at his request and payment. Your money laundering example doesn’t work. Diddy is the john and bring the john is illegal.

Please go to law school. Your trolling is insane. But it did give me a good laugh.

I am not trolling. That’s like arresting the drug addict instead of the drug dealer/trafficker. The escorts were not sent by Diddy. They were sent by their employer. If escorting is trafficking, then the agency owners are the traffickers. He is just the rich pervert client