Sean 'Diddy' Combs' loses bid for release from jail ahead of sentencing
Combs' lawyers had asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian on July 29 to release Combs on a $50 million bond, arguing conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn were dangerous and that defendants convicted in the past of prostitution-related charges that were similar to Combs' were usually released before their sentencing.
Prosecutors with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office countered in an August 1 court filing that staffing levels, medical services, and facility conditions at the MDC had improved since Combs was arrested in September 2024. They also said evidence of Combs' physical violence presented at trial showed he was a danger to the community.
In a written ruling on Monday, Subramanian said Combs' arguments "might have traction in a case that didn't involve evidence of violence, coercion or subjugation in connection with the acts of prostitution at issue, but the record here contains evidence of all three."
Combs' lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Two killed and six wounded in mass shooting at LA music festival afterparty
Two people were killed and six others were wounded in a mass shooting at a music festival afterparty in downtown Los Angeles early on Monday, officials said. Police first responded around 11pm on Sunday evening to shut down a 'big party' after officers saw a person possibly armed with a gun go inside a building in the city's warehouse district, Los Angeles police department spokesperson Norma Eisenman told the Associated Press. That person was arrested at the scene, she said. The event was billed on social media as an unofficial afterparty for Hard Summer, a weekend festival for house and techno music that took place in Hollywood Park by SoFi stadium, which is located in Inglewood in south LA, the Los Angeles Times reported. LAPD received reports of shots fired at the afterparty around 1am on Sunday, after officers had cleared the area. When police returned, they found one person had died and learned multiple people had been hit by bullets, Eisenman said. One man died at the scene and a woman died at a hospital, the spokesperson said. Six people were taken to hospitals in unknown condition, she said. A man told KABC-TV that his 29-year-old son was one of the two people killed. There was no information about a suspect or a motive. Investigators remained at the scene for hours. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, condemned the shooting in a social media post, saying: 'This senseless violence and loss of life is devastating and those who are responsible must be held accountable. There will be no tolerance for violence in this city. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.' Bass said the investigation was ongoing and gang interventionists were 'providing support for families and continuing the everyday work of keeping our neighborhoods safe'. Interventionists function as social workers and mediators who work within communities to resolve conflict and prevent violence. One attendee at the party, who declined to give their name, told the LA Times that it sounded as if '100 shots' had been fired, and said people scrambled onto the street in a stampede. The LA violence happened two days after four people were killed in a shooting at a bar in Montana, which was the ninth mass shooting of the year so far, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan group. A gunman also killed four people in Manhattan in an incident that shook New York city last month, and multiple shootings broke out across the country on the Fourth of July holiday.
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Murdoch takes on Trump in press baron's last stand
When Rupert Murdoch stepped down as executive chairman of both News Corp and Fox just under two years ago, it was seen as a cautious first step into retirement for the nonagenarian media tycoon. Although still ultimately in charge of his empire, Murdoch has handed day-to-day responsibility over to his son Lachlan. Meanwhile, he has focused his attention on succession planning, including a bitter legal battle with his own children over the family trust. But any suggestion that Murdoch might slide into a quiet dotage now appears premature. Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), is aimed squarely at Murdoch himself. The legal challenge is the latest salvo in Trump's increasingly aggressive assault on the media. It also sets up what will likely be a final battle for the world's best-known newspaper tycoon – and one that could define his legacy. As one of his former executives puts it: 'The American president has taken on Rupert Murdoch, an extraordinary media force for the last 50 years ... It's a box office story.' Trump's lawsuit relates to a WSJ story alleging that Trump sent the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein a 'bawdy' birthday card complete with a drawing of a naked woman. Trump, who called the Journal's editor Emma Tucker from Air Force One in an effort to shut down the story, has branded it 'fake' and is seeking $10bn in damages. Trump has sniped at Murdoch, insisting the tycoon wants to settle. In a further provocation, lawyers for Trump last week filed a motion demanding an expedited deposition of Murdoch, citing the fact that the mogul is 94 and 'has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life'. The scale of these alleged health issues was laid bare in a 2023 Vanity Fair article. It revealed Murdoch had been taken to hospital with a severe case of Covid-19, alongside several other incidents. Alex DeGroote, a media analyst, says the prospect of a trial in which Murdoch would have to take the stand is 'surely not a prospect Dow Jones and the WSJ want to entertain'. He adds that the tycoon may have been shaken by his recent legal clash with Dominion Voting Systems. In a case that signalled the end of Murdoch's cordial relations with Trump, Fox in 2023 agreed to pay $787m to settle a lawsuit with the voting machine company after the channel repeated the president's false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. That said, Murdoch would have a decent chance of success in any legal battle. Unlike in Britain, US libel laws are stacked in favour of the defendant. Trump will have to prove 'actual malice', meaning the WSJ knew the story was false and deliberately published it anyway. It is a high bar for Alejandro Brito, the Miami-based sole practitioner Trump has hired to represent him, to meet. Mark Stephens, a media lawyer at Howard Kennedy, says there are 'fundamental flaws' in Trump's lawsuit and it is likely to be thrown out, potentially as a Slapp [strategic lawsuit against public participation]. 'The case seems designed to try and chill down discussion of this topic, so you're trying to prevent public discussion of this issue and that has all the hallmarks of a Slapp,' he says. Yet it comes amid an increasingly aggressive assault on the media by Trump. The president has said the mainstream media is 'on notice' after securing settlements from both ABC and CBS in recent lawsuits. Alongside the financial and reputational implications, Trump can also cause problems outside the courtroom, as demonstrated by the move to ban the WSJ from a recent press trip to Scotland. The decision by CBS to capitulate in a $16m lawsuit filed by Trump has been widely interpreted as a way of securing approval for an $8bn takeover of its parent company Paramount. Stephen Colbert branded the settlement a 'big fat bribe' and was axed from the network shortly afterwards. By contrast, though, many believe Murdoch will not roll over and that the WSJ will stand by its reporting. '[Trump] assumes someone will settle and pay him an improbable amount of money, and I suspect that's not Murdoch,' says Stephens. The former executive adds: 'So many people think that Murdoch is the suppressor of a free press. Here you've got a very good example of the fourth estate standing up to the American president.' The source also points to the fact that two key figures – Robert Thomson, the Australian News Corp boss, and Emma Tucker, the British editor of the Journal – may be more willing to stand up to the US head of state than their American colleagues. Another senior figure who previously worked at News Corp agrees that Murdoch will 'close ranks' in defence. 'When you work there you're constantly under attack internally, except when something like this happens,' the executive says. 'They tend to fight hard amongst themselves in normal times, but when there's a crisis they say, 'We're backing you 100 per cent.'' Murdoch's support is not always longstanding, however. James Harding, the former Times editor who now runs The Observer, was quietly pushed out in late 2012 – reportedly after the tycoon baulked at his support for Obama in the presidential election. Could Tucker face a similar fate? It is far from the first time that Murdoch – a key inspiration for Logan Roy, the ruthless media patriarch in HBO hit Succession – has courted controversy or gone into battle against powerful foes. His reputation was cemented during the Wapping dispute, a year-long stand-off with print workers in 1986 in which the tycoon eventually broke the powerful unions. Perhaps most notorious, however, were revelations that journalists at the News of the World had eavesdropped on private messages. While Murdoch has always insisted that he did not know phone hacking was going on at his publication, he was forced to shutter the tabloid and his UK publishing empire has paid out more than £1bn in compensation and other related costs to victims. In the Murdoch empire, even family members are not off-limits in pursuit of victory in business. The patriarch last year clashed with three of his children – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – over his attempt to change the family trust to hand over complete control to Lachlan. Following a high-profile legal battle that drew comparisons to Succession, Murdoch was ultimately defeated, setting the scene for an almighty tussle over his legacy. But his battle with Trump highlights the conflicting positions Murdoch is required to hold as the owner of news outlets that are, variously, sycophantic to Trump and doggedly determined to hold him to account. What's more, it raises fundamental questions about whether it is his commercial interests or passion for journalism that will ultimately win out. Murdoch once claimed that the reputation of his media outlets was 'more important than the last hundred million dollars'. Yet the tycoon has previously been accused of cosying up to China's communist regime and indulging censors in Beijing in an effort to protect his business interests. Ahead of his takeover of Dow Jones in 2007, a group of China-based WSJ writers accused the mogul of 'sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal and political aims'. In 1998, he ordered publisher HarperCollins to kill a book by Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, because of its critical stance towards Beijing. In his latest legal battle, it is not Chinese authorities that Murdoch must be sensitive to, but his own Trump-supporting audiences. In a sign that Murdoch is looking to expand his influence in new areas, News Corp this week unveiled plans to open a new outpost of the New York Post based in Los Angeles. Robert Thomson, the News Corp boss, vowed the new title, dubbed The California Post, would be an 'antidote to the jaundiced, jaded journalism that has sadly proliferated'. Playing both sides While Dow Jones has said it will 'vigorously defend' against any lawsuit, both Fox and the New York Post have remained silent on the issue, suggesting Murdoch may be trying to play both sides. DeGroote says: 'Would it be in his commercial interest to wreck the relationship between his own viewers, his own readers and his titles by being seen to pursue an anti-Trump agenda?' The WSJ is by no means a struggling newspaper business. It had more than 4.3 million subscribers at the end of March, while Dow Jones posted quarterly revenues of $31m. Fox, which pulled in $1.6bn from its cable network in the same three month period, remains the real money-spinner, however. While British broadcasters are struggling to retain viewers in the streaming age, Fox News continues to dominate the US ratings with an average primetime audience of 2.6 million in the second quarter. At the same time, it has been making advances in its digital offering. Fox recently struck a licensing deal with Ruthless, a popular podcast hosted by Republican influencers, while it is set to launch a new streaming service this autumn. Murdoch's supporters argue that he will not be swayed by commercial interests. 'The value of those companies has only grown and I think he takes a really long view – certainly long for someone who's 94 years old,' says the former News Corp executive. Others believe Trump's decision to take on the mogul will backfire. Stephens says: 'By taking this suit he's potentially putting the entire Murdoch press offside. Is that sensible for a Republican president? Essentially the megaphone to Trump's base is held by Rupert Murdoch.' He adds that this is an example of the so-called Streisand effect, where efforts to cover something up only result in greater public awareness. It is not lost on many, however, that Murdoch may prove to be the last true press baron. The role of the newspaper proprietor has traditionally been a powerful one, steering a title's editorial direction and wielding influence over presidents and prime ministers. William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for the titular character in Orson Welles' classic film Citizen Kane, is often considered to have helped push the US into the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century thanks to sensationalist reporting in his tabloids. Lord Beaverbrook, the Canadian-British newspaper publisher whose empire included the Daily Express, has taken credit for the downfall of David Lloyd George's post-war government in 1922. Murdoch must now decide whether he is up for a blockbuster fight with the president that would almost certainly define his legacy as a newspaper man. His stance will also be crucial for Tucker, whom he elevated from editorship of The Sunday Times to lead the WSJ newsroom in 2023. The Briton's willingness to make difficult decisions appears to have impressed Murdoch and she is generally well-regarded at the US newspaper, despite a backlash last year, when journalists plastered her office in Post-it notes in protest against job cuts. That was a minor skirmish from which she emerged unscathed. The stakes for Tucker now, as she comes under Trump's legal assault, could scarcely be higher. For Murdoch, the reputation he has cast for himself over decades as a bulwark of a free press is on the line. Murdoch's status is unique. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is undoubtedly a mogul and a far wealthier one, but with tech rather than media values. His tendency to intervene in his publication in ways that have pleased Trump has already come under scrutiny. 'This is the last of the big tycoons in newspapers,' says Murdoch's former lieutenant. 'There's just a lot less money to be made in newspapers than there was and so it won't produce these very powerful media tycoons in a world where the media landscape is pretty fragmented and atomised.' 'Any number of people might have more money than Murdoch and they might even desire to have that level of influence, but they may not know how to do it. It's a skill to remain relevant and ultimately what he's done is stay relevant.' As a result, the newspaper proprietor in its traditional sense – as a wielder of political power and influence – seems an endangered species. So as Murdoch faces down the president of the United States, it may be the last stand for the last press baron.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Bolsonaro under house arrest after social media post during coup trial
Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president, has been placed under house arrest for posting on social media during his trial for plotting a coup. The 70-year-old is banned from social media for the duration of the proceedings, and third parties are not allowed to share his public remarks. But on Sunday, his allies defied the order by sharing footage online of a call between the former army captain and his eldest son Flavio at a solidarity rally in Rio de Janeiro. Mr Bolsonaro is currently on trial at the Supreme Court accused of leading an attempt to stage a coup to overturn the 2022 election, in which he was defeated by Left-wing president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes reacted furiously, declaring that the judiciary would not allow a defendant to 'treat it like a fool' because of his 'political and economic power'. Criticising Bolsonaro's 'repeated failure' to comply with the court's restrictions on him during the trial, he placed him under house arrest at his home in the capital Brasilia. He also barred the country's former leader from receiving visitors, apart from his lawyers, and from using mobile phones, and warned that any new transgression would lead to him being detained. Several mobile phones were seized at his home on Monday, the police said. US president Donald Trump has sought to punish Brazil, a long-time US ally, for what he sees as a politically motivated 'witch hunt' targeting Mr Bolsonaro by imposing eye-watering tariffs on Latin America's biggest economy and sanctioning the judge in the trial. Washington condemned the new restrictions on Monday night, with the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs issuing a statement on X. 'Minister Alexandre de Moraes, already sanctioned by the United States for human rights violations, continues to use Brazilian institutions to silence the opposition and threaten democracy,' the bureau posted. 'Let Bolsonaro speak!' US officials added that they would 'hold accountable all those who collaborate with or facilitate sanctioned conduct.' The US post was re-shared by Bolsonaro's politician son Eduardo Bolsonaro, who had successfully lobbied Washington to take punitive action against Brazil over the case. In a separate post, he wrote: 'Brazil is no longer a democracy.' He called Mr Moraes, who is presiding over Mr Bolsonaro's trial and has styled himself a defender of Brazilian democracy in the face of the far right, an 'out-of-control psychopath.' Last month, Mr Moraes ordered Mr Bolsonaro to wear an ankle bracelet and instituted the social media ban. Trump responded in unprecedented fashion by banning Mr Moraes from the United States and freezing his assets in US banks. Mr Trump's pressure campaign has angered many Brazilians but endeared him to Mr Bolsonaro's conservative base. At rallies in Rio, Brasilia and Sao Paulo on Sunday, some demonstrators waved US flags or held signs reading: 'Thank you Trump.' Mr Bolsonaro himself did not attend the rallies, having been ordered by the Supreme Court to stay home at night and at weekends throughout the trial. Prosecutors say he and seven co-accused tried to overturn his 2022 election defeat in a plot that only failed because the military did not get on board. He faces a 40-year sentence if convicted at the trial, which is expected to wrap up in the coming weeks. Mr Bolsonaro's supporters stormed Brazil's congress in January 2023, after Mr Lula was inaugurated, ransacking the chambers and attacking police, in scenes reminiscent of an attack by Trump supporters on the US Capitol two years before. Despite being barred from running, Mr Bolsonaro hopes to mount a Trump-style comeback in Brazil's 2026 presidential election. Lula, 79, has said he may seek a fourth term, health permitting. Last year, he was hospitalised for a brain haemorrhage caused by a bathroom fall.
