Candace Owens hits out at Macrons plus Diddy is "a good man"

Summary

---

Fame Under Fire – Episode Summary

Podcast: Fame Under Fire (BBC Sounds)
Episode: Candace Owens hits out at Macrons plus Diddy is "a good man"
Date: September 25, 2025
Host: Anushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Resident Trial Attorney: Sean Kent

---

Overview

This episode dives into two explosive celebrity legal sagas:

1. Candace Owens’ feud with the French First Lady & legal fallout—including Owens’ reaction to defamation lawsuits, the role of "scientific evidence," and facts vs. PR moves.
2. Sean "Diddy" Combs’ sentencing phase—exploring arguments in his high-profile prostitution case, character defenses, and the evolving interpretation of victimization in the sex trade.

Anushka and resident lawyer Sean Kent break down legal intricacies, clarify misleading public narratives, and unpack how both courtroom drama and public spectacle shape these cases.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Candace Owens vs. Brigitte Macron: Lawsuit and Media Battle

Background & Claims

• Candace Owens has repeatedly suggested, without evidence, that Brigitte Macron (the French First Lady) was “born male,” prompting a defamation suit from the Macrons in the U.S. (Delaware).
• The Macrons' team announced they would present scientific evidence and photographs in court to prove Brigitte's gender, but not before trial.

Candace’s Public Response ([02:37])

• Owens accuses the Macrons of lying about evidence being already submitted:
  "Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the US Court to prove that Brigitte is a woman. That's what her lawyer says. Well, the lawyer's a liar because we haven't even started this case yet. So how could you have offered scientific proof to a court to prove you're a woman?"
  – Candace Owens, 02:37

Host Fact-Checks Owens ([03:00], [03:24])

• The Macrons' legal team stated they "will present" (future tense) scientific evidence, not that it has already been submitted.
• Tom Clare (Macron’s lawyer):
  "There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements… That should just demonstrate how serious they are about it..."
  – Tom Clare, 03:24

PR Ploy vs. Legal Procedure ([04:53], [05:31])

• Candace’s team (via BBC Producer):
  "Brigitte's claim that she will offer scientific evidence regarding her gender in court is an obvious and pathetic public relations ploy… Brigitte has never once offered such scientific evidence… we offered Brigitte and her lawyers multiple opportunities to supply any form of proof that she was born female, she refused outright."
  – Statement read by BBC Producer, 04:53

• Host Anushka: Defensive evidence is a plaintiff's prerogative, and plaintiffs are obligated to bear the burden of proof.

• Sean Kent:
  “The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuits…they have a duty…to bring their case and prove their case.”
  – Sean Kent, 05:56

Expert Testimony and Photographic Evidence ([06:08], [07:44])

• Clarification that experts must be qualified to provide scientific evidence (Daubert/Frye standards).
• Photographic evidence refers to pictures of Brigitte pregnant and with her children—NOT the invasive evidence alluded to online.

Why Evidence Isn’t Provided Directly to Owens ([07:44])

• Tom Clare:
  "When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility in the way that she handles facts and evidence, handing more evidence to her versus other responsible journalists doesn't make any sense. And so we are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we're just going to do it in open court, where…rules of evidence apply..."
  – Tom Clare, 07:44

Discovery and Legal Standards ([09:01], [09:06], [09:51])

• Owens’ team claims the Macrons want to “skip discovery” because they're foreign leaders.
• Tom Clare:
  "Subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States…is not something that people relish doing. But…the fact that they said yes to that…demonstrates one, their conviction in the truth. But it also tells you that they're not afraid…”
  – Tom Clare, 09:06
• Sean Kent:
  "You can't [skip discovery]. The lawsuit wouldn't go forward the second you file a lawsuit…The court can do whatever sanctions they want, including throwing the case out."
  – Sean Kent, 09:51

Medical Records and Examinations ([13:34], [13:52])

• Owens’ team: "We're going to demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor."
• Legal reality:
  Sean Kent:
  "Not, no, but hell no. I mean that is just such an absolute lie…You cannot force a person to sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to. So that statement is...pandering to the public."
  – Sean Kent, 13:52

Discovery Battles ([14:43], [15:48])

• Medical records will be a contentious point—one side trying to get everything, the other to limit access and redact irrelevant details.
• Subpoenas and “motions to quash” will fly, with the judge ultimately deciding what can be requested and revealed.

Jurisdiction: Why Delaware? ([17:03], [17:36])

• Owens moved to dismiss the case on the grounds Delaware is an improper venue.
• Sean Kent:
  “The reason people in the United States, almost everybody tries to incorporate their businesses in Delaware. Delaware doesn't have state income tax and is very business friendly… Candace chose to drive her business through Delaware…Delaware is a blue state, historically Democratic, and it will be very sympathetic and it's got a two year statute of limitations. There's my answer.”
  – Sean Kent, 17:36

---

2. Sean "Diddy" Combs: Sentencing Phase of the Trial

Recap: What Was Diddy Convicted For? ([22:24])

• Diddy convicted on two counts of transportation for prostitution (not sex trafficking or RICO).
• Awaiting sentencing, with prosecution and defense preparing opposing arguments.

"Victims" vs. "Willing Participants" Debate ([23:57], [25:33])

• Prosecution now claims that former male escorts—previously never labeled as victims—are central victims, potentially lengthening Diddy’s sentence.
• Defense counters that escorts never identified as victims in sworn testimony.
• Sean Kent:
  "These people are not victims. They were consenting, voluntary, willing participants…It doesn't matter what you call yourself. We have rules and regulations that protect individuals from getting into situations that they don't want to be in. …The government could say, bruh, there's no such thing as a consensual sex worker. You're still a sex worker. This is still a crime. You're still a victim, period. So that's a thought."
  – Sean Kent, 25:33

Sentencing Memorandum & Character Letters ([27:16], [28:33])

• Defense filed a 380-page sentencing memorandum requesting 14 months (time served).
• Prosecutors likely to swing for a much harsher sentence.
• Both sides included dozens of character letters.
  • Young Miami’s Letter:
    “[Diddy] supported me…He’s genuinely wants to help people…He made the choice to check himself into anger management, start therapy and commit to physical healing through therapy. That takes strength, humility and self awareness.”
    “…In my personal experience, Sean is not a danger or a threat to the community. Judge, that's a good man.”
    – Young Miami, read/paraphrased by Host, 29:03

Impact and Limitations of Character Defense ([31:22])

• Sean Kent:
  "You have to be careful on stuff like that. I think the strongest arguments…is this is what he's been convicted of…He has no really prior criminal record. 14 months is appropriate. Anything more is just based upon the charges he was found not guilty of."
  – Sean Kent, 31:22
• Comparison to other similar cases highlighted as a primary defense.

Notable Quotes about Fairness & Legal Precedent ([32:33])

• Sean Kent:
  "Nobody in the history of using prostitutes without a criminal record is being treated worse than he is. That's their strongest argument. And I think it might actually work."
  – Sean Kent, 32:33

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:37 | Candace Owens | "Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the US Court…Well, the lawyer's a liar because we haven't even started this case yet." | | 03:24 | Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer) | "There will be expert testimony…that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements...But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it..." | | 05:56 | Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney) | "The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuits…they have a duty…to bring their case and prove their case." | | 07:44 | Tom Clare | "When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility...handing more evidence to her...doesn't make any sense." | | 13:52 | Sean Kent | "Not, no, but hell no. I mean that is just such an absolute lie. Like that's just not going to happen...You cannot force a person to sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to..." | | 17:36 | Sean Kent | "Candace chose to drive her business through Delaware…Delaware is a blue state, historically Democratic, and it will be very sympathetic..." | | 25:33 | Sean Kent | "These people are not victims. They were consenting, voluntary, willing participants..." | | 29:03 | Young Miami (Letter, paraphrased by host) | "He made the choice to check himself into anger management, start therapy and commit to physical healing through therapy. That takes strength, humility and self awareness...In my personal experience, Sean is not a danger or a threat to the community. Judge, that's a good man." | | 32:33 | Sean Kent | "Nobody in the history of using prostitutes without a criminal record is being treated worse than he is. That's their strongest argument. And I think it might actually work." |

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:08] Introduction & Main Stories
• [02:37] Candace Owens’ reaction to the lawsuit and “scientific evidence”
• [03:24] Tom Clare sets the record straight on “future” evidence
• [04:53] Candace’s Team Statement (PR ploy accusation)
• [05:31] Legal analysis begins—plaintiff's burden and evidence
• [07:44] Why the Macrons won’t hand evidence directly to Owens
• [09:06] Discovery process explained by Tom Clare & Sean Kent
• [13:34] Debunking forced third-party medical examinations
• [17:03] Why Delaware as the jurisdiction? Legal “venue-shopping” explained
• [22:24] Diddy sentencing update—charges and new prosecution strategy
• [23:57] 3500 materials and the debate over “victimhood”
• [27:16] Sentencing memorandum and character letters analyzed
• [29:03] Host reads/paraphrases Young Miami’s letter of support
• [31:22] Kent on sentencing arguments and pitfalls of character defenses
• [32:33] Legal precedent: Is Diddy being treated unusually harshly?

---

Summary & Takeaways

• On Owens vs. Macron: Owens' narrative misrepresents the legal process; the Macrons are following due process and must submit evidence in court, not to Owens personally. The claim that Brigitte Macron will be forced into a third-party medical exam is legally inaccurate. Delaware’s involvement is strategic—favorable statute of limitations and perceived jury impartiality.
• On Diddy’s Sentencing: The legal lines between victim, participant, and perpetrator are contested. The government is stretching the definition of "victim" post-conviction, perhaps to secure a harsher penalty, while the defense focuses on precedent and a lack of prior criminal record. Support from Young Miami and others humanizes Diddy, but could carry unintended implications.
• Broader Theme: Fame and scrutiny in the digital (and AI) age raise the stakes—not just for those in the public eye, but also for how truth, evidence, and narrative are constructed.

For listeners: If you want the actual legal and factual lowdown behind these headline-making cases—and not just the viral social media versions—this episode is a must.

---

Transcript

[Amol Rajan]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

This is the story of the One. As a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility, he knows keeping the line up and running is a top priority. That's why he chooses Grainger, because when a drive belt gets damaged, Grainger makes it easy to find the exact specs for the replacement product he needs.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

And next day delivery helps ensure he'll.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

Have everything in place and running like clockwork. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by for the ones who get it done.

[Candace Owens]

This is the story of the 1. As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-granger click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Candace Owens responds to our exclusive story and rapper Young Miami the ex girlfriend of Sean Diddy Combs tells the judge he is a good man. Hello, and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadouati.

[Candace Owens]

Coming up, we're just gonna all hound Candace to try to distract her from looking into Charlie Kirk's murder and assassination.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Candace Owens follows up on the news that Brigitte Macron, the French president's wife, will present scientific evidence in court to prove she is a woman. Plus, our resident trial attorney Sean Kent's here to tell us what to expect at the sentencing of Sean Diddy Combs.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Nobody in the history of using prostitutes without a criminal record is being treated worse than he is. That's their strongest argument, and I think it might actually work.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

As always, if you've got questions, send them to me on social media or WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03,678-TRIPLE-14. Don't forget to subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Okay, so last week we brought you the exclusive that Brigitte Macron, the first lady of France, is resolved to bring scientific evidence to present in open court in Delaware that will counterclaim she was born male. The Macrons are suing podcaster and influencer Candace Owens for continuing defamatory attacks against them to boost her media platforms and make her money. Go back and listen to the interview we did with The Macron's lawyer and corporate investigator. If you haven't heard it, we now have a response from candace Owens. Around 45 minutes into her podcast on the Candace Owens website, she says this.

[Candace Owens]

Talk about a federal operation. Out of nowhere, Brigitte Macron just lies. I don't even know how they got this in the press. There's like not. This is so dumb. Brigitte Macron comes out and says they have offered scientific evidence to the US Court to prove that Brigitte is a woman. That's what her lawyer says. Well, the lawyer's a liar because we haven't even started this case yet. So how could you have offered scientific proof to a court to prove you're a woman?

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Okay, so let's fact check that. The headline on on the screen reads macron's to offer scientific evidence to court to prove Brigitte is a Woman lawyer says the Fame Under Fire team knows this because the Fame Under Fire team wrote it. It is very clear from the interview articles and videos we did that the Macron's lawyer, Tom Clare, says they will present scientific evidence and photographs in court. That will is will as in future tense.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements. And obviously it's incred, terribly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it, how confident they are in their ability to prove it as false in a public forum, and how they want to put this falsehood to rest once and for all.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

So no one said they had already submitted evidence. In the same podcast, she also introduces the idea that our interview with the Macrons lawyer had something to do with her investigation into the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

[Candace Owens]

So I don't know what this is. Just like we're just going to all how Candace to try to distract her from looking into Charlie Kirk's murder and assassination, but it's focusing me more because this is not normal. Like the amount of lying that's happening right now is because you don't think I'm strong enough to handle it. And you're trying to break me. You're not going to break me, okay? I watched him catch a bullet in the throat. And we're being lied to by everybody about who was involved, why it happened, and why you are attacking the people who are the person rather who is trying to investigate it.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Let's fact check that as well. This interview was booked before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I can tell you this because I booked it. We have previously covered the case on the pod as well, on the 31st of July. Now, we contacted Candice's team directly and asked them if she wanted to say any more about the story. Here is what they sent over, voiced up by a BBC producer.

[BBC Producer / Voice Actor reading statements]

Brigitte's claim that she will offer scientific evidence regarding her gender in court is an obvious and pathetic public relations ploy. Brigitte has never once offered such scientific evidence. And to the contrary, when we offered Brigitte and her lawyers multiple opportunities to supply any form of proof that she was born female, she refused outright. In any event, it is not defamatory to say someone transitioned or is gay. We have filed our motion to dismiss and look forward to defending this frivolous case through the American judicial process.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Joining me now to cast an expert eye on this is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Hey, Aniska, how are you?

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

I'm good. We got into some things last week. I really want to hear your opinion on all of it, but particularly the aftermath of that interview, which kind of went around the world. And what Candace has had to say, you can hear there that she's talking about the scientific evidence that they said that the first lady is resolved to bring to open court in Delaware, saying that this is a PR ploy. Isn't it the plaintiff's prerogative, what evidence they Want to present?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

100%. The plaintiff is the one who is bringing their lawsuits. And not only is there their prerogative, it is also their burden. So they have a duty. They sued Candace, so they got a duty to bring their case and prove their case.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now, when they spoke to us, Tom Claire, the lawyer, and Dan Ardello, the corporate investigator, when they spoke to us, they spoke about scientific evidence. They also spoke about an expert that is going to give evidence of a scientific nature, both generically but also specific to Brigitte. Now, when you put an expert on the stand, is that also your prerogative when you bring them in, how you introduce them, can you just put them in? Or does the judge have to say, yes, this expert is qualified enough to speak to this?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

We always used to make the joke that realistically, an expert is just somebody who can assist the trier of fact and that's the jury to understand anymore. So technically, a fifth grader is an expert on the fourth grade. You know what I mean? So that can be an expert, somebody who just knows more than the jury. And so what, the judge has to make the decision about Is, is this person, do they have the qualifications that necessary to assist the jury? And is the thing that they're talking about something that you would need an expert for? So, in other words, you can't have an expert in witchcraft if witchcraft doesn't exist. You have to have something that has scientific value. So once they get to that threshold, and we have a standard, we have cases called Daubert and Fry, those are the cases in which experts have to show that the things that they are testifying about have scientific validity. And if they can prove that, then those individuals can testify.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now, to the point that they didn't offer evidence to Candace, I asked that question because I. I've had that question for a while. Why not just give her pictures, I asked, of Brigitte pregnant? And that is also something Candace and her team are echoing here. We asked that question directly to Tom Clare, the Macron's lawyers, and this is what he said.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

When you're dealing with someone who has not demonstrated a level of responsibility in the way that she handles facts and evidence, handing more evidence to her versus other responsible journalists doesn't make any sense. And so we are prepared to supply all of those materials, but we're just going to do it in open court, where there are rules, where the rules of evidence apply, where there's proof, and where it can be done publicly in a way that people will see how it's presented.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

When Tom says rules of evidence, what does he mean by that?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Well, it's like if you've ever played any type of board game at home, like Uno, if you've ever played Uno and everybody has a different set of rules, and it's like, you can't put a draw two on a regular two. Well, the rule of evidence is the judge saying, these are the rules that we're going to play the game by, and you must follow these rules no matter how you do them in other jurisdictions. This is how we play UNO in my house.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now, that's not all we've heard from Candice and her team. In a story published by the Daily Mail, Candice gave this statement, again, read out by one of our BBC producers.

[BBC Producer / Voice Actor reading statements]

You don't get to skip discovery just because you're a foreign world leader angry about a podcaster's First Amendment rights. Brigitte's claim that she will offer scientific evidence regarding her gender in court is an obvious and pathetic public relations ploy.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now, I questioned Tom Clare directly about discovery, and here's what he said.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

Subjecting yourself to discovery in the United States, which is you know, fulsome, much more fulsome than in other parts around the world, is not something that people relish doing. But the fact that they said yes to that. Yes, we stand ready to go through that discovery process. Yes, we stand ready to travel to the United States and appear in a public courtroom and explain why this is false. It just demonstrates one, their conviction in the truth. But it also tells you that they're not afraid. They're not afraid of that discovery. They're not afraid of the truth. If they were, they wouldn't have filed the lawsuit. And so we're looking forward to it.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now we've got there in that first line. You don't get to skip discovery just because you're a foreign world leader. Sean, what would happen if you tried to skip discovery?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Well, you can't. She's not wrong on that. You just can't. The lawsuit wouldn't go forward the second you file a lawsuit. Remember we talked about the UNO rules? The court sets the rules of uno, and one of the rules are depositions have to be completed by a certain time. Statements have to be given, the list of who your experts are. All this has to be given at a certain time. Let's say the court sets a trial date for 2026, 2027. Well, they'll do what's called a scheduling order a lot of times. And in that scheduling order, they'll tell everybody, all depositions must be completed by this date. All evidence to the other side must be completed by this date. And if somebody doesn't do it, the court can do whatever sanctions they want, including throwing the case out. So it is almost impossible to ignore discovery, especially when you are filing the lawsuit.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Okay, so in your legal opinion, would it be a bit redundant to then file a lawsuit if you're not going to participate with discovery or any of the other sort of landmark moments in a case?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Absolutely. When you file a lawsuit, we always have the same conversation with our clients. You can sue, but just know they're going to ask you everything at these depositions, all of these questions, there's nothing you can hide from. And you ask them, are you sure you want to do this? And so the lawyer was exactly right. The fact that these people are saying, we don't care. We know we've got to come to the United States at our own dime, by the way, we've got to come over when they tell us to come over. We have to go to Delaware when they want us to come over. And would they get to take our depositions they will get to see anything we have relevant to this lawsuit and stuff that's not relevant. So it is an onerous. Borden, when you file a lawsuit and.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Then a continuation of that statement given to the Daily Mail, it says the.

[BBC Producer / Voice Actor reading statements]

Court mandated discovery process does not allow Brigitte to just submit evidence. The American court system isn't some kangaroo court where leaders can just say whatever they want. Evidence must be independently verified.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

So let's focus in on the evidence that we were talking about, photographic evidence. And guys, let me just clear something up here. When we say photographic evidence, we are talking about pictures of Brigitte pregnant and her raising her children, not what some of you have been thinking. It was going to be pictures of her this, that and the other to prove she was a woman. Let me just make that clear. And that's on you, who have been republishing this story without giving context. Thank you. So when we talk about photographic evidence and scientific evidence, this is about what the Macron's lawyer said they are willing to present in open court. How does that work? Does somebody need to verify? That's not an AI picture, That's not a doctored picture. This scientific evidence holds weight. How does that work?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

What ends up happening is Brigitte's people are just put an expert on the stand or put a picture on the stand and then the other side is allowed to cross examine, just like you said. They'll have to say, that picture a doctor, that picture is AI. You get to cross examine them. The difference is in these civil contexts, because of the depositions and the sworn statement, they will have this information early and then they can say, we don't think it's real. We have got our own experts to look at this information and this is what our experts are going to testify to it. So there are no secrets, there are no tricks. Everybody will know everything well in advance of the trial.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Okay, so we, you know, Tom Claire spoke about how the Macrons are going to find this process invasive, but are willing to go through with it.

[Tom Clare (Macron's Lawyer)]

It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way, but she's willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight. And if that unpleasantness and that discomfort that she has of opening herself up in that way is what it takes to set the record straight and stop this, she's 100% ready to meet that burden.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

And here's the part I really want to get into. In the rest of this statement given to the Daily Mail by Candace Owens.

[BBC Producer / Voice Actor reading statements]

During the discovery process, Brigitte will need to submit herself to a third party medical examination. We're going to demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor. We're coming for her medical medical records.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Sean, is that true? She will need to sit down and submit herself to a third party medical examination?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Not, no, but hell no. I mean that is just such an absolute lie. Like that's just not going to happen. Like you cannot force a person to sit down with our doctors again. What will end up happening is now they'll have to give up her medical records. Her experts will be able to look at her medical records. They could voluntarily allow a third party to do it. And sometimes we do that situation. So at court they can say, look, we allowed her to be looked at by a third party. But you cannot make somebody sit down with someone else's doctor in a civil context just because you want to. So that statement is so that is pandering to the public saying, because that's what you're hearing a lot from the public is why won't they have her sit down with a third person? You can't make someone do that in a civil lawsuit. It's not happening.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

But as part of discovery, the medical records, can you come for all of the medical records or that feels like for her whole life. Is that not extremely invasive?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

And that's what's going to be interesting. And that's what sometimes. Remember we talked about the rules of UNO from the judge and the rules of evidence. Somebody's going to come and say, judge, we believe this is overburdensome. We believe this is going too far. We believe this is unnecessary. They don't need all of these medical records. Candace's team, I guarantee you, is going to say the opposite. They're going to say, look, we need to know what's happened from birth. We need all of these medical records. We need to see what medicines we are on. They want to know all of this information. So it'll be a battle on what medical records is given. I can see it now. If Candace's team does not get all of the medical records during trial, they'll say, and you've seen the way she is. She'll say something to effective. They haven't given us all the medical records. So we know something's missing in this situation. And had we had everything, we would know the truth, get ready for it.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

That is interesting because when you talk about discovery, how do they know what to ask for without knowing the intimate details of that other person's life.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Well, that's why we have depositions. So what happens? A lot of times you start to ask them questions during the deposition, and it opens the door of like, ah, I need this stuff and this stuff. And you send questions, you send requests. Things are called requests to admit. And these lawyers have been doing these things for a long time, so they know the types of questions they need. And so they'll say, we want all of her medical records from blank. And then what ends up happening is they'll send a subpoena, and you've heard that word a lot. They'll send a subpoena to the McCrones and to her team. We want a subpoena for this, this, and this. Well, a phrase you'll start hearing is the McCrones lawyer will file a motion to quash the subpoena. They'll say that we don't want that out there. We think it's too much information that you're not entitled to. And that'll go back and forth for a long time.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

So this is the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni of it. Or, guys, we've done an episode on that. If you haven't listened to it. Let me just break that down really quickly. They're asking, they're subpoenaing for all this stuff, and they're saying they're trying to quash it, and then they're trying to redact certain parts of it. So presumably, if they subpoena the motion to quash, if it's not granted, can they then come out and say, she's the wife of a head of state, we need this completely redacted.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Yeah. You know, we don't want the public to see it. This could have national implications. All of this situation is going to come in now.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Look, I didn't get a chance to talk to you last week about Candace's response and the Delaware of it all. She filed a motion to dismiss in response to the civil complaint by the Macrons, and she says the case was improperly filed in Delaware. It's going to cause her operational and financial hardship. Trying to defend the case out there. Sean, I know we had a little conversation before this and you were nerding out. We love to see it. Explain why the McCracken explain why the Macrons are filing in Delaware and why outside of this costing Candace money, why might she not want it to be in Delaware?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

And this is my thoughts. Of course, in the United States, when you file a lawsuit, first, people have got to understand that each State is its own jurisdiction. Each state technically has its own law. Think of them as little independent little countries, if you will, under the umbrella of the United States. But they're all separate. To bring a lawsuit against somebody, you can bring a lawsuit where that person lives or where the incident actually occurred. So the example I give is somebody is driving from California and going to South Carolina and they get in an accident dead in the middle of the country. A person can bring a lawsuit against them in the place where the accident happened. They'll say, well, I don't live there. They say, well, you have what are called minimum contacts. You came through that state. You purposely availed yourself of the benefit and the protection of the laws of that state as you're driving through it. So I can sue you there. Nerd answer. Well, what ends up happening is creative and very smart. Plaintiff lawyers try to find the best jurisdictions to file lawsuits. You understand, they want to find where people are the most sympathetic. And so what the lawyers try to do is look for jurisdictions. Now, it would have been easy to file a lawsuit against Candace in Tennessee because again, as we talked about, you can always file a lawsuit where the person lives. Candace lives in Tennessee. You could have filed a lawsuit there. Well, I think one of the reasons they may not want to file a lawsuit in Tennessee is they're looking at. It is one, Tennessee has a six month statute of limitation on defamation cases, which means six months from the time that she said the defamatory conduct, you must bring the lawsuit. That's a short window. And so there can be an argument that you cannot bring that lawsuit there. But to me personally, the most important reason why they probably don't want it in Tennessee is for your listeners, we have what are called red states and blue states. A red state is what is a very conservative Republican state. Candace is a conservative right wing podcaster. Tennessee is a very red state. So I'm assuming the lawyer said, we don't file no lawsuit there. That's her base. Those are conservatives, Those are Republicans. We get 12 conservative Republican candidate supporters on the jury, we lose. So they decided to file in Delaware. How are they able to file in Delaware? Because Candace has business that is incorporated in Delaware. Because it's in court. She incorporated in Delaware. The assumption is the reason people in the United States, almost everybody tries to incorporate their businesses in Delaware. Delaware doesn't have state income tax and is very business friendly. And so the example of us driving through the United States, Candace chose to drive her business through Delaware. And as that reason, because you have purposely availed yourself of the benefit and the protections of Delaware if they're allowed to file the lawsuit in Delaware. Delaware is a blue state, historically Democratic, and it will be very sympathetic and it's got a two year statute of limitations. There's my answer.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

You're getting a round of applause in the gallery.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Sorry about that. Very long winded answer. But that's the answer.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

No, it's really good to understand that because I think a lot of people came out and were like, Candace said that she did not want this lawsuit to be dismissed. She specifically said that on Tucker Carlson's podcast. She was very clear about that. I want to see this through. So then filing the motion to dismiss, we saw a lot of commentary online going, why has she done this? Why is this all about Delaware and where it's filed? And when you explain that, it makes it far, far clearer. Now it's down to the Macron's lawyers. They're deciding how they're going to respond. Will they file an amended complaint? Will they take a different legal route? Whatever happens, we will have it here for you first and we will be following this case as it progresses.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Lowe's knows how to help make your home holiday ready for less. Get select Style selections vinyl flooring for just a dol per square foot and have it installed before the festivities begin. Our team can help you every step of the way. See a Lowe's Red Vest associate or visit Lowes.comholidayinstall to get started. Lowe's we help you save basic install only Date restrictions apply. Subject to availability. Install by independent contractors. See Associate for details. Contiguous us only.

[Amol Rajan]

At the BBC we go further so you see clearer. Through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com giving you unlimited articles and videos, ad free podcasts and the BBC News Channel streaming live 24. 7. Subscribe to trusted independent journalism from the BBC. Find out [e-mail] join.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Now we're back talking about Diddy it's been a while Trial Remember we told you the verdict of the Sean Diddy combs trial on July 2? Hip hop megastar Sean Diddy Combs has been inside the notorious Metropolitan Detention center since then awaiting sentencing after being convicted of two counts of transportation for prostitution but acquitted of sex trafficking and RICO. The more serious charges sentencing begins on October 3rd and we have started to see how the defense and the prosecution are gearing up for that. The defense are saying, come on he was a user of prostitutes, not a pimp, not somebody running a prostitution ring. It's not typical for them to receive a charge, let alone a conviction. The prosecution are now saying actually remember those exotic male dancers we heard from or escorts who were part of those days long orgies called free coughs? Those were victims. Even though they didn't refer to them as such during the trial. Those were victims. And Diddy took a managerial role overseeing Jane and Cassie as they organized those freak offs. So that's how they're gearing up for different arguments. Obviously, the prosecution want him to have more time behind bars and the defense less. So the prosecution, and we did this in an episode. It was, I think it was on our first episode of Fame Under Fire. So go back and listen if this is all sounding a little unfamiliar. But the prosecution are like, okay, how are we going to get him to have a longer time in prison? So they're presenting the escorts now as victims, which they were not referred to throughout the trial. Remember those male exotic dancers escorts? They referred to themselves in different ways. Now the defense wants access to. I want to say 3,500 materials, but I feel like you guys say 3, 500, is that right?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

We say 3,500 material.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

The defense wants access to 3, 500 materials.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Sean, what is that 3,500 materials? Basically Jinx act material is what the other way it's called. But and this is going to shock some people, which is very interesting, is when you meet with law enforcement, you can give a statement. You give a written statement to law enforcement. It seems easy. We always talk about discovery. Everybody should be given everything. Believe it or not, the rule specifically says that the defense is not entitled to a statement, even though it's written until a person takes the stand and testifies and then after they're done testifying, technically at that point, the prosecution then gives the statement up. So that is what 3500 materialists and material that you're usually not entitled to, but you get till after they take statements.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

But they want the 3500 material specifically of escorts who didn't testify in the trial, but that the prosecution spoke to. We heard from two escorts in the trial. The Punisher, I can remember his name, the other guy, his name not so catchy. But both of them did not present themselves as victims. They actually presented themselves as willing participants, going so far as to talk about enjoying it, et cetera. There were multiple other escorts or exotic dancers that were named, and we saw pictures of them, but we did not hear from them. So now the defense wants access to those statements because I'm presuming this is because they want to say the idea of you presenting these guys as victims is ridiculous. Every single statement you took, nobody referred to themselves as a victim. Do you think that's a strong line of argument for the defense?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

No, it's 100 going to be argument. These people are not victims. They were consenting, voluntary, willing participants. The best example I always give is because I mentioned I used to be a prosecutor a long time ago. And I always give this example I'll never forget. I was cross examining a young lady who was underage, who was dating her boyfriend, who was over age, and it was a statutory rape case. And the young lady got on the stand and she still was in love with the boyfriend. And I remember she got on the stand, tears just streaming down her eyes, and she just looks dead at me and there's jury in the box. She said, Mr. Kent, Mr. Kent, you can't prosecute it. I gave it to him and I looked at her in my southern drawl and I was like, young lady, you can't give it away because the state of South Carolina owns it until you're 18 years of age. She did not want to be a victim. And a lot of times individuals don't want to be a victim. And if you remember the entire Diddy trial, people testified as if they were not victims. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. We have rules and regulations that protect individuals from getting into situations that they don't want to be in. And they might still be a victim. This might be that situation. I'm not saying it is, but the government could say, bruh, there's no such thing as a consensual sex worker. You're still a sex worker. This is still a crime. You're still a victim, period. So that's a thought.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Well, that reminds me, we did that episode ages ago. What is sex trafficking? When we're building up to the trial. And I spoke to this young advocate, Lala Applebury, and she was talking about not realizing until a few years afterwards that she was a victim of sex trafficking and kind of piecing the situation back together in her head and understanding it as she spoke to other people. So it is a very real thing. And I mean, are you anticipating that that's what the prosecution will parry with?

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Possibly. Because don't forget, like if I think we just noticed, I looked down that they. The defense fought a 380 page sentencing memorandum, and in there long and Short, they're asking for 14 months, which basically is a time served sentence. And so the government is going to have to file something in response and they're going to have to take. They're going to have to swing for the fences. And maybe one of the things they swing is all of these individuals are victims. They're all under the umbrella of him, that are all affected. And I think that's what the government's going to have to swing for. Because I perused that 380 page sentencing memorandum. It's pretty good.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

So let me get this straight. That sentencing memorandum, which is long, very long, but that is pretty much what they're going to argue when they get into the courtroom.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

And that's one of the great things about it. Not only is it what they're going to argue, it's already been argued. So a lot of times these federal judges are brilliant human beings. They give it to them early. He's going to have it, he's going to review it, he's going to research it, he's going to have his decision made before he goes into the courtroom, because that's their argument. What you and I are going to be watching in the courtroom is basically fluff. So people like, oh, why did they file 380 pages? Because they know this is their best chance to get the judge to review it, look at it, research it. Because in the courtroom, going sometimes that fast, he won't have time to go through everything.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

And part of that sentencing memorandum, where they lay out their arguments is these letters, like character. What would you call them? Character letters.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

You got it exactly right. They're character letters.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Character letters. So we saw this before on verdict day, character letters coming out from the other side, from the prosecution, saying, please don't release Diddy. This is the other side. This is a lot of letters. Like 65 letters.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

65.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

I saw one of them is from Caresha Brownlee Young Miami. We heard about her a lot. Now, I haven't just gone for this because it's Young Miami.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

I know you have. That's the only reason. You're not fooling me.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

We have letters from the children, we have letters from his mother, we have letters from people he's worked with. The reason I've picked up on Young Miami is because we heard about her a lot during Jane's testimony. When Jane was talking about, remember that's a pseudonym, because her identity is being protected. But when Jane was talking about her experience of being in a relationship with Diddy, she was talking about those days Long orgies, the freak offs as we know them. Not being taken out in public, she felt, not being respected as a public romantic partner of him, et cetera. And she spoke about the relationship he was having with Yung Miami at the same time where she was publicly being flown out, being bought. You know, there's a lot of talk about Chanel bags and this and that and all these designer things, you know, out of my tax bracket. But there are a lot of conversation about what, you know, Miami was being bought and where she was going, et cetera. Now she's written this letter. My name is Carisha Brownlee. I can only speak from my personal experience and the man I've come to know over the past four years. She goes on to praise him, how he supported her. One of my most meaningful memories was when he took me to my first met gala. How he's upheld other African Americans and opened doors for black artists. She talks about feeding the homeless in 2012, 22 together. And how he does stuff privately without cameras because his heart, quote, is genuinely wants to help people. She then goes on to say, I've also witnessed him doing real inner work. He made the choice to check himself into anger management, start therapy and commit to physical healing through therapy. That takes strength, humility and self awareness. He didn't do it for show. He did it because he wanted to grow and to become a better person. In my personal experience, Sean is not a danger or a threat to the community. She finishes the letter by saying, judge, that's a good man. It's a strong letter in support of his character. But my question is here that doesn't challenge the narrative that was being offered by Jane during the trial. Jane was saying young Miami was getting flown out. Yung Miami was being bought designer bags and this and that and getting loved on in public spaces. I was the one locked in hotel rooms. I was the one organizing escorts and making building relationships with escorts and doing this and that. And obviously he received a conviction for the transportation for prostitution. So if I read that, I would. Is there a way that the judge could read that and say, okay, but that's literally what Jane told us. He wasn't a bad guy to you, but simultaneously he was doing this with Jane. He was convicted of transportation for prostitution during the same time frame that you're talking about here.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

And you're not wrong. And like I said, these are phenomenal lawyers who have done this packet it and it looks great and it's 380 pages. But there's certain situations like You've just said that you have to be careful in your zeal to get too much. You can sometimes get too much if you read the 380 pages. One of the things they put in there, there's this lengthy section about, hey, ever since Diddy stopped using drugs, he stopped beating on people. You mean since he's been incarcerated. Like, you know, there's a little things that you have to be careful putting things in there, like, he's such a great person since he's been locked in jail and not able to beat up a woman or get drugs. You have to be careful on stuff like that. I think the strongest arguments they had for to me on the sentencing memorandum is this is what he's been convicted of. This is what it carries. He has no really prior criminal record. 14 months is appropriate. Anything more is just based upon the charges he was found not guilty of. I think that's their strongest argument.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

I've seen from lots of other legal analysts and, and comments online as well that there is a very strong element on this in that they point to other cases where people didn't even receive a charge, let alone a convict, for the same crime as Diddy.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

To me, that's the strongest argument. We have to get past what we think we know and what he was convicted of. And what he was convicted of was using prostitutes. And nobody in the history of using prostitutes without a criminal record is being treated worse than he is. That's their strongest argument. And I think it might actually work.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Well, we shall see. And of course, we will have it here first for you guys, what happens on October 3rd, and however long this goes on for. We did tell you this could rumble on for a while. Sean, thank you so much for joining us today.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Thank you for having me. Much appreciated.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. And that's it for Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadauty. Keep sending in your questions or ideas of what you'd like us to cover next. You can get us on WhatsApp at 0330678. 114. That's 0330678114. Make sure you subscribe and turn on those push notifications so you never miss a thing.

[Amol Rajan]

Hello. Hi, I'm Amol RAJAN and from BBC Radio 4, this is Radikal. We are living through one of those hinge moments in history when all the old certainties crumble and a new world struggles to be born. So the idea behind this podcast is to help you navigate it.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

What's really changed is the volume of.

[Amol Rajan]

Information that has exploded and also by offering a safe space for the radical ideas that our future demands.

[Anushka Matandadauty (Host of Fame Under Fire)]

Go to the Chancellor and say cut.

[Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)]

Radically cut the taxes of those with.

[BBC Producer / Voice Actor reading statements]

Children telling our stories is is powerful and a radical act.

[Amol Rajan]

Listen to Radical with Amal Rajan on BBC Sounds. At the BBC we go further so you see clearer with a subscription to BBC.com you get unlimited articles and video, hundreds of ad free podcasts and the BBC News Channel streaming live 247 from less than a dollar a week for your first year. Read, watch and listen to trusted independent journalism and storytelling. It all starts with a subscription to BBC.com find out [e-mail] unlimited.