WFMX

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean “Diddy” Combs request for bail as he awaits sentencing in his federal sex trafficking trial. On Wednesday, jurors unanimously convicted Combs on counts 3 and 5 in the case, but found him not guilty on the most serious counts – 1, 2, and 4 – after three days of deliberations.

Judge Subramanian set a sentencing date for Oct. 3; however in response to Combs’ attorneys request for an expedited sentencing, Subramanian agreed to set up a remote conference for July 8 at 2 p.m. to hear arguments about the pre-sentencing process, and to discuss a proposal to move up the sentencing date.

Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges following his high-profile federal trial in New York City, but was convicted on two lesser charges of transportation of former girlfriends for prostitution un the split verdict, and could face up to 20 years in prison if he is sentenced to consecutive maximum prison terms.

Judge Subramanian had stated that he wanted to read letters from both sides before making his decision regarding bail. Combs’ attorney Mark Agnifilo requested that Combs “should be released on appropriate conditions” immediately, while the prosecution countered the request, stating that it posed a “real risk” to let him walk free, and further argued that Combs should be detained as his charges under the Mann Act require detention. They stated that “the only conceivable basis for release here is the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Prosecutors wrote that “even if detention was not mandatory here, which it is, the defendant cannot meet his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community.”

Combs’ legal team had proposed a bail package including a $1 million bond; travel restrictions to certain areas of Florida, California and New York or New Jersey; surrendering his passport; and drug testing.  His attorneys argued that prosecutors were overstating his sentencing exposure and noted that he was not convicted of a violent crime, stating that detention is not necessary due to his “exceptional circumstances,” including looking after his children as well as his mother, Janice Combs, who is 85 years old.

Combs’ attorneys argued throughout the trial that the sexual encounters had been consensual and introduced several exhibits, including text messages, into evidence intended to reinforce that argument. Over the course of the trial, prosecutors called 34 witnesses over the course of 29 days of testimony. Among them was Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, Combs’ ex-girlfriend, with whom he was in a relationship for 11 years. Prosecutors sought to prove that she had been coerced into participating in elaborate sex performances with male sex workers, with Ventura giving several days of testimony describing abuse.

After Combs was found not guilty of sex trafficking, Ventura’s attorney Douglas H. Wigdor released a statement: “This entire criminal process started when our client Cassie Ventura had the courage to file her civil complaint in November 2023. Although the jury did not find Combs guilty of sex trafficking Cassie beyond a reasonable doubt, she paved the way for a jury to find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution. By coming forward with her experience, Cassie has left an indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice. We must repeat — with no reservation — that we believe and support our client who showed exemplary courage throughout this trial. She displayed unquestionable strength and brought attention to the realities of powerful men in our orbit and the misconduct that has persisted for decades without repercussion … this case proved that change is long overdue, and we will continue to fight on behalf of survivors.”

While Combs was acquitted on the most serious charges, he is still facing several dozen lawsuits accusing him of sexual misconduct and abuse.

Editorial credit: Aspects and Angles / Shutterstock.com

Paramount has reached a settlement with President Donald Trump, after he sued CBS News for $20 billion over the editing of a ’60 Minutes’ interview with his Democratic opponent for the presidency, Kamala Harris. No apology was included as part of the agreement.

Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit – was filed in the Northern District of Texas and sought $20 billion in damages — that had alleged an interview that aired on “60 Minutes” last year with Harris was deceptively edited.  Specifically, the lawsuit focused on an answer Harris gave to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a preview of the interview that ran on Oct. 5, Harris was edited giving one answer; however during the 60 Minutes episode that aired the next night, she was seen giving another answer. A transcript of the entire interview later published by CBS News shows that both responses came from the same, longer answer that Harris gave to the question. Trump and his legal team accused CBS News in the lawsuit of “substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party.”

Paramount Global (the parent company of CBS) said in a statemen that the settlement, reached through mediation, includes plaintiffs’ fees and costs and directs $16 million toward the creation of Mr. Trump’s future presidential library and the legal expenses of the plaintiffs. Neither Trump nor his co-plaintiff, Texas Representative Ronny Jackson, will personally receive any of the funds. The statement read: “The settlement will include a release of all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action.”

As part of the deal, Paramount also committed to ensuring future interviews with presidential candidates on “60 Minutes” will have transcripts made available to the public, though redactions may be applied in cases involving legal or national security concerns.

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement: “With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle.”

Editorial credit: CryptoFX / Shutterstock.com

NY state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has officially won the Democratic mayoral primary for New York City, in a stunning victory by the 33-year-old socialist over former-NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani was elected to the New York state Assembly in 2021, and he launched his campaign for mayor last fall.

The New York City Board of Elections released the latest election results Tuesday, showing Mamdani with 56% of the vote. Mamdani will face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who opted to keep his name on the ballot as an independent, in the November general election.

Mamdani declared victory on election night last week after his closest competitor, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceded. Early results showed Mamdani leading with 43.5% support in the first-choice count, however, he did not clear the 50% mark, which forced additional rounds of tabulation with city officials counting second- and third-choice votes. During his victory speech on election night, Mamdani said: “I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Governor Cuomo, or felt too disillusioned by a long-broken political system to vote at all. I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you. I will work to be a mayor you will be proud to call your own. I cannot promise that you will always agree with me, but I will never hide from you.”

After Tuesday’s official results were announced, Mamdani posted on social media : “I am humbled by the support of more than 545,000 New Yorkers in last week’s primary. This is just the beginning of our expanding coalition to make New York City affordable. And we will do it together.”

Cuomo also released a statement after the results were posted, thanking his supporters and saying, “We’ll be continuing conversations with people from all across the city while determining next steps.”

Editorial credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

The Senate narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s policy bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote after a 50-50 tally. Three Republicans voted against the sprawling, nearly 900-page package dubbed the “One, Big Beautiful Bill”, which is packed with tax cuts and immigration policies. The bill will now go back to the House for final approval, where its outcome remains uncertain.

The Senate embarked on the debate late June 28, when Democrats forced clerks to read the 940-page bill out loud overnight for the next 16 hours. A voting session nicknamed a “vote-a-rama” began June 30 for another all-night session with a total of 41 votes on the bill. GOP Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine joined all Democrats in voting against the bill.

Speaker Mike Johnson and top Republican leaders announced in a statement that the House will consider the bill “immediately for final passage” — with renewed intent to put the measure on President Trump’s desk by July 4: “The House will work quickly to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill that enacts President Trump’s full America First agenda by the Fourth of July. The American people gave us a clear mandate, and after four years of Democrat failure, we intend to deliver without delay. This bill is President Trump’s agenda, and we are making it law. House Republicans are ready to finish the job.”

If the Senate signs off on the bill, it would give former President Trump the chance to solidify key parts of his second-term platform. This includes following through on pledges to reduce taxes on tips and overtime pay, ramp up immigration enforcement, and lock in the tax cuts passed in 2017. At the same time, the proposal would significantly slash funding for Medicaid and is expected to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years.

Editorial credit: Phil Mistry / Shutterstock.com

The Trump administration is threatening more federal funding cuts to Harvard University after saying they found the university to be in “violent violation” of the Civil Rights Act, informing them in a letter on Monday that it found the elite school violated federal civil rights law through its treatment of Jewish and Israeli students on campus and warned that a failure by the university to enact certain changes “immediately” would put at risk its federal financial resources.

The letter, sent to Harvard’s President Alan Garber on Monday from the federal government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, detailed the findings of an investigation into antisemitism on the campus by the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. The letter said the investigation found that Harvard is in violation of Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin: “Harvard holds the regrettable distinction of being among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination.”

The letter, which was signed by four federal officials from the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, the U.S. General Services Administration, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon, cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on Harvard’s admission practices.

The letter added that the investigation found evidence that Jewish and Israeli students reported assaults and concealed their Jewish identities on campus, as well as found that demonstrations and encampments on the university’s campus were not properly punished; and said that Harvard was found to be “in some cases deliberately indifferent” to and in other cases “a willful participant” in the harassment of Jewish students: “Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government. Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Monday on X that she worries Harvard’s “persistent indifference” to combating antisemitism isn’t conducive to a safe environment for all students and applauded the administration’s efforts to root out alleged discrimination: “The Trump Administration’s work to restore equal enforcement of civil rights on American campuses continues,” McMahon said.

In response, Harvard again condemned the Trump administration’s threats to strip it of federal funds and defended its work to combat alleged antisemitism. A Harvard spokesperson wrote in a statement to ABC News: “”In responding to the government’s investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue. Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings. Harvard has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias. We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognize that this work is ongoing. We remain committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard.”

Editorial credit: Marcio Jose Bastos Silva / Shutterstock.com

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined an appeal from American Airlines to take up a review of the partnership between the airline and JetBlue in the Northeast.  JetBlue did not join this appeal.

The justices turned away the appeal by American Airlines of a lower court’s decision in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department that led to the end of the proposed “Northeast Alliance,” which would have allowed the two carriers to coordinate flights and pool revenue. The Justice Department had said the case isn’t worth the Supreme Court’s time because JetBlue terminated the partnership about two years ago.

The partnership which would have seen the two airlines combine their slots and gates at New York’s LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport, New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport and Boston’s Logan International Airport was rejected as the Justice Department argued it would hurt consumers and decrease competition in the air travel market. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to decline the American Airlines appeal on June 30 and let the lower rulings stand.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings that “the First Circuit’s application of uncontroversial antitrust principles to the district court’s unchallenged factual findings does not conflict with any decision of another court of appeals or otherwise warrant this Court’s review,”

Meanwhile ,American Airlines called the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case ‘disappointing,’ arguing that the ruling by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had wrongly embraced a hostility to collaboration between businesses and invalidated a joint venture that increased market-wide competition. American Airlines said in a statement that “the Northeast Alliance was designed to increase competition and expand customer options in the Northeast, which it clearly did during the time it was allowed to operate.”

Editorial credit: Benson Truong / Shutterstock.com