Puff Diddy denied bail

On Monday, the FBI arrested Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs for racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. On Tuesday a Judge denied the music mogul a $50 million bail and remanded him to jail awaiting trial. It seems that some combination of the severity of the crimes, the strength of the evidence, and the risk that Combs would flee opened the cell door for a man serially accused of sex crimes. In addition, federal prosecutors had argued that Combs shouldn’t be set free ahead of trial because he allegedly has a long history of tampering with witnesses.

It looks serious for the accused. And it is another landmark in America’s changing attitude to sex crimes. It also highlights, in contrast, the absurd judicial mollycoddling Trump is getting simply because he is running for President

Let’s note that Harvey Weinstein, whose crimes ignited the #MeToo movement, was granted a $1 million bail — even though he was charged with crimes that eventually won him a 23-year sentence in New York, with more to come in California.

And R. Kelly was also initially granted a $1 million bail (later revoked when he was charged with additional crimes). He ultimately received a 20-year sentence.

When I first heard the news, I had two thoughts. One, the charges and evidence must be damn serious for a multi-millionaire or near-billionaire (depending on the source) to be jailed pending trial. Two, more cynically, Combs should have run for President, because the criminal justice system, headed by a venal Supreme Court, believes that in a land where all men are created equal, one man is more equal than the rest.

Although I suppose, to guarantee this ‘jump the line’ treatment, Combs would have to have run as a Republican.

In all seriousness, I do not know if any of the charges Trump faces would mandate jail before trial if he were not running for President. After all, he has been so successful at gaming the system he is still a first-time offender. But surely an ankle-bracelet or home detention would have been on the table.

But more consequentially, the voters should have been able to know if the man on the ballot was a felon. Richard Nixon infamously said, “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.” Logic and common sense demand that it would be even better for the people to know if someone they might vote for is a crook.

They could have — even with the Supreme Court granting Trump absolution for crimes committed under the color of “official acts” — if that enabling ennead had rendered their decision expeditiously. Instead, they ran out the clock on the DC election interference case.

Now the right-leaning independents and the “I’d never vote for a felon” Republicans have a cynical justification to vote for a man they know in their hearts is many times over a crook.

This means that one serial criminal (alleged) is likely going to spend years in jail. While another — who has added alleged insurrection, classified document theft, and election interference crimes to his proven rape and fraud, might end up in the White House.

Combs is likely going to get what he deserves. It is a national embarrassment that we will have to wait and see if Trump does.