September 25, 2024 • 60 mins
Stephen A. interviews Jonathan Potts an attorney who represented executed Missouri inmate Marcellus Williams. He also speaks to CNN Legal Analyst Elie Konig about the latest accuser, Thalia Graves, in the Sean “P. Diddy” Combs criminal case. In sports news, he discusses comments made by Jayson Tatum about his motivation heading into the NBA season and the impact of WNBA “Rookie of The Year” Caitlin Clark’s playoff TV viewership ratings.
On The Stephen A. Smith Show, Smith gives you his renowned point of view, breaking barriers beyond the world of sports, and tackling pertinent issues across entertainment, pop culture, society, business, and politics. Three times a week, you'll hear his LIVE unfiltered opinions on the day's biggest headlines as well as straight-shooting interviews with top celebrities, game-changers, and thought leaders across the societal arena. The Stephen A. Smith Show is sure to entertain, inform, and motivate anyone who tunes in.
Support the show: http://www.youtube.com/@stephenasmith
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the latest edition of The Stephen A. Smith Show,
coming at you over the digital airways of YouTube and
of course iHeart Radio. As always, I want to take
a moment to thank my subscribers and followers. We've now
eclipsed over eight hundred and forty nine thousand subscribers and
we continue to climb each and every single day, not
to mention over three million downloads that have occurred on iHeartRadio.
(00:21):
Can't thank y'all for the love and support enough, always
eternally grateful for it. Please know that, Please know that
on this particular day, if I see him a bit melancholy,
if not downright sad, it's because of where We're getting
started with some news out of Missouri, the state of Missouri,
where the state executed a man whose murder conviction was
questioned by a number of people, including the prosecutor himself.
(00:46):
The victim's family also pushed for the man to be
to not be executed. I'm talking about mister Marcellus Williams,
who was fifty five years of age who died by
lethal injection yesterday around six pm Central time. He was
convicted in two thousand and one of feeling Felicia Lisha Gale,
a former newspaper reporter, found stabbed to death in her
home in nineteen ninety eight. Williams case drew national headlines
(01:10):
as his attorneys appealed the conviction based on what they
described as new evidence, evidence that included alleged bias, in
jury selection, and contamination of the murder weapon. Prior to
the trial, The family of Felicia Gale even asked that
Williams be spared death. However, the US Supreme Court denied
the stay of execution yesterday, a day after Missouri's Supreme
(01:32):
Court and Governor Mike Parson refused to grant a stay
as well. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision. However,
in the third appeal, Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Alana Kagan, and
Katanji Brown Jackson all said they would have granted the
request to pause the execution. Before as death, Williams wrote
(01:56):
a final handwritten statement seen here that reads, Coute all
praise be to Allah in every situation end quote. This
is a very alarming situation, and as far as I'm concerned,
any human being should speak out against it, but especially
if you're black. This black man was murdered yesterday. It's
(02:16):
call it what it is. It's murder. There's no excuse
for it. And I'm gonna tell you why. If there's
DNA evidence that contradicts what prosecutors asserted that led to
a conviction, that's a valid point to stay in execution.
(02:37):
If the prosecutor himself herself themselves acknowledge that based on
evidence that can now be refuted, this should be a
stay of execution. That's another reason not to execute the man.
If a former governor, as in Governor Eric Critons Critens
(02:59):
g r E te Ns Eric Crichtons, he is the
predecessor of Governor Might Parson. He granted Williams a reprieve.
He was persuaded by arguments that new DNA evidence, new
DNA testing exonerated Williams. He did that years ago. Remember,
(03:21):
Williams was twice bard from execution, first by the State
Supreme Court in twenty fifteen and then in twenty seventeen.
So let's get this straight. Governor Passes is ignoring a
ruling by the Supreme Court, the State Supreme Court from
nine years ago. He's ignoring a ruling by his predecessor
from seven years ago. He's ignoring prosecutors, he's ignoring DNA evidence,
(03:45):
and on top of it all, the victim's family didn't
want him execute it. Now, according to reports, and I'm
about to speak to somebody to find out whether or
not they can verify this or not, the victim's family
was against capital punishment, no matter why. But nevertheless, look
(04:06):
at that preponderance of evidence. Think about that for a
second and think about the kind of stuff that we're
talking about. How could you possibly justify executing this man?
To this day, we don't have a justifiable explanation from
Governor Parson because the board that was supposed to investigate
(04:27):
the matter in hand down and ruling was something that
was disbanded by him. Did you just want to kill
a black man? I mean, it's a legitimate question to
be asked. Is it all right that you just murdered him?
Is it okay that he was potentially innocent and you
didn't give it? Damn? Because the word potential doesn't matter
(04:49):
to you. What was it? What was it? I mean,
you talk about some nonsense right here. This is why
we have a country that's so divided. This is why
we have a country that looks at things in two
different ways, because you can't come together on a dead thing.
Who can't come together on this when you got a prosecutor,
(05:13):
when you have evidence, when you have a former governor,
when you have the state Supreme Court all giving a
ruling in favor of staying in execution, and you still say,
bump that the man dies and have him killed by
the state via lethal injection in front of his family.
When a man proclaimed his innocence and stayed that way
(05:36):
for over twenty years, and you do it anyway. You
don't give a shit, you don't care. I'm not one
of these people, ladies and gentlemen that's diametrically opposed to
capital punishment. I'm one of those people. Depending on how
hanus the crime, and it's finite and definitive that you
(06:00):
are guilty, particularly if no contrition or no remorse was shown.
I have no problem with you dying zero zero, but
only under those conditions. If there's a sentilla of doubt,
(06:22):
a sentilla of doubt, you don't do what Governor Parson did.
And to do something like that and to make this decision,
it's criminal. It is an absolute crime, and I can't
(06:45):
even tell you how sad I am for Marcellus William's
family because he went to his death proclaiming his innocence,
and he had an abundance of people and institutions supporting him,
(07:09):
and the governor of Missouri didn't give a damn. You
might you might be able to sleep well at night
right now, sir, because you appear to have no conscience.
We'll see how long that lasts and whether or not
(07:29):
that truly comes back to haunt you someday. We'll see,
we'll see. Joining me now is mister Jonathan Potts, Marcellus
Williams's attorney at the BCPL in Saint Louis, who fought
to stay his execution. Thank you for joining us, Jonathan.
(07:49):
I really really appreciate you taking the time take us
through the last twenty four to forty eight hours in
your efforts to stay the execution of mister Williams. Please.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, there's been pretty much night fight that went on
over the past forty eight hours or so. We were
filing briefs over the weekend, with the Missouri Supreme Court
arguing it on Monday morning, and then trying to get
the US Supreme Court to hear the case. Ultimately, they
declined and mister Williams was executed last night at about
six pm.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Who was in attendance for his execution?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
There were two members from our legal team as well
as mister Williams's son, Marcellus Junior, who were there.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Witnesses Any members from the victims family and attendance? No,
why did they not show up? Are you aware of
the reasoning that they had or reasoning that they gave
for not being in attendance.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
No, I don't know why they weren't there. I can
imagine it's emotionally trying for them too. But the important
thing to remember is that the victim's family was not
in favor of executing mister Williams.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
And why did they reach a conclusion that they were
not in favor of this execution?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Specifically from the beginning they were honoring the wishes of
the victim. I want to be clear, mister Williams is innocent,
but the victim's family has always said that no matter
what happened, the victim would not have wanted anyone to
be executed. Her husband didn't want anyone to be executed,
and her family didn't want anyone to be executed.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
The prosecuted, if I remember correctly, had a change of
thinking and they were and ultimately ended up being against
the execution. Is that correct And if so, what was
their reasoning irrationale behind it.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Yeah, it's even more than them just being against the execution.
They were fighting to overturn the execution. We were having
a trial last month where it wasn't even our team
the defense team who filed it, but it was a
new lawsuit filed by the prosecutor saying that this was
an unfair and unconstitutional trial and that mister williams execution
needed to be stopped.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
And they felt they it needed to be They needed
the execution to be stopped because they believed that there
was evidence that contradicted the guilty verdict.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Absolutely so. From the beginning, they were forensic evidence that
pointed away from mister Williams. They were bloody fingerprints, bloody
footprints at the scene that didn't belong to him, didn't
belong to the husband, didn't belong to the first responders.
There was other forensic evidence of the scene pointing away.
We found new DNA evidence on the murder weapon that
didn't belong to mister Williams. And what further testing showed
(10:19):
is that the DNA on the knife belonged to the
original trial prosecutor twenty years ago, and he had contaminated
the evidence, and it frankly prevented us from being able
to find the DNA whoever was the real killer.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
In what way was the evidence contaminated?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
We put trial prosecutor from twenty years ago on the
stand last month and we cross examined them, and he
admitted that not once, not twice, but five times before
trial he had handled the murder weapon, which was a
bloody kitchen knife without gloves. He had been showing it
to witnesses, just holding it, putting his DNA all over
it and potentially wiping away any DNA from the actual killer.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And still they went ahead with the execution. What rationale
did the governor give for not paudoning him for not
stay in this execution or anybody else for that matter.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The governor just said that he had received due process
and a decision had been made, and we obviously strongly
disagree with that he didn't receive due process. What we
also learned at the hearing last month is that the
trial prosecutor admitted that he got rid of at least
one juror in part because he's black. It was a
(11:34):
devastating thing to hear, and that alone should stopped the execution,
but it didn't.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
He got rid of one juror because the juror was black.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
That is correct, Stephen what he said. I asked him
when he was on the stand, and I said, you
got rid of the juror because he was a young
black man with glasses, And he said, wrong, that was
part of the reason. It was because he also had
piercing eyes.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Wow. I'm thinking about the predecessor to the governor that's
in office right now and how his predecessor decided to
stay the execution years ago. So this governor didn't take
that into consideration, evidently, and I'm wondering why that was
the case. Again, I know I'm being a bit redundant
(12:19):
and asking that question, but I find myself feeling a
bit incredulous and just taking aback significantly by the fact
that there was a prepondence of evidence. You've got a
prosecutor that no longer supported the execution, you got the
victim's family that didn't want the execution, you got DNA
evidence that was compromised. You have a predecessor to the
governor that's presently in office who stayed in execution, but somehow,
(12:42):
some way, this governor decided to still go forward.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Yes, even the breadcrumbs were all there. I think any
person who is following this case knows exactly what happened,
and we received an outpouring of public support. Basically everyone
that we've heard from has been against the execution except
for the governor and the Missouri Attorney General. And I
want to point out that what actually happened is that
the prior governor stopped a prior execution just minutes before
(13:09):
it was about to happen, to appoint a special board
to look into mister Williams case. And then what happened
is that Governor Parson actually disbanded that board before it
ever gave them a recommendation about whether to give mister
Williams a partner commutation of his sentence. Well, basically, he
didn't hear the answer.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
What was his explanation for disbanding that board?
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Didn't give one.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
He didn't give one.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Yeah, I think enough time had passed and wasn't very
interested in what he was going to hear how.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Many executions have taken place in the state of Missouri
recent memory.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
I believe that there are three executions this year, and
I think it's eleven executions under the current governor.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Under the current governor, how many of them has been black?
Do you have an answer to that question?
Speaker 2 (13:55):
I don't know off the top of my head, Stephen,
but your guess is probably a good one.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
And where do you guys go from here? What have
you learned or what do you take from a case
such as this, because it has to be very debilitating,
very very depressing, to be quite honest with you, To
know that such a preponderance of evidence has been put
in your favor to stay in execution, and you have
the support, the inordinate amount of support that you received,
and still the execution went through, it has to be
(14:25):
incredibly disheartening. One would imagine.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It's more than disheartening. You know, we obviously cared quite
a bit about mister Williams. When someone's your client for
many years and you're working to try and save their life,
it carries a very very heavy emotional pull, and when
you see that person put to death under unfair circumstances,
you start to have doubts about the integrity of the
(14:51):
judicial system. The important thing, though, is the reason that
we take these cases on is we are trying to
build public trust in the judicial system. And the only
way that you build back public trust is when that
system is willing to admit its errors. Right now, the
system wants to say, pretend the errors didn't happen. People
(15:14):
don't believe that everyone knows mistakes are made. The only
way that you're going to have the public believe that
they're getting a pair of trials is when you admit
that a mistake was made, and you admit that mistake,
you fix it, and you promise that it's never going
to happen again. And that's not what happened here.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
I'm thinking about the prosecutor admitting their mistake. I'm thinking
about the preponderance of evidence that ultimately favored you staying
the execution. And I'm thinking also about Governor Mike Parson,
because that's his name, Mike Parson, literally not providing an
explanation really as to why he was dogged in his
decision to execute mister Williams. I think that what's incredibly
(15:52):
alarming outside of the actual killing itself, please don't get
me wrong. Is the fact that the governor hasn't been
required to give an in depth explanation as to why
he reached the decision that he reached.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
There was a board that was appointed for that specific purpose.
They conducted an investigation for six years, and they were
going to provide him with a report and recommendation. And
like I said, he dissolved that board before their work
was complete.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And by dissolving that board, they can't give us an
explanation because they're in no position to do so. And
he refuses to give an explanation because he's in a
position as the governor to do just that. That's the
only thing that any of us can surmise, Is that correct, Jonathan?
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, it's up to Governor Parson whether he wants to
explain that.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
What does that leave the BCLP moving forward? I mean,
when you talk about the reason for your existence is
restoring faith. To have a situation where you have so
much evidence in your favor and still come up short
in staying this execution, where does that leave you moving forward?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
So here's the thing, Steven, I'm actually I'm a sports lawyer.
What I've been doing in these cases is this is
something that I do pro bone now in my career.
So far, we've exonerated three people murder and mister Williams
unfortunately was executed last night. But we are doing this
(17:21):
because we are trying to bring faith back to the
community in terms of understanding that the court system is
there to protect us. And the important thing isn't that
you get it over with, but that you get it right.
And I want people to know that we are going
to keep fighting to make sure that execute that people
don't get executed for crimes that they don't commit. And
(17:44):
I worry about our kids, I worry about each other,
and you worry about whether we really have our values
properly aligned when we want to just kill someone because
it's been too long and he's been sitting around on
death row for twenty years, so we need to get
it open.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
With Wow, Jonathan Potts, I really really appreciate your time.
Thank you so much for joining the show, and I'm
really really sorry for what the outcome ultimately ended up being.
It certainly wasn't due to a lack of effort and
due diligence and expertise on your part and that of
the BCLP. I can assure you of that. So I
thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I
(18:21):
thank you for coming on the show. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Take it easy. One of them Jonathan Pots right here
on the Stephen A. Smith Show over the digital airwaves
or YouTube, and of course iHeartRadio. It's a shame. You
heard what he had to say. There's no excuse for this,
and Governor Parses needs to be made to account for
why he made this decision. I mean, his predecessor decided
to stay the execution. The prosecutor acknowledged it. There were
(18:47):
mistakes made, evidence was tampered with, et cetera, et cetera.
There's no excuse for mister Williams being executed yesterday in
light of that preponderance of evidence. When in doubt, preserving
life should be the most important thing, more so than
anything else, but that clearly was not the case in
(19:08):
the state of Missouri yesterday thanks to Governor Mike Parson.
What a shame. What a shame. Coming up, the latest
on the federal sex trafficking and racketeering case against Sean
Diddy Combs as a new accuser goes public with her attorney,
Gloria all Read. I'll get into that and more next
(19:28):
right here on the stephen A. Smith show back with
more in a minute. I want to take a second
to make sure everyone knows we're smack in the middle
of the NFL season and I couldn't be more excited.
And with games being played Thursday night, Sunday night, and
Monday night, Prospects wants to help you cash in on
all that big time action you see. Prospects is a
(19:49):
daily fantasy act where you can pick two or more
of your favorite players and then you simply select more
or less on their projected stats for the game. Pick
up player's rushing yards, passing yards, total touchdowns. The list
is absolutely endless, and the best part is Prospects has
something for every sports fan to sort of WNBA, MLB, MMA,
even Golfer crying out loud, all in the same entry.
(20:12):
I make my picks and submit early, all in less
than sixty seconds. By the way, that's that's time that
it takes for Drake London to take a pass from
Kirk Cuzins all the way to the house and get
this sign up with code sas and Prospects will give
you fifty dollars instantly when you play your first five
dollar lineup. You don't need to win your lineup to
receive the fifty dollars bonus. It's guaranteed. All you have
(20:32):
to do is play as a five dollar lineup on
prospects and you'll get fifty dollars instantly. Pick more, pick less.
It's really really that easy. Welcome back to stephen A.
Smith's show. Now let's get to the latest on Sean
Diddy Combs, who's currently sitting in a federal jail awaiting
(20:53):
trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges. Yesterday, a new
accuser went public with more accusation against the music mogul.
Talia Graves claims in a civil lawsuit that Combs in
a bodyguard, drugged, bound, and raped her in two thousand
and one and filmed the incident. Graves is represented by
famed litigator Gloria Alred, who is no stranger to representing
(21:16):
women in high profile cases. Okay, here's a list we're
speaking of Gloria already here. Okay, here's a list of
just some of the women she's represented in the past.
Look at this list right here. O J Simpson trial
Remember that Scott Peterson trial, Tiger Woods scandal, Bill Cosby scandal,
Anthony Ween a former representative out of New York. Remember
(21:37):
that all of that stuff happened. That's who she's represented.
Already represented Amber Fry, the girlfriend of Scott Peterson who
was convicted of killing his wife an unborn son. And
most notably, she represented more than half of the fifty
plus women who've accused Bill Cosby of rape and molestation.
As for Sean P. D. D. Combs, he's pleaded not
guilty the charges that he led a criminal enterprise that
(21:58):
abused women. Look, I've already been in the mindset that
the brother's in trouble, deep deep trouble, as in never
seeing the light of day as a free man again.
It's really really that serious. I don't think it's an exaggeration.
That's number one. Number two. Everybody's sitting up there talking
about Gloria already right now involved in the incident because
there's money to be made, okay, And the reality is
(22:18):
is that if you've got a situation where you've got tape,
you've got audio, etc. Against this man, it's something that
could come back to haunt you. We can't ignore that reality,
all right, Then you've got to take into account the
fact that him being in a federal prison, him being
in jail right now, being held without bond, wasn't allowed
bail even though he's got one more appeal available to him,
(22:41):
The chances of him pulling that off of Slim to Nune. Okay,
now you've got Hollywood up in arms and incredibly nervous.
Why because everybody's wondering whether or not their name is
gonna get mentioned. And for that, my condolence is kick in.
And here's the reason why. You could have gone to
a Diddy park. But there's a Diddy party, and there
(23:03):
was a Diddy after party, and the after party is
where these quote unquote freak offs were taking place. What
if you never went to them? What if you just
went to the party and then you're left at a
reasonable hour like most people do, and you went home
and went about your business and did your own thing.
But while you at the party, you took a picture.
While you at the party, you were drinking, you were
(23:23):
hanging out, you were socialized and fratinizing, having a good time.
Based on how so many people are acting, you never
know what level of incrimination could come associated with you.
And here's where it gets interesting. We're talking about Hollywood.
So the image is what it's all about, not just
the reality. If the images of you taking pictures and
(23:44):
party and then having a good time and you got
a drink in your hand and a cigar in your mouth,
or whatever the case may be, but you did absolutely
nothing wrong. Optics matter in Hollywood more so than most places.
So I can understand why so many people are nervous, Yes,
certarly nervous because they're guilty. They're nervous because of the
association and what it potentially implies and how it could
(24:08):
be used to compromise their earning potential. That's the world
that exists in Hollywood, and that's what makes this so unfortunate.
Having said that, nothing, absolutely nothing pertaining of those folks
in terms of optics, comes anywhere near close to the
(24:32):
kind of danger Diddy is in joining me now to
discuss the latest on a federal case against Sean P. Diddy.
Combs is Elie Honing, a former prosecutor for the Southern
District of New York, where Diddy will be tried. He's
also a senior legal analyst for CNN. Who provides commentary
on criminal justice and national security. Ellie, thanks for taking
(24:55):
time out of your busy schedule to join the show man.
Thank you so much. How you doing.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Glad to be here you, Steve and I go way back, man.
I'm a South Jersey kid. I'm from Cherry Hall. I
remember reading you in the Inquirer way back, so it's
great to be with you.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Well. Thank you so much, man, I really appreciate it.
Let's get right to it. Talia Graves is the eleventh
accused to count that eleventh accuser, but the first to
come public against P Diddy? How damaging is this case?
Is this for his case? Actually?
Speaker 3 (25:20):
This is bad news for Shawn Comes anyway, you look
at this, Steven, Look, I'm gonna let you in on
a little prosecutor's secret. We all read the media, and
there's two reasons for that. One of them is prosecutors
are vain. We want to know what's being said about
us or we're getting good press or bad press. But
the other reason is we want to see what's going
out on out there. You get leads, you get evidence
for your cases from civil suits that are filed from
(25:40):
media reporting, and I guarantee you. If prosecutors is not
already spoken with Ms Graves, they are going to be
speaking with her now because what they're trying to do
in this case is put together an overwhelming body of evidence,
and to do that you need as many victims as
you can get. This is why when the US Attorney
announced the case last week, he said, if if you
believe you may be a victim in this case or
(26:02):
a witness, get in touch with us. I've done human
trafficking sex trafficking cases like this, Stephen, and it is
not at all uncommon. In the days and weeks after
you have unveiling indictment like this, you will find more people.
More people will come forward. They're trying to bolster their
case and this could help them.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
There.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
I was gonna ask the question, what kind of impact
does former girlfriend Cassie Ventura's lawsuit have on a federal case,
But based on what you just articulated, I'm imagining that
contributes to the prosecutor's case. It gets showing p Diddy
Combes correct.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Oh, for sure. It's pretty clear if you look at
the indictment of Seawan Combs that the Cassie Ventura allegations
are front and Center. It looks like at least one
of the counts is based entirely on her allegations that
she made in the lawsuit. We've all seen the video
of Shawn Combs viciously attacking her in that hotel. Allway,
she is going to be a key victim. A real
important question though, is are there other victims and if so,
(26:53):
how many are there now? Shawn combs is defense lawyer
Mark Agniffolow appeared on CNN last week with Caitlin Collins.
I was on right after and Agnifelo, Shawn's Combs's lawyer, said, well,
the government, the prosecutors say they have fifty victims and witnesses.
But I think that's one victim, Cassidy and forty nine witnesses. Now,
I said on Aerinic Caitlin, I think that's wrong. You
(27:16):
wouldn't say that as a prosecutor. You wouldn't say you
have fifty if it was one in forty nine. But
it is crucial that prosecutors identify more victims. And if
these new allegations can lead them to a second, or
third or fourth victim, then that's what prosecutors are in
the business to do, and you build your case, you
try to give the jury such a massive evidence that
they have no choice but to find them guilty.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Kelly helped me out here. One of the things that
I've been mentioning is a guy that was born in
the Bronx, raised in the streets of Hollis Queens, New
York City. I mean, you hear about somebody getting arrested,
you hear about them getting indicted, you see local police,
you see prosecutors, and that's that to me. What stands
out in my mind in this case the raid on
his home by Homeland Security, the arrests, etc. The fact
(28:01):
that Homeland Security is the one that has come Fiddty,
could you explain whether it is any significance to that
at all, and if there is, specify why it's so
significant that this is Homeland Security that we're talking about
where they came after him with these federal charges.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Yeah, that's a great question. So when people think of
federal law enforcement agents, they think first, and often only
of the FBI. But what people may not realize is
there are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies out there,
and a big one is Homeland Security. I know from
my own experience, Homeland Security specializes in human trafficking and
sex trafficking cases at the federal level. FBI does it too.
(28:38):
But when I did my biggest sex trafficking case involved
thirty defendants and we had seventy some victims back a
decade and a half ago. The federal agents on the case,
we're Homeland Security. So it doesn't mean there's some immigration
issue happening because people often associate that with Homeland Security.
They just happened to be one of the federal agencies
that specializes in this kind of case. And you know,
(29:00):
the search warrant is crucial. I mean they had to
go to a judge, prosecutors and agents and show we
have probable cause that a crime was committed and that
we're going to find evidence in whatever we sees. The phones.
We know they found guns, dismantled guns, high caliber guns.
That kind of stuff has made its way into the
case and it's one of the big reasons that Sean
Holmes is behind bars right now because prosecutors said, look
(29:21):
what we found when we went into his place. All
these firearms, these ammunition, I think they've recovered at various times,
certain drugs, narcotics, and the phones now are just a
jackpot of evidence. I mean, you get so much off
of phones now too.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
What exactly did they find in this homes? You talked
about guns, you talked about drugs, what else? I remember
what they talked about, surveillance tapes, phones, emails, et cetera.
Could you crystallize for my audience, just to as specific
as you can get what they've actually found in his
homes in Los Angeles and Miami when they raided it.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
Yeah, so there were firearms. There were various firearms. Some
of them had the serial numbers obliterated, meaning scratched off,
which you see quite often because that makes it a
federal crime. Right there, I believe they found drugs. I'm
not quite sure if I remember that right. Look, they
found phones and laptops all over the place. When I
was starting as a prosecutor twenty years ago, you had
to pull information from You had to go get the
(30:15):
person's emails, you had to maybe get the physical paper documents.
Now you know how much information is on a phone.
Everything is on a phone. It's the best possible information
you can get. And then I guess I would say,
in a separate category, there was all sorts of sex
paraphernalia sex tois. The indictment talks about a thousand bottles
of baby oil and lube. Now look having you know,
(30:38):
over the top sex parties. They call them freak offs
and the invited. That's not a crime, nothing illegal about that.
But the gist of the allegations is they would force
women into these, they would threaten women afterwards. The allegations
that you're talking about that just came out. The woman
says she was drugged and tied up and then raped,
So it all is relevant and there was. Look, that's
(30:59):
a lot of that's a lot of evidence to find
in any search work.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
P Diddy and his team. I saw the lawyers on television.
I think I saw one of them on a Chris
Cuomo's show on News Nation. They were talking about at
least a couple of lawyers were talking about how the
argument to be made in favor of P Diddy, ways
you might find his behavior reprehensible or something, there was
nothing illegal, giving the impression that it was adult consent
(31:25):
going on, How plausible is that argument considering the fact
that Homeland Security and the Feds essentially making this case against.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
Him, Well, that's definitely going to be the defense, Stephen,
As you said, you can see it from the lawyers
who are out there. What they're going to argue is, look,
he's a sex freak, but that's not a crime. The
other thing they're going to argue, and we've already heard
this from Mark Agnaffilo, one of the defenser. It's, by
the way, very good defense. I mean, Johnclins has a
top shelf guy here. He's going to argue. I think
that a lot of this stuff that's been charged is
(31:56):
not a federal crime. It's really just an assault the
violence assault that's typically that's not a federal crime. The
way it becomes federal here is because we have a
Rico racketeering charge. So they're gonna argue, this is not
federal criminal activity, this is a state crime. And they're
gonna argue a lot of this stuff would have been
too old to charge federally. But again, the Rico laws,
which I used to use all the time, Steve and
(32:17):
I used to charge organized crime mafia families, they give
prosecutors a massive advantage because you can charge things that
would be state crimes, you can charge things that are
too old. But I do think that's gonna be the
exact appeal. The jury's gonna hear who knows when the
trial is a year from now, give or take. I
think they're gonna say, look, folks, he had these Maybe
you think they're unusual or unappealing sexual appetites, but that
(32:41):
doesn't make him a criminal. That's what you're gonna hear.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Names like Jeffrey Epstein, R Kelly. I even heard somebody
last week bring up Bill Cosby for crime out loud.
I mean, all of these names have been brought up.
All three ended up in jail. In the case of
Jeffrey Epstein, supposedly there was a suicide that took place
while he was incarcerated. Considering the fact that jail time
(33:04):
was the end result for individuals like that, does that
make it more probable that there will be jail time
for P Diddy?
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Well, I think there's also a warning within those names
you gave me. Bill Cosby right now is a free man.
Right because prosecutors overreached in the way they prosecuted this case.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court actually threw out his conviction. He
did three or four years behind bars. Harvey Weinstein, also
looked a sexual predator, was convicted and then one of
his convictions was thrown out six months or so ago
(33:34):
because prosecutors also misstep. There so a lot of pressure
on prosecutors here. But if we're looking at Shawn Combs's case,
it's early. We don't have all the facts. We have
a lot in the indictment, and there was other paperwork
that was submitted. I'll just say this, It does not
look good for Sean Combs. And I'll tell you why.
Won you do not want to be prosecuted by the
Southern District of New York. I say that as an
alum of that office. But that office is famous for
(33:57):
being aggressive and for winning its cases. Recently, they convicted
Sam bankmin freed. They convicted Senator Robert Menendez even though
he's the Jersey Senator. That office has a long history
of convicting high profile cases. The other thing is the
penalties he's looking at Stephen are through the roof. If
he's convicted on the forcible sex trafficking of Cassie, he
(34:18):
is looking at a fifteen year mandatory minimum minimum. And
I know sometimes you'll hear, oh, so and so got
sentenced to let's say, twenty years in prison, but then
two and a half years later they're released. That's in
the state system. In the federal system, there's no parole,
there's no early release. If you get sentence to let's
say fifteen years in prison, the only reduction you can
get is fifteen percent off for good time in prison.
(34:41):
So if Shawn Combs gets convicted on that count, he
has to do fifteen years minus fifteen percent. So let's
say thirteen years behind bars. He's fifty four years old,
and it could be more than that as well.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Wow. Former Death Row Records head sug Knight was on
Cuoma News Nation last night. I want you to listen
into these explosive claims.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Okay, if you have a guy named Tebby he used
to work for in the still his god's job was
to bring from the age girls and girls to have
six do.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
You think did he knows enough that it's a very
delicate balance that maybe investigators will want to know these
other names and greatly reduce his exposure to criminality to
time versus what people would do to keep him quiet.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Number one, I've been knowing him in a long time
and we was friends.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Were not any means, but we were friends. He's not
a dummy.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So he's smart enough to work his magic on top
of that Disney right here, even involved with the FBI
of his career, did he got powerful people?
Speaker 1 (35:50):
I don't expect you to comment on the veracity of
those statements, because how could we possibly confirm that. However,
hearing something like that, how does a prosecute to use
that nugget of information to the advantage Ellie, That's what
I'm wondering about.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
Let me tell you my thought process. And I just
saw that for the first time. But if I'm back
in the prosecutor's office number one, there's no way in
hell I'm calling Suge Knight as a witness at the track.
Can you imagine, right, Jery.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Believe this guy? Oh?
Speaker 3 (36:17):
I will say, I've called way worse people than Suge
Knight as witnesses cooperators. But like I said in the beginning, Stephen,
you're always watching what's being said because you can always
develop a lead off that maybe you can say, Okay,
who could Shug Night be talking about here? Who are
some of these people who would bring in girls? If
you haven't already identified them, go find those people, Listen.
I wouldn't even necessarily say I'm not even gonna talk
(36:39):
to Suge Knight. He's never gonna be a witness for me.
But I may give them a shot or send an
FBI agent or Homeland Security agent out to say, who
are you talking about? Do you want to give us
names here? Because we want to find these people. But
the thing you're always doing as a prosecutor, Stephen, is
prosecutors are obsessed with corroboration. You want to back up
every witness you can, whether they're a choir boy or should.
(37:00):
You want to make sure that anything that gets set
up on that stand is something you can back up
with a document, with a piece of video, with another witness,
that kind of thing. So I think that's what I
would do with that with that clip.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
When you bring up the Southern District of New York,
you're in the lum you know. You know how lethal
this department, this department is. I mean, their reputation definitely
precedes them. And I say that in a very positive
way as somebody who wants criminals off the streets. It's
the Southern District of New York. It is what it is.
I ask you this question at all honesty. When we
talk about them, buffering their case. Per se, one would
(37:33):
give them. One would get the impression the case obviously
has to be prosecuted, but it's already been made in
the court of public opinion. I know that doesn't ultimately
convict you, but it does stand to influence jurors potentially.
I'm wondering, why do you find yourself having to make
the case when one would see you raiding the homes
(37:53):
in Miami, in Los Angeles, and then ultimately this arrest
took place months later. One would surmise, you are ready,
You've got your case. It's Diddy that has got to
defend himself because right now he looks guilty as ol.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So two things. First of all, you will every time
you see a prosecutor make an announcement from a podium,
whether it's the Attorney General of the United States, the
DA of whatever county, they will always say these words,
our investigation is ongoing, and a lot of times, honestly, Stephen,
it's just boiler and play. The investigation is basically done.
But it's clear here this one is ongoing. I mean,
(38:26):
we've already seen reporting that there's new witnesses going in
the grand jury, and good prosecutors know your investigation is
not over until that jury comes back with a verdict. Now,
from Sean Combs's perspective, it's important to keep in mind.
You know, again, another thing he gets said at every
press conference. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A
defendant never technically has to put on a defense. He
(38:47):
doesn't have to say no, no, no, folks, and the jury,
they've got it wrong. Here's what actually happened.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Right.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
A defendant can just play the burden of proof game
and say, folks, they failed to prove their case beyond
a reasonable doubt, therefore you must find him not guilty.
That said, as you noted, it's very different when you
have such a high profile person like Sean Combs. He
has clearly not taken the strategy. It's not like him
to just say I'm going to sit back and just
sort of poke holes. He's on the affirmative, he's on
(39:13):
the aggressive. That's why you've seen his lawyers on TV.
But let me tell you the stats aren't good for him.
I mean, if you look at the historical data, ninety
five plus percent of people in the federal system, defendants
plead guilty, and of those who go to trial in
the Southern District of New York, easily eighty plus percent
end up getting convicted. It is really really hard to
(39:36):
roll the dice and beat the Sdmy.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
What do we just surmise from him being denied bail
not once but twice.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Well, first of all, it's a practical better means he's
going to be in He's going to be behind bars
until the trial happens, which, like I said before, you're
looking at a year or so. He has one more shot.
He's going to take it to the Court of Appeals,
but that's one in a thousand that he gets that.
It makes it much harder to prepare your defense, right
your lawyers have to wait in the line at the
prison before they get in. You know, you don't have
(40:03):
access to the outside world. So it is a handicap
when it comes to actually preparing your defense. And Stephen,
I mean the MDC where comes is being held now,
the Metropolitan Detentions that are over in Brooklyn. I've been
there many times because one of the things you do
as a prosecutors you're talking to witnesses, people who might flip.
I mean in a secure area. I'm not going to
walk into general population. You know, that would get a
(40:24):
guy killed. But I've spent a lot of time in there,
and let me tell you, I don't know if you've
ever had the misfortune of going into a prison to
visit somebody or something like that. I've been to, you know,
I don't know more prisons than I can remember. That
is probably the worst. It's the worst federal facility for sure,
that I've been in. I mean, it is over Getting ready.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
To ask you what makes it so bad? When crystallize
for my audience this prison that he's in in Brooklyn,
New York. I've heard numerous folks say it's one of,
if not the worst. Why is it so bad?
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Okay? First of all, there used to be two prisons
serving the New York area, one of men and one
in Brooklyn. The one of Manhattan is now closed, so
all those inmates. It is crazy overcrowded. Second of all,
if you've been to prisons, a lot of them are
on acres and acres of land, forty acres you know whatever,
thirty acres This is in Brooklyn. I mean it's basically
like half a block, so it's incredibly cramped. It's claustrophobic man.
(41:19):
When I go in there, Steven, when I come out,
I'm gasping for air, like I'm a little claustrophobic.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
It is.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
It is dangerous. There have been three or four, I
think murders or suicides in there in the last couple
of years. It's filthy. There's when I've been in there,
there's been like a mystery liquid I don't even want
to know what it is, dripping down off the walls.
It's too hot in the summer, it's too cold in
the winter. And just to give you a sense of this,
there have actually been federal judges who have reduced sentences
(41:45):
or let people out on bail because they've said the
MDC is such a hell hole. I'm paraphrasing, because the
MDC is such a hell hole, I'm gonna cut a
little time off this guy's sentence. So it is nothing
like any Sushon Colnes has ever seen before.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Yet they've taken Sean P. Diddy Combs, who last time
I checked, is worth at least a half of billion dollars,
and they've placed him in this facility where you one
could argue you had the luxury of putting him somewhere else.
Should we make anything of the fact that they've placed
him there.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
No, because that's where any defendant in the Southern District
of New York or Eastern District of New York would
be housed. I believe I've seen reporting that he's in
a separate unit that's meant to protect certain inmates. I've
been in that unit. Understandably, right, he would be in danger,
I mean, you know, for I mean, he's a huge celebrity,
he's incredibly rich, he being all sorts of danger if
he was in general population. There's actually reporting that he
(42:40):
is bunk mates or his house clostly with Sam bankman Fried,
so another guy worth a lot of money who would
not do well in normal population. But I mean, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons doesn't really care who you are
or what you are. They're gonna put you where they're
gonna put you. And because he's got to be in
New York for his ongoing proceedings, he's going to be
(43:00):
in the MDC. I mean, I guess they can move him.
There's some facilities up north a bit, but you generally
want to keep them as close to the courthouse as
possible because you're gonna have to transport him back and
forth every time. He's got a quarter pairs.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
I saw one report talking about he was on suicide watch.
I don't know whether that's believable or not, but based
on what you're describing the facility to be like, one
would surmise that's not that unreasonable, and that's not too low.
That's not too ridiculous of an assertion considering the kind
of climate he is in. What do you think, if
anything at all, they're doing to secure his You know
(43:32):
that he doesn't have the ability to harm himself.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
The last agency I'm going to vouch for is the
Federal Beerau of Prisons. They have a horrible record of
keeping their inmates safe. Jeffrey Epstein, by the way, was
on suicide watch when he died in prison. What that means,
by the way, is that this is a person we
have some concern about, and there's extra cautions taken. I
don't know the exact details, but they check on the
person more often through the night. They will reduce that
(43:58):
person's ability to have like sheets and things that you
might hang yourself with. You already can't have shoelaces and
that kind of thing. But it shows me that they're
concerned about losing him, that they want to It doesn't
necessarily mean he's had suicidal ideation or said anything. It
could be that, but it just means he's someone that
they need to keep a closer eye. But the Bureau
of Prison, Stephen, I mean is it is a nightmarish
(44:20):
bureaucracy there. I get it, they're short staff, they don't
have great funding, they have an impossible task, but there
is a long history of failures by the Bureau of Prisons.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
How much Tom is p did cohe's looking at overall.
I know you brought up the fifteen years for the
cass into at situation alone, What are we really really
talking about, Ellie when we look at this case, these
charges seems trafficking, racketeering or what are we really looking
at form.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
In a normal case, what you do is you start thinking,
where's the plea going to be? Because, like I said,
ninety five plus percent of federal cases reach a plea,
and so it's like any other negotiation in the world.
Where where are they going to be able to find
a middle ground. I don't see that here, I really don't.
I don't see Sean Holmes being willing to please to
let's say, a lesser charge and agreeing to seven eight years.
I don't know the man. I can't speak for him,
(45:04):
but to me that seems unlikely. On the flip side,
I don't see prosecutors in a mood to give much leniency,
and so I do think this is headed towards a trial.
You never know what's going to happen at trial, but
odds are just mathematically empirically, he's likely to be convicted,
and if that happens, it will be fifteen years or higher.
I mean he could get twenty. Who know, the max
(45:25):
is life, but just a little advanced tip here, always
focus on the minimum. The minimum is way more important
than the maximum. Very few people, except for in murders,
get the maximum. But look, Shawn Holmes, I mean there's
a realistic chance Stephen. I heard you say recently like
there's a chance that he will never be free again.
You are right, there is a reasonable chance he's never
(45:46):
free again.
Speaker 1 (45:48):
Could it be that they're waiting for him to flip
and get and point out some others as well, that
they're not after just him. They want to put this
inordinate amount of stuff on his shoulders to get him
to make a deal and and be an informant on others.
Speaker 3 (46:06):
So that's such an interesting question. I thought about this.
But the thing with cooperation is you need to you
need both sides. I don't. I mean, Seawn Holmes has
to be willing to do that, and the fans have
to be willing to sign him up. But the thing
is you, as a prosecutor, you're not gonna sign up
a leader, a boss just to give you a bunch
of smaller fish. That's not how you do it. You
(46:26):
want to work up. We used to say you want
to cooperate up the ladder, not down. When I was
doing mob cases, I wouldn't flip some capo, you know,
a high ranking guy to give me some soldiers and
associates below him. I would flip the low guys to
work up. And that's how they do it generally here.
So the question I would have is if he's willing
and if he has info, who's he gonna give me.
If all he's gonna give me is his guys, the
(46:48):
people who should Knight refer to the runners, his employees,
that's of no interest to me. He's gonna have to
give me a large important target in order for me
to even consider cooperating him as a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
Elie Honik, excellent job, by the way, man, really really
appreciate it. Thank you so much for educating us on
this case. Man. I definitely will reach back out to
you soon. You take it easier, right, Great to talk
to you, Thanks Steden. All right, one and only Aleijonik,
CNN analyst extraordinaire. Right here on the Steven Nate Smith
Show over the Digital Areas a YouTube and of course iHeartRadio.
Coming up, Jason Tatum talks about his motivation heading into
(47:24):
this NBA season as the Boston Celtics prepared to defend
their title, and Caitlyn clark S's another record as the
Indiana Fever try to keep their season alive. That's next
right here on the stephen A. Smith Show. Back for
more in a minute. Welcome back to the stephen A.
Smith Show right here with the Digital Areas a YouTube
(47:45):
and of course iHeartRadio. I want to transition to sports
and hit two sports topics before we get on out
of here today. All right. The first is Jason Tatum,
the Celtics forward who addressed the media yesterday as the
team is getting ready to defend their title. Tatum was
about his motivation heading into this season, coming off too
healthy scratches during the summer Olympic Games in Paris, where
(48:07):
Team USA actually won gold. Take a listen to what
Jason Tatum had to say. Check this out.
Speaker 6 (48:13):
I'm curious what you learned from your experience at the
Olympics this summer. That's a broad question. You want to
be more specific.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
Is it something you're gonna draw motivation from?
Speaker 6 (48:23):
I guess I want to address that. You know I
didn't play in two of those games. That's what you mean,
that's part of it. Yeah, Uh, motivation, I guess. I
guess you could say that, and if you want to
simplify in real time, it was tough. Did I need
(48:45):
any extra motivation coming into the season. No, I don't.
Speaker 2 (48:52):
I wasn't.
Speaker 6 (48:52):
I'm not going to give anybody in particular credit that
you know they're motivating me to come into the season.
It was unique sart ccumstance, something I wasn't having the
experienced before my playing career. But I'm a believer that
everything happened for a reason. I was coming off a championship,
(49:14):
the highest of the highest covered two K and new contract,
and you know then that happened, And whatever the reason is,
I haven't figured out yet, but I am a believer
that everything does happen for a reason.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
I listened to that sound and I'm so appalled. It's
hard to put in the words. I want to emphasize that.
When it comes to head coach Team USA, Steve Kerr,
I consider him to be one of the top six
coaches in the history of basketball. I think what he's
accomplished in Golden State is nothing short of phenomenal. I
(49:54):
think he was clearly worthy for being the head coach
Team USA. I think he's a future Hall of Famer.
He personified championships, winning championships Chicago as a player in
San Antonio, as a player in Golden State as a coach.
Had Dan Mike D'Antoni listened to him when he was
the GM in Phoenix and Mike D'Antoni was the coach
and you want to bring on Tom Thibodeaux as essentially
(50:16):
his defensive coordinator. Had Mike D'Antoni listened to Steve Kerr,
he might have won a championship with a Mario start
of my Steve Nationals Boys at Our West when Steve
Kerr was the GM. So this man is a champion,
but none of us are flawless. Imperfections invade all of us.
And when I think about what he did to Jason
Tatum during the Summer Olympics, it is inexcusable. Damn They're unforgivable.
(50:41):
This is a first team All NBA player the last
three years. This is a reigning defending NBA champion. And
a month later, he was riding the bench for Team USA.
And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, not only was
he riding the bench, it was in favor of two
dudes who spend eighty two games a year deferring to
him and Drew Holliday, okay, and Derek White. They defer
(51:03):
to him. How are you gonna play them? But you
can't find time for Jason Tatum, who's six ' nine,
got a handle, got a shot, can defend, can flat
out ball. I'm not telling you that he should have
averaged twenty or thirty minutes. Lebron James was phenomenal. Steph
Curry was phenomenal in the last two games the semifinals.
In the gold medal game, I get all of that.
(51:24):
Anthony Edwards was bawling the bam out of Bios, the
Joel and Beads of the world. Everybody, Jew Holliday and
Derek White played well. I get all of that. I'm
just saying, you can't find minutes for Jason Tatum, really,
and then you go up to him before the Serbia game,
a game in which you won by twenty six points,
and you tell him I may not be able to
find time for you before the game. It's unforgivable. It's unforgivable,
(51:50):
And I don't care what anybody says. I'm glad that
Steve Current gonna be coaching Team USA and twenty twenty
eight because I think Jayson tatm' is gonna be on
that team. But if Jason Tatum never wanted to see
this man again, if he never want to talk to
this man again, I couldn't blame him, because how do
you justify not playing him at all and basically telling
him before the game you were gonna be hard pressed
(52:10):
to find time for him. You didn't know how everybody
else was gonna play. It's one thing to make game
time decisions where it's in the throes of action. And
all of a sudden, Serbia got you in a hole
in the semi finals, and you don't know what to do,
and so you stick with a line of it. You
don't play somebody. I get that part. How the hell
do you go to Jason Tatum before tip off and
tell him I don't know if i'mna being a fun
(52:32):
time for you. I don't understand that. I ain't gonna
even get it to how I feel about Jaylen Brown
not even being on the damn team. Well, what that
brother can bring to the table, not just shooting for
him to jump shots, not just shooting threes, but his athleticism,
his fervor, his passion, the way he attacks the basket,
(52:53):
the way he can defend. He ain't on the team.
We know that wasn't basketball reasons. We know that was
about something else, being a socially conscientious brother who's outspoken,
highly intellectual, and educated in his feelers. That's why he
was kept off the team. In my humble opinion, that
Nike beef all of that comes into play because we
(53:18):
know how influential Nike is with Team USA. It's speculative
as that may sound, it appeared to be a reality
when it came to Jaylen Brown, because how do you
lead that brother off the team? Him off the team?
Jason Tatum benched in favor of two dudes and Drew
Holliday and Derek White, who are on the Boss of Celtics,
(53:39):
who spent all year deferring to those two who just
won a championship. And by the way, Jaylen Brown was
He's the Conference Finals MVP and NBA Finals MVP. Really really,
but Jason Tayom just showed you who he is. Last
(54:00):
PERSONI five. He ain't gonna feed too much into it.
It's unnecessary, but it is what it is. It is
what it is. Next subject we're gonna get to is
a WNBA and another accolade on the impact of Caitlan
Clark Okay the Rain and Rookie of the Year. Yahoo
Sports reports that the Indiana Fever, especially Kaitlyn Clark, drew
(54:20):
the most viewers for a WNBA playoff game and over
twenty years at one point eight million on ABC. Only
two WNBA Finals games going back to the year two
thousand average higher viewership. All I want to do is
use this as an opportunity to highlight the missed opportunities
that took place. See, there's a lot of fallout from
(54:45):
the imminite greatness of Kitlan Clark. Number one Team USA.
They should have had on that team. There's a reason
why other teams were drawing more of a crowd than
Katelyn Clark. During the some Olympic games, they were drawing
all teams. Those teams were drawing more of a crowd
than Team USA because Team USA decided to leave Caitlyn
(55:06):
Clark home. Don't give me, oh, it should go to
just the best players. There's plenty of teams that we
could look at, and the best player wasn't necessarily on
the team. Secondly, you will clown, you will cowerd listen,
you've been craving attention, more eyeballs, et cetera, et cetera.
What happened? You got Caitlyn Clark out there, and Caitlyn
(55:27):
Clark is out there, and lo and behold, what is
the deal? It is a situation where somebody like a
Caitlyn Clark is drawing eyeballs. It would have elevated the
profile of women's basketball the world over. It was an
opportunity for women's basketball to achieve what it has been
(55:49):
clamoring for for ages you missed that, we get into
Cheryl Soops. We already talked about that on this show.
A superstar female basketball player for years, the first one
her own signature shoot back in the nineties, a champion
on every level, now an analyst in the game, refusing
or be or showing flagrant resistance to giving Caitlyn Clark
(56:12):
the shine that she deserved months ago, clearly because you
wanted others to get this shine and you felt they
were being left behind because of everybody fawning over Caitland Clark.
But you didn't see the big picture. Cynthia Cooper had
to tell you that. Nancy Lieberman had to tell you
what the big picture was. So that was fallout from
the whole Caitlyn clark arrival and her imminent stardom, and
(56:36):
now here we are yet again. We saw viewerships during
the final four in the NCAA Tournament. Leading into the
final four, we saw viewership numbers blow out the charts
for the WNBA Draft. We saw it elevate even more
for the opener to their season to WNBA All Star
(56:56):
Weekend in Phoenix, Arizona. And then we so or the
numbers where they were drawing more of a crowd than
the Indiana paces of the NBA in some cases the viewership.
And now we heard about the one point eight million,
by the way, that one point eight million was on
Sunday and FL Sunday. And this woman, this young lady,
(57:21):
drew one point eight million viewers on a football Sunday.
Think about that. Dallas was playing Baltimore Ravens. Pittsburgh Steelers
was going on the en route to going undefeated. Houston
(57:44):
was getting stormed by the Vikings. Caleb Williams of Chicago
was struggling. Seattle was going undefeated. Philadelphia had beat the Saints.
Patrick Mahomes found a way to be Atlanta. Everywhere you turn.
(58:06):
NFL action is faantastic. But one point eight million viewers say,
we gonna watch Caitlan Clark the WNBA. I know you
don't want to tell to say, Rather, your boy Steven
as right, you don't have to. He knows, he knows. Finally,
(58:32):
before I get on out here for the day, I
wanted to take a moment to send heartfelt congratulations to
my friend, my buddy and colleague, the one knowly Ebony K. Williams,
host of Equal Justice, would Judge evand K. Williams on
the birth of a daughter, Liberty Alexandria Williams, who was
born in New York in August.
Speaker 3 (58:54):
Ebid K.
Speaker 1 (58:55):
Williams is a beautiful, brilliant woman who has blessed us
with the with her presence right here on this show,
sitting right on that couch over there with me. Months
ago when she was here, she was pregnant. You see
her there right here, and I knew she was expecting
and what have you. And she's a very very private person,
(59:16):
but it's something that was very very important for hers.
She's always always wanted a beautiful child, and she has
it now. Very very few people in this world we
might wish for them to have happiness and joy, but
some people who actually do deserve it more than others
because of who they are, the way they act, the
way they conduct themselves, and what they stand for. That
(59:41):
would be her. She is absolutely wonderful. And I congratulate
her on behalf of the everybody here associated with the
stephen A. Smith Show, and of course me personally who's
known her for years. This was this was everything to her.
It's all she's ever wanted and she has it now.
I'm so happy for you all the best, God blessed
(01:00:03):
to you and your beautiful daughter. That's it for the
day's edition of the Stephen D. Smith Show. I'll holler
at y'all in a couple of days. Until next time, everybody,
peace of enough
Welcome to the latest edition of The Stephen A. Smith Show,
coming at you over the digital airways of YouTube and
of course iHeart Radio. As always, I want to take
a moment to thank my subscribers and followers. We've now
eclipsed over eight hundred and forty nine thousand subscribers and
we continue to climb each and every single day, not
to mention over three million downloads that have occurred on iHeartRadio.
(00:21):
Can't thank y'all for the love and support enough, always
eternally grateful for it. Please know that, Please know that
on this particular day, if I see him a bit melancholy,
if not downright sad, it's because of where We're getting
started with some news out of Missouri, the state of Missouri,
where the state executed a man whose murder conviction was
questioned by a number of people, including the prosecutor himself.
(00:46):
The victim's family also pushed for the man to be
to not be executed. I'm talking about mister Marcellus Williams,
who was fifty five years of age who died by
lethal injection yesterday around six pm Central time. He was
convicted in two thousand and one of feeling Felicia Lisha Gale,
a former newspaper reporter, found stabbed to death in her
home in nineteen ninety eight. Williams case drew national headlines
(01:10):
as his attorneys appealed the conviction based on what they
described as new evidence, evidence that included alleged bias, in
jury selection, and contamination of the murder weapon. Prior to
the trial, The family of Felicia Gale even asked that
Williams be spared death. However, the US Supreme Court denied
the stay of execution yesterday, a day after Missouri's Supreme
(01:32):
Court and Governor Mike Parson refused to grant a stay
as well. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision. However,
in the third appeal, Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Alana Kagan, and
Katanji Brown Jackson all said they would have granted the
request to pause the execution. Before as death, Williams wrote
(01:56):
a final handwritten statement seen here that reads, Coute all
praise be to Allah in every situation end quote. This
is a very alarming situation, and as far as I'm concerned,
any human being should speak out against it, but especially
if you're black. This black man was murdered yesterday. It's
(02:16):
call it what it is. It's murder. There's no excuse
for it. And I'm gonna tell you why. If there's
DNA evidence that contradicts what prosecutors asserted that led to
a conviction, that's a valid point to stay in execution.
(02:37):
If the prosecutor himself herself themselves acknowledge that based on
evidence that can now be refuted, this should be a
stay of execution. That's another reason not to execute the man.
If a former governor, as in Governor Eric Critons Critens
(02:59):
g r E te Ns Eric Crichtons, he is the
predecessor of Governor Might Parson. He granted Williams a reprieve.
He was persuaded by arguments that new DNA evidence, new
DNA testing exonerated Williams. He did that years ago. Remember,
(03:21):
Williams was twice bard from execution, first by the State
Supreme Court in twenty fifteen and then in twenty seventeen.
So let's get this straight. Governor Passes is ignoring a
ruling by the Supreme Court, the State Supreme Court from
nine years ago. He's ignoring a ruling by his predecessor
from seven years ago. He's ignoring prosecutors, he's ignoring DNA evidence,
(03:45):
and on top of it all, the victim's family didn't
want him execute it. Now, according to reports, and I'm
about to speak to somebody to find out whether or
not they can verify this or not, the victim's family
was against capital punishment, no matter why. But nevertheless, look
(04:06):
at that preponderance of evidence. Think about that for a
second and think about the kind of stuff that we're
talking about. How could you possibly justify executing this man?
To this day, we don't have a justifiable explanation from
Governor Parson because the board that was supposed to investigate
(04:27):
the matter in hand down and ruling was something that
was disbanded by him. Did you just want to kill
a black man? I mean, it's a legitimate question to
be asked. Is it all right that you just murdered him?
Is it okay that he was potentially innocent and you
didn't give it? Damn? Because the word potential doesn't matter
(04:49):
to you. What was it? What was it? I mean,
you talk about some nonsense right here. This is why
we have a country that's so divided. This is why
we have a country that looks at things in two
different ways, because you can't come together on a dead thing.
Who can't come together on this when you got a prosecutor,
(05:13):
when you have evidence, when you have a former governor,
when you have the state Supreme Court all giving a
ruling in favor of staying in execution, and you still say,
bump that the man dies and have him killed by
the state via lethal injection in front of his family.
When a man proclaimed his innocence and stayed that way
(05:36):
for over twenty years, and you do it anyway. You
don't give a shit, you don't care. I'm not one
of these people, ladies and gentlemen that's diametrically opposed to
capital punishment. I'm one of those people. Depending on how
hanus the crime, and it's finite and definitive that you
(06:00):
are guilty, particularly if no contrition or no remorse was shown.
I have no problem with you dying zero zero, but
only under those conditions. If there's a sentilla of doubt,
(06:22):
a sentilla of doubt, you don't do what Governor Parson did.
And to do something like that and to make this decision,
it's criminal. It is an absolute crime, and I can't
(06:45):
even tell you how sad I am for Marcellus William's
family because he went to his death proclaiming his innocence,
and he had an abundance of people and institutions supporting him,
(07:09):
and the governor of Missouri didn't give a damn. You
might you might be able to sleep well at night
right now, sir, because you appear to have no conscience.
We'll see how long that lasts and whether or not
(07:29):
that truly comes back to haunt you someday. We'll see,
we'll see. Joining me now is mister Jonathan Potts, Marcellus
Williams's attorney at the BCPL in Saint Louis, who fought
to stay his execution. Thank you for joining us, Jonathan.
(07:49):
I really really appreciate you taking the time take us
through the last twenty four to forty eight hours in
your efforts to stay the execution of mister Williams. Please.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah, there's been pretty much night fight that went on
over the past forty eight hours or so. We were
filing briefs over the weekend, with the Missouri Supreme Court
arguing it on Monday morning, and then trying to get
the US Supreme Court to hear the case. Ultimately, they
declined and mister Williams was executed last night at about
six pm.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Who was in attendance for his execution?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
There were two members from our legal team as well
as mister Williams's son, Marcellus Junior, who were there.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Witnesses Any members from the victims family and attendance? No,
why did they not show up? Are you aware of
the reasoning that they had or reasoning that they gave
for not being in attendance.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
No, I don't know why they weren't there. I can
imagine it's emotionally trying for them too. But the important
thing to remember is that the victim's family was not
in favor of executing mister Williams.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
And why did they reach a conclusion that they were
not in favor of this execution?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Specifically from the beginning they were honoring the wishes of
the victim. I want to be clear, mister Williams is innocent,
but the victim's family has always said that no matter
what happened, the victim would not have wanted anyone to
be executed. Her husband didn't want anyone to be executed,
and her family didn't want anyone to be executed.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
The prosecuted, if I remember correctly, had a change of
thinking and they were and ultimately ended up being against
the execution. Is that correct And if so, what was
their reasoning irrationale behind it.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Yeah, it's even more than them just being against the execution.
They were fighting to overturn the execution. We were having
a trial last month where it wasn't even our team
the defense team who filed it, but it was a
new lawsuit filed by the prosecutor saying that this was
an unfair and unconstitutional trial and that mister williams execution
needed to be stopped.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
And they felt they it needed to be They needed
the execution to be stopped because they believed that there
was evidence that contradicted the guilty verdict.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Absolutely so. From the beginning, they were forensic evidence that
pointed away from mister Williams. They were bloody fingerprints, bloody
footprints at the scene that didn't belong to him, didn't
belong to the husband, didn't belong to the first responders.
There was other forensic evidence of the scene pointing away.
We found new DNA evidence on the murder weapon that
didn't belong to mister Williams. And what further testing showed
(10:19):
is that the DNA on the knife belonged to the
original trial prosecutor twenty years ago, and he had contaminated
the evidence, and it frankly prevented us from being able
to find the DNA whoever was the real killer.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
In what way was the evidence contaminated?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
We put trial prosecutor from twenty years ago on the
stand last month and we cross examined them, and he
admitted that not once, not twice, but five times before
trial he had handled the murder weapon, which was a
bloody kitchen knife without gloves. He had been showing it
to witnesses, just holding it, putting his DNA all over
it and potentially wiping away any DNA from the actual killer.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And still they went ahead with the execution. What rationale
did the governor give for not paudoning him for not
stay in this execution or anybody else for that matter.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The governor just said that he had received due process
and a decision had been made, and we obviously strongly
disagree with that he didn't receive due process. What we
also learned at the hearing last month is that the
trial prosecutor admitted that he got rid of at least
one juror in part because he's black. It was a
(11:34):
devastating thing to hear, and that alone should stopped the execution,
but it didn't.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
He got rid of one juror because the juror was black.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
That is correct, Stephen what he said. I asked him
when he was on the stand, and I said, you
got rid of the juror because he was a young
black man with glasses, And he said, wrong, that was
part of the reason. It was because he also had
piercing eyes.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Wow. I'm thinking about the predecessor to the governor that's
in office right now and how his predecessor decided to
stay the execution years ago. So this governor didn't take
that into consideration, evidently, and I'm wondering why that was
the case. Again, I know I'm being a bit redundant
(12:19):
and asking that question, but I find myself feeling a
bit incredulous and just taking aback significantly by the fact
that there was a prepondence of evidence. You've got a
prosecutor that no longer supported the execution, you got the
victim's family that didn't want the execution, you got DNA
evidence that was compromised. You have a predecessor to the
governor that's presently in office who stayed in execution, but somehow,
(12:42):
some way, this governor decided to still go forward.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Yes, even the breadcrumbs were all there. I think any
person who is following this case knows exactly what happened,
and we received an outpouring of public support. Basically everyone
that we've heard from has been against the execution except
for the governor and the Missouri Attorney General. And I
want to point out that what actually happened is that
the prior governor stopped a prior execution just minutes before
(13:09):
it was about to happen, to appoint a special board
to look into mister Williams case. And then what happened
is that Governor Parson actually disbanded that board before it
ever gave them a recommendation about whether to give mister
Williams a partner commutation of his sentence. Well, basically, he
didn't hear the answer.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
What was his explanation for disbanding that board?
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Didn't give one.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
He didn't give one.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Yeah, I think enough time had passed and wasn't very
interested in what he was going to hear how.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Many executions have taken place in the state of Missouri
recent memory.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
I believe that there are three executions this year, and
I think it's eleven executions under the current governor.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Under the current governor, how many of them has been black?
Do you have an answer to that question?
Speaker 2 (13:55):
I don't know off the top of my head, Stephen,
but your guess is probably a good one.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
And where do you guys go from here? What have
you learned or what do you take from a case
such as this, because it has to be very debilitating,
very very depressing, to be quite honest with you, To
know that such a preponderance of evidence has been put
in your favor to stay in execution, and you have
the support, the inordinate amount of support that you received,
and still the execution went through, it has to be
(14:25):
incredibly disheartening. One would imagine.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It's more than disheartening. You know, we obviously cared quite
a bit about mister Williams. When someone's your client for
many years and you're working to try and save their life,
it carries a very very heavy emotional pull, and when
you see that person put to death under unfair circumstances,
you start to have doubts about the integrity of the
(14:51):
judicial system. The important thing, though, is the reason that
we take these cases on is we are trying to
build public trust in the judicial system. And the only
way that you build back public trust is when that
system is willing to admit its errors. Right now, the
system wants to say, pretend the errors didn't happen. People
(15:14):
don't believe that everyone knows mistakes are made. The only
way that you're going to have the public believe that
they're getting a pair of trials is when you admit
that a mistake was made, and you admit that mistake,
you fix it, and you promise that it's never going
to happen again. And that's not what happened here.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
I'm thinking about the prosecutor admitting their mistake. I'm thinking
about the preponderance of evidence that ultimately favored you staying
the execution. And I'm thinking also about Governor Mike Parson,
because that's his name, Mike Parson, literally not providing an
explanation really as to why he was dogged in his
decision to execute mister Williams. I think that what's incredibly
(15:52):
alarming outside of the actual killing itself, please don't get
me wrong. Is the fact that the governor hasn't been
required to give an in depth explanation as to why
he reached the decision that he reached.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
There was a board that was appointed for that specific purpose.
They conducted an investigation for six years, and they were
going to provide him with a report and recommendation. And
like I said, he dissolved that board before their work
was complete.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And by dissolving that board, they can't give us an
explanation because they're in no position to do so. And
he refuses to give an explanation because he's in a
position as the governor to do just that. That's the
only thing that any of us can surmise, Is that correct, Jonathan?
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Yeah, it's up to Governor Parson whether he wants to
explain that.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
What does that leave the BCLP moving forward? I mean,
when you talk about the reason for your existence is
restoring faith. To have a situation where you have so
much evidence in your favor and still come up short
in staying this execution, where does that leave you moving forward?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
So here's the thing, Steven, I'm actually I'm a sports lawyer.
What I've been doing in these cases is this is
something that I do pro bone now in my career.
So far, we've exonerated three people murder and mister Williams
unfortunately was executed last night. But we are doing this
(17:21):
because we are trying to bring faith back to the
community in terms of understanding that the court system is
there to protect us. And the important thing isn't that
you get it over with, but that you get it right.
And I want people to know that we are going
to keep fighting to make sure that execute that people
don't get executed for crimes that they don't commit. And
(17:44):
I worry about our kids, I worry about each other,
and you worry about whether we really have our values
properly aligned when we want to just kill someone because
it's been too long and he's been sitting around on
death row for twenty years, so we need to get
it open.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
With Wow, Jonathan Potts, I really really appreciate your time.
Thank you so much for joining the show, and I'm
really really sorry for what the outcome ultimately ended up being.
It certainly wasn't due to a lack of effort and
due diligence and expertise on your part and that of
the BCLP. I can assure you of that. So I
thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I
(18:21):
thank you for coming on the show. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Take it easy. One of them Jonathan Pots right here
on the Stephen A. Smith Show over the digital airwaves
or YouTube, and of course iHeartRadio. It's a shame. You
heard what he had to say. There's no excuse for this,
and Governor Parses needs to be made to account for
why he made this decision. I mean, his predecessor decided
to stay the execution. The prosecutor acknowledged it. There were
(18:47):
mistakes made, evidence was tampered with, et cetera, et cetera.
There's no excuse for mister Williams being executed yesterday in
light of that preponderance of evidence. When in doubt, preserving
life should be the most important thing, more so than
anything else, but that clearly was not the case in
(19:08):
the state of Missouri yesterday thanks to Governor Mike Parson.
What a shame. What a shame. Coming up, the latest
on the federal sex trafficking and racketeering case against Sean
Diddy Combs as a new accuser goes public with her attorney,
Gloria all Read. I'll get into that and more next
(19:28):
right here on the stephen A. Smith show back with
more in a minute. I want to take a second
to make sure everyone knows we're smack in the middle
of the NFL season and I couldn't be more excited.
And with games being played Thursday night, Sunday night, and
Monday night, Prospects wants to help you cash in on
all that big time action you see. Prospects is a
(19:49):
daily fantasy act where you can pick two or more
of your favorite players and then you simply select more
or less on their projected stats for the game. Pick
up player's rushing yards, passing yards, total touchdowns. The list
is absolutely endless, and the best part is Prospects has
something for every sports fan to sort of WNBA, MLB, MMA,
even Golfer crying out loud, all in the same entry.
(20:12):
I make my picks and submit early, all in less
than sixty seconds. By the way, that's that's time that
it takes for Drake London to take a pass from
Kirk Cuzins all the way to the house and get
this sign up with code sas and Prospects will give
you fifty dollars instantly when you play your first five
dollar lineup. You don't need to win your lineup to
receive the fifty dollars bonus. It's guaranteed. All you have
(20:32):
to do is play as a five dollar lineup on
prospects and you'll get fifty dollars instantly. Pick more, pick less.
It's really really that easy. Welcome back to stephen A.
Smith's show. Now let's get to the latest on Sean
Diddy Combs, who's currently sitting in a federal jail awaiting
(20:53):
trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges. Yesterday, a new
accuser went public with more accusation against the music mogul.
Talia Graves claims in a civil lawsuit that Combs in
a bodyguard, drugged, bound, and raped her in two thousand
and one and filmed the incident. Graves is represented by
famed litigator Gloria Alred, who is no stranger to representing
(21:16):
women in high profile cases. Okay, here's a list we're
speaking of Gloria already here. Okay, here's a list of
just some of the women she's represented in the past.
Look at this list right here. O J Simpson trial
Remember that Scott Peterson trial, Tiger Woods scandal, Bill Cosby scandal,
Anthony Ween a former representative out of New York. Remember
(21:37):
that all of that stuff happened. That's who she's represented.
Already represented Amber Fry, the girlfriend of Scott Peterson who
was convicted of killing his wife an unborn son. And
most notably, she represented more than half of the fifty
plus women who've accused Bill Cosby of rape and molestation.
As for Sean P. D. D. Combs, he's pleaded not
guilty the charges that he led a criminal enterprise that
(21:58):
abused women. Look, I've already been in the mindset that
the brother's in trouble, deep deep trouble, as in never
seeing the light of day as a free man again.
It's really really that serious. I don't think it's an exaggeration.
That's number one. Number two. Everybody's sitting up there talking
about Gloria already right now involved in the incident because
there's money to be made, okay, And the reality is
(22:18):
is that if you've got a situation where you've got tape,
you've got audio, etc. Against this man, it's something that
could come back to haunt you. We can't ignore that reality,
all right, Then you've got to take into account the
fact that him being in a federal prison, him being
in jail right now, being held without bond, wasn't allowed
bail even though he's got one more appeal available to him,
(22:41):
The chances of him pulling that off of Slim to Nune. Okay,
now you've got Hollywood up in arms and incredibly nervous.
Why because everybody's wondering whether or not their name is
gonna get mentioned. And for that, my condolence is kick in.
And here's the reason why. You could have gone to
a Diddy park. But there's a Diddy party, and there
(23:03):
was a Diddy after party, and the after party is
where these quote unquote freak offs were taking place. What
if you never went to them? What if you just
went to the party and then you're left at a
reasonable hour like most people do, and you went home
and went about your business and did your own thing.
But while you at the party, you took a picture.
While you at the party, you were drinking, you were
(23:23):
hanging out, you were socialized and fratinizing, having a good time.
Based on how so many people are acting, you never
know what level of incrimination could come associated with you.
And here's where it gets interesting. We're talking about Hollywood.
So the image is what it's all about, not just
the reality. If the images of you taking pictures and
(23:44):
party and then having a good time and you got
a drink in your hand and a cigar in your mouth,
or whatever the case may be, but you did absolutely
nothing wrong. Optics matter in Hollywood more so than most places.
So I can understand why so many people are nervous, Yes,
certarly nervous because they're guilty. They're nervous because of the
association and what it potentially implies and how it could
(24:08):
be used to compromise their earning potential. That's the world
that exists in Hollywood, and that's what makes this so unfortunate.
Having said that, nothing, absolutely nothing pertaining of those folks
in terms of optics, comes anywhere near close to the
(24:32):
kind of danger Diddy is in joining me now to
discuss the latest on a federal case against Sean P. Diddy.
Combs is Elie Honing, a former prosecutor for the Southern
District of New York, where Diddy will be tried. He's
also a senior legal analyst for CNN. Who provides commentary
on criminal justice and national security. Ellie, thanks for taking
(24:55):
time out of your busy schedule to join the show man.
Thank you so much. How you doing.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Glad to be here you, Steve and I go way back, man.
I'm a South Jersey kid. I'm from Cherry Hall. I
remember reading you in the Inquirer way back, so it's
great to be with you.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Well. Thank you so much, man, I really appreciate it.
Let's get right to it. Talia Graves is the eleventh
accused to count that eleventh accuser, but the first to
come public against P Diddy? How damaging is this case?
Is this for his case? Actually?
Speaker 3 (25:20):
This is bad news for Shawn Comes anyway, you look
at this, Steven, Look, I'm gonna let you in on
a little prosecutor's secret. We all read the media, and
there's two reasons for that. One of them is prosecutors
are vain. We want to know what's being said about
us or we're getting good press or bad press. But
the other reason is we want to see what's going
out on out there. You get leads, you get evidence
for your cases from civil suits that are filed from
(25:40):
media reporting, and I guarantee you. If prosecutors is not
already spoken with Ms Graves, they are going to be
speaking with her now because what they're trying to do
in this case is put together an overwhelming body of evidence,
and to do that you need as many victims as
you can get. This is why when the US Attorney
announced the case last week, he said, if if you
believe you may be a victim in this case or
(26:02):
a witness, get in touch with us. I've done human
trafficking sex trafficking cases like this, Stephen, and it is
not at all uncommon. In the days and weeks after
you have unveiling indictment like this, you will find more people.
More people will come forward. They're trying to bolster their
case and this could help them.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
There.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
I was gonna ask the question, what kind of impact
does former girlfriend Cassie Ventura's lawsuit have on a federal case,
But based on what you just articulated, I'm imagining that
contributes to the prosecutor's case. It gets showing p Diddy
Combes correct.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Oh, for sure. It's pretty clear if you look at
the indictment of Seawan Combs that the Cassie Ventura allegations
are front and Center. It looks like at least one
of the counts is based entirely on her allegations that
she made in the lawsuit. We've all seen the video
of Shawn Combs viciously attacking her in that hotel. Allway,
she is going to be a key victim. A real
important question though, is are there other victims and if so,
(26:53):
how many are there now? Shawn combs is defense lawyer
Mark Agniffolow appeared on CNN last week with Caitlin Collins.
I was on right after and Agnifelo, Shawn's Combs's lawyer, said, well,
the government, the prosecutors say they have fifty victims and witnesses.
But I think that's one victim, Cassidy and forty nine witnesses. Now,
I said on Aerinic Caitlin, I think that's wrong. You
(27:16):
wouldn't say that as a prosecutor. You wouldn't say you
have fifty if it was one in forty nine. But
it is crucial that prosecutors identify more victims. And if
these new allegations can lead them to a second, or
third or fourth victim, then that's what prosecutors are in
the business to do, and you build your case, you
try to give the jury such a massive evidence that
they have no choice but to find them guilty.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Kelly helped me out here. One of the things that
I've been mentioning is a guy that was born in
the Bronx, raised in the streets of Hollis Queens, New
York City. I mean, you hear about somebody getting arrested,
you hear about them getting indicted, you see local police,
you see prosecutors, and that's that to me. What stands
out in my mind in this case the raid on
his home by Homeland Security, the arrests, etc. The fact
(28:01):
that Homeland Security is the one that has come Fiddty,
could you explain whether it is any significance to that
at all, and if there is, specify why it's so
significant that this is Homeland Security that we're talking about
where they came after him with these federal charges.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Yeah, that's a great question. So when people think of
federal law enforcement agents, they think first, and often only
of the FBI. But what people may not realize is
there are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies out there,
and a big one is Homeland Security. I know from
my own experience, Homeland Security specializes in human trafficking and
sex trafficking cases at the federal level. FBI does it too.
(28:38):
But when I did my biggest sex trafficking case involved
thirty defendants and we had seventy some victims back a
decade and a half ago. The federal agents on the case,
we're Homeland Security. So it doesn't mean there's some immigration
issue happening because people often associate that with Homeland Security.
They just happened to be one of the federal agencies
that specializes in this kind of case. And you know,
(29:00):
the search warrant is crucial. I mean they had to
go to a judge, prosecutors and agents and show we
have probable cause that a crime was committed and that
we're going to find evidence in whatever we sees. The phones.
We know they found guns, dismantled guns, high caliber guns.
That kind of stuff has made its way into the
case and it's one of the big reasons that Sean
Holmes is behind bars right now because prosecutors said, look
(29:21):
what we found when we went into his place. All
these firearms, these ammunition, I think they've recovered at various times,
certain drugs, narcotics, and the phones now are just a
jackpot of evidence. I mean, you get so much off
of phones now too.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
What exactly did they find in this homes? You talked
about guns, you talked about drugs, what else? I remember
what they talked about, surveillance tapes, phones, emails, et cetera.
Could you crystallize for my audience, just to as specific
as you can get what they've actually found in his
homes in Los Angeles and Miami when they raided it.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
Yeah, so there were firearms. There were various firearms. Some
of them had the serial numbers obliterated, meaning scratched off,
which you see quite often because that makes it a
federal crime. Right there, I believe they found drugs. I'm
not quite sure if I remember that right. Look, they
found phones and laptops all over the place. When I
was starting as a prosecutor twenty years ago, you had
to pull information from You had to go get the
(30:15):
person's emails, you had to maybe get the physical paper documents.
Now you know how much information is on a phone.
Everything is on a phone. It's the best possible information
you can get. And then I guess I would say,
in a separate category, there was all sorts of sex
paraphernalia sex tois. The indictment talks about a thousand bottles
of baby oil and lube. Now look having you know,
(30:38):
over the top sex parties. They call them freak offs
and the invited. That's not a crime, nothing illegal about that.
But the gist of the allegations is they would force
women into these, they would threaten women afterwards. The allegations
that you're talking about that just came out. The woman
says she was drugged and tied up and then raped,
So it all is relevant and there was. Look, that's
(30:59):
a lot of that's a lot of evidence to find
in any search work.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
P Diddy and his team. I saw the lawyers on television.
I think I saw one of them on a Chris
Cuomo's show on News Nation. They were talking about at
least a couple of lawyers were talking about how the
argument to be made in favor of P Diddy, ways
you might find his behavior reprehensible or something, there was
nothing illegal, giving the impression that it was adult consent
(31:25):
going on, How plausible is that argument considering the fact
that Homeland Security and the Feds essentially making this case against.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
Him, Well, that's definitely going to be the defense, Stephen,
As you said, you can see it from the lawyers
who are out there. What they're going to argue is, look,
he's a sex freak, but that's not a crime. The
other thing they're going to argue, and we've already heard
this from Mark Agnaffilo, one of the defenser. It's, by
the way, very good defense. I mean, Johnclins has a
top shelf guy here. He's going to argue. I think
that a lot of this stuff that's been charged is
(31:56):
not a federal crime. It's really just an assault the
violence assault that's typically that's not a federal crime. The
way it becomes federal here is because we have a
Rico racketeering charge. So they're gonna argue, this is not
federal criminal activity, this is a state crime. And they're
gonna argue a lot of this stuff would have been
too old to charge federally. But again, the Rico laws,
which I used to use all the time, Steve and
(32:17):
I used to charge organized crime mafia families, they give
prosecutors a massive advantage because you can charge things that
would be state crimes, you can charge things that are
too old. But I do think that's gonna be the
exact appeal. The jury's gonna hear who knows when the
trial is a year from now, give or take. I
think they're gonna say, look, folks, he had these Maybe
you think they're unusual or unappealing sexual appetites, but that
(32:41):
doesn't make him a criminal. That's what you're gonna hear.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Names like Jeffrey Epstein, R Kelly. I even heard somebody
last week bring up Bill Cosby for crime out loud.
I mean, all of these names have been brought up.
All three ended up in jail. In the case of
Jeffrey Epstein, supposedly there was a suicide that took place
while he was incarcerated. Considering the fact that jail time
(33:04):
was the end result for individuals like that, does that
make it more probable that there will be jail time
for P Diddy?
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Well, I think there's also a warning within those names
you gave me. Bill Cosby right now is a free man.
Right because prosecutors overreached in the way they prosecuted this case.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court actually threw out his conviction. He
did three or four years behind bars. Harvey Weinstein, also
looked a sexual predator, was convicted and then one of
his convictions was thrown out six months or so ago
(33:34):
because prosecutors also misstep. There so a lot of pressure
on prosecutors here. But if we're looking at Shawn Combs's case,
it's early. We don't have all the facts. We have
a lot in the indictment, and there was other paperwork
that was submitted. I'll just say this, It does not
look good for Sean Combs. And I'll tell you why.
Won you do not want to be prosecuted by the
Southern District of New York. I say that as an
alum of that office. But that office is famous for
(33:57):
being aggressive and for winning its cases. Recently, they convicted
Sam bankmin freed. They convicted Senator Robert Menendez even though
he's the Jersey Senator. That office has a long history
of convicting high profile cases. The other thing is the
penalties he's looking at Stephen are through the roof. If
he's convicted on the forcible sex trafficking of Cassie, he
(34:18):
is looking at a fifteen year mandatory minimum minimum. And
I know sometimes you'll hear, oh, so and so got
sentenced to let's say, twenty years in prison, but then
two and a half years later they're released. That's in
the state system. In the federal system, there's no parole,
there's no early release. If you get sentence to let's
say fifteen years in prison, the only reduction you can
get is fifteen percent off for good time in prison.
(34:41):
So if Shawn Combs gets convicted on that count, he
has to do fifteen years minus fifteen percent. So let's
say thirteen years behind bars. He's fifty four years old,
and it could be more than that as well.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Wow. Former Death Row Records head sug Knight was on
Cuoma News Nation last night. I want you to listen
into these explosive claims.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Okay, if you have a guy named Tebby he used
to work for in the still his god's job was
to bring from the age girls and girls to have
six do.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
You think did he knows enough that it's a very
delicate balance that maybe investigators will want to know these
other names and greatly reduce his exposure to criminality to
time versus what people would do to keep him quiet.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Number one, I've been knowing him in a long time
and we was friends.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Were not any means, but we were friends. He's not
a dummy.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
So he's smart enough to work his magic on top
of that Disney right here, even involved with the FBI
of his career, did he got powerful people?
Speaker 1 (35:50):
I don't expect you to comment on the veracity of
those statements, because how could we possibly confirm that. However,
hearing something like that, how does a prosecute to use
that nugget of information to the advantage Ellie, That's what
I'm wondering about.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
Let me tell you my thought process. And I just
saw that for the first time. But if I'm back
in the prosecutor's office number one, there's no way in
hell I'm calling Suge Knight as a witness at the track.
Can you imagine, right, Jery.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Believe this guy? Oh?
Speaker 3 (36:17):
I will say, I've called way worse people than Suge
Knight as witnesses cooperators. But like I said in the beginning, Stephen,
you're always watching what's being said because you can always
develop a lead off that maybe you can say, Okay,
who could Shug Night be talking about here? Who are
some of these people who would bring in girls? If
you haven't already identified them, go find those people, Listen.
I wouldn't even necessarily say I'm not even gonna talk
(36:39):
to Suge Knight. He's never gonna be a witness for me.
But I may give them a shot or send an
FBI agent or Homeland Security agent out to say, who
are you talking about? Do you want to give us
names here? Because we want to find these people. But
the thing you're always doing as a prosecutor, Stephen, is
prosecutors are obsessed with corroboration. You want to back up
every witness you can, whether they're a choir boy or should.
(37:00):
You want to make sure that anything that gets set
up on that stand is something you can back up
with a document, with a piece of video, with another witness,
that kind of thing. So I think that's what I
would do with that with that clip.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
When you bring up the Southern District of New York,
you're in the lum you know. You know how lethal
this department, this department is. I mean, their reputation definitely
precedes them. And I say that in a very positive
way as somebody who wants criminals off the streets. It's
the Southern District of New York. It is what it is.
I ask you this question at all honesty. When we
talk about them, buffering their case. Per se, one would
(37:33):
give them. One would get the impression the case obviously
has to be prosecuted, but it's already been made in
the court of public opinion. I know that doesn't ultimately
convict you, but it does stand to influence jurors potentially.
I'm wondering, why do you find yourself having to make
the case when one would see you raiding the homes
(37:53):
in Miami, in Los Angeles, and then ultimately this arrest
took place months later. One would surmise, you are ready,
You've got your case. It's Diddy that has got to
defend himself because right now he looks guilty as ol.
Speaker 3 (38:05):
So two things. First of all, you will every time
you see a prosecutor make an announcement from a podium,
whether it's the Attorney General of the United States, the
DA of whatever county, they will always say these words,
our investigation is ongoing, and a lot of times, honestly, Stephen,
it's just boiler and play. The investigation is basically done.
But it's clear here this one is ongoing. I mean,
(38:26):
we've already seen reporting that there's new witnesses going in
the grand jury, and good prosecutors know your investigation is
not over until that jury comes back with a verdict. Now,
from Sean Combs's perspective, it's important to keep in mind.
You know, again, another thing he gets said at every
press conference. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A
defendant never technically has to put on a defense. He
(38:47):
doesn't have to say no, no, no, folks, and the jury,
they've got it wrong. Here's what actually happened.
Speaker 4 (38:52):
Right.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
A defendant can just play the burden of proof game
and say, folks, they failed to prove their case beyond
a reasonable doubt, therefore you must find him not guilty.
That said, as you noted, it's very different when you
have such a high profile person like Sean Combs. He
has clearly not taken the strategy. It's not like him
to just say I'm going to sit back and just
sort of poke holes. He's on the affirmative, he's on
(39:13):
the aggressive. That's why you've seen his lawyers on TV.
But let me tell you the stats aren't good for him.
I mean, if you look at the historical data, ninety
five plus percent of people in the federal system, defendants
plead guilty, and of those who go to trial in
the Southern District of New York, easily eighty plus percent
end up getting convicted. It is really really hard to
(39:36):
roll the dice and beat the Sdmy.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
What do we just surmise from him being denied bail
not once but twice.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Well, first of all, it's a practical better means he's
going to be in He's going to be behind bars
until the trial happens, which, like I said before, you're
looking at a year or so. He has one more shot.
He's going to take it to the Court of Appeals,
but that's one in a thousand that he gets that.
It makes it much harder to prepare your defense, right
your lawyers have to wait in the line at the
prison before they get in. You know, you don't have
(40:03):
access to the outside world. So it is a handicap
when it comes to actually preparing your defense. And Stephen,
I mean the MDC where comes is being held now,
the Metropolitan Detentions that are over in Brooklyn. I've been
there many times because one of the things you do
as a prosecutors you're talking to witnesses, people who might flip.
I mean in a secure area. I'm not going to
walk into general population. You know, that would get a
(40:24):
guy killed. But I've spent a lot of time in there,
and let me tell you, I don't know if you've
ever had the misfortune of going into a prison to
visit somebody or something like that. I've been to, you know,
I don't know more prisons than I can remember. That
is probably the worst. It's the worst federal facility for sure,
that I've been in. I mean, it is over Getting ready.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
To ask you what makes it so bad? When crystallize
for my audience this prison that he's in in Brooklyn,
New York. I've heard numerous folks say it's one of,
if not the worst. Why is it so bad?
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Okay? First of all, there used to be two prisons
serving the New York area, one of men and one
in Brooklyn. The one of Manhattan is now closed, so
all those inmates. It is crazy overcrowded. Second of all,
if you've been to prisons, a lot of them are
on acres and acres of land, forty acres you know whatever,
thirty acres This is in Brooklyn. I mean it's basically
like half a block, so it's incredibly cramped. It's claustrophobic man.
(41:19):
When I go in there, Steven, when I come out,
I'm gasping for air, like I'm a little claustrophobic.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
It is.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
It is dangerous. There have been three or four, I
think murders or suicides in there in the last couple
of years. It's filthy. There's when I've been in there,
there's been like a mystery liquid I don't even want
to know what it is, dripping down off the walls.
It's too hot in the summer, it's too cold in
the winter. And just to give you a sense of this,
there have actually been federal judges who have reduced sentences
(41:45):
or let people out on bail because they've said the
MDC is such a hell hole. I'm paraphrasing, because the
MDC is such a hell hole, I'm gonna cut a
little time off this guy's sentence. So it is nothing
like any Sushon Colnes has ever seen before.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
Yet they've taken Sean P. Diddy Combs, who last time
I checked, is worth at least a half of billion dollars,
and they've placed him in this facility where you one
could argue you had the luxury of putting him somewhere else.
Should we make anything of the fact that they've placed
him there.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
No, because that's where any defendant in the Southern District
of New York or Eastern District of New York would
be housed. I believe I've seen reporting that he's in
a separate unit that's meant to protect certain inmates. I've
been in that unit. Understandably, right, he would be in danger,
I mean, you know, for I mean, he's a huge celebrity,
he's incredibly rich, he being all sorts of danger if
he was in general population. There's actually reporting that he
(42:40):
is bunk mates or his house clostly with Sam bankman Fried,
so another guy worth a lot of money who would
not do well in normal population. But I mean, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons doesn't really care who you are
or what you are. They're gonna put you where they're
gonna put you. And because he's got to be in
New York for his ongoing proceedings, he's going to be
(43:00):
in the MDC. I mean, I guess they can move him.
There's some facilities up north a bit, but you generally
want to keep them as close to the courthouse as
possible because you're gonna have to transport him back and
forth every time. He's got a quarter pairs.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
I saw one report talking about he was on suicide watch.
I don't know whether that's believable or not, but based
on what you're describing the facility to be like, one
would surmise that's not that unreasonable, and that's not too low.
That's not too ridiculous of an assertion considering the kind
of climate he is in. What do you think, if
anything at all, they're doing to secure his You know
(43:32):
that he doesn't have the ability to harm himself.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
The last agency I'm going to vouch for is the
Federal Beerau of Prisons. They have a horrible record of
keeping their inmates safe. Jeffrey Epstein, by the way, was
on suicide watch when he died in prison. What that means,
by the way, is that this is a person we
have some concern about, and there's extra cautions taken. I
don't know the exact details, but they check on the
person more often through the night. They will reduce that
(43:58):
person's ability to have like sheets and things that you
might hang yourself with. You already can't have shoelaces and
that kind of thing. But it shows me that they're
concerned about losing him, that they want to It doesn't
necessarily mean he's had suicidal ideation or said anything. It
could be that, but it just means he's someone that
they need to keep a closer eye. But the Bureau
of Prison, Stephen, I mean is it is a nightmarish
(44:20):
bureaucracy there. I get it, they're short staff, they don't
have great funding, they have an impossible task, but there
is a long history of failures by the Bureau of Prisons.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
How much Tom is p did cohe's looking at overall.
I know you brought up the fifteen years for the
cass into at situation alone, What are we really really
talking about, Ellie when we look at this case, these
charges seems trafficking, racketeering or what are we really looking
at form.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
In a normal case, what you do is you start thinking,
where's the plea going to be? Because, like I said,
ninety five plus percent of federal cases reach a plea,
and so it's like any other negotiation in the world.
Where where are they going to be able to find
a middle ground. I don't see that here, I really don't.
I don't see Sean Holmes being willing to please to
let's say, a lesser charge and agreeing to seven eight years.
I don't know the man. I can't speak for him,
(45:04):
but to me that seems unlikely. On the flip side,
I don't see prosecutors in a mood to give much leniency,
and so I do think this is headed towards a trial.
You never know what's going to happen at trial, but
odds are just mathematically empirically, he's likely to be convicted,
and if that happens, it will be fifteen years or higher.
I mean he could get twenty. Who know, the max
(45:25):
is life, but just a little advanced tip here, always
focus on the minimum. The minimum is way more important
than the maximum. Very few people, except for in murders,
get the maximum. But look, Shawn Holmes, I mean there's
a realistic chance Stephen. I heard you say recently like
there's a chance that he will never be free again.
You are right, there is a reasonable chance he's never
(45:46):
free again.
Speaker 1 (45:48):
Could it be that they're waiting for him to flip
and get and point out some others as well, that
they're not after just him. They want to put this
inordinate amount of stuff on his shoulders to get him
to make a deal and and be an informant on others.
Speaker 3 (46:06):
So that's such an interesting question. I thought about this.
But the thing with cooperation is you need to you
need both sides. I don't. I mean, Seawn Holmes has
to be willing to do that, and the fans have
to be willing to sign him up. But the thing
is you, as a prosecutor, you're not gonna sign up
a leader, a boss just to give you a bunch
of smaller fish. That's not how you do it. You
(46:26):
want to work up. We used to say you want
to cooperate up the ladder, not down. When I was
doing mob cases, I wouldn't flip some capo, you know,
a high ranking guy to give me some soldiers and
associates below him. I would flip the low guys to
work up. And that's how they do it generally here.
So the question I would have is if he's willing
and if he has info, who's he gonna give me.
If all he's gonna give me is his guys, the
(46:48):
people who should Knight refer to the runners, his employees,
that's of no interest to me. He's gonna have to
give me a large important target in order for me
to even consider cooperating him as a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
Elie Honik, excellent job, by the way, man, really really
appreciate it. Thank you so much for educating us on
this case. Man. I definitely will reach back out to
you soon. You take it easier, right, Great to talk
to you, Thanks Steden. All right, one and only Aleijonik,
CNN analyst extraordinaire. Right here on the Steven Nate Smith
Show over the Digital Areas a YouTube and of course iHeartRadio.
Coming up, Jason Tatum talks about his motivation heading into
(47:24):
this NBA season as the Boston Celtics prepared to defend
their title, and Caitlyn clark S's another record as the
Indiana Fever try to keep their season alive. That's next
right here on the stephen A. Smith Show. Back for
more in a minute. Welcome back to the stephen A.
Smith Show right here with the Digital Areas a YouTube
(47:45):
and of course iHeartRadio. I want to transition to sports
and hit two sports topics before we get on out
of here today. All right. The first is Jason Tatum,
the Celtics forward who addressed the media yesterday as the
team is getting ready to defend their title. Tatum was
about his motivation heading into this season, coming off too
healthy scratches during the summer Olympic Games in Paris, where
(48:07):
Team USA actually won gold. Take a listen to what
Jason Tatum had to say. Check this out.
Speaker 6 (48:13):
I'm curious what you learned from your experience at the
Olympics this summer. That's a broad question. You want to
be more specific.
Speaker 1 (48:21):
Is it something you're gonna draw motivation from?
Speaker 6 (48:23):
I guess I want to address that. You know I
didn't play in two of those games. That's what you mean,
that's part of it. Yeah, Uh, motivation, I guess. I
guess you could say that, and if you want to
simplify in real time, it was tough. Did I need
(48:45):
any extra motivation coming into the season. No, I don't.
Speaker 2 (48:52):
I wasn't.
Speaker 6 (48:52):
I'm not going to give anybody in particular credit that
you know they're motivating me to come into the season.
It was unique sart ccumstance, something I wasn't having the
experienced before my playing career. But I'm a believer that
everything happened for a reason. I was coming off a championship,
(49:14):
the highest of the highest covered two K and new contract,
and you know then that happened, And whatever the reason is,
I haven't figured out yet, but I am a believer
that everything does happen for a reason.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
I listened to that sound and I'm so appalled. It's
hard to put in the words. I want to emphasize that.
When it comes to head coach Team USA, Steve Kerr,
I consider him to be one of the top six
coaches in the history of basketball. I think what he's
accomplished in Golden State is nothing short of phenomenal. I
(49:54):
think he was clearly worthy for being the head coach
Team USA. I think he's a future Hall of Famer.
He personified championships, winning championships Chicago as a player in
San Antonio, as a player in Golden State as a coach.
Had Dan Mike D'Antoni listened to him when he was
the GM in Phoenix and Mike D'Antoni was the coach
and you want to bring on Tom Thibodeaux as essentially
(50:16):
his defensive coordinator. Had Mike D'Antoni listened to Steve Kerr,
he might have won a championship with a Mario start
of my Steve Nationals Boys at Our West when Steve
Kerr was the GM. So this man is a champion,
but none of us are flawless. Imperfections invade all of us.
And when I think about what he did to Jason
Tatum during the Summer Olympics, it is inexcusable. Damn They're unforgivable.
(50:41):
This is a first team All NBA player the last
three years. This is a reigning defending NBA champion. And
a month later, he was riding the bench for Team USA.
And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, not only was
he riding the bench, it was in favor of two
dudes who spend eighty two games a year deferring to
him and Drew Holliday, okay, and Derek White. They defer
(51:03):
to him. How are you gonna play them? But you
can't find time for Jason Tatum, who's six ' nine,
got a handle, got a shot, can defend, can flat
out ball. I'm not telling you that he should have
averaged twenty or thirty minutes. Lebron James was phenomenal. Steph
Curry was phenomenal in the last two games the semifinals.
In the gold medal game, I get all of that.
(51:24):
Anthony Edwards was bawling the bam out of Bios, the
Joel and Beads of the world. Everybody, Jew Holliday and
Derek White played well. I get all of that. I'm
just saying, you can't find minutes for Jason Tatum, really,
and then you go up to him before the Serbia game,
a game in which you won by twenty six points,
and you tell him I may not be able to
find time for you before the game. It's unforgivable. It's unforgivable,
(51:50):
And I don't care what anybody says. I'm glad that
Steve Current gonna be coaching Team USA and twenty twenty
eight because I think Jayson tatm' is gonna be on
that team. But if Jason Tatum never wanted to see
this man again, if he never want to talk to
this man again, I couldn't blame him, because how do
you justify not playing him at all and basically telling
him before the game you were gonna be hard pressed
(52:10):
to find time for him. You didn't know how everybody
else was gonna play. It's one thing to make game
time decisions where it's in the throes of action. And
all of a sudden, Serbia got you in a hole
in the semi finals, and you don't know what to do,
and so you stick with a line of it. You
don't play somebody. I get that part. How the hell
do you go to Jason Tatum before tip off and
tell him I don't know if i'mna being a fun
(52:32):
time for you. I don't understand that. I ain't gonna
even get it to how I feel about Jaylen Brown
not even being on the damn team. Well, what that
brother can bring to the table, not just shooting for
him to jump shots, not just shooting threes, but his athleticism,
his fervor, his passion, the way he attacks the basket,
(52:53):
the way he can defend. He ain't on the team.
We know that wasn't basketball reasons. We know that was
about something else, being a socially conscientious brother who's outspoken,
highly intellectual, and educated in his feelers. That's why he
was kept off the team. In my humble opinion, that
Nike beef all of that comes into play because we
(53:18):
know how influential Nike is with Team USA. It's speculative
as that may sound, it appeared to be a reality
when it came to Jaylen Brown, because how do you
lead that brother off the team? Him off the team?
Jason Tatum benched in favor of two dudes and Drew
Holliday and Derek White, who are on the Boss of Celtics,
(53:39):
who spent all year deferring to those two who just
won a championship. And by the way, Jaylen Brown was
He's the Conference Finals MVP and NBA Finals MVP. Really really,
but Jason Tayom just showed you who he is. Last
(54:00):
PERSONI five. He ain't gonna feed too much into it.
It's unnecessary, but it is what it is. It is
what it is. Next subject we're gonna get to is
a WNBA and another accolade on the impact of Caitlan
Clark Okay the Rain and Rookie of the Year. Yahoo
Sports reports that the Indiana Fever, especially Kaitlyn Clark, drew
(54:20):
the most viewers for a WNBA playoff game and over
twenty years at one point eight million on ABC. Only
two WNBA Finals games going back to the year two
thousand average higher viewership. All I want to do is
use this as an opportunity to highlight the missed opportunities
that took place. See, there's a lot of fallout from
(54:45):
the imminite greatness of Kitlan Clark. Number one Team USA.
They should have had on that team. There's a reason
why other teams were drawing more of a crowd than
Katelyn Clark. During the some Olympic games, they were drawing
all teams. Those teams were drawing more of a crowd
than Team USA because Team USA decided to leave Caitlyn
(55:06):
Clark home. Don't give me, oh, it should go to
just the best players. There's plenty of teams that we
could look at, and the best player wasn't necessarily on
the team. Secondly, you will clown, you will cowerd listen,
you've been craving attention, more eyeballs, et cetera, et cetera.
What happened? You got Caitlyn Clark out there, and Caitlyn
(55:27):
Clark is out there, and lo and behold, what is
the deal? It is a situation where somebody like a
Caitlyn Clark is drawing eyeballs. It would have elevated the
profile of women's basketball the world over. It was an
opportunity for women's basketball to achieve what it has been
(55:49):
clamoring for for ages you missed that, we get into
Cheryl Soops. We already talked about that on this show.
A superstar female basketball player for years, the first one
her own signature shoot back in the nineties, a champion
on every level, now an analyst in the game, refusing
or be or showing flagrant resistance to giving Caitlyn Clark
(56:12):
the shine that she deserved months ago, clearly because you
wanted others to get this shine and you felt they
were being left behind because of everybody fawning over Caitland Clark.
But you didn't see the big picture. Cynthia Cooper had
to tell you that. Nancy Lieberman had to tell you
what the big picture was. So that was fallout from
the whole Caitlyn clark arrival and her imminent stardom, and
(56:36):
now here we are yet again. We saw viewerships during
the final four in the NCAA Tournament. Leading into the
final four, we saw viewership numbers blow out the charts
for the WNBA Draft. We saw it elevate even more
for the opener to their season to WNBA All Star
(56:56):
Weekend in Phoenix, Arizona. And then we so or the
numbers where they were drawing more of a crowd than
the Indiana paces of the NBA in some cases the viewership.
And now we heard about the one point eight million,
by the way, that one point eight million was on
Sunday and FL Sunday. And this woman, this young lady,
(57:21):
drew one point eight million viewers on a football Sunday.
Think about that. Dallas was playing Baltimore Ravens. Pittsburgh Steelers
was going on the en route to going undefeated. Houston
(57:44):
was getting stormed by the Vikings. Caleb Williams of Chicago
was struggling. Seattle was going undefeated. Philadelphia had beat the Saints.
Patrick Mahomes found a way to be Atlanta. Everywhere you turn.
(58:06):
NFL action is faantastic. But one point eight million viewers say,
we gonna watch Caitlan Clark the WNBA. I know you
don't want to tell to say, Rather, your boy Steven
as right, you don't have to. He knows, he knows. Finally,
(58:32):
before I get on out here for the day, I
wanted to take a moment to send heartfelt congratulations to
my friend, my buddy and colleague, the one knowly Ebony K. Williams,
host of Equal Justice, would Judge evand K. Williams on
the birth of a daughter, Liberty Alexandria Williams, who was
born in New York in August.
Speaker 3 (58:54):
Ebid K.
Speaker 1 (58:55):
Williams is a beautiful, brilliant woman who has blessed us
with the with her presence right here on this show,
sitting right on that couch over there with me. Months
ago when she was here, she was pregnant. You see
her there right here, and I knew she was expecting
and what have you. And she's a very very private person,
(59:16):
but it's something that was very very important for hers.
She's always always wanted a beautiful child, and she has
it now. Very very few people in this world we
might wish for them to have happiness and joy, but
some people who actually do deserve it more than others
because of who they are, the way they act, the
way they conduct themselves, and what they stand for. That
(59:41):
would be her. She is absolutely wonderful. And I congratulate
her on behalf of the everybody here associated with the
stephen A. Smith Show, and of course me personally who's
known her for years. This was this was everything to her.
It's all she's ever wanted and she has it now.
I'm so happy for you all the best, God blessed
(01:00:03):
to you and your beautiful daughter. That's it for the
day's edition of the Stephen D. Smith Show. I'll holler
at y'all in a couple of days. Until next time, everybody,
peace of enough
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.