Sean “Diddy” Combs, going through fees of racketeering and intercourse trafficking, made an impassioned plea for bail Monday, arguing his communications and public statements are constitutionally protected and that pretrial detention infringes on his rights.

“For months and months, authorities brokers, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and others with questionable motives have been polluting the airwaves with false and outrageous claims about Mr. Combs,” his authorized group, led by Alexandra Shapiro, mentioned in a courtroom submitting.

“Mr. Combs just isn’t required to take a seat idly by and acquiesce to all of this. He has a proper to a good trial and a constitutional proper to talk out on his personal behalf,” Shapiro mentioned.

On the coronary heart of the protection’s argument is the rivalry that Diddy’s public statements, together with orchestrated social media posts, are protected underneath the First Modification, calling the federal government’s push to limit his speech “an unconstitutional effort to silence him.”

Nevertheless, federal prosecutors painted a starkly completely different image, describing Diddy as a person whose wealth and affect allow ongoing obstruction and pose a hazard to witnesses and the general public.

U.S. Legal professional Damian Williams emphasised Diddy’s long-standing sample of what she referred to as “brazen efforts to improperly intrude with this legal case.”

“Whereas detained, the defendant has used a number of unauthorized technique of communication, which make it tough or unimaginable to observe his actions,” prosecutors alleged of their submitting. “He has instructed members of the family and third events to contact potential victims and witnesses, utilizing coded language to hide his intent.”

Prosecutors detailed particular examples of alleged obstruction, together with accusations that Diddy orchestrated a social media marketing campaign round his birthday to sway potential jurors.

“The defendant meticulously deliberate out the submit,” the federal government mentioned, citing intercepted communications wherein Diddy allegedly mentioned analytics and demographics for optimum impression.

Prosecutors additional alleged that Diddy bribed lodge safety in 2016 to destroy proof of a violent assault and interfered with witnesses in the course of the investigation.

“In a single occasion, intermediaries have been used to feed false narratives to witnesses, telling them that what they noticed was a part of a ‘regular’ relationship,” prosecutors wrote.

The federal government argued that Diddy’s communications violated a court-imposed gag order.

“The defendant’s intent couldn’t be clearer: he expressly needed to intrude with the jury pool on this case,” the prosecution said.

Diddy’s protection group countered that the prosecution’s reliance on obstruction claims ignores the broader constitutional implications.

“The federal government is basically arguing for the standard wherein your complete press group—and civil plaintiffs and the federal government itself—can wage warfare in opposition to Mr. Combs’ fame, however Mr. Combs can’t even attempt to affect public opinion himself in response,” Shapiro mentioned.

The authorized battle has put the highlight on Diddy’s previous, with prosecutors asserting that his alleged crimes span many years and embrace cases of violence, intimidation, and manipulation.

“The defendant repeatedly and constantly pressured and coerced ladies to fulfill his sexual needs,” the federal government wrote. “He manipulated, coerced, and extorted ladies, together with by plying them with medicine and threatening to disseminate intercourse tapes.”

In a fiery rebuttal, Shapiro dismissed these claims as a smear marketing campaign, arguing that such allegations are irrelevant to the present bail willpower.

“Mr. Combs’ fame is drowning in a sea of unfavorable publicity prompted by the federal government’s prosecution,” Williams wrote. “He’s free to defend himself within the Court docket of public opinion.”

The courtroom’s resolution on whether or not to grant bail will hinge on whether or not the choose finds that Diddy poses a seamless hazard to the group and a threat of obstruction.