Diddy compares himself to Trump in new bail bid. Prosecutors don’t buy it

The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy Prosecutors have shot down Sean “Diddy” Combs’s insistence that he should be afforded the same free speech rights as President-elect Donald Trump when the rap star tried again to be released on bail following his indictment on sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation for prostitution charges. Combs’s attorney cited the District of Columbia Appeals court decision in United States v. Trump last December in which the court ruled that the former president could only be constrained in his attacks in the case in the event of a “significant and imminent threat to the administration of criminal justice.” Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs have argued he should be afforded the same First Amendement rights Trump enjoyed when he attacked officials in the election interference case against him. The court ruled that Trump is “free to make statements criticizing the current administration, the Department of Justice, and the Special Counsel, as well as statements that this prosecution is politically motivated or that he is innocent of the charges against him.” Combs’s attorneys argued that the “court should apply Trump’s heightened standard when considering” restricting their client’s speech. In a response filed later Monday they argued that Trump’s judges “faced the unique task of balancing the right of a current candidate for the presidency to speak publicly about his charges against the public’s right to a fair trial.” They said that Combs’s communications “are not protected by the First Amendment.” The defense team filing was in response to US District Court Judge Arun Subramanian, who last week asked both sides to explain if Combs’ public communications do or don’t constitute obstruction of justice.