Law&Crime Sidebar - D4vd Faces Major Decision Before Explosive Murder Trial

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

As David Anthony Burke, also known as D4vd, awaits his murder trial, he and his defense team are likely considering whether he might testify in his own defense. Prosecutors allege D4vd lured Celeste Rivas Hernandez, 14, to his home and later reportedly used a chainsaw and other supplies to dismember her remains after she threatened to expose their illegal relationship. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the possibility of D4vd testifying alongside criminal defense attorney John Day.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Will David take the stand? What would that even look like? What would he be asked? How would he explain half of the things that he's accused of in this bombshell murder case? I'm bringing on a criminal defense attorney to break all of that down. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Will David take the stand in his own trial? It's a big question. And at first, I should tell you, if we even get to a trial, right? We haven't even had the preliminary hearing. it to see if there's enough evidence for this case to move forward toward trial. That's now scheduled for the end of June. But assuming the charges stick and assuming there's no plea deal, and this goes to trial, will he testify? What would he say? I mean, there appears to be a lot for him to address, and I want to go through it, because what would his possible explanations be,

assuming all the evidence that the prosecution claims they have that they present? There are a lot of layers to this as we think about it. And there is a lot at stake for him. David, real name David Anthony Burke, facing charges of first-degree murder, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, unlawful mutilation of human remains, all in connection with the death of 14-year-old Celeste Revis Hernandez, whose decomposed, dismembered body was reportedly found in a Tesla out in L.A. back on September 8th of last year, allegedly a Tesla registered to David out in Texas. And remember, prosecutors have alleged special circumstances here, right?

to get to life in prison without the possibility of parole, to get possibly the death penalty. So they have alleged murder of a witness, murder for financial gain, lying in wait. They've alleged use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, sharp instrument. The M.E.'s office concluded that Celeste's cause of death was multiple penetrating injuries. Prosecutors have alleged that David murdered Celeste to keep her quiet, that they were in an alleged illegal sexual relationship, her being a minor, that she was allegedly going to expose him, she was allegedly going to ruin his financially lucrative career and that he allegedly murdered her. And prosecutors claim that on April 23rd, 2025, he allegedly lured Celeste to his home,

stabbed her repeatedly, watched her bleed out, and then allegedly proceeded to order supplies online to engage in the dismemberment of her body and cover-up of the alleged crime. Chainsaw's body bag, laundry bags, inflatable pool. Prosecutors have claimed a combination of surveillance footage, cellular data, DNA evidence, witness testimony, all purportedly tie David to these crimes. And we're going to get to that. But is he going to take the stand? And if he did, how does he explain all of that? How does he address all of that? How would he do under cross-examination by the prosecution by Beth Silverman? We did a whole episode on her as a prosecutor's called at one point the sniper because she had at one point never lost a murder case.

This is what I want to talk about. All right. So now it is time to bring on John Day. Criminal defense attorney all the way from the West Coast comes here. Thank you very much. Glad we got the memo to dress the same. This is good taste. I like it. Look, let's start here. It's always the defendant's right to take the stand. It's the defendant's choice. What are those conversations like?

So in this case, the defendant would have to have an incredibly good explanation as to why the prosecution says he ordered a body bag online. Yeah. A plastic pool, chainsaws. Oh, we'll get to all that. I think, like, generally speaking, what is that conversation? All right. is the defendant has the right to make the call. If he tells his lawyers, I'm going to testify that his lawyers have to respect his wishes. There's a lot of discussion that leads up to that.

But the defendant has to understand what the consequences are, that he's subject to cross-examination by some really good prosecutors, that if his story falls apart anywhere along the line, the jury is going to notice that. So it's a tough conversation to have with your client, if you're a defense lawyer. You've got to explain all the pitfalls, all the problems, all the things that could happen. And in very rare instances, yes, it makes sense for a defendant to take the stand in a self-defense case. A case like this, it's not going to happen. Let me ask you this.

Well, we just don't know. We don't know. I mean, a criminal defendant could say, I think I'm the best one to tell the story. Did they do practice? Like, would you do rehearsals with them, practice, mock cross-examination? Yeah, you would run lots and lots of mock crosses. You would want your client to be prepared for all the bad things that the process. is going to bring up. You want your client to understand what's at stake here. And if your client,

you know, people say, well, what should I say when I'm on the stand? And I tell them, well, tell the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember. So you've got to be able to make sure your client has an ability to tell the truth, look the jurors in the eye, and say, this is what happened, this is really what happened. And understanding that they're going to be subject to withering cross examination by the prosecutor. How do they come off genuine, though? Because it's a very, I mean, very high stakes, they're trying to appeal to the jury. Sometimes you look at people, it looks like a manufactured answer, and I do wonder what's the balance there,

because if you're prepping them, how do they not come off looking scripted? Well, that's one of the problems. And if your client is, say, someone who's in the entertainment business, someone who's an actor, somebody who's on stage, that's a problem. That's going to be an issue that you've got to deal with because a juror is going to say, this person is used to putting on a persona,

this person is used to performing. And so if you're the lawyer, you've got to be able to control that and make sure that the image that the actual defendant who's coming across on the stand is believable. Now, I have to imagine if he were to take the stand, he would be cross-examined by the lead prosecutor in this case, Beth Silverman. I did a whole sidebar episode on her. She's called The Sniper at one point. That's how good she is. Would you study her tapes?

Would you study how she's cross-examined witnesses in the past? It's like looking at game tapes. That's a real thing, though, right? It is a real thing. You want to know what her style is. You want to know how she approaches that. And, you know, if you're a prosecutor, that's what you live for is the ability to cross-examine a defendant on the stand. That is the best part of your job, if that ever happens.

It doesn't happen very often. But I would look at every single case that you can find where there's video, audio, something to show how this prosecutor prepares and how this prosecutor delivers. Now, we'll get into the substance of what he would testify to and what that would look like. But generally speaking, young guy, celebrity, big follow. I haven't heard him a ton, like, you know, I guess in interviews and things like that. How does that affect him? Like, how does that affect how he's viewed, how he's analyzed on the stand? How do you think a jury might look at that?

Well, it's a problem going into it because the jurors are going to have some sense that this person is a celebrity. It's some sense that this person has a public persona. So it's different than having an ordinary defendant off the street who doesn't have a backstory of being able to present a side of themselves to the public. It's going to be a disadvantage out of the gate. But if you're skillful as a defense lawyer and your defendant is able to understand what's at stake, you can sometimes work it so that their public persona is not necessarily the real person that you see on the stand. It's very hard to do that. But he would go into this thing with a disadvantage right at the start.

Because remember where he would testify in the course of the trial, the jury would hear all the prosecution's evidence. And I'll save this idea about when they might call him to testify. But again, he has to address everything, the prosecution's. prosecution presented. You said before this is not like the typical case where a defendant would take the stand. It's not a self-defense case. Why is this not the typical case that a defendant would take the stamp? Well, for example, in a self-defense case case case, the defendant has to say, I did what I did for this reason. My life was in danger. I felt like I was going to get hurt. The jury needs to understand that. Right. The jury has to understand what led up to that. A case like this, you're simply trying to explain away all the facts that the jury has heard from the prosecution and the defense case in chief if they've gone and had something presented before the defendant testified. But they've got to have a really good explanation that addresses every single fact that the prosecution put out already.

I think I have a potential idea, maybe totally crazy, kind of something what we're talking about. Just keep that to the side for a second. We'll talk about it. One more side note. The reason this came up is because I'm thinking about the Alec Murdoch case. But whatever a criminal defendant says on the stand, if they take the stand, that can potentially be used against them in a retrial. Like I'm wondering Murdoch took the stand in his first trial. Can it come in in the second trial?

So here, if David were to take the stand and he gets, let's say, convicted and then whatever it's overturned, by the law, whatever they say on the stand can be used against them in some way. way come into evidence in a second trial? Can be used against them. It's a statement under oath. They're sitting on the witness stand. They're sworn in. So everything they say in a first trial, they better make sure that it matches any testimony they give in a second trial.

That's why generally you don't want your defendant, your client, giving multiple statements in a case because it's got to be absolutely consistent or else a jury's going to understand there's a problem. We're about to get into all this. But is it only used in the second trial if that person decides to take the stand again? Or can it be used in the prosecution's case in chief? It can be used in the prosecution's case in chief because it's already a statement that they've made under oath. Right.

So you can impeach if your defendant takes the stand and he said something that's different. You impeach him. Again, this is a prosecutor's dream. Right. But could you play the prior testimony from the first trial for the jury and use it in like an opening statement? You would play the prior testimony. If there were cameras in the courtroom, you'd play the video. You'd have something that's a statement by that defendant.

And that's why it's so important to be consistent, obviously. Let's get into the substance here. My first question is, what is he going to say? How would he explain if he took the stand his alleged relationship with Celeste? So I want to go into this. From the evidence list, from the prosecution's pre-trial brief, it says, quote, the description of photographs depicting the victim naked, as well as while she was engaged with defendant in sexual activity when she was 13.

As this evidence constitutes child sexual abuse material, the photographs themselves will not be presented, while all possible charges that could be proven were not filed, the CSAM is proof of their ongoing. sexual relationship while the victim was 13 and 14 years old. Numerous text messages between defendant and the victim, evidencing their sexual relationship, pregnancy, abortion, use of Plan B emergency contraception. Messages through March 2025 proved defendant continued to manipulate the victim. As she messaged, all we do is have sex and just hang out, man, I want more than that for myself.

These messages were obtained from defendant's iCloud data. This is not a case where he can say, oh, it was, you know, consensual. How does he explain that? How does he explain it? Right. California, age of consent is 18. So here's evidence from the prosecution that this relationship, the sexual relationship began when she was 13 and he was 18. That's the allegation, yeah. That's the allegation from the prosecution. So if you're the defendant, you've got that to explain, you've got to explain why there was a relationship, how it started, what the context was. I mean, none of that, if he's taking the stand, is going to be easy for a criminal defender. Does he deny it? Does he say, hey, listen, this is this is,

not true. You can't believe what Celeste wrote. I kind of did an episode on defense is like, I'm not in this photo, you know, does somebody sent me this photo? I mean, or does he have to admit this part of the case? Again, that's the question. How fine a point do you cut at that point? Because if there's evidence that, yeah, he was engaged in that, that's more specific than that. I mean, he can certainly say, well, I'm not in the photos. I'm not, this was simply discussion. There was no actual, you know, there's no eyewitnesses. There's nothing else to show to back up any kind of illicit relationship between the two people when they were those ages. But that's a tough one because if the idea is planted in the jury's mind, it's going to be

very, very hard to get that out of there. I think it's like this more than even, and we'll get into it, the murder and the alleged murder and the alleged cover-up that really is tough to explain. I mean, I also want to know, I did a whole episode on whether or not given this potential, this alleged digital evidence, could he be facing federal charges, federal charges regarding possession of child sexual abuse material. I even speculated at one point, could you be looking at a federal sex trafficking charge if you're talking about a minor and, you know, taking her on these trips and there's a travel component? So do you think whatever he says, if he were to take the stand, could be used against them in a federal case? Yeah, I mean, there are potential federal

charges here. There's evidence that there was transportation across the state line for sex with a minor, things like that, not only that, but also the digital images of the minor, if that's what there is. So, yeah, anything he says on the stand in a state murder case could certainly be used against them in any kind of federal prosecution that takes place after that. Now, I am jumping around a bit, but I think that this could be very tough for him to explain as well. And this goes to the mutilation and murder charge. So after they claim, prosecutors claim, that David lowered Celeste to his place on April 23rd and killed her shortly after. That's the allegation. There's this, quote, again, this is from the pretrial brief.

Tellingly, defendants subsequently purchased tools to carry out his plot to dismember, displeasure, of the victim's body. On April 24th, 2025, defendant ordered a shovel from Home Depot that was delivered to his home from Postmates. On May 1st, 2025, defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered two chainsaws to his home. On May 5th, 2025, defendant ordered an Amazon subsequently delivered a body bag, heavy-duty laundry bags, a blue inflatable pool to his home. He made these purchases under the fake name Victoria Mendez. On May 8th, 2025, defendant returned to the same area in Santa Barbara County, leaving his home around 1130 p.m. He returned to the area again on May 31, 2025.

This is an isolated site off SR-154 where the victim's identification was subsequently discovered in January 2026. Additionally, on July 7, 2025, defendant ordered and subsequently Amazon delivered a burn cage to his home under the same fake name as part of his plan to incinerate evidence. How does he explain those very specific purchases at that time, assuming this is true, assuming these allegations, these allegations are true, assuming prosecution has the receipts to back this up. What does he say? Someone else bought it? Yeah, assuming that's true, I mean, I've been racking my brain as a defense lawyer thinking, how would you address that? What would you say? I mean, the body bag. I went online to see if you can order body bags. Yes, you can. Now that's part of my search history, unfortunately, that you can get body bags online. But things like the chainsaws, the blue plastic

pool, the idea that there's a, you know, the burn box, all those things. I mean, the evidence is really hard to refute if you have an explanation for that. Like, There was some professional reason he needed these things. There was some... Like a music video. A music video. But out of all times. Right.

So is it a coincidence? Is that just... These are things that I needed, and here's the explanation for why I needed them. That's tough, though. Bodybags are not part of your usual Amazon delivery. And then you go to this idea about the Santa Barbara trip, like a very odd place to allegedly be taking a trip at this time because it says, moreover,

defendant took horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim's body. After placing her body into the blue inflatable pool to prevent her blood from spilling onto his garage floor. Defendant used a chainsaw and perhaps other tools to cut off her limbs. Small blue plastic fragments were found embedded in the victim's remains, which were collected by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Department. The fragments were analyzed by the LAPD's Forensic Science Division, trace analysis unit.

An expert was able to make a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool purchased by defendant in May in 2025. In order to distance himself from the victim, he amputated her left ring and pinky fingers because her ring finger contained a tattoo of his name. Her fingers have not been recovered. Defendant then placed her head and torso into the cadaver bag he purchased. He placed her limbs into a garbage bag, which he deposited into his front trunk laying the cadaver bag on top. For several weeks or possibly months, defendant left the victim's body to decompose inside his Tesla.

Okay, John, here's the thing. I've talked about this before. I'm sure there could be a battle of experts about is there a precise match there? What's her cause of death? I am wondering, and this is something I'm speculating, I'm glad I have you. Is there a possibility? He takes the stand and say, yeah, I got rid of her body. I did it. I did that.

But I didn't kill her. I didn't murder her. You know, we've seen this in the past in various murder prosecutions where the claim is she died of natural causes. I got scared. I decided to dispose of the body. That was wrong of me, but I didn't kill her. because the prosecution is going to have to establish, we have all the circumstantial evidence,

prosecution's going to have to establish in the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did kill her, and it wasn't just she died from some other reason, and I got scared and disposed of the body this way. We have seen that in other prosecutions. It's tough. It's a tough defense. I feel like, and I mentioned this case so many times,

but it was one that just stands out, the James Scan Dorado case out in Florida. I mean, this guy went on the stand and testified in graphic detail, He said his father died, I believe, like, from an overdose. He didn't murder him. And he described, in graphic detail, what it was like to dismember his own father's body because he panicked. And the way that he testified, I mean, the jury bought it.

They found him not guilty of killing his father, but with respect to discarding of the body. And I think it was kind of like the way, how really was about it and how uncomfortable he looked about it, almost disgusted. They believed it. And I wonder if that's something, I don't know what the defense is going to do, but them saying, you know, he's not the cause of Celeste's death. Yeah, the charges for improperly disposing of a body, cutting up a corpse, there's certainly less than a murder charge. So if you are so convincing on the stand that you can convince a jury that that's what happened, that may be the only thing you've got. Well, now it goes to the idea what did happen to Celeste, right? So what would he testify to?

I go back to the filing. It says at approximately 8.40 p.m. on April 23, 2025. Defendants sent an Uber to transport the victim from her Lake Elsinore home to his residence. They communicated before and during her Uber ride, which dropped her off at Defendant's Hollywood Hills home at around 10.10 p.m. At approximately 10.30 p.m., so 20 minutes later, defendants sent text messages to the victim inquiring where she was. The people contend this was part of defendant's premeditated plan to cover up the murder as she was already dead by this time. Knowing he had to silence the victim before she ruined his music career as she had threatened, very soon after her arrival, at his home, defendant stabbed the victim to death multiple times and stood by while she bled out.

At no time did he call law enforcement or 911 or take her to an emergency room to attempt to save her life. Despite knowing she was dead and her family was trying to find her, the evidence will show the defendant lied and claimed he didn't know where she was. In fact, defendant drove to Santa Barbara County immediately after the victim died, attempting to dispose of her property and destroy evidence. At approximately 11.30 p.m. on April 23rd, 2025, he drove away from his home as he texted and called the victim's phone, where she was. Again, these were acts calculated and planned to set up his defense within a very short timeline after the victim's vicious murder. Defendant drove his Tesla north on the 101 freeway to San Marcos Pass Road, SR-154, near Lake Kuchuma in Santa Barbara County. He returned home early the following morning on April 24, 2025, before going to a radio interview for the release of his album that week. He sent two additional texts to the victim's phone that day, which obviously went unanswered because she was already dead.

After April 26, 2025, defendant never attempted to contact her again. defendant's cellular activity and communications derived from defendants iPhone and Tesla, which demonstrate defendants' activities from April 22nd to April 24th, including a trip to Santa Barbara County in the middle of the night after the victim arrived at his Hollywood Hills home. I feel like it's going to be very hard, if all of that is true, to deny that digital evidence. So now it makes me wonder, what does he say happened after she got in the house? Is there a self-defense argument? Does he say she was angry?

She did something? She had tried to attack me. I killed her in self-defense. Yeah, what is there? There would have to be something to back that up some type of physical evidence inside the location. And maybe he has the SODD defense. Some other dude did it is there's somebody else, say, in his entourage who he can point the finger to and say, this is the person who did that. I took over as far as disposing of the evidence. Yeah, that was wrong, but I didn't commit the actual murder. We don't know that. But if you were trying to defend this case, you've got to look at every possibility. And if you can point the finger at somebody else and say, that's the person who did it.

He didn't do it in my direction. I don't know why that happened, but I mistakenly decided I'm going to dispose of the evidence. Because the prosecution has come under fire a little bit by how do you know he just stood there and watched her bleed out? Well, do you say that because we're looking at the message that he allegedly sent her and because emergency services weren't called? Are you speculating? Was there an eyewitness? Was there surveillance footage? If not, are those openings for the defense to say, you really don't know? I mean, you don't even have the murder weapon. You really don't know what happened behind closed doors.

or when exactly she was killed. You know, Steve Fisher, the private investigator, who's been on top of this case, he made the point that, is it possible, that he really didn't know where Celeste was? She walked out of the house, picked her up, took her to Santa Barbara County, and maybe something happened there.

Yeah, you know, right now the defense is going through these apparently 40 terabytes of discovery that the prosecution's turned over. That's why the preliminary hearing has been postponed to the end of June. So there's a lot of information that the prosecution doesn't necessarily have to tell us, but it will come out in the discovery production

to the defense. And there may be a lot of things that we don't even know about that are going to benefit a defense in this case. It's certainly possible that that's happening. Yeah, but, you know, like the idea of, because if it's the idea of, you know, before we knew anything, before there was an arrest, there was a question of, well, if there's going to be no murder charge, if it's just going to be about concealment of the body, is it possible Celeste died from natural causes? Is it possible Celeste died from an overdose? You've seen the medical examiners report here. Nothing to indicate that there was an overdose. There was a presence of ethanol, but they don't believe it was contributing facts.

there was a discussion about different drugs, but unless they bring on a medical examiner to say, we're gonna definitively counter what her cause of death was, or say it's undetermined or you can't tell. And maybe that's something David jumps on if he takes the stand, but how should we be thinking about it? Well, you know what's happening is the defense is, they've got experts looking at every single piece

of that evidence to decide what is in there that can benefit a defense, is there, you know, what is the medical evidence, what is the tax evidence, everything that's, you know, anyone in a regular normal case would be looking at, They've got a lot that they have to sort through, and that's going to take a long time. But we don't know what's in there that hasn't been released. If I'm the prosecutor, do you necessarily want to release everything to the public that you know? I mean, there are things you're going to keep back.

But it's a tidal wave that they've got to deal with if you're on the defense side. But even if she, the idea that she had an overdose or died from natural, and like natural causes in that exact time period, right as she comes, allegedly comes to the home, the 10, 10, 10.30. I mean, that's going to be, that could be tough. Yeah, but you know what? If you're a skilled defense lawyer, you've got to look. at every single possibility. You want the jury to have a lot of different alternatives in their mind.

He's going into this thing with a disadvantage because of his celebrity status, the fact that he's got this relationship with the underage girl. But at the same time, there may be something that the jury will look at. There'll be a hook for them that will say there's reasonable doubt as far as the murder, and that's the key thing for the defense. I guess it also, he has to counter the narrative that he wanted her dead. He's got to counter the narrative that she was a threat. You go back to the filing says per prosecutor's April 23rd, 2025 is the likely date of the victim's death and when all her cellular activity ceased. The night prior April 22nd, defendant and the victim engaged in a lengthy argument described in detail in their text messages. The messages reveal the victim's jealousy over defendant's relationships with other women as defendant led her to believe they had a future together.

She became extremely upset and threatened to disclose damaging information about a relationship with defendant to end his career and destroy his life. Defendant's first studio album was due to be released on April 25, 2025. an emerging multi-million dollar career already in progress. He also had multiple product endorsements, which were highly profitable. I don't see him running away from that on the stand. He'll probably talk about the success of his career and maybe even counter and said, yeah, that's why law enforcement's coming at me. I'm the shiny object, right?

I'm the only person. But he's got a downplay that she was a threat. Right. Well, you know, prosecution doesn't have to prove a motive. They've got a truckload of motive in this case for the defense to have to contend with. If the idea is that the allegation is he's afraid of being exposed, He's afraid that the relationship with this underage girl is going to somehow affect this burgeoning potential superstardom. Prosecution is going to say this is why this took place.

They don't have to prove that to a jury, but that's what the jury wants to hear is why did this happen? And what do you think he would say about that? So again, it goes back to this idea. What do you admit about this alleged relationship or not? And what do you testify to regarding what were in those messages? Right. The best case for a defense at this point, based on what we know, is I had nothing to do with the murder. Yeah, I disposed of a body.

that was a bad decision, but I was scared. Everybody can understand being scared. Somebody else committed the murder, or she died from some other cause in a case like that. But if you can get the jury to think, no evidence of the murder, evidence of the cover-up afterward, that may be the best hope you have as a defense lawyer. So you don't think he's going to take the stand? I would be surprised if he took the stand, because you've got to have an airtight story from start to finish, admitting the illicit relationship.

admitting the things that after the murder that took place. And you better have some really good explanation about all the things that you ordered and why and why you were not scared about being exposed. And if he takes the stand, it would be pretty spectacular. John Day, love having you on. Thanks for taking the time. Thanks for having it. Good stuff.

And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.