Law&Crime Sidebar - High School Rapist Gets Big Win in Court, Again

Episode Date: April 22, 2026

Oklahoma teen Jesse Butler avoided years in prison for heinous sexual assault and strangulation charges, instead receiving probation and Youthful Offender status. The victims' attorneys blasted the court for allegedly violating their rights under Marsy's Law, but now a new judge has ruled on the explosive legal challenge. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber sits down with practice professor of law and former child abuse prosecutor Marian Braccia to break down the controversial decision.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to http://www.gamingadvocates.com to start your free, confidential case evaluation. 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.

This is a major court ruling for the teenage victims of brutal sexual assault. This is another big development for their rapists. The teens had blasted the Oklahoma court for allegedly violating victims' rights laws by giving Jesse Butler practically no punishment on serious felony charges like rape and strangulation. And now the court has handed down a ruling about whether or not their rights have been violated. And this is definitely going to have a reaction. Welcome to Sideball. Presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. All right, real quick, before we go any further, we have a law and crime legal alert we have to tell you about, okay? Roblox. Roblox is under fire for allegedly not taking adequate safety measures to protect children on its platform. That's right. So this popular virtual universe has millions of users who are minors, yet the players can

apparently customize their avatars to hide their age and gender. And this is a feature that may also be available to predators with bad intentions. Look, you might not even realize the dangers that Roblox can pose for your child, but if your child was sexually abused or assaulted or groomed by someone they met on Roblox, you may qualify for potential compensation. Children, they may not know better. But Roblox, the argument is they should. And our legal sponsors are seeking justice for the families who are affected by this alleged gross negligence. So visit GamingAdvocates.com to start your free confidential case evaluation. In Stillwater, Oklahoma, Jesse Butler's name might as well be mudd. His case in Payne County, Oklahoma

Court was thrust into the national, even international spotlight when it was discovered that despite pleading no contest to heinous sexual assault charges, his case was reclassified, allowing him to be considered a youthful offender and seriously lessening his punishment. Because, you see, Butler was facing years in prison after being charged with almost a dozen felonies. The former high school baseball player reportedly attacked at least two different girls that he had been dating, even putting one in the hospital, all while outwardly appearing to be, you know, the perfect boyfriend. But you had these accusations of misconduct and possibly even corruption that were swirling around on behalf of Payne County, and it sparked blowback because the question became why was he receiving such essentially lenient punishment, lenient treatment?

Was there a family connection? I don't know. Was there a delioling? deliberate attempt to keep Butler's punishment minimal? Did the district attorney's office mislead the victims and their families in order to give Butler what has been called a so-called sweetheart deal? Because that was one of the things a new judge was looking at during a review of this case. This was prompted by filings from Victims' Rights Council. And we're going to dig into the judge's decision and what happens next, but I want to just give you a quick rundown of this case and where we are, okay? The two victims, known by their initials, KS and LS, eventually real that they both experienced horrific treatment at the hands of their acts.

Butler's actions were reported to police in 2024. Arrest warrants were issued in January and February of 2025, but they weren't executed for weeks. Butler was finally arrested on March 4th. And all the while, the girls were still attending Stillwater High School, where Butler was a senior. So he was charged in adult court with two counts of attempted rape in the first degree, three counts of rape by instrumentation, one count of sexual battery, one count of forcible

oral sodomy, one count domestic assault and battery and two counts of domestic assault and battery by strangulation. And Butler was also charged with violating a protective order that apparently one of his victims had taken out against him. And at the time of the crimes, Butler was 17 years old, but he was 18 when he's sentenced. Okay. So keep that in mind the age. Now, the accusations that were laid out in two police affidavits are terrible. L.S. claimed that one time after getting ice cream, Butler drove her to a parking lot and tried to rape her in his car. According to the affidavit, Ellis reported she yelled and told him no repeatedly and tried to push him off of her but was unable to overpower him. Ellis reported Butler told her he was sorry for what he was about to do, but he had to do it.

And then when ostensibly taking her back to her own car, he allegedly warned, you're not going until I'm finished. The other girl, chaos, claims that Butler assaulted her too. In the affidavit that was related to her case, there was an investigator that deed. what she said happened when she was house-sitting for a family friend. Quote, Butler expressed a desire to have sexual intercourse with her at the house. Chaos reported she did not want to do anything at the house. Butler became angry, came up behind her, put his arm around her neck, and strangled her to unconsciousness. She could not breathe, scratched at his arms, and tried to get away, but cannot free herself.

Chaos woke up on the floor of the living room after losing consciousness. chaos reported there were red marks across her neck after Butler strangled her. Approximately 15 minutes after strangling her, Butler initiated sexual intercourse with her. And Chaos also claimed that Butler had recorded himself choking her. Police say they later found those images on his phone. Now, the body cam footage shows the moment detectives arrived at Butler's home to arrest him and ended up dealing with his mother too, by the way. Hello.

Are you Jackie? Hi, Jackie. I'm Detective Bruce with the Stoweater Police Department. We're here because we have a warrant for Jesse's arrest. I assume you know that already. Okay. Is he here? Yes. Okay.

I told him not to answer the door until I got home. He's scared to death, so. So here's what's going to happen. Like, we're going to take him into custody. His bond is $25,000. Once he gets to the jail and we get him booked in, well, I guess on the way to the jail, I guess you could contact a bondsman. Yeah.

And, or I mean, if you have $25,000 lying around, you can do that. But if you contact a bondsman, then they can post his bond and he can get right out today. Okay. So, um, and during- Like, what kind of time frame does that look like? Just out of curiosity, like midnight tonight or an hour? No, no, no. Like, you can contact a bondsman and it would be like an hour and a half or something. Andy Baker.

I'm sure y'all not candy. Yeah. So he's one that told me. It's a pretty quick process. We just like have to get him booked in. Okay. And then once he's booked in. Okay.

And just so, you know, he is a juvenile, so he won't be like with any adults. Like, we're, yeah. He can't be housed with. any adults. So there is a chance that he may be moved over to Payne County, but for right now, depending on how long it takes you to get with her and get the bond set up, then he'll probably just be at our facility at the city of Stillwater. Okay. And she can come over there. It just like we can only hold him for six hours. Oh, okay. So if I get it done now, we're good. He's not going to be moved. No. Okay, perfect. Okay. He shouldn't be. The only big hold

up as if we have somebody else in the jail because we can't have them intermingle. Like if they're booking somebody and it could hold us up like maybe 15, 20 minutes, something like that. But it's not going to be a long thing generally. Yeah. Jess, it's mom. Open the door. Give me your wallet and phone and stuff. So, okay.

Your what? They're in the door. Well, okay, it's fine. It's not locked or anything, is it? Okay. So can you tell him what you just told me or? Yeah, so we're here. We're obviously going to place you under arrest.

There's a warrant for your arrest. We're going to take you to the jail. I told your mom that she can contact a bondsman and you shouldn't be there very long, but there just is a process for paperwork and stuff. But right now you do have to come with us and I do have to put you in handcuffs. So turn around for me.

Do you have to put in handcuffs? I know. the custody. You know we will win this. It's okay. I'll get you out for me. All right. Stay silent. Rick knows about this. Candies on this. Dad's on this way. We'll come in to get you, okay? Stay strong, okay? Say your prayers. Okay, so we will, he's going to go right to the city of Stillwater Jail, and if you'll just contact her, then she does this all the time. She knows what to do. Yeah. Make sure she knows Stillwater Police Department, Nye County. Yeah. Water Police Department on Lewis. Yeah.

Let me know that we're the ones that they're taking them out. And when you say we are still at our PD. Still water PD. Yeah. That way they don't think he went extraig over and go with the county. So soon after his arrest, according to the court docket, Butler was bailed out, spent very little, if any time behind bars. You go to August of 2025, seemingly out of the blue, the court grants Butler

youthful offender or WIO status. So instead of being sentenced to prison, Butler receives probation, counseling, community service, social media ban, a restitution payment. Now, if he fails, he could face reportedly a 10-year prison sentence, but if he completes it, his record sealed, it's essentially like nothing ever happened legally. I mean, we all know it's all reported what happened. But according to their attorneys, the victims in these cases, the victims and their families were stunned by this development, saying they never would have supported a plea deal that meant no jail time

for Butler. So what did they do? The victims went on the offensive. Rachel Bussett, who we've had on this program before, an attorney for one of the victim's mothers, submitted a filing, titled the verified motion to enforce victim's constitutional rights for corrective hearing and for modification of youthful offender disposition in compliance with Marcy's law. Now, Marcy's law is essentially a nationwide effort to not only protect victims' privacy, but also make sure that they're aware of all the steps and the legal process and that their rights are considered. Understandably, you want to protect victims' rights. in criminal cases. Now, according to Bussett's motion, the victims had apparently not been kept in the

loop about what was happening behind the scenes with this case. According to the motion, K.S. was having surgery for a broken leg on June 12th, and she and her family had no idea such an order was being entered. On July 23, 2025, K.S. had a meeting with the district attorney in preparation for the July 24th hearing. K.S. was a minor and did not have a parent present or her attorney present. K.S. was told they weren't going to practice because there was a plea deal. The D.A. K.S. not to tell her mother. Around 12 p.m., the DA called K.S.'s.'s mother and advised her that she'd agreed to a plea deal where Butler would plead guilty and serve time in a juvenile facility in exchange for a YO sentence. The family was not provided any other specifics of the deal

for the YO certification. Goes on to say, the district attorney did not advise or confer with KS or parents or the L.S. family before entering into plea negotiations or agreeing to the plea deal or the WIO certification. On August 22nd, 2025, the district attorney advised KS and her family and L.S. family that there was no guilty plea. The DA further advised that Butler's attorney had stated he was never going to advise his client to plead guilty. This directly contradicted what they were previously told about why the DA agreed to the WIO certification. KS. and her parents expressly objected and did not consent to any plea that did not include imprisonment. The DA told Ellis's family that they could start all over at the beginning,

the district attorney stated she would continue plea negotiations and follow up with them over the weekend. District attorney stated to K.S.'s' mother, Yvonne Sweeney, that we're supposed to include the families and discussions about these things. Sometimes that is a mistake. Chaos and her mother understood this to mean the state thought including the family in the discussion was a mistake. Okay, so there you go. Those were their claims, their allegations, their narrative. Busset made the argument that Butler's crimes, this is massive. This is massive. This is. massive. Now, Attorney Bussett argued, quote, the defendant's conduct was not a single youthful indiscretion, but a pattern of escalating violence over approximately 11 separate

incidents during a seven to eight month period. And so KS.'s' mother gave a victim impact statement in court and objected to the case's outcome. But here's a deal. Butler, he was able to plead no contest, so no allocution, no admission of guilt, got no jail time, and with the pressure mounting to ensure that the victims in this case got justice, Judge Michael Culling held a multi-day hearing earlier this year to hear from the prosecution, to hear from the victim's attorneys, because he was looking to determine if, in fact, the victim's rights were violated during this process. Something I have to keep in mind, by the way, Judge Culling is not the same judge who accepted Butler's plea deal. No, that was Judge Susan

Worthington. And by the way, back in January, the Oklahoma reported that the counsel on judicial complaints release findings of an investigation into Judge Worthington, and the counsel reportedly determined that there was no evidence supporting any allegations of misconduct. By the way, typically, the counsel wouldn't even release its findings into confidential investigations, but the administrative director, Taylor Henderson, Henderson told the Oklahoma, quote, the misinformation surrounding this case really just took on a life of its own and it would not stop, and the counsel felt that without stepping in and assuring the public that there's no wrongdoing here that it was going to continue.

I mean, this is the case for transparency. It makes sense. And the Oklahomaan reports that activists and protesters believe that Worthington should have recused herself from the case because apparently she had graduated from Oklahoma State University. So that was the same school where Butler's father had been head of the football team. But the council found, again, that there was no connection between their two families, so no conflict. And the council's report, according to the Oklahoma, and also pointed out that Butler was never actually facing decades in prison as had been reported. Yeah, so if all of his felony

sentences were served consecutively, yes, it would have been about 78 years, but the Oklahomaan reports that state law says they would have been served concurrently, so he would have spent 10 years behind bars. And the counsel also reportedly spoke with eight witnesses who had direct knowledge of Worthington's involvement in Butler's case, and none of the witnesses reported any misconduct. So going back to Judge Cullen, okay? So for his part, Judge Culling, offered a new perspective on this controversial case. And we got our hands on the ruling. Quote, move-ins to assert two primary bases for relief. One, that they were not treated with fairness and dignity, and two, that they were not adequately informed of plea negotiations nor afforded a

meaningful opportunity to confer with the state. Both Article 2, Section 34 of the Oklahoma Constitution and Title 21 OS 142A provides victims the right to be informed of proceedings, including plea negotiations, and the right to confer with the attorney for the state. However, neither provision confers upon victims the authority to direct control or veto prosecutorial decision-making. The absence of such language is significant. Move-ins contend they were not treated with fairness and dignity during the prosecution of the case. The evidentiary record reflects that representatives of the district attorney's office met with movements on multiple occasions, provided updates regarding the status of the case, discussed plea negotiations,

and engaged the assistance of a victim advocate to support movements throughout the process. The state also welcomed participation by movements retained counsel. The court acknowledges that certain communications, particularly those addressing the evidentiary strengths and weaknesses of the case prior to the filing of charges were, by their nature, difficult and at times distressing. However, candid and direct discussion of such matters is an inherent and necessary aspect of prosecutorial evaluation and does not, without more, constitute a failure to treat victims with fairness and dignity. So the court found that the victims were notified of Butler's original plea deal, as well as his attempt to change his plea and plead no contest.

And quote, based upon the totality of the evidence, the court finds that movements were informed of plea negotiations and were afforded the opportunity to confer with the attorney for the state, while movements clearly disagreed with the outcome of those negotiations, dissatisfaction with the result does not equate to a denial of rights guaranteed under Oklahoma law. So to talk about the decision, to talk about what could possibly happen next, I want to bring in practice professor of law and former child abuse prosecutor, Marion Bracha. Thank you so much for taking the time. Are you surprised by this decision? Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. There is a particularly high burden to show that constitutional rights were violated for the victims. Even though the standard is a preponderance of evidence standard, which is more likely than not, it's not surprising. that there wasn't evidentiary lacking, that there wasn't enough evidence to show that

their constitutional rights have been violated. What would have been from a law school example? What would be a clear-cut, very simple fact pattern where you say, my gosh, in this situation, victims, victims, family members, their rights were violated when it came to plea negotiations of a defendant or a defendant taking a deal or something of that nature? What would be a clear-cut example in your mind? Well, you know, unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is a clear-cut example because all of these cases are so fact-based and have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. One of my favorite judges in Pennsylvania often says everyone has a right to do process.

They don't necessarily have a right to do result. So while the victims are certainly and perhaps understandably frustrated by the result and were frustrated at the adjudication of the original case and how it was resolved, involved, unfortunately, they don't have the authority, no victim or witness in any criminal case has the authority to dictate the result or how the prosecution handles it, handles any case, which is within their discretion to handle. So I don't know. A clear cut example might be if the victims were told they were not permitted to speak at a sentencing or were not permitted to give a victim impact statement or were never notified

about the status of the proceedings, if there had been a showing that the prosecutor had good and valid contact information and then willfully chose to exclude the victims from the proceedings, but I think those are pretty extreme examples and certainly not examples that were present in the instinct case. What happens if a prosecutor lied to a family? Well, if anybody lies, I mean, they have any attorney, as you know, has a duty of candor. So if there is any proof of deceit or dishonesty is shown either to the court or to the victims, that would be a problem. That could be a disciplinary issue for the prosecutor involved

in the case. Of course, that would also require an evidentiary hearing. There would have to be some proof on the record that the prosecutor, as an officer of the court, presented false testimony or false information. And again, that would, if it was under oath, that could be potentially a perjury charge at a minimum that would be a disciplinary complaint to that state board. And to be clear, I'm not saying that happened in this case. I was just trying to understand like what the standard is, what would be a clear violation of someone of a victim or victim's family's rights. Let me ask you this. Generally speaking, the standard, what is the role of Marcy's law? What is a victim's rights? What is a victim's family members rights? What are they

entitled to exactly? Well, in many states, and we're talking about Oklahoma in this case and in Pennsylvania where I live in practice, the rights of the victim are codified in the Constitution, in the state constitution. Very basically speaking without going through each of the subsections, basically a victim has a right to participate in the prosecution. A victim has a right to know the status of the case. They have a right to know when the case is going to be listed for the various proceedings, even if the victim's testimony isn't needed at those proceedings. They have a right to be notified of how the case will be resolved, meaning that if the prosecution or the DA's office is going to offer any kind of offer for non-trial disposition, meaning offer the defense

an opportunity to plead guilty on some lesser charge or for some lesser term of, incarriage. or even supervision, the victims have a right to be notified to that. And here's, here's kind of the catchphrase, have a right, does the victims have a right to provide prior comment? That means they have a right to participate and say, gee, I don't feel great about that, or I don't think that is the best way to carry out justice in this case. Now, again, does that carry the day? Will that ultimately sway a prosecutor to proceed or not to proceed in a particular way? way, not necessarily, but that input should be considered by the prosecution and should be considered by the court if we're at a sentencing phase and the victims are providing a victim impact

testimony. But again, it doesn't have authoritative direction. The victims in the case don't have the authority to say, no, I disapprove of offering this person an opportunity to plead guilty, or I disapprove or I won't go along with offering this person probation or a juvenile adjudication. So while they have an opportunity to be heard and to weigh in, they don't have the ultimate say. Before I get into what they could do next, which I want to explore, someone might look at this and say, I don't get it. Isn't all that matters the victim in this case? Isn't all that matters the victim's family in this case? Shouldn't they dictate what happens to a criminal defendant?

I mean, but at the end of the day, right, prosecutors don't necessarily represent the victim. They don't represent the victim's family. Can you explain that distinction and why, although it might be frustrating for many people watching this, why under the law that's necessary? Absolutely. And that is a very important distinction. And unfortunately, I do think that there is a very common misconception about that. Prosecutors in the courtroom, prosecutors in any state, in any jurisdiction in the United States, of America do not represent the victim. They are not their personal attorneys. The prosecution

is there to ensure that justice is pursued. That even means making sure that the rights of the defendants are protected. That means that if there is something happening with defense counsel, if there is ineffective of counsel happening throughout the trial proceeding, it is still the responsibility of the prosecutor to bring that to the court's attention and to ensure that even the defendants to ensure that all members of the community have access to justice. So they are not the personal representatives of the victims. It's not like you're a civil case where it's plaintiff suing defendant and they are there solely with their one client's interest at stake. So when a prosecutor is in a courtroom, they are thinking about the entirety of the community they represent.

That's why when they stand up in the morning and introduce themselves to the court and some court members, they say, what I used to say, Marion Bracha on behalf of the Commonwealth, or Marion Bracha for the people of the Commonwealth. It's not just for this one individual person who's involved in the case. And by the way, talking about Marion Bracha, this is, so this is prosecutor dependent, right? It's what their discretion on how what they want to do here. The reason to ask is, in your experience, as a prosecutor, how involved were you with victims? How involved were you with victims family members? How involved were you with victims family members? What did you feel was necessary or appropriate? Thank you for

asking that. In the kind of work that I did, all of the cases that I handled were very civilian heavy, meaning that it was all members of the community who were unfortunately the victims or the complaining witnesses on the cases. So it was day in and day out all day speaking with members of the community who had been affected by crime in some way. There are other kinds of cases. that are expert heavy, that you're dealing with engineers or dealing with medical doctors or dealing with other kinds of expert witnesses. There are certainly cases that are much more dependent upon police or forensic testimony, like drug cases that have to present recovering officers or lab testimony. The cases that I was handling, which were largely domestic violence cases, intimate partner violence and child abuse cases, all involved and necessarily required the testimony and the involvement of civilian members of our community.

So it is very time and labor and emotion intensive because you become very wrapped up in the lives of individuals whose lives have been really adversely impacted by some unfortunate things. But again, you have to keep your head in the cane and remember what your priority is. And your priority is making sure that justice has served the community at large. And unfortunately, not just for the person who's sitting across the table from you. I appreciate you making that distinction because on one hand, you are invested. You care. You understand the ramification of someone who is harmed, someone who's killed, right?

Like you understand the impact that that has. It makes you drive this case forward. It makes you want to seek justice against a criminal defendant. But like you said, you can't forget who your obligations are, what your duties are. and that's where it can get kind of tricky. Which now, I just want to circle back to now what these families do, what these victims do. This judge said no. Can they appeal this decision?

They could appeal the decision. I think that the decision of the trial judge who received the evidence who heard the testimony at the hearing, and remember, even at these proceedings, there was a hearing granted, and the victims had an opportunity to present their own testimony. through their own privately retained counsel. So again, they weren't doing this, what's called pro se. They weren't doing this on their own. They had counsel who were representing their individual particularized interest to the court.

And so the court did hear their testimony. If this were to go up on appeal to an intermediate court in Oklahoma, there is a high level of deference that's given to the judge below because that is the judge who heard the live testimony and considered the case and considered the credibility of the witnesses before him or her. So the likelihood of this being overturned on appeal, again, absent a showing of abuse of the judge's discretion below, that likelihood is pretty low. Now, somebody's listening to this and say, you know what, file a lawsuit, intentional infliction

of emotional distress. Look what we have to go through here. This is how we're going to get justice, is we're going to file a lawsuit. Talk to me about the challenges of filing a lawsuit either against a. a DA, a court, how there are certain protections put in place, walk us through that. Yeah, that's a whole, that's a whole separate area of the law. So I actually thought you were going to ask a different question. So I'll, I'll, I'll, what did you think I was going to ask?

That was probably a better question. I should have asked. No, no, no, no. I'll address both. So, you know, if you think back to perhaps one of the most famous prosecutions in the history of this country, right, the O.J. Simpson case, the O.J. Simpson murder trial against Nicole Brownson to Simpson. He was acquitted of that case,

criminally, found not guilty in the criminal trial. However, the victim's family, Nicole Brown's family, represented by her survivors, sued O.J. Simpson in a civil proceeding and were able to get a significant recovery

against him at a civil trial for wrongful death. Different standard of proof. In civil cases, the case has to be proven by just a feather, weight to one side in favor of the plaintiffs. More likely than not, it's a preponderance of the evidence. It tips the scale ever so slightly in favor of the plaintiff. So could the victims in this case sue civilly the defendant who pled guilty or was adjudicated as a juvenile? Absolutely.

They could. If they're within the statute of limitations, that is an available option to them because there is still civil justice protected by the Seventh Amendment in this country. In order to sue the municipalities, the DA's office, the court system, that is a completely separate area of law that's covered in federal court under a section called 1983. And that is, again, a very high showing, a high standard of proof to show that there is a policy in place that continually deprives people like these victims in the position that they were in, deprives them of their right to do process. Is it possible to prevail on those actions? Absolutely. And a lot of prisoner rights cases have prevailed under Section 1983. Again, it's a very high standard to meet to show that there is a continuing policy within that particular DA's office to violate the substantive and procedural due process rights of the victims in their community. Okay. Well, there you go. Interesting, another chapter of this story. Look, I can only imagine what the victims and the victims family members are going through after this.

But, you know, look, I think you perfectly explained this is the law. This is the result. What we can expect happening next. Professor Marion Bracha, always love having you on. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jeffrey. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us.

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.