Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy on Trial: Feds Protect Alleged Accomplices Exposing Shocking Details

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Immunity has been brought up multiple times during Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking trial. Several witnesses who worked closely with the music mogul over the years indicated the government offered them immunity in exchange for their testimony. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber got insight into immunity offers from Law&Crime’s legal counsel Elizabeth Vulaj.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you received Depo-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. Visit https://forthepeople.com/lcdepo to start a claim now!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:AYouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & 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/lawandcrime/Twitter: 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.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Immunity. It has come up a lot during the course of Sean Ditty Combs' criminal trial. The protection offered to witnesses to testify against the rat mogul now accused of federal sex crimes. But what is immunity exactly? How has it been used in this case? Why do certain witnesses seemingly need or want it? And does this kind of prove the charges in this case or show these witnesses can't be trusted? Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, everybody, this is another law and crime legal alert. If you receive Depro-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. That's right. Morgan and Morgan is investigating claims that patients weren't properly warned about this risk. It's free to check. Just takes a few minutes. and you don't pay unless they win. So scan the QR code on screen,

click the link below or head over to 4thepeople.com slash LCD depot to see if you qualify. Immunity. That is a term that has come up a lot so far inside of the federal courtroom where Sean Diddy Combs is currently standing trial for racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution charges.

Why? Because a number of important witnesses have been granted immunity or protection to testify against Sean Combs. But what is immunity? Why are they being granted immunity? What does it say about the case and maybe their own liability? And by the way, if they are being granted immunity, doesn't that prove racketeering? After all, racketeering is about Combs operating this criminal enterprise or association of people who had this collective agreed-upon goal of protecting and promoting Combs and his businesses through a pattern of illegal conduct. So Combs couldn't have engaged in racketeering conspiracy alone. Wouldn't others be a part of it?

Yeah, sure, he's the only defendant in this case, but racketeering conspiracy by its nature means there had to be an agreement with others. So wouldn't others be a part of it? And since he's the only one charge, wouldn't these alleged co-conspirators or collaborators or facilitators need to testify against him with some sort of legal protection after all? This is what it says in the indictment. The defendant abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him to fulfill. his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct. To do so, Combs relied

on the employees, resources, and influence of the multifaceted business empire that he led and controlled, creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. By the way, prosecution has to prove at least two of these underlying predicate crimes in order to get a racketeering conspiracy conviction. Now, the indict and continues, the defendant used the Combs business, including certain employees to carry out, facilitate, and cover up his acts of violence, abuse, and commercial sex. Those employees, including security staff, household staff, personal assistance, and high-ranking supervisors

and other close associates acted as Combs intermediaries, and their conduct was facilitated and assisted by Combs' control of the Combs' business. So, let's talk immunity, how it's come up in this trial, what this all means. For that, let me bring in long. Long Crimes Legal Counsel, Elizabeth Vuli, who I always love having here on Sidebar. Elizabeth, so good to see you. Thank you so much for having me. Elizabeth, what is immunity in this context? Yeah, great question.

So basically what immunity means is it's an agreement when the prosecution agrees not to pursue prosecution against an individual in this case witnesses in the exchange for information that they're giving them. So the idea behind it is that, you know, what prosecutors are after are not necessarily. these individuals, the information that they have is much more valuable and important to them in building a case against Sean Combs. You know, obviously we had the testimony of Cassandra Ventura, but to prosecutors that wasn't enough. They have to show witnesses who, you know, saw things happen, who helped facilitate this. So that's more valuable to the prosecutors. So in exchange

for that, and also, you know, some of these individuals that could be argued partook in criminal activities themselves to help Combs, you know, with what he was doing. So in exchange for that truthful testimony. There's an agreement that they won't be prosecuted for what they testify to that could implicate them in a criminal proceeding. But they could be prosecuted for something that's maybe separate and apart, but somehow connected to all this or future crimes, right? It doesn't, it's not just blanket immunity across the board forever, right? That's right. So usually it's targeted to, you know, the testimony that they're giving in this case as a witness. And, you know, maybe there might be aspects. We know there's aspects where the witness took.

part in criminal activity for what they testify to, they can't be prosecuted for those crimes. But, you know, if there's something that is disclosed that's outside of what they testified to or, you know, it's revealed later that they participated in some egregious crime even related to this case, but they didn't necessarily testify to it. It doesn't mean that they're totally immune. And also, immunity doesn't protect you from perjury either. So it's really important that they testify truthfully because if it's found out that they perjured themselves immunity isn't protect against that yeah the immunity goes away if by the way if they

weren't granted immunity and we kind of saw this and we'll talk about it they would have invoked the fifth right can you explain what that would mean correct yeah so the fifth amendment we hear about it you know when people say i plead the fifth so it basically is a protection against self-incrimination so what that means is both defendants and witnesses can invoke the fifth in a criminal case so for a defendant they can choose not to testify in a case at all avoid being cross-examined and possibly subjecting themselves to further criminality. For a witness, they can also do the same thing. So if a witness is subpoena to come testify in a case, they have to come and show up and testify. But they can plead the fifth and just choose not to answer questions that might

subject them to criminal penalty later on. So they have that right to sort of stay silent to certain questions. The example that I give for witnesses is, you know, for people who followed the OJ trial, Mark Furman, a detective, he had to take the stand because he was a witness in a criminal case, but when it came to certain questions about his possible perjury, he said, I take the fifth. Yeah. And by the way, if you are granted immunity, you have to testify. Otherwise, you're going to be held in contempt of court, right? It's not like, if you're given that protection, you got to testify. Correct, right. So granting a witness's immunity is sort of a workaround around the Fifth Amendment. So if you're granted this immunity, you can be compelled to

testify, which is what's happening here. So let me read how it actually happened in court. I'll give an example. So, for example, this concerned the testimony of Brianna Bungolan. This is a friend of Cassie Ventura Fine, victim number one in this case, and she testified that Combs threatened her and dangled her off a 17-story balcony, important testimony if you're talking about a pattern of abuse towards women, right, for the racketeering charge. So before things even got started, the prosecutor said to the court, quote, Ms. Bongolan does intend to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and will ask the court to enter an immunity order. We can either do that now or take a short break before her whatever the court prefers. And the judge said, let's do it now. So she was sworn in, she was asked preliminary questions, and then the prosecutor said, quote, based on your

discussions with your attorney, do you intend to invoke your constitutional right not to testify in the grounds of potential self-incrimination? Yes. And do you understand that if the court enters an order of immunity, that you'll be required to answer all questions truthfully here today? Yes. And do you understand that the order will not protect you from prosecution for perjury. If you intentionally make a false statement today, yes, you're on to the government asked based on the witness's answers that the court enter the proposed order of immunity, and the judge said, I will enter the order now and will make it a court exhibit. Now, Elizabeth, none of this is really surprising because you expected people to get some sort of protection

in a racketeering conspiracy case where Combs is the only defendant. They need them. Their case would have been much weaker if it was the United States versus Sean Combs and 10 other criminal defendants, his bodyguards, his assistants, that would be a more uphill climb for them to try to convict all of them, whereas if their goal is to get the ringleader, then you get the cooperation of all of them. So I wasn't surprised that immunity was going to come up a lot during the course of this case because in order to prove racketeering conspiracy, you need the inner circle and they need protection. Yeah, that's exactly right. So the whole racketeering charge is premised on the idea that Combs had used an enterprise of employees, of staff, of other individuals

to help facilitate criminal actions, you know, whether it's drug offenses, bribery, abuse, all those things are in the racketeering charge. So it's an interesting concept, but it makes sense why the prosecutors took this tactic, is that they really need to go after Combs as the sole defendant to show he was, like you said, the ringleader, he was able to tell individuals what to do. He had used them to kind of commit these offenses all in the purpose of committee. these acts that are under the RICO charge. And I think if the prosecution had gone after 10 different individuals, it sort of would have sent a bit of a mixed signal to the jury of, well, who was really in charge here? If you're going after all these 10 people equally, was Combs really, you know,

sort of the mastermind of this enterprise or not? So, yeah, it makes total sense why they took this route. I'll tell you what, let's actually start with Ms. Bongolan because I was wondering, why would she need protection, right? This alleged victim, why would she need protection? And then I heard the testimony yesterday. She was asked, quote, did you do any design? work for Mr. Combs? Yes, on approximately how many occasions, just a few. So now you see she's part of this inner orbit in a way, right? Friends with Cassie. And then, and what kind of drugs did you and Cassie use together? Marijuana, cocaine, ketamine, where did those drugs come from? I would have them. She would have them. How often did you get drugs for Cassie? Often. What kind of

drugs did you get for her? Those oxy pills and cocaine and sometimes ketamine, did Cassie pay you for these drugs? Yes. Did you ever get drugs for Mr. Combs? Yes. How many times? Just a few. What did you get? Ecstasy and ketamine and G. Was there ever a time where you got drugs for Mr. Combs? Just one time. What did you get him on that occasion? Cocaine. So a little bit back and forth there about what kind of drugs she got, Mr. Combs. But Elizabeth, is that why she needed protection? Or, you know, just, oh my gosh, you're possessing drugs and distributing them? Or is it because one of the underlying predicate crimes for racketeering conspiracy that the prosecution is hoping to prove is possession and distribution of narcotics and controlled substances. Is she a co-conspirator?

Yeah, so I think that's exactly right. And I think that's why she was offered immunity. So she talked about in her testimony, you know, procuring, possessing, selling drugs, she talked about taking drugs with Cassie. You know, one of the things that the racketeering charge is stating is that he used these individuals to commit certain offenses, including drug offenses. So what she's saying she did falls directly in line with that. So in exchange for her not being prosecuted about possessing drugs and even selling drugs, she testified she sold drugs to Cassie. She would get offered this protection. So I think that's the main. She also testified to other things about witnessing, you know, abuse the Diddy inflicted upon Cassie. I think that kind of helps to support

the sex trafficking charge and coercion and abuse and all that. But she wouldn't really be subject to criminal liability there. So that's why I think the drug charges and, excuse me, the drug aspects of her testimony really led to her needing immunity. You know, Elizabeth, this was interesting. This happened on cross-examination when she was questioned by Sean Combs' defense counsel. So the defense questioned von Golan's version of events. They highlighted inconsistencies in her stories about the alleged attack and Combs' alleged threats and violence on other occasions saying she failed to initially tell prosecutors what she testified to in front of the jury. And then she was asked this. She was asked,

this by defense attorney Nicole Westmoreland. Okay, and you testified that it's your understanding that you have immunity right now for your testimony. True? Yes, ma'am. Okay, and you testified that from your understanding what that means is that you can't be prosecuted for anything that you testify to today as long as it's the truth. Is that correct? Could you rephrase that please? Sure. You testified that you understand that what immunity means is that you cannot be prosecuted for any crimes that you discuss or testify to today. Yes. And that the only way you lose that protection is if you lie? Yes. Tell me your understanding who gets to decide if you're lying. The prosecutor. The prosecutor is all right. Now, Elizabeth, a few things here. What do you think

she was going at there? Because I guess the question is, does the granting of immunity, does it make a witness less credible in the minds of the jury? Yeah, good question. So I think what she was trying to go at is trying to hint whether she was being truthful or not in her testimony, whether or this, she understood the ramifications if you're not truthful, even if you have immunity. I know a lot of people say, you know, they think witnesses are less credible if they get immunity because, you know, they're getting this protection from the prosecution. They're more likely to give testimony that skews in favor of the prosecution. I actually don't think so.

You know, again, like I said, immunity doesn't protect you from perjury. So they have the understanding that if they don't tell the truth and they don't testify truthfully, they could be still subject to some kind of liability or penalty, if you will. And I also just think being summoned as a witness in a criminal case where you have allegedly committed some criminal actions, that's nerve-wracking for people. So I think already that amount of pressure, I think, would help compel people to testify truthfully. So I don't think it makes them less credible. And I think having that sort of protection makes them more willing to say, okay, I know I'm not going to be prosecuted for what I'm saying here, if it's the truth, let me just tell the full story. You think the prosecution would drop immunity for someone if they lied?

I mean, it would have to be a really, I imagine, a really clear-cut case of deliberately lying, you know, maybe not misremembering something, but you'd have to, I think it would also have to be like a really hostile or antagonistic witness to the prosecution, right? I think they're almost reluctant to drop immunity and prosecute somebody, right? Yeah, that's right. So that's, prosecutors don't want that scenario to happen. One, obviously, this being such a highly followed case. So if it comes out that one witness was untruthful on the stand, they had to drop their

immunity, that kind of helps to hurt the credibility of their witnesses in their overall case. So that's not something that they want to happen. I think if they are ever going to drop immunity, it's going to be one, obviously, for an untruthful statement. And if proof comes out that they were being untruthful, right? So on cross-examination, maybe defense attorneys hit the witness with hard evidence of a video that directly negates what they're saying. So I think prosecutors would have to do that because that's obviously concrete evidence of them not telling the truth. Or they say something that is really, really devastating to their case. Those are the two scenarios that I could possibly see it. You know where immunity really became clear? Eddie Garcia, this former security officer from

the Intercontinental Hotel, remember the scene where Sean Combs is appearing on tape to beat Cassandra Ventura? So he takes the stand, and by the way, he wanted to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was granted immunity to testify. Why? Well, what does he say? He claims he saw the surveillance footage of Combs and Cassie, that he receives a call from Combs chief of staff, Christina Corum, who asks for the video, okay? Tells her off the record, it's bad. She calls back at one point, this time with Combs on the line, who also asked for the video. Garcia even emails management about this. Apparently, a copy was shown to the jury. Combs allegedly says that he would take care of him in exchange for the video. Garcia reaches out to his supervisor

who agreed to hand over the video for $50,000. Combs calls Garcia, Eddie, my angel. And in the end, he testified that Combs gave him $100,000. He signed an NDA. He testified he split the money with his supervisor and another officer on duty. He kept $30,000 for himself. Apparently told by Combs not to make big purchases.

Apparently didn't deposit any of the money into a bank account reported on his taxes. And then he claims that Combs reached back out to him a short time after, said, Happy Easter, Eddie, my angel, God is good. God put you in my life for a reason. He also testified that when authorities contacted him in June of 2024, so this is after CNN published a copy of the Intercontinental Video for the whole

world to see, he claims he wasn't truthful with authorities about his role in all of this, that he deleted messages with other security officers, and then only allegedly came clean about the payout with the government when he got an attorney. So, Elizabeth, he needed immunity, right? He absolutely did. And I know several folks were given immunity here. When I saw the details of his testimony, I thought this is someone who really needed it. So this goes straight to some of the charges under the RICO racketeering charge.

Obviously, you said bribery. I think even possibly obstruction of justice. You know, he's saying he took this large sum of money to sign this NDA, basically not discuss this incident, giving over the files to combs, you know, what he maybe thought was the last copy of it. So you could argue that might be obstruction of possible justice. those two things go directly to the racketeering charge. And also even the details that you just mentioned, him being told, don't make large purchases,

don't essentially don't attract attention with this. He didn't deposit the money in the bank. So he seemed like he had some knowledge that this wasn't entirely legal. You could also argue, are there potential tax implications? You know, didn't really declare this money, a large sum of money over the sum of $10,000, not being truthful to officers.

So at the very least, I think there definitely goes to the bribery and obstruction of justice. Now, the defense, when they cross-examine them, they tried to water this down a little bit. You know, there's a provision in the NDA. You could cooperate with police. This was never meant to try to obstruct justice. You know, this is a way to protect the privacy of Combs and Ventura. NDAs are common.

But obviously, he wanted some protection. So to me, by the way, it always made sense that the assistance would be the ones who need protection, right? Racketeering, criminal enterprise, inner circle, the alleged co-conspirators, the facilitators. And when you hear the testimony of certain individuals, I guess I'm not surprised that they were granted protection. For example, David James, by the way, he testified, this is Mr. Combs' kingdom, and we're all here to serve it. That's what he was told when he started the work. Very important for, you know, a racketeering criminal enterprise common purpose. But David James testified that he set up the hotel rooms with thousands of dollars in cash,

that he got drugs for Combs, including Perkissette, that he got filed under his own name. He testified there were probably 25 or 30 different pill bottles. that Combs once instructed him to make a false report to police, saying that after Combs apparently got into some sort of fight with his chef, that James was to tell authorities the chef was the one who was the aggressor and struck first. By the way, James says he never really filed that false report. He also testified that he drove Combs to confront his rival Shug Knight at a place called Mel's Diner while Combs was apparently armed with guns.

Elizabeth, why did he need protection? Yeah, so I think, again, he's sort of implicated in a lot of the other charges as well. So coercion, you know, not necessarily kidnapping or forced labor or things like that, but possible coercion, abuse. Remember also these assistants were the ones that were helping to set up hotel rooms for freakoffs, having to clean things afterwards, placing potential drugs there. So obviously you have the drug aspect, but then you also have the possible facilitating of these freakoffs, which Cassie testified to were not consensual, which kind of helped support the sex trafficking, the prostitution charges, especially if it took place in New York, obviously prostitution. being illegal. So I think their whole involvement in all of that. And then a lot of what he testified to as well, helping facilitate homes to a violent confrontation with Shug Knight with possibly falsifying reports, things like that. So things that go straight to the RICO charge and then other potential

criminal acts as well. And the big thing that stuck out to me with all the assistance is the job that they had essentially in preparing, sort of maybe sort of hiding or sleeping under the rug, and then cleaning up after these freakoffs. Yeah, because if the jury accepts that freakoffs are crime scenes, right? These hotel rooms are crime scenes. Think about it like that. That's what I'm sure the prosecution will say. And, you know, I think for me, the big thing was that protecting Combs, breaking the law to do so or allegedly, this all goes to the racketeering, all the racketeering descriptions, you know, the violence, the guns, the pattern of criminal conduct for racketeering, the environment, by the way, that Cassie was around for force, fraud, coercion, sex trafficking,

you hit it all. There was something interesting that happened to when James was asked about his immunity or protection. And this happened when he was questioned by Combs' defense counsel. He was asked, and so you're driving this car that what you're saying is you're driving this car with DRock and Sean Combs in it, looking for Shug Knight, and you go down, you're driving to the diner, right? That's correct. You don't need directions on how to get to the diner. You know how to get there, right? I frequent Mel's all the time. And you're going there. He said nothing was said in the car, right? I don't remember anything. It was complete silence. And so what you told the jury you were doing is you were executing the mission, right? I was doing what I was told. I think what you said was something about

executing a plan or a mission. Do you remember that? I think those are the same things, but yes, I was executing my command I was given. You were executing your command. That's right, that Mr. Combs commanded me to do, I understand. And so what Mr. Combs commanded you to do was to get into this car with DRock with three guns. You've never seen guns before, right? Not with Mr. Combs. This isn't the kind of thing where you see guns from time to time, right? That's correct. And this is fair to say radical departure in your job responsibilities. Is that an understatement? That is the understatement of the day so far. It goes on to say, and I I want to get back to the first time you spoke to the government. Okay, you didn't tell them any of

this other part, right? That's correct. And you told them this other part only the second time that you spoke to them, right, after I had legal counsel. Yes, sir. Have they given you some type of immunity? I'd have to ask my lawyer that question. I don't, there was like a pre-offer agreement or something like that, a proffer agreement? Thank you. Did they ever say you're not going to get in trouble for this? There's an objection. The court overrules it. My lawyer said I have no legal visibility. Objection, Your Honor, and then it says, let me specify one thing. I don't want to know anything about what you and your lawyer talked about. Elizabeth, what's going on here? What's the proffer agreement? And what were they trying to get here on cross?

Yeah, so it's a good question. So I think what they were trying to get at, one of the things that they were trying to say is, you know, you knew the route to this place. The car was silent. You didn't technically hear any commands. So I think they were trying to get at is that this was a voluntary trip he took. He didn't really know what was happening. This was. wasn't something where he was being directed by Combs to go and help him basically commit a violent act or do something illegal. So I think that's one thing. It might also be the defense trying to chip away again at his credibility saying, you know, he's being given immunity. He might, you know, be compelled to say things that are maybe exaggerated or things like that.

But the question about the proffer agreement, so it's interesting because it's typically seen as sort of like a preliminary immunity agreement. A lot of times what you'll have is it's usually in the context actually of a defendant or person who's facing charges. So it's an agreement where the prosecution will say in exchange for this limited information that we're going to get, we might give you a lighter sentence or we might not subject you to this sort of criminal liability. I think it's used a lot in sort of the preliminary stages when prosecutors are trying to talk to witnesses or people who might help their case.

And then it sort of evolves later on. And then we see an immunity agreement usually. By the way, George Kaplan was another former assistant who got immunity to. testified that his job was, again, clean up the hotel rooms in Miami, New York, L.A. He testified lots of empty bottles, empty Gatorade bottles, empty liquor bottles, often baby oil, making it look essentially like nothing happened. He was also tasked with delivering a medicine kit. So this was a bag apparently filled with prescription pills and pain meds.

He had to get Combs drugs like MDMA. Kaplan testified that he heard Cassie screaming in a bedroom of Combs' private jet, with her saying at the time, isn't anybody seeing this? There was crashing glass. saw Combs standing over Cassie, who was cowering. Testified his job for Combs was, quote, protecting him and protecting his public image were important to him. That's what I was keen on doing.

Testified after an alleged episode where he saw Cassie crying on the bed with her head in her hands, noticed clear bruising on her face. Combs portally told him to go to the pharmacy to buy lotion and witch hazel with the understanding that they be mixed to, quote, act as an anti-swelling agent, so seemingly to cover up the bruises. Elizabeth, why did he need protection? Yeah. So I don't think he needed protection in terms of the abuse that he saw because, again, he's just a witness to this. So I don't think there's any liability there. But again, in sort of setting up the hotel rooms for these potential freakoffs, any sort of placement of drugs or illegal substances that were there, I think he needed it for that. I think it's also in terms of what he purchased because one of the things that the prosecution is trying to point to is using corporate funds or funneling money through these different corporate entities, Combs Enterprises, you know, all of his bad boy records, all of the of these businesses and did, you know, were assistants instructed to kind of funnel this money

to help him essentially cover up these crimes. So, you know, buying concealer, buying witch hazel or things to kind of cover up these bruises. So I think those are sort of the main reasons why the witnessing the abuse and things like that. I don't think it was really for that. Yeah. Protecting him, though, his brand, his reputation, it reads almost verbatim from the opening paragraphs of the racketeering conspiracy, what the common purpose was. And yeah, I'm not surprised. And look, this is still, we're in the middle of this case. I wonder who else may get protection if bodyguards testify, if Christina Corum, the former chief of staff, testifies, if maybe other sex workers like Jules testifies, who Cassie Ventura said was allegedly used in multiple

locations for freak off. So it'll be very interesting. Elizabeth Vuli, thank you so much for taking the time. It was great seeing you. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, as always, thank you so much for joining us. And subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.