Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Sues for $100 Million Over Latest Documentary

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

A newly-released documentary, “Diddy: Making of a Bad Boy,” is causing a stir in pop culture and legal circles. Sean “Diddy” Combs and his lawyers have filed a $100 million lawsuit against the production company and broadcasters behind the film, claiming it contains rampant lies and defamatory statements. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber combs through the lawsuit.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/sidebar to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Christina FalconeScript 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 Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson

delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible.

Sean Diddy Combs' lawyers have gone on the offensive filing a $100 million lawsuit against NBC Universal over its documentary Diddy Making of a Bad Boy. They argue that this piece is filled with false and defamatory statements, we are going to break down this lawsuit for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Sean Diddy Combs is facing dozens of civil lawsuits right now, all filed since the fall of 2023, and they accuse him of everything from sex trafficking to rape to rampant drug use to allegations of violent threats. But now, Sean Combs' legal team is going on the offensive. They are throwing their significant weight behind a bombshell lawsuit of their own. And it is aimed directly at one of the nation's largest and most well-known broadcasters, NBC Universal. Now, I'm going to take you through this lawsuit page by page, making some quick detours at times to talk about specific things. But this is a major, major development. So here's what we know about the timeline.

up to now. So multiple documentaries and TV specials have already been released about Combs and the investigation into him by the Southern District of New York. Allegations against Combs really got rolling in November of 2023 when his ex Cassandra Ventura filed a massive lawsuit that accused him of forcing her to perform sex acts with commercial sex workers during their alleged abusive relationship. Combs settled that lawsuit with Cassandra Ventura the next day but never really admitted to any wrongdoing per se. He did issue an apology on Instagram a few days after a tape was published by CNN of him purportedly kicking, hitting, dragging Ventura in a hotel hallway back in 2016. But other than that, he has denied all allegations against him. And when I say

that, I mean, there are more civil complaints than you can even count that were filed against him. And in March of 2024, investigators with the Department of Homeland Security, they raided Combs' two houses in Los Angeles and Miami bringing out boxes and boxes of evidence. At the time, he wasn't charged yet, but then he got charged months later in September. Grand jury indicted him on three federal charges, racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. And again, he has denied all of the civil claims, and he has denied all of the criminal charges. And a very simplified way to describe this criminal case would be to see.

say that prosecutors believe Combs used his wealth, his power, his influence, and intimidation to run a criminal enterprise, which involved him allegedly forcing people around him to have sex with commercial sex workers, sometimes with him participating. Now, Ventura is believed to be victim one in the indictment, and a lot of what the government alleges ended up matching with a lot of what was in her lawsuit. Combs, as we know, was arrested in New York. He was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center where he's been ever since. He's been denied bond on three separate occasions by three different judges. But to be clear, right, he's innocent until proven guilty. This does not override his constitutional right to a fair trial. He is presumed innocent

until proven guilty. He is scheduled to go to trial in federal court in May. Cameras aren't allowed, but we're going to be in the courtroom. We're going to be doing our best to bring you live updates as it happens. We have some interesting ways of we might do that. But look, the reason I say he's entitled to a fair trial is because that's one of the main issues he brings up with this lawsuit. And I'll get to that. And I'll get to that. But unless something is revealed in pre-trial motions like we're expecting the prosecution may file a enterprise letter that would reveal more details about the racketeering charge, unless they file that or something else, we likely won't know what evidence the government has to prove their case until that evidence is actually

coming up in court. So we'll keep it careful on that. But anyway, the big picture is there is a lot that we do not know. Hey, quick sidebar from sidebar for a second to tell you guys about this incredible offer that's happening right now. So you know how Morgan and Morgan is our sponsor and partner. Well, they're also the official law firm partner of the UFC. It makes total sense, by the way, because fighting is in their DNA like the UFC fighters who bring their everything to the octagon. Morgan and Morgan's 1,000 attorneys, bring their everything for their clients in courtrooms across America. Get this right now. Morgan and Morgan and Morgan, Morgan is given away two tickets to the Pereira versus Ancolae of fight in Las Vegas, plus $2,000.

Yep, you can enter for your chance to win at MorganUFC.com or the link in the description and pinned in the comments. Okay, so with all that in mind, now let's talk about the lawsuit that Combs is filed against NBC Universal. Also, by the way, you're going to be hearing about ample entertainment. That's the company that produced the documentary. They are a defendant to in this case. The complaint reads, for nearly. a century. NBC has been a trusted name in news, a leader in broadcasting important stories to citizens who depend on reputable media to stay informed. And then he makes the allegation

that they grossly exploited this trust and shamelessly capitalized on the public's insatiable appetite for content about Mr. Combs in the lead-up to his criminal trial, defendants made a conscious decision to line their own pockets at the expense of truth, decency, and basic standards of professional journalism. In January 2025, racing to outdo the competition for the most salacious Diddy Exposé, defendants maliciously and recklessly broadcast an outrageous set of fresh lies and conspiracy theories in a purported documentary they called Diddy, the making of a bad boy. And the suit goes on to say that Combs, quote, emphatically and unequivocally denies the charges against him and is preparing to contest the government's evidence

such as it is at trial beginning on May 5th, 2025. Mr. Combs has faith in the integrity of the judicial system and is confident the jury will acquit him. So after Combs had been behind bars a few months, apparently his team got word that Ample Entertainment was working on this piece, this documentary, because it says in or around December 10th, 2024, defendant Ample informed Mr. Combs' representatives that it was producing a documentary, not about the government's allegations against him, but rather regarding distinct allegations, including theories of his involvement in the deaths of Kim Porter and Christopher Wallace and allegations of sex with underage girls. First, have to mention this. None of that appears to be part of the criminal case against

him, okay? Christopher Wallace, aka Biggie Smalls, notorious B.I.G. Combs' artist, his friend who was gunned down in 1997 in L.A. Kim Porter, Combs' girlfriend, mother of three of his children who died in 2018 in her home from what authorities confirmed was low bar pneumonia. We do not believe any of that will come into his trial. He is not and has never been charged in connection with anything to do with their deaths. Now, to be clear, that hasn't stopped the rumors and the speculation about him from circulating, and that's all they are. And in terms of the minors, I want to be clear about that, too.

Yes, he has been accused in civil lawsuits of assaulting underage people, but that is not an allegation, an actual criminal charge that he's facing in his New York criminal case. In fact, even in a superseding indictment that was. recently filed that we broke down on another episode of Sidebar, there is absolutely no mention of minors. And all of that is the issue that Combs has here. Quote, in response, Mr. Combs' representatives told defendant Ample that those allegations were unequivocally false and amount to nothing more than unverified conspiracy theories. Mr. Combs' representatives also pointed out the allegations that have already been thoroughly debunked and lack any credible evidence. Undeterred by these warnings on

January 2nd, 2025, defendants Ample and NBCU released a trailer for the documentary. The trailer portrays Mr. Combs as a dangerous, quote, monster who threw sinister parties with, quote, underage girls and threatened to ship and sell women off to anyone. On January 8th and 9th, 2025, representatives of Mr. Combs sent letters informing defendants Ample and NBCU that the trailer included false and defamatory statements and urge them to take down the trailer and refrain from publishing the documentary. This is kind of like a cease and desist letter before there's any kind of litigation. Defendant's ample and NBCU did not respond. So Combs team is saying, look, we gave you guys plenty of heads up that what you were about to put out there for

the world to see is not only wrong, but in our opinion, it's defamatory. And when you use that language, that would signal to anybody that potentially you will take legal action. But according to them, the defendants here didn't respond. We'll see what NBCU and Ample has to say, but that allegation, the allegation that they're making, and that is the cause of action that Combs is suing under defamation. I want to talk about that because defamation, generally speaking, is a false statement that is published. And if you're dealing with a famous person, a public person, you have to prove that that statement or statements were done with actual malice, Meaning you knew the statement or statements were false or it was made with reckless disregard for the truth, that you didn't even bother to do real due diligence to see if that was true, particularly problematic for a news organization.

And later on, Combs argues that the statements against him are what we call defamation per se. That's an important legal term, meaning on its face, those statements are so bad that it is clear just from looking at them, looking at those statements that they would be damaging to someone's reputation. Now, that's opposed to statements that you might have to look at and say, hmm, let me try to understand the context here, what's being said, how is it being said? Is it really defamation? Is it a false statement? When you allegedly call someone a sexual abuser or you call someone maybe a murderer, those are the statements that on their face you could say, ah, that's defamation per se. You still have to prove your case, right? Still have to prove the actual malice standard.

But again, that's on its face. It looks like it could be defamatory. So keep that in mind as we go through this. So the complaint continues by describing how NBCU published the documentary for everybody to watch and how both it and Ample publicized it too to get a lot of eyeballs on it. In one interview with the Hollywood reporter, co-founder of defendant Ample and an executive producer of the documentary, Ari Mark, acknowledged that the documentary was a rush job because of competing documentaries on the same subject, saying there's no time and this was an extremely

fast turnaround. Now, that is important in a defamation analysis, namely that you acted with reckless disregard for the truth. You just rushed this through without doing the proper homework. That is an argument that you may anticipate in this case. The lawsuit continues, quote, the documentary includes numerous false and defamatory statements that defendants NBCU and ample newer false are published with reckless disregard as to whether they were false or not. Indeed, the entire premise of the documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed. in numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him.

It maliciously and baselessly jumps to the conclusion that Mr. Combs is a monster and an embodiment of Lucifer with a lot of similarities to Jeffrey Epstein. In doing so, the documentary advances the following profoundly injurious false accusations. Quick note here. even if Sean Combs were to be found guilty at trial, he could still go forward with this lawsuit because, again, the allegations, taking his complaint is true, the allegations that he's being referred to as a murderer or a sex trafficker of minors, again, that's not part of the criminal case.

So he could say those are still all false allegations you made against me. Now, the lawsuit points to four specific allegations made by people in the documentary with the apparent support of the filmmakers in reference to four people within Combs' close circle who have died over the years. So we're talking about Kim Porter, mentioned her before, Combs' ex, with whom he shares multiple children, said she was the love of his life, died in 2018 from, as I said, complications from pneumonia. And this particular conspiracy theory has been brought up time and time again, that he had

something to do with her death, especially, by the way, by Porter's other ex, I'll be sure, who appeared in this documentary. So he appears to make claims in the film that Combs was somehow involved in Kim Porter's death. But the complaint points out that the L.A. medical examiner found there was no evidence of foul play. In fact, we talked to forensic death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan, friend of the show, about her case back in April of 2024, when some of these rumors were swirling again. Take a look. I've had, I think, pneumonia, I think three times in my life. It all started in the military.

And it's one of those things that once you have it once, it will represent. it's a horrible set of circumstances to be in. And yes, people her age do, in fact, die of pneumonia. And so I would be very curious to try to understand the microscopic examination because that's where this diagnosis rests, Jesse, relative to her lungs and making this post-mortem diagnosis. or it's almost confirmatory because if you've got the attending physician that is aggressively treating this condition that she had been diagnosed with, first off, you hope that they took the right therapeutic track, the right clinical track, and then at autopsy, just like in a hospital with a natural death, you try to explore that and confirm or disprove either way what the

practitioner had diagnosed. And so that's what they're going to be looking at in a case like this. They will have acquired all of her medical records. Emmys do this all of the time. And before the doctor would sign, actually sign, and when I say doctor, I mean the forensic pathologist for they sign the death certificate, they would have reviewed all of these records going back to all of her treatment. Again, kind of putting water on those theories. But let's go back to the filing, because the complaint also says that three people connected to Combs in the entertainment business, they died suddenly. Christopher Wallace, again, Biggie Smalls, notorious B.I.G., killed in that drive-by shooting in 1997. Andre Harrell, Combs' mentor, died in 2020 from heart failure, and Dwight Arrington Myers,

known as Heavy D, died in 2011 from a pulmonary embolism. The complaint says Mr. Combs had longstanding deep personal relationships with Ms. Porter, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Harrell, and Mr. Myers. He was heartbroken by their untimely deaths and the completely unfounded accusation that he murdered multiple of his closest confidants is deeply distressing, offensive, reckless, and malicious. So the complaint then circles back to Porter's death from Lobar pneumonia, saying the documentary gives additional credence to these dangerous and damaging lies about Ms. Porter's death. For example, it features commentary by an attorney, Ariel Mitchell, who rhetorically asks, who's dying from pneumonia. Seriously, pneumonia? And to die so quickly, notwithstanding the coroner's report to the contrary, Mitchell ridicules the idea that Ms. Porter died of natural causes, saying people get pneumonia every day and don't die. That doesn't seem like a natural cause. Now, we spoke with Ariel Mitchell here on

Sidebar about alleged sex tapes that she claims her client has in his possession allegedly given to him by Kim Porter before her death. We'll get to that more in a moment. but just keep that in mind. Now, the lawsuit continues, and it says, in quote, in the documentary, Al B. Shore also falsely claims that he is a witness in connection with legal proceedings surrounding Ms. Porter's death, preventing him from elaborating in the interview. This is also false. There is no investigation into Ms. Porter's death, which the Los Angeles coroner's office

has deemed natural and caused by low bar pneumonia. By suggesting that law enforcement is investigating Ms. Porter's death and that Albee sure is a witness defendants NBCU and Ample maliciously credit the false claim that Mr. Combs is being investigated for Ms. Porter's death. Shore's statements that law enforcement is investigating Mr. Combs' involvement and Ms. Porter's death are false and defamatory. Quote, at the time they published the documentary, defendants NBCU and Ample knew that Ms. Porter died of natural causes and that there was no support for Albie Shore's claim

that she was murdered. Defendant's NBCU and Ample also knew that Albi Shore, Miss Porter's X, before she started dating Mr. Combs, was an unreliable source and that Albi Shore has long held a grudge against Mr. Combs. In an interview with the Hollywood reporter, Ari Mark, co-founder of Defendant Ample and an executive producer of the documentary, acknowledged Shore's weird, very kind of complicated relationship with Sean Combs, that's quoted there. Yet Mark wanted his participation in the film, quote, because we think it will be a better film as a result, and asked for, quote, whatever you're comfortable sharing at this particular moment in time within the trajectory of the saga. Betraying a total disregard for whether Shore's weird relationship with Mr. Combs might cause him to lie, Mark added, quote, I think we really took off the pressure and said, let's just have a conversation, let's sit down and see where this goes. So again, the allegation would be really, really sloppy on your part. You knew that he could be making false allegations and you didn't care. That's the allegation.

Also, in the complaint, it says, quote, in the documentary, I'll be sure also falsely claims that his own health problems were the result of an attempted murder perpetrated by Mr. Combs. He claims that Ms. Porter warned him, don't get involved, you will get killed, that she was putting her life in danger trying to save him, and that there were people, implying Mr. Combs, involved in the attempted murder of Al B. Shore. The documentary maliciously advances this narrative,

notwithstanding the fact that Al B. Schor's medical problems were consistent with complications associated with his bariatric surgery and that there is no support whatsoever for his baseless claims. Again, Combs is not facing murder or attempted murder charges or anything like that in any way. And even though he has been hit with multiple lawsuits and federal sex crimes charges, he not only has the ability to sue, but he can sue. sue for statements allegedly suggesting or implying that he committed certain crimes. It's different than just talking about the current cases, right? It would be very different than having a

documentary that just focuses on the current case, the current charges, the evidence, what charges prosecutors may be looking at versus what is being suggested here. Allegedly open accusations that he did this or he did that and questioning his involvement. That's the problem. That's what he's saying here. So what about the sex crimes allegations made against Combs in the documentary, right? So the film, the documentary, features interview portions with the subject whose image is blacked out and his voice is distorted. But according to the filing, it says, quote, in the documentary, this unidentified interviewee claimed that while he was employed by Mr. Combs, he was sent on missions to go to clubs to recruit some girls and bring them back to the house,

but that he didn't know what the real intention was. False. implying that there was foul play involved. He further falsely claimed that Mr. Combs was effing and making love and sex to girls who for sure they were underage. The documentary then cuts to a portion of an unidentified legal document that states, present at this party were underage girls. Again, I have to make a point here. It is very different filing a lawsuit accusing Sean Combs of something versus saying it in a documentary because with a litigation comes the litigation, That shields attorneys and their clients, the parties, from being sued for defamation for claims that they make in legal papers, right? Not to the media, but in legal papers, like in a complaint.

And that makes sense, right? Because everyone's going to make statements that the other side is going to say are false, but you can't just go around and sue them. These are allegations in a lawsuit. You can't just have the other party sue those people for what they're saying in a lawsuit. You can't just sue them for defamation. That would chill litigation. no one would file a loss because, of course, the other side is going to be denying and saying it's not true. They should have the ability to make the statements and have the ability to prove

those statements in court with evidence. So that's why you may see someone accuse Combs of being involved with minors in a lawsuit and he probably can't sue them for defamation for those statements, but for statements and allegations about him being allegedly involved with minors that were made in a documentary, that is fair game to sue. Quote, the documentary falsely implies that this unidentified document is corroboration. In fact, it is a copy of a civil complaint brought by Rodney Jones against Mr. Combs containing the same false allegations and seeking $30 million in purported damages. The documentary does not include, however, the fact that those allegations about minors have been thoroughly discredited. After Jones filed his lawsuit, which identified the

allegedly underage females, those adult women in their 30s came forward to say that they were not underage at the time and that they never witnessed anything untoward happened at the parties, including the redlit house party featured in the documentary. So after Rodney Jones filed his sex trafficking and sexual abuse lawsuit in early of 2024, Combs lawyer Sean Holly told TMZ that two women had come forward, claiming that they were in those photos that were embedded in the complaint in the lawsuit that appear to show Combs and his son Justin with some females who seem to be characterized in Rodney Jones' complaint as minors. The photos are redacted in the lawsuit, but Holly says Combs' team got their hands on

the original versions, and they were able to confirm that at least one of the people in the photos is a 33-year-old woman. Another woman in the photos, who Jones alleges was underage or seems to make that allegation, was identified by TMZ as Stephanie Rao, the girlfriend of Justin Combs, Diddy's son. She is also in her 30s. And by the way, as we were looking into this, we realized that those redlit photos of allegedly underage girls were actually removed from the amended complaint that Jones filed. Perhaps he realized that something might not be right here. Can't say for sure, but something that was interesting we noted.

Now I want to come back to Ariel Mitchell. So in the complaint, it says in the documentary, defendants Ample and NBCU also maliciously claim that there are flash drives of sex tapes with eight distinct individuals, including A-list celebrities, and Diddy, all engaged in sex. The documentary features claims by an attorney Ariel Mitchell that her client, Courtney Burgess, possesses these videos. Now, we spoke with Mitchell on sidebar last November about reports that Burgess had gone before a grand jury to give evidence against Combs. Here's a sample of what you had to say. Courtney doesn't have a lawsuit against him. He's not a victim of dating. So I think the other part of this is being an unbiased third party. So the government is really the credibility that they felt that he had and the information that they believed him to have based on what he said in an interview on October 20th.

They issued a summons for him four days later. They issued a summons for him in a subpoena October 24th, and they didn't serve it to him to October 28th. And then I talked to him October 29th. And then we went to the grand jury testimony on the 31st. So that was like the progression of those things. But I think it's just a culmination of the government is trying to look for all relevant information. People who purport to have relevant information, especially people who can't come across as untainted because they don't have a bias. But Mr. Burgess isn't somebody who's unbiased.

Back to the lawsuit, it says in media interviews Burgess claims he has worked in the music industry for decades, but he has no public record of any professional achievements. and he left no detectable footprint on the industry prior to his recent campaign to malign Mr. Combs. Burgess has never met Mr. Combs and has never had any relationship with anyone in Mr. Combs' family. Nevertheless, Burgess has claimed on multiple occasions that Kimberly Porter provided him with a copy of her memoir and videos depicting Mr. Combs sexually assaulting inebriated celebrities and minors. Those close to Ms. Porter, including her children and her roommate for over 20 years, had never heard of Mr. Burgess before he made this utterly implausible and completely. completely false claim. Defendant's NBCU and Ample knew or recklessly disregarded that Burgess did not possess such videos because they did not view any such videos themselves, nor did they obtain any other evidence of their existence. Indeed, they could not have since such videos

did not exist. Moreover, defendants NBCU and Ample knew that Mitchell was a wholly unreliable character, as would have been reflected in a simple Google search, Mitchell had previously made ridiculous claims that research indicated that baby oil can be used as a conduit for transmitting drugs mixed into the oil to another person for the purpose of incapacitating them. Mitchell was previously accused of bribing a witness to change her testimony to corroborate claims filed by Mitchell. And Mitchell has a history of filing frivolous claims and then withdrawing them from the lawsuit when the lies come to light. In truth, there are no such videos. There were never any such videos. Mitchell and Burgess are the sources of these vile rumors and defendants NBCU

and Ample are responsible for maliciously perpetuating them. Now, we double checked with the Florida State Bar and while it had reportedly opened a case against Ariel Mitchell in 2022 for allegedly bribing a witness. This is according to law.com. No official disciplinary action show up on a record for the last 10 years. Just want to provide a little context there. Now, I should tell you, by the way, that Combs has filed a separate complaint against Mitchell and her client, Courtney Burgess, and Next Star Media. But according to this lawsuit, quote, defendants made these false and defamatory statements in bad faith as part of a deliberate effort to damage Mr. Combs' reputation, undermine his businesses, and by painting him as debauched and a pedophile to poison the public's perception of him and deprive him of a fair trial. Defendants eagerly peddled these lies to enrich themselves, knowing that those claims were false or making no effort to,

verify the truth of those false claims. In other words, do not poison a future jury pool at a criminal trial. Defendants intentionally false and defamatory statements have also poisoned the minds of the overwhelming majority of individuals residing in the Southern District of New York who might qualify for jury service and potentially sit on the jury in Mr. Combs' trial beginning in May of 2025. Thus, in addition to all of the other harms resulting from defendants on lawful false statements. They have also threatened his ability to have a fair trial on the government's charges against him. Now, as I said, Combs is suing for defamation. He writes, plaintiff respectfully requests judgment, a warning plaintiff money damages and amount to be determined at

trial, but not less than $100 million. Now, the defendants in this case, I have to mention, they have a defense, First Amendment, free speech that we never stated this is a fact. we purely allowed the people on this documentary to express their opinions. And expression of opinion is protected. That is probably going to be a central defense as this case progresses. Here's the final question. Will we see much progress in this case before Combs goes to trial out in May on the criminal charges? Time will tell.

But this is one we are definitely going to continue to follow. But 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 you. YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.