UNBIASED - LAW: Week in Review: August 8, 2022

Episode Date: August 15, 2022

(0:26) Intro(2:05) Mar-a-Lago, the Search Warrant, and the Property Receipt(21:54) Misleading Headline: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops a Teens DMs. They Used Them to Prosecute Her for an Abortion."(29:37) IRS Job Posting Requires Carrying a Firearm and the Ability to Use Deadly Force if NecessaryAll links to sources cited in this episode can be found on my website on the episode 9 description page (www.jordanismylawyer.com) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. I am so happy you're here with me. Happy Monday if you're one of those that listen to this the day of. So last episode we covered five hot topics. This episode we're only covering three because one of them kind of dominated the news. And yes, that is the Mar-a-Lago search. So first, we'll touch on that. I'm not going to make you guys wait till the end. And then I'm going to talk about the misleading headline regarding a teenager in Nebraska who is being criminally charged along with her mother for forcing an abortion at 23 weeks.

Now, if you heard my TikTok video on this, this podcast will go into much more detail. We'll talk about it a bit more. We'll talk about the pushback that I received when I posted it on TikTok. And then we'll wrap up the episode talking about the IRS job posting that called for the ability to use deadly force if necessary as one of its job responsibilities and the backlash that that is getting. So before we dive in though, I just want to quickly remind you guys to leave my podcast a five-star review on whichever platform you listen. If you love my show, it helps more than you know, especially in these beginning stages where I'm

kind of getting my platform off the ground. So thank you in advance for that. And without further ado, let's get into the first story. So on Monday, August 8th FBI agents searched former President Trump's Palm Beach home in executing a search warrant when this story originally broke I was super bummed because I thought I'd have to wait a week to release this episode and I was like oh my gosh I'm going to be so behind but I'm actually pretty relieved about it now at least because as of Friday the search warrant and the property receipt were unsealed so now we get to go over them together and talk more about what's really going on rather than just speculating as to what is happening here. So first let's talk about the investigation that's been going on since former President Trump left office a year and a half ago, and then we'll get into the actual

search warrant and property receipt, and then I'll do a Q&A segment because I had a lot of questions about this. So I'm going to answer five questions that were submitted by you guys and go over those. So we know that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. had already been investigating the removal of records that were taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago when Trump left office in January 2021. Following that, in January of this year, so about eight months ago, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of White House records that were sent to Mar-a-Lago from the White House. So the thought is that this recent search was just another step in that same investigation. Allegedly, some of the documents that were taken to Mar-a-Lago were marked classified and should have never been taken.

Of course, no one knows exactly what documents were taken, and we still don't know exactly what documents were taken, even though the search warrant was unsealed and the property receipt was unsealed. So we don't know what exactly the FBI was searching for, but now that the search warrant and property receipt have been unsealed, it's become slightly clearer than it was a few days ago. So let's first get into the search warrant. So the search warrant was signed by Bruce Reinhart, a U.S. magistrate judge, on August 5th at 12 12 p.m. The warrant was to be executed on or before August 19th, 2022. We know it was executed before that on August 8th and it was to be executed between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., which it was.

So the search warrant is broken down into the property to be searched and the property to be seized. These are two different things. The property to be searched was described as 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, which is Mar-a-Lago. It goes on to say this premises is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Boulevard and South Ocean Boulevard. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the quote 45 office, which is Donald Trump's office, all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by the former president of the United States and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including

all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently, which means at the time of the search, being occupied, rented, or used by third parties such as Mar-a-Lago members and not otherwise used or available to be used by the former president and his staff such as private guest suites. So, okay, this sounds like a typical legal document. There is a lot there and it's very vague. It's not super specific. So it's not going to say we are searching the 45 office, the safe, the master bathroom, the upstairs bedroom number five.

Like it's not going to do that. So what it's basically saying is any room at Mar-a-Lago that was available to Trump besides the rooms occupied by other people. Because for those of you who aren't familiar, Mar-a-Lago is a huge estate which has a members-only club and the members have access to guest rooms, a spa, and other amenities. It's basically a hotel for members when they need it or when they want to use it. So because of that, the search warrant specifically excluded rooms at Mar-a-Lago that would be occupied or used by third parties. Okay, so now let's talk about the property to be seized. I'm not going to read this word for word because it's very redundant and vague, just like I said, most legal documents are, but I will

summarize what it says and I do have it available on my website for you to read yourself if you're interested. You can find it, as per usual, in the episode description page for this episode on jordanismylawyer.com. In a nutshell though, the FBI agents were looking for any documents marked classified, any boxes in which classified documents are located, any boxes collectively stored or found together with classified documents, information regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material. This speaks to the Espionage Act. Any government records or presidential records created during Trump's presidency and any evidence of altering,

destructing, or concealing any government or presidential records marked classified. So a lot going on there, but if I had to put it into one sentence, I would just say they're looking for classified information and are able to take anything that classified documents are contained in. Now, page two of the warrant, which is where the property to be seized is listed. Also lists the alleged violations. So prior to this being unsealed, there was speculation that the FBI was looking into violations of the Presidential Records Act, as well as mishandling of classified information. But now that it's unsealed, we got a bit of clarity into what the allegations are. So the first alleged violation is in regard to gathering, transmitting, or losing national defense information. This would constitute a violation of the Espionage Act. The second alleged violation is regarding the concealment, removal, or mutilation of documents

filed with the court, which is a violation of section 2071 of chapter 18 of the U.S. Code. Again, these sections of the U.S. Code will be linked on my website in that episode description. So if you're interested, you can read all of these statutes and acts for yourself and see what he's facing. And the third violation is regarding destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. These violations, by the way, as I'm reading them to you, are summarized. There's no point in me reading you the legalese

of the actual acts and the actual sections of the U.S. Code because they're so legal heavy, I guess is a good word. There's so much in that act that if I were to read it to you, you would be absolutely lost. It's kind of one of those things that you have to look at yourself and read 10 times over to really understand. Even me as a lawyer, I have to do that. And so it's just, it doesn't make sense for me to read verbatim

what these acts and sections of the U.S. code say to you. Instead, I just summarize them. Okay, now let's talk about the property receipt, which shows what was seized during the search. So we know that there were 26 boxes of various things. We don't know what. If you look at the property receipt that is linked on my website, you'll see it just says 26. Well, it'll say there's like a line item for each box labeled whatever it is. So like box labeled A16, box labeled A18, box labeled A24. And there's 26 line items of that, which is why I say 26 boxes boxes and then there's more than 10 sets of classified documents so these documents range in classification which I'll get into in a minute but again

there's 11 I believe line items that pertain to some classified documents then there's the executive grant of clemency regarding Roger Stone, information regarding the president of France, binders of photos, and a handwritten letter. So again, we don't know exactly what this is. We only know what the property receipt says, which is not much. I just basically read it to you. So that is what we know. And just to touch on those classified documents again, when I said generally classified documents, something you might not know is that classified documents are categorized into three levels of classification depending on how much damage they could do to national security

if they were leaked. So top secret is the highest class and then secret and then confidential. So of those 10 line items, four were top secret, three were secret, and three were confidential. That's what we know about what was taken. And as I said, this information is available to you on my website. So if you want to look over these documents yourself, you can do that. Just go to jordanismylawyer.com. In the episode nine description, you will see at the bottom, I provide links to the sources and that's where you can find that. So before we move on to the next, let's do a quick Q&A because I had tons of questions in regards to this.

And I just felt that this was the best way to address them because sometimes it's hard for me to comment back to people and fit my entire explanation into one comment. So the first question is, how does obtaining a search warrant for a former president differ from an ordinary citizen? And the reality is there's really no difference. Both circumstances require probable cause be demonstrated to a magistrate or judge. The judge or magistrate will review the warrant, meaning they'll review it for probable cause, they'll review what you're looking to get, where you're looking to get it, and sign off

on it if they believe the details provided satisfy that probable cause threshold. The only real difference between a warrant for a president and a warrant for an ordinary citizen is that the president's warrant would have to be approved at the very highest levels of the federal justice system. So we know that the attorney general came out and said that he approved the decision to seek a search warrant. That typically wouldn't happen. Obviously, for most search warrants, it doesn't go through the attorney general of the United States. So that is the main difference here. But other than that, both still require probable cause and they have to be signed off on. So kind of the same. Question number two, what is the difference between a search warrant and a subpoena? Okay,

so there's been a little bit of talk about was he subpoenaed? Was he not subpoenaed? Why did they just go in and, you know, raid the place or search the place, whatever word you want to use. So let's talk about the difference. A subpoena is a formal request. It can request appearance in court or the production of documents. It's ordered by the court. So the court is saying you need to appear in court on this day or you need to produce these documents. But keep in mind that although it's ordered by the court, subpoenas can be objected to. But if not abided by, the court can find you in contempt of court, which could result in jail time or fines. Warrants, though, give authorities the ability to enter a premises and obtain the documents

themselves. There doesn't have to be any notification. They just go in and they take it. In the case of warrants, there is no option, whereas subpoenas is more like the court saying, hey, can you please turn these documents over? We need them. And obviously, if you don't do it, then there's repercussions. But it is more of a request rather than a, hey, we're going in and we're getting these documents ourselves and you don't have a choice. Warrants are often used in situations where authorities believe a subpoena won't be effective. So the person won't cooperate

with the subpoena or whatever it might be. So basically, search warrants are an intrusive means of obtaining documents or evidence, whereas, like I said, a subpoena is more of a request. And just to address the issue of the subpoena and people saying that he was given a subpoena and he didn't abide by it or whatever, let me just say that, yes, he did receive a subpoena sometime in the spring of this year. That is what we know. But it is not clear what that subpoena was seeking, if that subpoena was related to this search, and whether documents were provided in response to that subpoena. So it's very common in cases for multiple subpoenas to be issued for various document requests. And in this case, yes, he had received a subpoena in the past in the spring. That is what we know. But there's still a lot unknown. We don't know if that was related to

these documents that were, you know, searched or seized, I guess I should say. So a lot of people are just assuming that he was subpoenaed recently and he failed to cooperate. And as a result, the FBI went in and took it themselves. But that's not a fair assumption based off of what we know and what we don't know. It's been reported that federal investigators visited Mar-a-Lago back in June, though, as part of that subpoena that was given to him in the spring. But it's not like we don't really know anything for a fact. So the facts are that, yes, he was given a subpoena back in the spring. Was it related to the search? We don't know. So just a friendly reminder to research into things, not believe all headlines that you read,

because the fact is we just don't know enough right now to jump to those kinds of assumptions. We just don't. Okay, so question number three is why would a warrant be sealed? The likely reason that this search warrant was sealed is because it's part of an ongoing investigation and the integrity of that investigation could have been compromised if the warrant became public knowledge. So if the public knew that they were going in and searching for these particular documents, the federal government's investigation could have been compromised in some way. So in this case, the search warrant was sealed prior to the warrant being executed. Once it was executed, once the FBI got what they were looking for, that's when the Department of Justice petitioned the court to unseal it because at that

point it wasn't really an issue. There was no real issue of the investigation being compromised. Prior to the search, of course, in such a high profile situation like this, the Department of Justice just obviously doesn't want the public getting a hold of this kind of thing. So it's more of just, hey, let's protect this investigation while it's going on. And then once we have what we need, we can unseal it for the public. Number four, can't presidents declassify materials? The short answer is yes. And it's a bit of a complicated process. If you're interested in how materials can be declassified and the process behind it I included a link again on my website to the executive order which lays

out the procedure and you can find it exactly in part three of that executive order I believe it's executive order one two three five six but it's the only one listed in the episode description of this episode so it won't be hard to find. I will say, though, that former President Trump made a statement on Friday saying that all of the materials had been declassified. He posted on his social media app Truth Social, and he wrote in part, quote, number one, it was all declassified. Number two, they didn't need to seize anything. They could have had it anytime they wanted without playing politics and breaking into Mar-a-Lago. It was in secured storage with an additional lock put on as per their request. They could have had it

anytime they wanted, and that includes long ago. All they had to do was ask. The problem is, what are they going to do with the 33 million pages of documents, many of which are classified, that President Obama took to Chicago? Now, after this, the National Archives and Records Administration responded to this statement by Trump saying that all documents taken by former President Obama are in Chicago, but they are housed at the National Archives. They're not with Obama himself. And finally, the last question, how does this affect former President Trump's potential run in 2024? It likely won't. Our Constitution actually, kind of surprisingly, doesn't prohibit convicted felons of running for office, which is

interesting considering convicted felons can't vote. But even to get to that point of consideration, former President Trump would have to be convicted of a crime. And that's way far off considering he hasn't even been charged yet. He might never be charged. We don't really know what's going to happen here. But my feeling is that if anything does happen, it won't happen for a while. So as of now, it likely won't affect his presidential or potential presidential run, I guess I should say, because it's rumored that he's running hasn't been confirmed. He says he has a decision. We don't know. So that is the deal with that. Now, let me wrap up this conversation by talking about the fact that since the raid, the FBI

and particularly the two agents that signed the warrant have received an, quote, unprecedented amount of threats. And I think it's important for all of us to realize that the FBI is doing their job as they're directed to, just like all of us who go to work. I understand that there are people out there who are very upset over this situation, and that's okay. You guys know I don't judge you based on where you stand politically. Wherever you stand is fine with me, but what's not okay is threatening the livelihoods of other people and the bureau that works so hard every day to keep our country safe and keep us one of if not the safest country in the world so with that feel the way you feel by all

means but just please don't take your anger out on other people who don't necessarily deserve it and are doing what their job requirements require them to do. This next topic serves as your weekly reminder to always read past the headline. When I originally posted about this story, I got a little pushback, but honestly, like, when do I not? So I'll tell you what the headline is, then I'll tell you what the full story is, and then I'll tell you what the pushback was. And who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, but my gut tells me I'm not because I had a lot of people tell me that what I did was good like the clarity I gave was good anyway this

is the headline quote Facebook gave Nebraska cops a teen's DMs otherwise known as direct messages by the way they used them to prosecute her for an abortion end quote this headline was written by Forbes and when I saw it, I originally saw it on Instagram because someone I know shared it and expressed their disgust with the situation and I read it at first and I was like, what? Like, what? There has to be more to this story. So I did a little digging and I found one of the original reports which was written by a local news outlet in Nebraska called the Lincoln Journal Star. I also found the actual court documents, which I've included on my website, so you can go and review those. But keep in mind that headline. And now, this is the story.

A Norfolk woman, sorry if I mispronounce that, by the way, I believe it's Norfolk, it's a city in Nebraska. Anyway, a Norfolk woman is facing five criminal charges, including three felonies, alleging she helped her teenage daughter abort, burn, and bury her fetus earlier this year. Jessica Burgess, 41, pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial in Madison County District Court. Okay, so let's get into it. A Norfolk police detective launched his investigation in late April, chasing a tip that Celeste Burgess had miscarried and that she and her mother had buried the body, according to the search warrant affidavit. The detective obtained her medical records and determined she'd been more than 23 weeks or nearly six months pregnant at the time, and was

expected to deliver July 3rd. When he interviewed them a few days later, they told him Celeste Burgess had unexpectedly given birth to her stillborn baby in the shower in the early morning hours after midnight, court records say. She woke her mother, and they put the baby's body in a bag and stowed it in the back of their van. Later, the records don't say when, they drove a few miles north of town, buried the body with the help of a 22-year-old man, and on April 29th, they showed the detective where, on a property owned by the 22-year-old man's parents, they buried the body. The 22-year-old man told investigators the mother and daughter had tried to burn the body before The 22-year-old man told investigators the mother and daughter had tried to burn the body before it was buried, and when authorities exhumed it,

it showed signs of what the detective called thermal wounds. In early June, the two women were each charged with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body, concealing the death of another person, and false reporting. But the investigation wasn't over. A week after the two were charged, the detective served a search warrant on Facebook to get access to their accounts. He found messages between them suggesting Jessica Burgess had obtained abortion pills for her daughter and gave her instructions on how to take them. In the messages, Celeste Burgess talks about how she can't wait to get that quote thing out of her body and reaffirms with Jessica Burgess, her mother, that they will burn the

evidence afterward. And yeah, that's essentially what the story says. So the reason I decided to make a TikTok about this particular headline is because I felt after reading it that the majority of people would have read that headline and assumed that some innocent teenager was being criminally charged for getting an abortion for some valid justifiable reason, right? And I was right. In fact, the girl that originally posted that headline was expressing her disgust, but I have a feeling she didn't know the facts. She didn't know that this fetus was burned and buried in someone's yard. But also when I posted the video, I had literally hundreds of people confirming my thought.

I had many, many people admit that they had seen the headline and not read past it, but that they were shocked when they heard the facts of the story. But then on the flip side of that, I had other people telling me how the headline was in fact factually correct and that Facebook did give the cops a teenager's DMs and that the teenager is being criminally charged for having an abortion. So I shouldn't have made a big deal of it because it's factually true. The reality is, yes, this headline is objectively, factually correct. I never said it was incorrect, though. I said it was misleading, which is different. Now look, I know not everyone is going to agree with me on this. Not everyone wants to

hear things that don't align exactly with their views, but what worries me is that people can't look at least through an objective lens and see how something like that could be purposely misleading. After Roe versus Wade was overturned in the case of Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization, we saw a lot of headlines meant to spark fear regarding the implications of the overturn. The clear intention of all of those articles was to call attention to the effects of Roe versus Wade. That was what was hot in the news, which is fine. People should be aware of the implications. 100% without a doubt, we should all be educated. but the problem arises when the headlines are intentionally misleading such as this one because the truth is in Nebraska

the laws on abortion have not changed since Roe versus Wade was overturned the law in Nebraska has remained the same since 2010. Abortion is and has been illegal in Nebraska after 20 weeks, unless the case of a life-threatening emergency. In this case, this teenager forced an abortion or a stillbirth at 23 weeks. The reality is this would have been a crime in 2010 when Roe was in effect, and it is in fact a crime today. And I also had people telling me not to bring Roe versus Wade in the conversation, but it has to be brought into the conversation. This headline wouldn't have been a headline if it weren't for Roe being overturned, right? Would you agree with that? Would you agree that if Roe versus Wade was not overturned and abortion rights were not in the news right now, that this headline would be making waves the way that it is? And as a final note on this topic, I just want to say that this is not about abortion rights at all. This isn't meant to

be a conversation about whether the teen should have been charged or shouldn't have been charged or whether Facebook should have given the DMs to the cops or shouldn't have. This conversation is solely about news headlines and the importance of research. The final story of the day today is regarding an online job posting for special agents in the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, that made its rounds in the news last week. So this all started when a tweeter on Twitter named Ford Fisher screenshotted the job posting on the IRS's website and shared it to his Twitter page. The major duties of the job included, one Adhering to the highest standards of conduct, 2. Working a minimum of 50 hours per week, 3. Maintaining a level of fitness necessary

to effectively respond to life-threatening situations, 4. Be willing and able to participate in arrests, executions of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments. And five, carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force if necessary. Now, when you look at this, you think, what does an IRS employee need a firearm for and be willing to use deadly force, right? That's like, maybe that's your initial thought. But for context, according to the IRS's website, special agents are a part of the criminal investigation law enforcement branch of the IRS. Their mission is to serve the American public by investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes

in the manner that fosters confidence in the tax system and compliance with the law. Special agents are to combine accounting skills with law enforcement skills to investigate financial crimes. Special agents are duly sworn law enforcement officers who are trained to follow the money. Because of the expertise required to conduct these complex financial investigations, IRS special agents are considered the premier financial investigators for the federal government. And if you'd like to read that for yourself, that is also on my website. Now, the job posting has since been edited and the duty to carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force has been deleted. It is no longer there.

The thing is, this job posting has been up since February of this year. But it recently started to get attention because of the recent proposed expansion of the IRS under the Inflation Reduction Act. So it's not like this job posting alone caused an uproar. It's the fact that there's a lot of talk about expanding the IRS right now and people are like okay so all this money is going towards expanding the IRS but this is what we're using the money for is to hire agents that are gonna carry guns it just maybe wasn't the best look um for some people but let's get into the Inflation Reduction Act and why it caused kind of the uproar that I said. The 755-page Inflation Reduction Act encompasses many things,

such as expanding Medicare benefits, lowering health care costs, creating jobs, etc. One of those things is enhanced IRS enforcement. So $80 billion to boost the IRS over a 10-year period. If passed, which it's already passed the Senate and the House, it's now, it's been sent to the president who will likely sign it into law. But this money would go towards filling 87,000 IRS positions, more than doubling the agency's current size. Senate Democrats projected that enhancing IRS funding could add an extra $124 billion in federal revenue over the next decade by hiring more tax enforcers who can crack down on tax evasion. Republican senators warned that the bill would cause agents to crack down on small business owners and lower income workers, but Democrats insist that Americans making less than

$400,000 will not be targeted due to this bill. So the bill passed the Senate last Sunday, it just passed the House this past Friday, and it's now waiting for the president's signature. If signed, or maybe I should say when signed because he'll likely sign it, the $739 billion act is projected to cut the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade. So that is what's going on with the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically in regards to the expansion of the IRS. So let's bring it back to the job posting. Mike Baker, a former CIA operative, explained the concern that some were expressing. And what he said was, quote, I think given the idea of the IRS expansion, maybe the optics of that job posting are not particularly good. What they're talking about here are the special agents who work within

the criminal investigations element of the IRS. Right now, it's a relatively small operation. There's about 2,000 of them, and they're looking to expand that group, obviously along with everything else apparently that the IRS is going to do. These special agents have really unique abilities, unchallenged abilities, to collect tax data and financial information. Oftentimes that gets in support of larger criminal investigations. But much like everything else the government does, the messaging is off. Do you really need your job posting to say willing to use deadly force to collect your tax data? End quote. Now I ask you, what are your thoughts on this job posting? Does it matter that this posting is for a special agent rather than, let's say, an office clerk in the IRS?

Does your opinion differ for one or the other? After hearing the role description that I mentioned a few minutes ago of special agents and then being involved in criminal investigations, do you believe being armed is necessary or justified for the role? And finally, although this job posting was edited and the statement about carrying a weapon and using deadly force was retracted, do you think there's a potential issue of applicants not knowing what they're getting themselves into if once they get the job, they're taken by surprise and told, okay, hey, you have to carry a weapon, by the way, and you have to be willing to use deadly force? You know, I don't know. So I just, those are a

couple of things for you to think about per usual, because as you know, I'm not here to tell you how to think or how to feel. I'm just here to explain the legalities and the facts so that you can take the information, digest it, and form your own opinions. I can't stress it enough that I truly do not care where you stand politically. That is not something I judge. All I ask is that you have the ability to think with an open mind and think critically about issues and form your own opinions, even if that means sometimes your personal opinions and your personal views don't fall in line with whatever your political

affiliation tells you to believe. So with that, thank you for being here and don't forget that I have a new true crime episode dropping tomorrow morning so be sure to listen to that once it's live and i will talk to you guys soon Bye.