Speaker 1: Joining me to discuss the legal facts of the case
Speaker 1: is ABC and ESPN legal analyst Ryan Smith, who's been
Speaker 1: on here before talking about the B Diddy case. He
Speaker 1: always edifies us, always appreciate his time. What's up, big time?
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: What's going on, Stephen A? I'm good? How you doing?
Speaker 1: I had to have you on because last time you
Speaker 1: were on everybody wanted to see that one.
Speaker 2: So I had to have your back on. Let's get
Speaker 2: right to it.
Speaker 1: According to the reports, jay Z became in broad than
Speaker 1: a puffy case after Busby sent the letter back last
Speaker 1: month that alleged jay Z raped and drug that thirteen
Speaker 1: year old girl with combs at the two thousand VMA
Speaker 1: after party. My question to you with this was this,
Speaker 1: For those that don't know, he received a demand letter, whatever,
Speaker 1: what's a demand letter?
Speaker 2: Explain what that is.
Speaker 3: A demand letter is essentially a letter of lawyer is
Speaker 3: going to send to ask somebody to take a certain action.
Speaker 3: Here the demand letter sent by Tony Busby, the lawyer
Speaker 3: on behalf of the Jane Doe in this case. Hey,
Speaker 3: let's get together and have a mediation over a claim
Speaker 3: that my client has made that you assaulted her. Now,
Speaker 3: it seems once you hear that, you're alarmed, right if
Speaker 3: you get that kind of letter, Tony Buzby requested of mediation,
Speaker 3: a private mediation to try to go through this. But
Speaker 3: the reason why jay Z reacts so strongly is it's
Speaker 3: kind of like, wait a second, this isn't a demand
Speaker 3: letter to pay a fine. This is a demand letter
Speaker 3: asking for some sort of legal action, asking for some
Speaker 3: sort of civil civil discourse about a potential sexual assault.
Speaker 3: So for jay Z, this demand letter would have, if
Speaker 3: he said yes, put him in mediation and in his mind,
Speaker 3: opened him up for a discussion about whether or not
Speaker 3: he owes damages for something he says he didn't do.
Speaker 3: So a demand letter is fairly common for lawyers to
Speaker 3: send to each other asking for a certain particular legal action,
Speaker 3: But in this case, because of the explosive nature of
Speaker 3: the claims, you can understand why jay Z went off
Speaker 3: on Tony Buzzby. J Z.
Speaker 2: Jay Z's team labeled this an extortion attempt? How is
Speaker 2: that hyperbole? Is that excessive? Is that on point?
Speaker 1: How would you qualify or classify such a label an
Speaker 1: extortion attempt?
Speaker 3: By Buddy Steven? It depends on your perspective. Right, So,
Speaker 3: if you're Tony Busby, you have a client and that's
Speaker 3: the lawyer for this Jane Doe who's accusing jay Z
Speaker 3: of raping her when she was thirteen at this after party.
Speaker 3: If you're Tony Busby, your client has made this claim,
Speaker 3: you want to try to settle it in civil suits.
Speaker 3: So essentially you're looking for money damages. So for you,
Speaker 3: it's reaching out saying, hey, let's settle this thing. You've
Speaker 3: been named and it's something I filed, but I've kept
Speaker 3: that private. I want to have a discussion in mediation
Speaker 3: to sort this out. We can sort it out that way.
Speaker 3: The reason why jay Z would see it as extortion
Speaker 3: is you got to start from the perspective from jay
Speaker 3: Z of I didn't do this. So if you get
Speaker 3: a letter like that and you didn't do this, why
Speaker 3: would I do any sort of legal procedure. But when
Speaker 3: you think about the way jay Z's look at it,
Speaker 3: it's okay, I haven't been named in something, and if
Speaker 3: I don't do this mediation, what happens then I'm named.
Speaker 3: I'm subject to public scrutiny. Now everybody believes that I
Speaker 3: did this thing that I said I didn't do, which,
Speaker 3: as you and I know, steven A, when somebody's name
Speaker 3: is put out there for a crime, a lot of
Speaker 3: times people believe it before they find out the facts.
Speaker 3: So for jay Z, it appears to be an extortion
Speaker 3: attempt because he's saying, look, you're just trying to do
Speaker 3: this to get me for money. If I don't come
Speaker 3: to mediation, then you're gonna expose me, which in a
Speaker 3: sense did happen. His name got out there, and now
Speaker 3: in order to not do that, I've got to pay
Speaker 3: you money and go through this mediation. So from his perspective,
Speaker 3: it's an extortion attempt because if he doesn't cooperate with
Speaker 3: the mediation, then his name's out there unless he pays
Speaker 3: money in some way. That's why they qualify it as extortion.
Speaker 1: His response was swift, no question about that, and a
Speaker 1: strongly worded statement. He categorically denied any truth to these
Speaker 1: allegations that have been levied against him and said he
Speaker 1: wouldn't give Buzzby one red penny quote unquote, and challenge
Speaker 1: Buzzby to file a criminal lawsuit rather than a civil one.
Speaker 1: What are we to make of that point that jay
Speaker 1: Z made, because it resonated with me Ryan from the
Speaker 1: standpoint that he was saying, Listen, if if this is crime,
Speaker 1: if this is a crime that happened, then this is
Speaker 1: so heinous.
Speaker 2: You know, where's the criminal charges? Bring it on. That's
Speaker 2: basically was what jay Z was saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, stephen A. It's like he's saying, hey, look I'm innocent,
Speaker 3: so bring it all at me if you think it's that,
Speaker 3: If you think I committed a crime, file a criminal charge.
Speaker 3: A couple things there. First, Tony Buzzby said in response
Speaker 3: to that, Hey, I'm considering that. It's up to my client.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna leave that to her. There's a lot of
Speaker 3: different complications in this. The first thing is somebody might
Speaker 3: be able to file a criminal complaint in this case,
Speaker 3: or let's say Tony Buzzby could in some ways, but
Speaker 3: it's up to prosecutors to prosecute that case. So it's
Speaker 3: not as if you just go in and say, hey,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna file a criminal charge against you, not how
Speaker 3: it works. Prosecutor would have to be able to take
Speaker 3: up the case. The other thing is, in the case
Speaker 3: like this, this all happened all the way back in
Speaker 3: two thousand, right, so this is over twenty years ago,
Speaker 3: and if a prosecutor is looking at a case like this,
Speaker 3: they're looking at what's the evidence, like, who are the witnesses.
Speaker 3: This is one of the reasons why Jay z is
Speaker 3: actually requesting right now in a filing that the name
Speaker 3: be revealed of the Jane Doe here. He's trying to
Speaker 3: figure out, Okay, if you've made this claim, let's hear
Speaker 3: some witnesses, Let's try to see the evidence here. Let's
Speaker 3: try to let me try to get a sense of
Speaker 3: what my case would be here. But the real difficult
Speaker 3: part of this is the statute of limitations for first
Speaker 3: degree rape in New York State. If this is a
Speaker 3: New York State case that right now is doesn't have
Speaker 3: a statute of limitations, back then depending on the charge,
Speaker 3: there could be a statute limitations, So it gets a
Speaker 3: little complicated there. But if this is a first degree
Speaker 3: forcible rate kind of case that Tony Buzby seems to
Speaker 3: be saying it is here, at least in these filings,
Speaker 3: charges could be a possibility. But filing a criminal complaint
Speaker 3: is different from prosecutors taking up that case and making
Speaker 3: a criminal charge. Happened if the allegations are true.
Speaker 1: The alleged victim was thirteen at the time, which means
Speaker 1: she's now grown.
Speaker 2: So how likely is it that she will be named.
Speaker 3: It's a tough scenario. They're asking the judge to talk
Speaker 3: about it. We can't know for sure. There's a couple
Speaker 3: different reasons. First, you name a client, you name a
Speaker 3: Jane Doe. In a case of this, the argument is
Speaker 3: generally this you weigh the public need to have the
Speaker 3: information and the defendants right in some ways to have
Speaker 3: the information with the needs of the particular Jane Doe
Speaker 3: involved in here. What do I mean by that? Well,
Speaker 3: there's another side of this if you look at it
Speaker 3: from the Jane Doe's perspective of is there the possibility
Speaker 3: for retribution? What would happen to that person if their
Speaker 3: name was revealed? That's one thing a judge would weigh.
Speaker 3: On Jay Z's side, They're going to weigh the public
Speaker 3: interest of it, is there something that requires this to
Speaker 3: be out there? Does it in some way help the
Speaker 3: defendant build their case? So right now, I look at
Speaker 3: a case like this and I say it's an unknown
Speaker 3: because you just don't know how a judge is going
Speaker 3: to decide in this case. And we also, here's the
Speaker 3: big thing, stephen A. We don't know the evidence in
Speaker 3: the details here. What we have right now is a
Speaker 3: claim from someone from over twenty years ago that this happened.
Speaker 3: Not saying it's not true, not saying the allegations aren't
Speaker 3: to be believed, just saying it's hard to know what's
Speaker 3: happening here until you have more evidence and more information
Speaker 3: out there.
Speaker 2: But he has a right to know who she is. Now.
Speaker 1: It might not be revealed to the public, but if
Speaker 1: he's being accused, he has a right to know.
Speaker 2: Who he is being accused by.
Speaker 1: If not now, then obviously death at some point that
Speaker 1: is expected to be the case, right.
Speaker 3: And definitely that will happen eventually. And you look at
Speaker 3: a case like this, stephen A, what becomes really interesting
Speaker 3: is this is a civil case. So I mentioned before
Speaker 3: that's her money damages. But if this goes ahead as
Speaker 3: a civil case, so right now jay Z is asking
Speaker 3: that it be thrown out, either reveal the name or
Speaker 3: throw it out. If they don't throw it out and
Speaker 3: it goes forward, so if it's not dismissed, then you
Speaker 3: have things like depositions that happen in those depositions. Jay
Speaker 3: Z is interviewed, The accuser, the person who's accusing him
Speaker 3: of the crime, is interviewed, and that's where things get
Speaker 3: very interesting. See, I look at a case like this
Speaker 3: and I think back to what we saw in the
Speaker 3: p did he case, the allegations that came out there,
Speaker 3: and I look back to what happened in that case. Allegations,
Speaker 3: Investigators started interviewing, people, started talking about different things, and
Speaker 3: eventually reco charges were filed. Not saying jay Z is
Speaker 3: related to that in any way, but one thing I
Speaker 3: think jay Z has got to be concerned about is
Speaker 3: if this case goes forward those depositions, he's got to
Speaker 3: answer all kinds of questions under oath. If you lie
Speaker 3: in depositions, you face the threat of perjury, which is
Speaker 3: an offense, which is a criminal offense. So in those instances,
Speaker 3: what becomes interesting is what's revealed there. This is one
Speaker 3: of the reasons why he has a criminal lawyer, not
Speaker 3: because we're saying, hey, he did something wrong, but you
Speaker 3: get a criminal lawyer in a civil case like this
Speaker 3: because of what could happen of where an investigation could
Speaker 3: lead you process a civil case you never know if
Speaker 3: authorities might be looking at that in some way, investigating
Speaker 3: that in some way to see if there's some other charge,
Speaker 3: to see if there's some charge that might need to
Speaker 3: be brought. So that's where this thing gets very complicated. Yes,
Speaker 3: at some point he will learn the identity. But the
Speaker 3: question is once he learns that identity and those depositions happen,
Speaker 3: what happens next?
Speaker 1: Could you illustrate because one of the things that I've
Speaker 1: been making a point of is that you know, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened, and I'm certainly not going
Speaker 1: to pretend to know what happened. I've known him for
Speaker 1: twenty five years, so I've been on the record saying
Speaker 1: I can't believe that the person that I've known for
Speaker 1: twenty five years would be capable of such a thing.
Speaker 2: I don't believe it. But that's as far as.
Speaker 1: Anybody, any human being, as far as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: can go. To go any further than that would be
Speaker 1: utterly irresponsible. But what I want to also do is
Speaker 1: highlight the difference right now people are acting like to me,
Speaker 1: when you bring up P Diddy, people bring up him,
Speaker 1: and they bring up P. Diddy in the same sentence
Speaker 1: for me reasons, and I'm like, well, Homeland Security showed
Speaker 1: up the P. Didy's properties in Miami and Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: Ultimately an arrest was forthcoming, which he knew, which is
Speaker 1: why he came to New York. And ultimately he was arrested,
Speaker 1: and he has been incost of rated and denied bail
Speaker 1: not one, not two, but three different times. That clearly
Speaker 1: is not the case here. Should jay Z be fearful
Speaker 1: that it could be the case? Is this the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that we're looking at down the line potentially?
Speaker 3: I'm glad you asked that question because I want to
Speaker 3: distinguish between what we're seeing right now, stephen A, with
Speaker 3: the jay Z situation, and what we saw in the
Speaker 3: Diddy situation there. As you mentioned rate on his home,
Speaker 3: lengthy investigation going even the charges, talking about a criminal enterprise,
Speaker 3: his companies and all that not only in him not
Speaker 3: only involved in making records, but having this criminal enterprise
Speaker 3: with these free costs. I would not connect. I'd be
Speaker 3: loath right now to connect the P did he case
Speaker 3: with jay Z and for one really big reason and
Speaker 3: then other smaller reasons. The big reason is In the
Speaker 3: Diddy Combs case, they're arguing that he set up this
Speaker 3: entire criminal enterprise, and part of this enterprise were these
Speaker 3: free costs. That's not being suggested in the jay Z case.
Speaker 3: The jay Z case is suggesting, at least the accusation
Speaker 3: is he was at this party that P. Diddy was
Speaker 3: throwing and that there was a sexual assault that occurred,
Speaker 3: and that jay Z committed it. Completely different circumstances, completely
Speaker 3: different situation. Do I know if it could go there
Speaker 3: and something could happen. We don't know at this point.
Speaker 3: As you said, we don't know enough information about that
Speaker 3: right now. But that's a big difference the other differences here.
Speaker 3: You talked about should he be fearful, I would say
Speaker 3: there has to be concern. And the reason there has
Speaker 3: to be concern is and we talked about this when
Speaker 3: we talked about the Diddy case. We talked about the
Speaker 3: idea that there were all these people involved. Even in
Speaker 3: the jan and Dos case with jay Z, she claims
Speaker 3: that she runs out and nobody did anything. One of
Speaker 3: the things US attorneys said when they were doing the
Speaker 3: Diddy case was when they made that big announcement P
Speaker 3: Diddy has been arrested. They made the point of our
Speaker 3: investigation is on going. They are not stopping. That was
Speaker 3: not the end of it. So why I think jay
Speaker 3: Z should be concerned. He's saying he didn't do anything,
Speaker 3: but and on its face, let's assume that's the case.
Speaker 3: Why he should be concerned is being involved in the
Speaker 3: orbit that is P Diddy being involved in the orbit
Speaker 3: of this situation. Being involved in the orbit of the
Speaker 3: claims that Jane do made piques the attention of investigators.
Speaker 3: This is just how investigators think when they file a claim.
Speaker 3: When they see a claim like P Diddy and as
Speaker 3: expansive as that was, and they think about all the
Speaker 3: people that might have been involved or seen something or
Speaker 3: been there. They're trained to look at this and say
Speaker 3: who else might have been involved? Are there any of
Speaker 3: their cases out there? So when they see this, if
Speaker 3: I'm his lawyer, I'm thinking, Okay, I've got to at
Speaker 3: least make sure he's not tied into that in any way,
Speaker 3: and I've got to at least expect investigators to maybe
Speaker 3: look at keep an ear keep an eye on, and
Speaker 3: maybe ask questions about whether there's any intersection in this
Speaker 3: case to that case. See It's an interesting difference there
Speaker 3: because it's not to say, oh, there's going to be
Speaker 3: a concern that he'll be involved in the ditty criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3: It's more concern of investigators follow the trail of whatever
Speaker 3: evidence they find and whatever they hear and whatever they see,
Speaker 3: and what you have to wonder about and worry about.
Speaker 3: I think be concerned about if you're jay Z, is
Speaker 3: our investigators eventually going to ask questions in some way
Speaker 3: of me because of this case that's been filed against me.
Speaker 1: As you well know, Rock Nation has a partnership deal
Speaker 1: with the National Football League to produce a Super Bowl
Speaker 1: halftime show, and so naturally, when these allegations got aimed
Speaker 1: at jay Z, a lot of people waiting to hear
Speaker 1: from the National Football League to see what it was
Speaker 1: going to do.
Speaker 2: And NFL Commissioner.
Speaker 1: Roger Goodell had this to say this week when asked
Speaker 1: about the suit. Quote, we are aware of the civil
Speaker 1: allegations and jay Z's really strong response to that. We
Speaker 1: know obviously that litigation is happening, but from our standpoint,
Speaker 1: our relationship is not changing with them, including our preparations
Speaker 1: for the next Super Bowl. End quote number one from
Speaker 1: a legal perspective, how common of a position was that
Speaker 1: to receive from an entity like the NFL. And number two,
Speaker 1: what kind of effect, if any at all, do you
Speaker 1: think will have on this ongoing situation?
Speaker 3: So number one, I'll admit stephen A. I was surprised
Speaker 3: to see that only because my sense usually when you
Speaker 3: talk about organizations like the NFL and claims against partners
Speaker 3: who have been accused of really heinous situations is basically
Speaker 3: no comments, or we're waiting to see what happens with
Speaker 3: the evidence. That would be the first thought. Perhaps there
Speaker 3: was some sort of discussion that happened after these claim surface,
Speaker 3: and roder Guell was made to feel that, hey, there's
Speaker 3: nothing to see here, this is something that's gonna go away.
Speaker 3: So maybe that was why they felt comfortable making that
Speaker 3: response saying I'm gonna stand by jay Z and keep
Speaker 3: working with Rock Nation. But I gotta say I was surprised,
Speaker 3: just because usually we're used to seeing the NFL say, hey,
Speaker 3: if there's anything even a semblance of something that could
Speaker 3: tarnish our name and our brand in any way, we're
Speaker 3: gonna at least say, let's wait and see what happens here.
Speaker 3: We're gonna at least say no comment. We'll see as
Speaker 3: it comes. We'll we're just following whatever happens. Come of
Speaker 3: your second question.
Speaker 2: Again, I said, how will this affect it?
Speaker 1: How do you think this will the NFL's position with
Speaker 1: jay Z at this particular moment of time affect things
Speaker 1: moving forward, whether it be their relationship with him or
Speaker 1: this overall case.
Speaker 3: I think it's interesting when I look at this, will
Speaker 3: the NFL's relationship with him affect the processing of the case.
Speaker 3: I don't think it will affect what authorities do or
Speaker 3: what a judge might do. I think what becomes interesting
Speaker 3: in all of this is how does this case process
Speaker 3: based on that relationship he has with the NFL and
Speaker 3: based on what jay Z does and has. One thing
Speaker 3: we know about jay Z is he has a deep pocket.
Speaker 3: And that was part of what you brought up here. Hey,
Speaker 3: just because I have money doesn't mean you can come
Speaker 3: at me for something that I'm saying I'm innocent for.
Speaker 3: But if you think about where maybe the Jane Doe's
Speaker 3: lawyer is coming from, If you think about it of hey,
Speaker 3: you've got finances, you did something I'm coming after you,
Speaker 3: maybe that makes him continue to press the case. Maybe
Speaker 3: that makes him continue to say, hey, I'm not giving
Speaker 3: up on this, not just for money, but more from
Speaker 3: the sense of especially when you talk about Tony Busby,
Speaker 3: more from the sense of, this is a person who says, hey,
Speaker 3: I'm fighting on behalf of the unknowns against the superstars
Speaker 3: who think they can do things and just get away
Speaker 3: with it. I'm the person who's going to bring those
Speaker 3: people to justice. So the more that jay Z has
Speaker 3: people stand by him, obviously for him, that's a good thing.
Speaker 3: That bolsters his claim of hey, I've done nothing wrong
Speaker 3: in the court of public opinion. But I think for
Speaker 3: Jane Go and her attorney, the sense is, hey, this
Speaker 3: is a person in our opinion because we believe the
Speaker 3: allegations are true. There's a person who thinks he can
Speaker 3: do what he wants and won't be held accountable, and
Speaker 3: we're not going to stop until there's accountability. I tell you,
Speaker 3: this is a complicated case where we got to wait
Speaker 3: for a lot of information to come out.
Speaker 2: It's twenty four years after the fact.
Speaker 1: A lot of people have made noise about that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean anything because we know how often women have been
Speaker 1: victimized and how they've been reluctant to come forward. The
Speaker 1: laws have changed, society has changed. A heightened level of
Speaker 1: sensitivity has really kicked up as well, even in these
Speaker 1: times where I think that people are far more understanding
Speaker 1: and men have no choice but to be far more
Speaker 1: receptive to these things that women have been telling us,
Speaker 1: that they have been enduring and experiencing for quite a
Speaker 1: long time. What are we to make of it being
Speaker 1: coming to light twenty four years later, these allegians.
Speaker 3: That they mean more to the public and to all
Speaker 3: of us now. And that's not to say they didn't
Speaker 3: mean anything before. That's to say you can even see
Speaker 3: it in the law of stephen A based on how
Speaker 3: this We talked earlier about whether or not a case
Speaker 3: could be brought a criminal complaint. When you talk about
Speaker 3: that years ago there was a statute of limitation for
Speaker 3: certain degrees of rape. That was only five years Those
Speaker 3: laws have been changed significantly now there's much more. But
Speaker 3: that's part of the problem of this case. It happened
Speaker 3: so long ago. Depending on if prosecutors took up a case,
Speaker 3: it could affect whether or not the statute of the
Speaker 3: limitations applies. But even in the law is what I'm saying,
Speaker 3: even in the law, our way of viewing cases like
Speaker 3: this has changed drastically. But in the public, I think
Speaker 3: is where it really matters. Stephen A. We look at
Speaker 3: cases like this and we say, people who are in
Speaker 3: power who did bad things to others have to be
Speaker 3: held accountable. I want to say it again, that is
Speaker 3: not me saying anything about jay Z. What that's saying
Speaker 3: is when you talk about authorities, there is not some
Speaker 3: sense of, hey, this happened twenty four years ago, not
Speaker 3: a lot of evidence, nothing to see here, We're just
Speaker 3: going to move on and prosecute cases from today. There
Speaker 3: is a real sense on behalf of law enforcement and
Speaker 3: authorities and courts and everyone to say, hey, these cases
Speaker 3: don't go away because they're old, if the statute of
Speaker 3: limitation doesn't apply, and they can be hurt. And when
Speaker 3: you talk about investigations, this is what I thought was
Speaker 3: so interesting about the Didty case, and I think resonates
Speaker 3: throughout the entertainment industry. I think investigators are now looking
Speaker 3: at cases like this, the Ditty case and beyond and saying,
Speaker 3: when we get a sense of wrongdoing, we are not
Speaker 3: letting that go. We are not just letting that pass
Speaker 3: by and keeping an eye out out for it and
Speaker 3: will there be enough evidence. No, we're going to move on.
Speaker 3: This is we are going to doggedly pursue something where
Speaker 3: we have a good faith belief that there is a crime,
Speaker 3: and it doesn't matter if it's old, and it doesn't
Speaker 3: matter if it might not fit in the particular context
Speaker 3: of what you might think the crime might be on
Speaker 3: its face. We're going to look deeper. See if there's
Speaker 3: some enterprise here, see if there's something else going on.
Speaker 3: Stephen A. I can't even tell you haven't been a
Speaker 3: lawyer for well over two decades. It is a massive,
Speaker 3: massive shift in the way we look at survivors of
Speaker 3: sexual assault. Massive because before I think people thought, Hey,
Speaker 3: if I don't say something quickly, I don't do something quickly,
Speaker 3: I don't have a chance. And even if I do,
Speaker 3: my name's going to be dragged to the mud. I'm
Speaker 3: going to be tortured through this entire process. Even in
Speaker 3: then I might not get justice. Now we live in
Speaker 3: a different world. Now these cases are being heard. There
Speaker 3: is a sense on behalf of law enforcement, judges, others
Speaker 3: to say, let's hear the evidence, let's see what's here.
Speaker 3: Let's try to figure out these cases. And in a sense,
Speaker 3: we are way more as a society, both in the
Speaker 3: courts and in public opinion to say people who make
Speaker 3: claims are to be believed. Let us hear it, let
Speaker 3: us figure it out, and let us hear the full story.
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith, Legal Landlist ESBNABC. I'm proud to call you
Speaker 1: a colleague and a contemporary. I'm really proud of the
Speaker 1: work that you're doing. I appreciate you edifying this show
Speaker 1: and this audience or every time you come on my man.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Man, I'll talk to you soon anytime. Man, take care
Speaker 3: of