Speaker 1: Now onto the latest in the Sean Diddy Combs trial,
Speaker 1: where Diddy is facing five federal charges involving sex trafficking
Speaker 1: and racketeering. The trial is wrapping up a second full
Speaker 1: week of testimony.
Speaker 2: This week, we.
Speaker 1: Heard testimony from Combe's former personal assistant, David James, who
Speaker 1: testified he told Cassie Ventura, Comb's former girlfriend that she
Speaker 1: needed to quote get out end quote. Then Ventura claimed
Speaker 1: she couldn't because Combs controlled so much of her life.
Speaker 1: On Tuesday, we heard testimony from Regina Ventura, the mother
Speaker 1: of Cassie Venturer, who told jurors that she was quote
Speaker 1: scared for my daughter's safety end quote, and that she
Speaker 1: documented the physical abuse Cassie suffered at the hands of Colmb's,
Speaker 1: who prosecutors claim coers the younger Venturer and others into
Speaker 1: participating in drug fueled sex shows. And yesterday jurors heard
Speaker 1: testimony from musician and kid Cutting. He told the court
Speaker 1: that he briefly dated Cassie Ventura, and he believes the
Speaker 1: rap mogul, in a fit of rage and jealousy, broke
Speaker 1: into his home and coordinated the firebombing of his high
Speaker 1: end sports car. He said the pair dated only briefly,
Speaker 1: but yet it was marked by violent threats from Combs
Speaker 1: that prompted him and Ventura to stop seeing one another.
Speaker 2: Well, we know that's bad. We know that's bad, and.
Speaker 1: I got a lot of stuff to say about that,
Speaker 1: but not at the expense of taking time away from
Speaker 1: my next guest, who is a legal analyst for ABC,
Speaker 1: obviously a sports set an anchor for ESPN, does an
Speaker 1: outstanding job for the Disney family. The one and only
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith Legal Analysts is straordinaire right here with stephen A.
Speaker 2: How you doing, Ryan, how's everything?
Speaker 3: I'm good. How are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing all right.
Speaker 1: So you heard that intro and is there anything there
Speaker 1: that you believe is ultra damaging to Diddy? Considering the
Speaker 1: charge is sex trafficking and rack tearing. I mean, we
Speaker 1: know it doesn't look good for him. Domestic violence and
Speaker 1: how people feel it for their lives, we get that part,
Speaker 1: but I'm still waiting to hear about sex trafficking and racketeering.
Speaker 1: Is there anything that you've heard over the last week
Speaker 1: or so that would indicate such a charge is valid?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Absolutely, But I think the way people have to look
Speaker 4: at it is they have to look at it as
Speaker 4: a very broad.
Speaker 3: Puzzle that's being put together.
Speaker 4: I think when people look at cases like this, Steven
Speaker 4: and they look for that smoking gun. Oh, this is
Speaker 4: the thing that proves that did he ran a criminal
Speaker 4: enterprise and he had all these people involved to facilitate
Speaker 4: this criminal activity over a period of year.
Speaker 3: That's essentially the racketeering parts. But you have to put
Speaker 3: it together methodically.
Speaker 4: So what you have is Cassie talking about what happened
Speaker 4: to her, other people talking about what they experienced. You
Speaker 4: have people coming in talking about being flown in doing
Speaker 4: freak offs in different states.
Speaker 3: That gives it a federal aspect.
Speaker 4: And then you have assistance talking about cleaning up people
Speaker 4: telling Cassie different things. But she's feeling coerced to stand
Speaker 4: to relatelationships. That's part of the sex traffick case. Sex
Speaker 4: trafficking case. So all of this, as hard as it
Speaker 4: might be for people to seem, all of this are
Speaker 4: pieces of a puzzle that are slowly coming together to
Speaker 4: prove the case the prosecution's offering.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how damaging her mother's testimony was to Diddy
Speaker 1: as opposed to herself herself. I mean you're her mother,
Speaker 1: What do you mean you was worried about your daughter's safety?
Speaker 1: But still, you know, you allowed the situation to continue
Speaker 1: for a lengthy period of time, spanning years. I don't
Speaker 1: know how believable the mom comes across when you suddenly
Speaker 1: say you were so worried about your daughter's safety.
Speaker 2: Nevertheless, we don't see was.
Speaker 1: There any effort whatsoever to relieve your daughter from being
Speaker 1: in that situation.
Speaker 3: You know, that's part of the defensive case right there.
Speaker 4: They're going to make the argument that, hey, she was
Speaker 4: voluntarily in a relationship and.
Speaker 3: You didn't help get her out.
Speaker 4: But I like that you use the word allowed, because
Speaker 4: that's what the prosecution is really trying to hook onto.
Speaker 4: They're trying to take onto the idea that there was
Speaker 4: no allowing because the tentacles were so deep into Cassie,
Speaker 4: the coercion was so strong it was almost as if
Speaker 4: she wasn't able to get out. And I know people
Speaker 4: are going to hear that and say, look, she had
Speaker 4: free will. She was in this relationship for so long,
Speaker 4: there were many things she could have done. Absolutely, But
Speaker 4: I think part of what people are trying, what the
Speaker 4: prosecution is trying to show here what sex trafficking is.
Speaker 4: The coersion can be so strong, the elements of bringing
Speaker 4: somebody in, having them used for a commercial sect act,
Speaker 4: and then force, using force, coercion, threats, things like that
Speaker 4: to keep them in the activity makes it hard for
Speaker 4: the person to get out. You've heard people talk about
Speaker 4: how Cassie said, Hey, everything I have is tied into this.
Speaker 4: In many ways I'm paraphrasing, but when you have that
Speaker 4: kind of situation, the allowing part goes away, and for
Speaker 4: the prosecution it's about proving it wasn't about allowing. She
Speaker 4: could not get out of this thing because of the
Speaker 4: criminal enterprise that existed.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the interesting part too, because David James, the
Speaker 1: form of personal assistant, said that he had told Cassie
Speaker 1: to get out excuse me, But she says she couldn't
Speaker 1: get out.
Speaker 2: Why because she couldn't.
Speaker 1: She couldn't because Combs controlled so much of her life.
Speaker 1: So now we get into a tricky portion of it. Ryan,
Speaker 1: there's bosses. There's always if you're in a subordinate role,
Speaker 1: there's always someone who could have some degree of control
Speaker 1: over your career. But that control is relatively subjective. Like
Speaker 1: certain situations you walk away from say hell, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not dealing with that.
Speaker 2: Bye, I'll walk out. I'll walk out.
Speaker 1: So one could easily argue, what do you mean control,
Speaker 1: Because if he wasn't stopping you from walking out the door,
Speaker 1: if he wasn't stopping you from walking on with your
Speaker 1: walking on with your life, but you just may not
Speaker 1: have enjoyed the level of success that you're.
Speaker 2: Having right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's not great, But in the same breath, a
Speaker 1: lot of people in America have to deal with circumstance.
Speaker 2: Not obviously the sex acts and all of that.
Speaker 1: Stuff, but I'm talking about the level of control of
Speaker 1: your individual with power may have over somebody's career.
Speaker 2: What do you say to that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I say that what you're talking about essentially is consent.
Speaker 4: You're talking about a situation where people can walk away,
Speaker 4: And I think that's a great point. But the flip
Speaker 4: side of that is, is she in a situation And
Speaker 4: I'm not making the case for it, but I'm kind
Speaker 4: of coming from where the prosecution is coming from. It's
Speaker 4: so deep in some ways, and this is where things
Speaker 4: come in, like the drugging and the threats and the violence.
Speaker 3: It's so deep.
Speaker 4: The coercion and the control that the person feels like
Speaker 4: there is not a way out of the situation, despite
Speaker 4: what assistants are saying, despite what the mother is talking
Speaker 4: about people urging her.
Speaker 3: To get out.
Speaker 4: That's part of the case they're trying to build, and
Speaker 4: that's how it broadens out to the commercial, to the criminal,
Speaker 4: to the rico enterprise that they're alleging, and the sex trafficking.
Speaker 4: That in many of these cases, people are in a
Speaker 4: situation they're being engaged for this sex act, and that
Speaker 4: the coercion, the threats, all of that, the violence, it's
Speaker 4: so powerful. Hey if you I'm giving example, Hey, if
Speaker 4: you leave, I'm gonna do this.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna do that. The drug age.
Speaker 4: Cassie testified about how the drugging went on for a
Speaker 4: long period of time, as did the freak costs, that
Speaker 4: she's in this sort of fog, and it's Hayes, all
Speaker 4: of that stuff contributing to the fact that the aspect
Speaker 4: of control that some of us might feel like we
Speaker 4: have a say at a job where we're being mistreated
Speaker 4: and we want to leave and we just walk is
Speaker 4: different from this circumstance here. That's how they're trying to
Speaker 4: paint it.
Speaker 1: So with that being said, I'm looking at Diddy right
Speaker 1: now and it doesn't look good for him. There's no
Speaker 1: way around that. However, I find myself asking Ryan, where
Speaker 1: are the other Where are the other villains in all
Speaker 1: of this?
Speaker 3: Who are they?
Speaker 1: Because sex trafficking and racketeering one man, one individual. I
Speaker 1: don't want to accuse the the the District Attorney of
Speaker 1: prosecutor of grant standing, but most.
Speaker 2: People out here feel like we need to see more
Speaker 2: than just Diddy.
Speaker 1: If it's as comprehensive as they're trying to make this
Speaker 1: all scene.
Speaker 2: To that, you say, what.
Speaker 4: Yeah, to that, I say, they're using assistance and other
Speaker 4: people they're giving immunity. So you've heard people talk who
Speaker 4: have immunity in this case, who've said, Hey, I was
Speaker 4: a part of this.
Speaker 3: I cleaned up certain things. I tried to get her
Speaker 3: out of there. I saw some of this stuff go down.
Speaker 4: And that's where the conspiracy aspect of this, that's where
Speaker 4: we start seeing as they see it, and enterprise being
Speaker 4: built operated by Diddy, Didty associated with it to try
Speaker 4: to make these things happen over a period of years.
Speaker 4: That's where we see the freak off context come in,
Speaker 4: but you're talking about a different situation. You're talking about
Speaker 4: the bigger names, the people who might have been involved.
Speaker 4: They're not approaching that just yet. Is that a part
Speaker 4: of where they might go in some ways?
Speaker 3: Possibly?
Speaker 4: But I think for them it's easier to get the
Speaker 4: people who they know or involved based on all the
Speaker 4: evidence they secured and say hey, we're going off you
Speaker 4: an immunity if you tell us what happened. And I
Speaker 4: think for many people this is going to be interesting
Speaker 4: for the jury because the jury is hearing all this,
Speaker 4: and just remember, when you hear all of this, it's
Speaker 4: important for the prosecution that the jury not here, did
Speaker 4: he as.
Speaker 3: A bad guy or a weird guy or a.
Speaker 4: Guy who does crazy things, but not criminal things. The
Speaker 4: criminal part comes in when you start bringing in the
Speaker 4: associates who talk about all the different levels of things
Speaker 4: that happened. One person testified about carrying a bag of
Speaker 4: cash there. Another person talked about the payoff that was
Speaker 4: made to the hotel, all these different things.
Speaker 3: To sustain the criminal enterprise, it's those.
Speaker 4: People, those underlings, all those associates that he had with
Speaker 4: them that they want to get to try to build
Speaker 4: that enterprise.
Speaker 3: Not the big names that you might be thinking of.
Speaker 1: What about the actual sex itself? And what I mean
Speaker 1: by that, Ryan, is this, if you were one of
Speaker 1: those individuals that engaged in the actual sexual activity, you
Speaker 1: are being somebody that was a participant. But isn't it
Speaker 1: possible that you may have had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the actual sex trafficking and racketeering allegations. You were just
Speaker 1: a participant engaging in sexual activit That's right.
Speaker 3: And they had a couple, they had some people testify
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 4: They had a guy testify his nickname is the Punisher,
Speaker 4: talked about how he was hired to have sex with Cassie.
Speaker 3: He's not somebody who's part of the enterprise.
Speaker 4: Who he is is somebody who was engaged to come
Speaker 4: in and have this sex trafficking activity with Cassie. The
Speaker 4: other reason why you bring in a guy like that
Speaker 4: is he talked about how freak coughs happened in different states.
Speaker 3: Now you're seeing the federal aspect.
Speaker 4: Of this case, which is why it's a federal case
Speaker 4: and not a state case, which is why you can
Speaker 4: allege things like rico, which is why some of these
Speaker 4: charges which involve interstate commerce come into play because some
Speaker 4: of these activities they're alleging.
Speaker 3: For the prosecution, they're saying, did he had these things?
Speaker 4: He controlled this enterprise over multiple states, and he brought
Speaker 4: people in to engage in this sext to continue the
Speaker 4: means of what he wanted to do.
Speaker 3: This He used all these this large Jesse had.
Speaker 4: This power, this influence to create this criminal enterprise using
Speaker 4: these people.
Speaker 2: But where are the other women other than Cassie who
Speaker 2: are alleged to have been participants in all of this.
Speaker 4: I think they're going to start trying to weave some
Speaker 4: of those people in because it's not just about Cassie.
Speaker 4: There are other people I think the prosecution is going
Speaker 4: to try to bring into this case to say they
Speaker 4: were involved in this in some way.
Speaker 3: But stephen A. For them, Cassie is the star witness.
Speaker 3: She is everything in this case.
Speaker 4: You have to believe Cassie and what she went through
Speaker 4: and believe that she is coerced. Why because you have
Speaker 4: the video which sticks out more than anything.
Speaker 3: When you talk about what juries see in a courtroom.
Speaker 4: You can hear testimony for days that is harrowing, But
Speaker 4: when you see a videotape of somebody being abused. That
Speaker 4: is the one thing that sticks in your mind more
Speaker 4: than anything more than that. Also, it's the fact that
Speaker 4: she had this long standing relationship with Sean Ditty Combs,
Speaker 4: so she had a front row seat to the free
Speaker 4: costs to everything that happened to everybody else.
Speaker 3: So she is the main player in all of this.
Speaker 4: There might be other people weaved in who were subject
Speaker 4: to this, who did he coerced in some way, at
Speaker 4: least according to the prosecution to try to scilly tate
Speaker 4: this criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3: But it all comes down.
Speaker 4: To her and how the jury sees her, which is
Speaker 4: why it's so important for the prosecution that they don't
Speaker 4: see her as a voluntary, consensual partner, but rather someone
Speaker 4: who was worced into being in this relationship and could
Speaker 4: not get out.
Speaker 1: Are we gonna see any videos of the freakofs because
Speaker 1: I know the media.
Speaker 2: Has been asking for access to that. Is that going
Speaker 2: to happen?
Speaker 4: I think it's going to be debatable. I'm interested, you know,
Speaker 4: it's one of those issues where I'm just not sure.
Speaker 4: I know the defense is gonna fight at tooth and nail, and.
Speaker 3: They have good reason.
Speaker 4: When you start seeing as I said, earlier, when you
Speaker 4: see a video that sticks with you more than anything else.
Speaker 3: So if you see Hiddy in a video with a.
Speaker 4: Bunch of people having sex for the defense, that's going
Speaker 4: to look to the jury like he's orchestrating the entire thing.
Speaker 4: Their whole point is these are parties, consensual parties.
Speaker 3: This is not anything more than that.
Speaker 4: So for them to have that video in the courtroom
Speaker 4: is extremely damaging. They're going to fight at tooth and nail,
Speaker 4: and it's all going to come down to the judge.
Speaker 4: Is it the kind of evidence that's important to the
Speaker 4: prosecution's case to help prove the case and won't have
Speaker 4: the prejudicial value of disrupting the defense's case on the
Speaker 4: other side.
Speaker 3: The judge will have to decide that. But these videos,
Speaker 3: if they do.
Speaker 4: Come out in that courtroom, extremely damaging for Diddy because
Speaker 4: his mere presence in the video while people are and
Speaker 4: I'm just making I don't know what's in them, but
Speaker 4: if people are presumably having sex with him being there,
Speaker 4: that's incredibly damaging because that's the very orchestration view that
Speaker 4: the prosecution is trying to get the jury to see.
Speaker 1: Last question on this particular subject, and it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: a legal question. It's just your level of expertise because
Speaker 1: of what you know about this business, about the law,
Speaker 1: about the impact on a jury, et cetera, based on
Speaker 1: your expertise at this moment in time, even without the
Speaker 1: videos of freak offs being seen, just based strictly on
Speaker 1: Cashiventory's testimony, the Coross examination. She endured, witnesses and partips,
Speaker 1: the pens that came and testified already, including her mother,
Speaker 1: not that she was a participant, but you know, just
Speaker 1: having a relationship with her daughter. Does did he look
Speaker 1: the same better or worse than when this trial first started?
Speaker 4: Far worse, far worse, because we know all the details now.
Speaker 4: It's more than just what we might have read in
Speaker 4: the papers. It's more than just the scuttle but that
Speaker 4: people heard. Now we know the details of what went
Speaker 4: down from people who actually experienced it, and it's just
Speaker 4: from the perspective of the kind of person he was,
Speaker 4: how he treated Cassie, how she tried to get out
Speaker 4: of it. Kid Cutty talking about the threats we had
Speaker 4: heard kid Cutty talking about did.
Speaker 3: He before this trial, but what he said about him being.
Speaker 4: A Marvel super villain allegations of fire bombing his car,
Speaker 4: far worse, far worse now.
Speaker 3: But here's the key. Being a bad guy.
Speaker 4: Does not make you a criminal, and so so for me,
Speaker 4: this case is not fully put together yet. It's just beginning.
Speaker 4: They're just starting to put the puzzle together, But the
Speaker 4: puzzle is not complete. I think having the threat, say,
Speaker 4: for example, kind Cutti shows things like obstruction.
Speaker 3: We're trying to threaten.
Speaker 4: Him to keep people silenced to say what's happening in
Speaker 4: this criminal enterprise?
Speaker 3: But do we clearly see the enterprise yet? Do we
Speaker 3: clearly see the sex trafficking? Yet?
Speaker 4: Are we clearly as a jury believing that this is
Speaker 4: a voluntary relationship and a consenting relationship. I think that
Speaker 4: remains to be seen. But no matter what, no matter
Speaker 4: how you come out of.
Speaker 3: This, in no way does he look good.
Speaker 4: He looks far hoarse, and he looks like a person
Speaker 4: who is completely out of.
Speaker 3: Control to this jury.
Speaker 4: I think, if I'm sitting in that jury box, the
Speaker 4: question I have if I'm a jury is is he
Speaker 4: just an extremely bad person?
Speaker 3: Or is he a criminal?
Speaker 1: Last question, I apologize that one thing you just said
Speaker 1: that made me think of this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what if they don't know whether.
Speaker 1: Or not sex trafficking and racketeering has been proven, but
Speaker 1: they consider him so despicable and they consider his behavior
Speaker 1: criminal because of what he was seeing on video doing
Speaker 1: the Cassie and what have you, that they convict him anyway.
Speaker 1: I mean, if they find him guilty, it's not as
Speaker 1: if a judge or a defense attorney is going to
Speaker 1: be able to definitively say, you know what your case.
Speaker 1: You know, sex trafficking and racketeering was not why you
Speaker 1: made this decision. You made this decision against him because
Speaker 1: of his acts of domestic violence.
Speaker 2: It's not like they're gonna be able to prove that.
Speaker 1: If the jury comes back and says, we think you're
Speaker 1: behind needs to go to jail, I mean, what can
Speaker 1: you do.
Speaker 4: You're making a couple You're making me think of a
Speaker 4: couple of things there. The first thing is, I think,
Speaker 4: no matter what happens here, they're going to appeal. So
Speaker 4: they're going to appeal and they're going to argue that
Speaker 4: the case wasn't proven. The defense is just gonna say
Speaker 4: they didn't prove the elements of the case, and they're
Speaker 4: going to try to get information to try to figure
Speaker 4: out what happens here. But more than that, they're going
Speaker 4: to say the elements of the case weren't proven. The
Speaker 4: other thing is you're talking about what if a jury
Speaker 4: looks at this and says, didn't lies to the level
Speaker 4: of rico or sex trafficking, but it's something lesser. Sometimes
Speaker 4: the juries get compt verdicts, they look at the other
Speaker 4: charges and they say, well, I see the obstruction of
Speaker 4: justice or I see elements of the conspiracy charges the
Speaker 4: lesser charges, so let's convict them of that stuff and
Speaker 4: not the bigger stuff that I don't necessarily see, like rico.
Speaker 4: So that is something the events also wants to look
Speaker 4: out for and the prosecution doesn't want to happen. The
Speaker 4: prosecution wants them to see a full enterprise. They want
Speaker 4: to get as many years in prison as they can,
Speaker 4: and when you got an obstruction connection, that's not a
Speaker 4: lot of time. So the jury had a lot of
Speaker 4: ways they can go here, which is why it's so
Speaker 4: important for them to put the puzzle together fully if
Speaker 4: you're the prosecution. But there is always a risk when
Speaker 4: you're trying a case like this that a jury doesn't
Speaker 4: fully see what you're trying to explain, and they either
Speaker 4: compromise or they end up in a mistrial or for
Speaker 4: the prosecution. Worst of all worlds, they say not guilty.
Speaker 2: Ryan.
Speaker 1: Before I let you get on out of here, I
Speaker 1: need to switch subjects and I need your counsel on
Speaker 1: something here. Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University's ability
Speaker 1: to enroll into national students in its escalating battle with
Speaker 1: the Ivy League school saying thousands of current students must
Speaker 1: transfer to other schools or leave the United States of America.
Speaker 1: Just as an aside to our audience before I ask
Speaker 1: you about this, the Department of Homeland Security says Harvard
Speaker 1: has created an unsafe campus environment by allowing quote anti
Speaker 1: American pro terrorists agitators end quote to assault Jewish students
Speaker 1: on campus.
Speaker 2: It also accused Harvard or.
Speaker 1: Coordinated with the Chinese Communist Party, saying it hosted and
Speaker 1: trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group as recently as
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four this morning, just this morning, Harvard challenged
Speaker 1: the decision, calling it unconstitutional retaliation for defying the White
Speaker 1: House's political demands. In a lawsuit filed today in federal court,
Speaker 1: Harvard said the government's actions violates the First Amendment and
Speaker 1: will have an immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and
Speaker 1: more than seven thousand visa holders. And then hours later,
Speaker 1: federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out
Speaker 1: its plan. Your thoughts about this situation and how it
Speaker 1: will ultimately unfold based on your level of expertise, sir.
Speaker 4: Yeah, First of all, Harvard is looking at this like
Speaker 4: a First Amendment issue, and they're seeing this really as
Speaker 4: the government trying to come in and determine what they teach,
Speaker 4: who teaches it, and how they do it, and they're saying.
Speaker 3: That violates their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 4: The government on the other side is saying, hey, you
Speaker 4: are facilitating on campus anti semitism things of that nature,
Speaker 4: and that's why we need to take certain action against you.
Speaker 3: But what this really is is an.
Speaker 4: Ongoing fight between these two sides, and from Harvard's perspective,
Speaker 4: it's the government trying to control how they run their university, which,
Speaker 4: if you're a university, you have to look at that
Speaker 4: and say that cannot happen.
Speaker 3: That's a slippery slope for us.
Speaker 4: This day it's this thing, the next day it's the
Speaker 4: next thing. The third day, they're controlling exactly how we
Speaker 4: run our university and that can't happen. So how this
Speaker 4: plays out, I think right now, as you said, the
Speaker 4: tro it's been blocked, the order has been blocked. But
Speaker 4: this is I think the government in many cases has
Speaker 4: done this recently. The government has been testing the limits
Speaker 4: of the law, testing what they can do to exercise
Speaker 4: control over what they see at certain campuses, over how
Speaker 4: they view those campuses should be run. So I see
Speaker 4: this eventually going to the higher courts, if not the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court, because this has been sort of the pattern
Speaker 4: of the government recently.
Speaker 3: It's been this idea of.
Speaker 4: Hey, if it's not working the way we want it
Speaker 4: to work, or if we see something happening that we
Speaker 4: think is wrong, then we're going to try to put down.
Speaker 3: A real heavy hammer on them. See if there's a pushback,
Speaker 3: and then let it go to the courts and see
Speaker 3: how it plays out. I would not be surprised if
Speaker 3: this ends up in the Supreme Court at the end
Speaker 3: of the day.
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith legal analysts extraordinary for ABC Sports Center, anchor
Speaker 1: for ESPN, and a host of other things. The Brothers gifted.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake about it on it to have them
Speaker 1: on the show as always. Enjoy your weekend, my man.
Speaker 1: We will talk soon. You take care of yourself, all right,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much too, Man, take care