Transcription
[Music] Mark Garriggas and Harvey Leven are back with a new Two Angry Men, answering all your biggest questions from all the biggest headlines from around the world. Is Donald Trump going to be impeached over the Epstein files and all of today's other huge headlines? Their fiery back and forth brings you the answers to all the burning questions you have. Enjoy.
>> What amount of civil cases go to a jury? How did Cardi B manage to get off in her civil case? Can Diddy's reputation be fixed after all this? Mark, are you different inside the court than you are outside with your own family?
>> Welcome to the Two Angry Men podcast. Mark, I had so much fun last week, um, fielding people's questions. Uh, I think we should do it again.
>> I, I agree. And not only did I have fun, but the number of people that I know and actually don't know who, who emailed or texted or had a friend of a friend ask, and they had questions themselves, they actually were lobbying heavy that this become a more regular feature. So.
>> I like it. I mean, sometimes we'll do single topic things, but we can cover a million topics in a short period of time. And we're not going to do just, you know, big stories that are out there, but people may have legal questions.
>> I, I'm all for it. And guess what? We get a third guy into the mix here.
>> Yeah. We get Branson, by the way. Branson, who has, Mark, you didn't even know this, a huge wrestling podcast that he just launched that is just, it is taking the wrestling world by storm. And I really mean, Jelly Roll is saying, "My new favorite podcast. It's amazing."
>> I love it. So, I love it. I'm going to, I'm going to download tonight.
>> It's so good. Okay, Branson's here. He's going to give us the questions. We solicited them. Uh, hit us.
>> Thanks, Harvey. All right. Uh, question one. Help me understand just what the impact of the Epstein files means politically for POTUS. Can and will he be impeached for it? What about others named in the files? Will they be arrested or just publicly humiliated?
>> Okay, I can start that. Mark, I was going to say Harvey was going to jump in. I couldn't even react quick enough.
>> No, no, no. I mean, I'll start it, but you, you, you jump in. Um, look, I know two people who have seen these files from the Justice Department, and we've talked about this on our podcast for months now that Donald Trump's name is in there multiple times, multiple times. But there is nothing that is incendiary with respect to him. That, there's nothing that connects him to any of the untoward conduct that has obviously already surfaced. So as for Trump, um, there, as far as I'm told, there's nothing impeachable in it. The thing that I,
>> And it, by the way, is a practical matter, is what they're asking. And this is not a, "Well, it's legal to this sense." He's never going to get impeached as long as the Republicans are in control of the House. I, I say never say never unless something untoward happens. And to your point, to your point, now that they've got Maxwell under, uh, on tape, so to speak, with Todd Blanch, and now that the so-called victims, complaining witnesses, litigants are banding together and are going to compile their own list. I don't think unless something dramatically happens between now and 2026 or the Democrats take the House, I think it's unlikely he gets impeached. Well, he's not going to get impeached for this. Um, but the other thing is, you know, the crazy thing, um, Donald Trump just railed on, you know, people wanting the Epstein files out, uh, overnight and he put this thing on Truth Social and he's saying, you know, the Democrats are responsible for this and the Democrats are hiding and the Democrats are hiding because their names are in the file and if their names are in the file, it means they did something untoward. Dude, your name is in the file, too, a lot. So, you don't want to make that argument. But,
>> So, there's a video going,
>> There's a video going around. James O'Keefe, the O'Keefe, uh, uh, Media Group, um, OMG, uh, has done it with supposedly somebody who's a DA, DOJ case analyst saying that part of what was happening was they were sanitizing the files. I don't know whether to believe that or not, but it is a very interesting, um, kind of observation that has been filmed and now posted on the internet. I don't know if you've seen it.
>> Yeah. No, I mean, and look, you can't discount that possibility with everything that's going on.
>> Yeah. But I, I tend to agree with you. I've talked to people both in front of the camera, meaning like Durowitz, I've talked to people who are engaged or have been engaged in litigation. I don't know of anybody who has given me any indication that there is anything about Trump untoward. So I, he, I mean, he, I assume that his frustration stems from the fact that this has been ginned up as an issue. Now he's, now he's got his supporters all heated up and the supporters are demanding that things be released. And as we talked about with the grand jury transcripts, which were completely expected that there would be nothing in there because it's nothing more than an agent who's testifying.
>> Grand jury is nothing. It's a civil cases that, correct, where there is, I agree.
>> Yeah. Next.
>> All right. Next question. Uh, why did three separate federal judges appointed by Democrats block releasing the Epstein files?
>> You know, that's, um, I know that, uh, in the judiciary, they hate it. Chief, Chief Justice Roberts always says, you know, we're calling balls and strikes, but I always find it interesting. And by the way, as a lawyer, I always look to see who appointed the federal judge I'm in front of. It's just a, a matter of fact. There's also been Trump-appointed judges who have also ruled against Trump, and there are Democrat-appointed judges who rule against Trump, and vice versa. It's only my experience, at least, it's only in the very politically charged, highly politically charged cases that I think that there is something there that may resonate, and very much outliers. Having said that, the, the ruling against the DOJ for releasing the grand jury transcripts, and it's interesting, this is the question after we just talked about it, that was purely on the basis of, and if you read the opinion, the judge said, "Look, I looked at this." They submitted it to the judge so he could look under seal, meaning go into his chambers, he could read it all. 99.9 whatever he characterized it as, he says, "This is already out in the public sphere." So this was to his, I'm paraphrasing, he said, "It was all theatrics."
>> Yeah. I, I will say that so many of the issues right now are politicized and you know, we're in such an ideological divide that, you know, it's nice to say that federal judges don't have a political point of view, but they do, but they just do.
>> But you, it's interesting to me and I wish I could remember the name, but there is a judge I'm thinking of who's a former prosecutor, Republican appointee, who is now in the crosshairs of the administration. And it's just interesting to me to watch how these, how these things fall out or play out, if you will. We're here in the Northern District in California. Judge Breyer, not the Supreme Court Justice, but his brother, was the district court judge who just ruled yesterday or the day before, as we're filming this on Friday, that the, um, deployment of the military was a violation of the law in Los Angeles. Yeah, in Los Angeles, which is interesting. And obviously, there are those who will say, "Oh, it's a Democratic appointee and therefore it has less legitimacy."
>> You'll get, and you might get a, a very different ruling in another state. You know,
>> Another district. Next.
>> Another from Curt Spirit. Why did Democrats release zero Epstein files in the last four years they were in charge? Zero. That's not a files. UGOT's zip.
>> That's a fair question. I mean, that is a fair question that, um, you know, people were talking about Epstein during the Biden administration and it never came out. So, it really is kind of an interesting situation that you've got two political enemies, um, both in a sense taking the same position on this issue, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Well, one of the things, we talked about this before and I don't want to belabor it, but it's interesting to me in the litigation where, at the, in the Southern District where the judge, same case where the judge ruled 99, whatever percent has already in the public sphere. In that litigation, the Department of Justice back in the original ruling relied on a declaration by Orin Comey. Orin Comey was the prosecutor, well known for daughter of Jim Comey, do was the prosecutor of Maxwell, was the prosecutor of Diddy, she's the one fired by Trump, she's the one who fi, filed the declaration to keep it sealed. And even after she was fired, the DOJ did not, um, as far as I know, invoke the same grounds, but also, um, only wanted or parsed out, if you will, and said, "Just the transcripts, not the DOJ stuff." To which the judge responded, the, and the reason the judge keeps saying, or in this one opinion, that it's theatrics, is that DOJ has more files. They can release it themselves. And to focus on the, uh, grand jury transcripts is, the judge's words, not mine, is basically a slight of hand.
>> All right. Uh, Jack City asks, well, tells talk about the child support racket and its unconstitutional nature.
>> Well, it's not unconstitutional. Um, if there's a racket. Um, to me, um, one of the big issues is that when you can't get spousal support, say because of a prenup, um, what has been happening, especially in these high-profile cases, is the spouse without the money will ask for an exorbitant amount of child support, arguing it was necessary to keep the kids in the lifestyle to which they became accustomed. When it really is just a ruse to get spousal support that they're not entitled to. And we've seen that play out in a number of cases. But we've also seen it play out where judges reject it and they will give child support because, as a matter of fact, you can't limit child support in a prenup. You can only limit spousal support and community property, but you can't limit, um, you can't limit child support. That's the province of a judge. Uh, but judges have rejected these exorbitant claims and they, they pair them down significantly, sometimes less than the amount the other person was willing to settle for.
>> So, one of the interesting things about child support that's always struck me and I'll tell a little bit of a story. You remember Martina Navratilova when she was a high earner and Martina famously, um, was in a relationship and when she separated from her partner, uh, she was heard to complain loudly, or at least be quoted loudly, that her partner wanted not child support, but spousal support. And she was complaining, "I'm the one who's on the court, who's earning the money, who's sweating and doing it, whatever." I have a feeling like in all things, uh, regarding the law, that as women become have more parity in the, um, workplace and are more high earners, and I can think of a couple, most recently I've talked to, that that is going to be paired back because you're finding now that a lot of women are, and you've reported on this, Harvey, notoriously at TMZ, a lot of women are now complaining bitterly about the amounts they've got to pay for the stay-at-home dads who are doing it under the guise of child support.
>> We, well, it's the same principle and we, we actually were talking about that today in our office because Judge Judy was talking about women who need to develop a career so they're not dependent on a husband. And there were a lot of people in the office saying, "Why is she saying women? It goes both ways now." And in some cases, as much, if not more so, with stay-at-home dads. Okay, Nick.
>> From Corey Beck 5322. We rented a house and when the sewer backed up in the garage, our landlord took the cap off the septic tank and let it flow into the driveway. When it rained, it went into Virgin Creek and then into the ocean. There were also dead rats in the walls with blood seeping out from them. Now he won't refund our security deposit. How do we sue him in Fort Bragg, California?
>> Well, you can go into landlord-tenant court, number one, and there's a law in California actually that says if a landlord withheld a security deposit in bad faith, if you can show bad faith, you can get three times the amount that is actually owed. It's called treble damages. But I mean, look, um, landlords have a duty. It's called the duty of habitability. And even if it's not in a lease, it's implied in every landlord-tenant lease in California and most other states. And a, a warranty of habitability means that you are free from, you know, serious health or safety risks that a landlord creates. Um, it has to be serious. Vermin is actually one of the things specifically mentioned. So if you can show that the landlord created a situation where it wasn't habitable, um, you know, you have certain remedies and some of the remedies are withholding rent, but if the place wasn't really habitable so that it could even be rented, that's an issue you raise in landlord-tenant court, which may entitle you to get your security deposit back. And not only that, there's an absolute duty statutorily to give an accounting within a certain number of days in California, 14 days. And so you got to do that. Number two, the only thing I'd add on to Harvey's comment is there are, in cases where you're not limited to landlord-tenant, where you can bring a separate standalone action against the landlord. So keep that in mind and talk with a lawyer.
>> Section 1950 of the Civil Code. I remember that.
>> Wow.
>> How about that? Is that the year we, is that the year you were born?
>> Yes.
>> Just saying.
>> All right. Hratty Owen 8216 asks, "What amount of civil cases go to a jury?"
>> You know, that's interesting. Were they asking that in the context of Cardi B? Because I, the, the Cardi B trial to me was the worst example of just a case that never should have gone to trial. I mean, a judge should have acted and I don't know the particular judge in that case, so I don't want to slam him and I don't know how he got it. A lot of times the trial judge just gets plopped with some case on the eve of trial and that could have been the case there. But, you know, there's a gatekeeping function that judges are supposed to have. And when you've got piece of garbage cases like that that never should have made it to trial, somebody should have kicked that out. And as a practical matter, if you were to take a straight percentage, I would guess that the number of civil cases that go to trial is less than the number of federal criminal cases that go to trial, which is about akin to hitting the lottery.
>> Yeah. I, I most of these settle and that's what I think the woman who sued Cardi B was banking on, which is file a frivolous lawsuit and she'll settle because it becomes a nuisance and it's more expensive to hire a lawyer. And Cardi B said, "Bullshit. I am going for this. I'm going to show people you're not just going to sue me." And she did it and she won. The only thing I'll disagree with you on is, and this is, I think, a problem in the legal system, that if it's a question of fact, then usually judges say, "Okay, well, let a jury decide." And, you know, here this woman is saying, "Cardi hit me. She hurt me." And all of this other stuff, and she wants $24 million. And you know, I think the judge probably said, "Well, that's a question of fact. I don't know. So, let a jury decide." So, it, it was a frivolous case. I'm not sure I would lay it on the judge. I would certainly, well, to me, it was a money grab by that woman, and she lost.
>> Well, and also remember, and this is part of my frustration in the law. Everybody should get a trial if they deserve a trial. However, there should be some kind of a penalty if you lose a frivolous trial like this one, which was as frivolous as you get. The lawyer who brought that, or the, because the litigants are generally just at the, uh, the, they're kind of trailing behind the lawyer. It's the lawyer who's funding this thing. It's the lawyer who's bringing the case. If the lawyer loses, the lawyer should pay. Well, you, not only the lawyer should pay, but the law should be, the right now the law is that you can put in a contract case that the loser pays the other person's attorney's fees. You can do that in a contract case. You cannot do that in a negligence case, a tort case. And that's what's really so terrible is that people can file these frivolous, you know, negligence cases and other tort cases and, you know, slander cases, you know, whatever. And, you know, you end up paying a fortune, you win. But when you end up pay, you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a lawyer and you can't get it back from the losing party. And not, it shouldn't just be the lawyer having a penalty. It should be the client too.
>> Yeah. They, and normally on these cases, I hate to say it, part, part of the, the beauty of the system and one of the great things is if you're legitimately injured or you have a legitimate grievance, the great thing about contingency law is you don't need to go pay a lawyer. The lawyers in it with you as a partner. However, the clients usually do not have the wherewithal to go up against large corporations or people who are tort fees, is the expression. However, when you've got what I consider to be, um, something like this, which was just clearly trying to get Cardi B to pay because she didn't want to, you didn't want to drag her down, uh, for two weeks down to the courthouse here. Um, I think that that's offensive. And the lawyer is the one there used to be, you're old enough to remember, as am I, what champerty and maintenance is. And that this case was the old English, uh, champerty and maintenance where the lawyer is basically trying to shake down the client. The only thing I would say to Cardi B is she came out and she said, "If you sue me, I'm coming after you next time. I'm not going to do it in this case." I think if she had grounds, and to your point, Harvey, if they had run a, a motion for summary judgment or whatever else, they may have some immunities. But if they don't, she probably, Cardi B should give some serious consideration to a malicious prosecution against the lawyer. One point. Can you kind of knock off the, "you're old enough to remember" thing? You, you.
>> Yeah, I know. And then I also used the, "you were born in 1960," that's kind of unfair. I get that in my own. But on the, but by the way, on the bright side, there's a lot of people in the comments who think I look substantially older than you. So, you know, we'll take it.
>> And you do. Go on, Branson.
>> Yeah, I know. But we're, we're brought to you by Grecian Formula. We're brought to you by Just for Men. So, I'll leave it at that.
>> Go ahead.
>> Another, uh, another Cardi B question. Carter C. How did Cardi B manage to get off in her civil case? Did her celebrity status help her?
>> Celebrity status hurt her. She wouldn't have been that, wouldn't have gone to trial if she wasn't a celebrity or rich.
>> Yeah. Or rich. You know, I started a, a show before TMZ called Celebrity Justice where we looked at that, whether celebrities, um, benefit, you know, by being celebrities in the legal system or sometimes does it hurt them. And it's a mixed bag.
>> And it depends. Certainly is, it depends on the image.
>> Harvey, as you know, I've made the argument for years that the problem with celebrity justice, when when I, prosecutors or judges say, "I just want to treat him like anybody else." You never treat them like anybody else. You're always under this microscope. You always get the extra added attention. In a criminal case, God forbid that you get celebrity justice. It's the opposite. And the same goes with these, with in the civil justice system. If you're, to your point, I would agree with you. If you're rich, a target, or a celebrity, you're a magnet for lawsuits.
>> I will say that when I was a young reporter, I covered one of my favorite cases ever. I covered the 9 to 5 case. Dolly Parton was sued for allegedly ripping off the song 9 to 5. And all I'm going to say, first of all, I'm, I'm thrilled Dolly won. But all I'm going to say about that case is I was there and Dolly Parton won that case. As she walked past the jury box up to the stand, walking right past the jury, I said, "There is no way Dolly Parton's going to lose that case." And she won in a nanosecond. Well, do you remember the Kim Basinger case? And I think it propelled, uh, Patty Glazer to, uh, her superstar lawyer status when, uh, Kim Basinger had taken the, uh, stand and they were, many years ago, I think Howard Weitzman was still around and, uh, and they tried that case and I think Patty had famously said something to the effect that Kim Basinger was the, uh, the, the woman in high school who they always envied or something along those lines, ended up winning the case. That sometimes the celebrity will turn against you if you're not likable once you're on.
>> 100%.
>> All right. Crooked County Chronicles asks, "Can you sue a police officer for false arrest and can you hold a prosecutor accountable for suppressing evidence in cases that suit their agenda?"
>> So, this is fascinating because to me, because you can sue an officer for false arrest. They have immunities and the immunities for law enforcement are fairly, uh, robust, but for a prosecutor, it's wild. And there was a case, Harry K. was his dad was a DA in, I believe it was in Louisiana, this case, right? And he had, uh, presided over a prosecution where people were convicted and it was shown that the prosecutors had basically supplied false evidence or, uh, prosecutorial misconduct. Supreme Court reversed that and basically there, with some limited exceptions dealing with investigation, prosecutors get an unbelievably heightened burden or height, that you have to jump over because of their immunities. Prosecutors are virtually untouchable. I remember trying a case here in the, uh, Central District of California against the Glendale PD and the, uh, jurors awarded, uh, millions against the Glendale Police Department and came out and jurors were asking me afterwards, "Why didn't we sue the DAs too?" Because the DAs had, the District Attorney had taken the stand and we said, "Because they had immunities." What, what can you do?
>> Yeah. SASZW3IX asks, "Would there have been a different outcome in Diddy's trial if it had been broadcast live to the public?"
>> Oh. Oh. Well, look, you know, I covered the O.J. Simpson case. And one of the things I saw in that case that I think a lot of people saw, um, it became so performative. And you know, I, I still remember one of the witnesses got up and it was a neighbor and the neighbor was asked, you know, "When did you realize something was amiss in the neighborhood?" And he said, "When I heard the plaintiff whale of a dog."
>> And it was like, who talks that way? And, and, and I remember just, it was, it just hit me like a brick wall. And it was, it was so performative. And it wasn't just performative by the witnesses, by the lawyers, by Judge Ito, by O.J. Simpson with the glove, you know, it was all performative. So, I don't know, Mark, you were there. If it were televised, would the witnesses have acted differently? Would something have changed?
>> This is my takeaway from that and from Peterson. Now, mind you, Diddy was in federal court. So,
>> But if, if there were a camera, if there were cameras, I always say the worst mistake I ever made in Peterson was agreeing with the prosecution who did not want it televised. I thought it would dampen down interest, it had the opposite effect. In Diddy's case, if you talk to anybody, reporter, observer, courtroom observer, who was in the courtroom during that trial, they were not surprised by the verdict at all. They thought based on what they saw, based on what they were reporting, what they saw in real time, that it was the right verdict. The only people who may have been surprised, and, and rightfully so, are the people who got their news secondhand basically because that's anybody who wasn't in the courtroom and they heard all of the kind of craziness in the run-up to the case and they kept waiting, you know, "When is the other shoe going to drop?" During the trial itself. Harvey, I, I will give you kudos. You were never one who said that, um, during the trial because you were talking to participants. If it had been televised in Diddy's case, I firmly believe people would have been outraged that they had gone so over the top. They, being the prosecution.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Stellar Reels Videography asks, "Can Diddy's reputation be fixed after all of this? Will he thrive again?" Harvey, you want to take first whack at that because I've got a lot on, I've got a lot of opinions on that.
>> You know, I have, I changed my opinion about this, you know, with a couple of cases that I covered. Um, one is O.J. Simpson that, you know, even with the obvious that O.J. Simpson killed Ron and Nicole and a, a criminal jury said not guilty, a civil jury said he did it. Um, and most people know he did. Um, he was able to resurrect his life, you know, maybe in more of a circus type way, but he was able to live his life in Las Vegas. And, you know, and then you look at somebody like Michael Vick, and I thought Michael Vick would have been done over and out after he was convicted, you know, when the dog fighting ring and all. And I just thought nobody would tolerate that. And Michael Vick came back and played again. And so I just don't think you can ever count somebody out. And I think part of it has to do with how they conduct themselves. Part of it has to do with whether they can be successful. I mean, Martha Stewart, a lot of people said she's a cooked goose when she goes to prison. In many ways, she's bigger than ever. You know, people like her more than they ever did after she got out. So, I don't think you can say, in fact, I know you can't say that it always, you know, it's always, uh, you know, closed the book on that person. Um, I don't know with Diddy. I think a lot depends on what he does. Um, and, you know, the one thing I will say is it's amazing, amazing how memories can fade.
>> I, I don't disagree with anything there. I will tell you, having known him for a long time and how smart he is and how resilient he is, I would never count him out of anything. I think his biggest hurdle, and he knows this, it's not any surprise or breaking news, is that video from the Intercontinental Hotel.
>> Well, that's a lot. That is a heavy, heavy lift. And why do I say that? Take a look at somebody who was not criminally prosecuted, but has had a, a hard, hard time. and, and, uh, my friend Adam Carolla mentions this all the time, is Michael Richards, Kramer on Seinfeld, and he got kind of the shunned or canceled before anybody knew what cancel culture was, and it's been a, a long road for him to get redemption. And I think Diddy has got to do certain things. Number one, he's got to own, and I would tell him this if we were sitting and I was talking to you right now, he's got to own what he did. He's been, he rolled the dice, uh, in the sense that he had potentially a life sentence. He had potentially everything he's ever earned, his entire net worth on the on the line, and he rolled the dice and he came out and he's going to, he's going to be sentenced in about three weeks. And, you know, everybody's talking somewhere between 24 months up to eight or nine years. And that's, that's quite a large, uh, kind of delta, so to speak, as to where the judge could fall. But if, if he gets through that, the sentencing, and comes out and reinvents kind of where he's at based on, and mind you, I've seen this a zillion times. Prison has a very, uh, you make, you make choices when you're in prison. I'm attuned to this because of the menendez, the, you, you can go right, you can go left, or you can just muddle along. And if you do the right kind of work, heavy work, and the introspection and the work on yourself and the reading, and that's the one thing that I always find is kind of correlative to people who are able to reinvent themselves if they've done the reading and the introspection, they, he can do it. He can overcome it.
>> All right. Uh, this comes from Tony SVCC88. Could Eric and Lyle Menendez still get out before their next parole hearing in three years?
>> They better. Yes. Their next parole hearing, by the way, they're eligible to petition within less than a year under California law if they remain infraction-free. And I have not given up, number one, on clemency and plan on doing something within the next week with the governor. And number two, we're waiting to see what Judge Ryan does on the habeas, which is still alive. And the parole has the ability to be a habeas as well. You could, we can actually file a habeas against all the shenanigans that happened at the parole hearing. So yes, absolutely. And, um, I wouldn't even think that it's going to be a year before we get some action.
>> Final question from Enhanced Creators. Mark, are you different inside the court than you are at home with family?
>> How long has it been since Harvey's been in a courtroom with me? It's been a long time.
>> It has been a long time. But boy, have I got an answer for that.
>> I'm going to let you answer. I'm not going to. I have. I'm the least.
>> I'll tell you. I'll tell you a story. I'll tell you a story.
>> So, um, Mark hates going on vacation. He just does not like vacations. He is as passionate about what he does as anybody I know. He loves practicing law and vacations are just not for him. His wife, who he's been married to a long time, she likes going away and they've kind of struck this deal where she goes away and he works at home and everything works out fine. One day I drove the nine hours to Mark's house and, um, I was supposed to meet him there and of course he was late and, um, and so his wife came home, um, like five or 10 minutes after I got there and she drove up and she said, "My God, I've been gone for a month." And so she said, "Come on in." So, I go in and we're sitting there talking and a while later, Mark walks in and Mark walks in and he sees his dogs and he sees the dogs and he gets on his knees and he starts patting the dogs and talking to the dogs, walks back to his wife and says, "Hey." And walks into another room. And I thought, and I looked at her and I said, "You get a 'hey' after a month? And it's true, and you know it."
>> Well, speaking of dogs, speaking of dogs, guess who wasn't a dog who marked his territory in my yard.
>> I bet I didn't. Not in your yard. In your, in your, well, the front yard.
>> Thank you.
>> Well, I, I swear to God, it was the longest drive I, I ever remember taking. And he tells me to get there at a certain time, and I do, and nobody's home, so I peed in his bushes. [Laughter] And my poor dogs were, have been, have been traumatized ever since. I'll see you next week. Bye, you guys. Thank you. [Music]