Pooh Shiesty's Fiery Attorney Slams Gucci Mane Kidnapping Claims

Remember how we covered the breaking news of rapper Poo Scheisty getting arrested on allegations

that he partook in a kidnapping and robbery of reportedly Gucci main and others at a studio in

Texas? Well, we now have Poo Scheisty's attorney Bradford Cohen right here on Sidebar. He's representing

him in this new criminal case. I want to find out his responses to the government's claims,

the government's purported evidence, and how his client is currently doing. Welcome to Sidebar.

Presented by law and crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, real quick, before we go any further, I have

to tell you guys about this app that I think you're going to love it. It's called Upside. Okay,

Upside gets you cashback extra cashback on everyday purchases like gas, groceries, takeouts,

or here's what you do. You download Upside for free. You claim an offer at one of their 100,000

plus locations. You pay like normal with your card. You verify the purchase and just like that,

money back. So say I need to get gas or I want to take out one night. I'll search for

Upside offers first. And after I spend, money appears in my app that I can transfer right into my

bank account. And by the way, Upside's frequent users, they earn an average of $254 back a year.

So to start getting your cashback, click the link in the description or scan the QR code,

but make sure to use promo code Sidebar because you get an extra $0.25 bonus on every gallon

on your first tank of gas. So if you can check it out. So it was last week that we covered the

breaking news about the arrest of all these people that the feds say were involved in this

alleged robbery and kidnapping of rapper Gucci Mane and others. But now we have the attorney

for one of the suspects, rapper Poo Sheistee. In fact, as the department of justice puts it in

their release statement to give you an idea about what we're talking about here, quote,

nine individuals, including well-known musical artists, were federally charged for kidnapping

and robbing a gunpoint numerous victims at a music studio in Dallas, Texas, announced United

States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Ron and Rae Bull. Eight of the nine were

arrested in Dallas, Texas and Memphis, Tennessee and the charge defendants include LaNtrell Williams,

Jr. AKA Poo Sheistee, LaNtrell Williams, Sr. Rodney Wright, Jr., AKA Big 30, Cudarious Waters,

Terrence Rogers, Damarian Gibson, Demarcus Glover, Corriday Johnson, Daring McDaniel.

Oh, and remember how I said eight out of nine while we have an update, the FBI's Atlanta office

apparently confirmed to CBS News. This is per reporting from the St. Louis American that the

ninth suspect Terrence Rogers was arrested at an Atlanta home by the violent crime squad.

Okay, so I want to go piece by piece on this with Poo Sheistee's attorney, renowned criminal defense

lawyer to the stars, friend of the show Bradford Cohen, Bradford. Always good to see. Thanks for

taking the time. Always good to be here. Always good to be here. Now, first of all, for people

don't know, you previously represented Poo Sheistee and we're going to go through this more specifically,

but just your general thoughts on this case when the news broke.

General thoughts are, you know, I also like Gucci main a lot, the alleged victim in this case.

I mean, I've worked with him a lot in the past. I worked with him on Poo Sheistee's first case.

I think he was the reason why I got involved in the first case. The whole thing is kind of

really ashamed because I think there's a lot that can be done with both Poo and Gucci going

forward. I thought they both were going to really make a lot of money and do really well because

I think that there is just a lot there in terms of talent between the two of them. So I was

disappointed to hear Gucci's side of the story and I wanted to find out more when I first heard

about it. And we're going to go through that. We'll go through the little bit of the prior case

because it affects this one. We'll talk about the nature of the relationship. But first,

just the current status of your client because I understand a judge ruled that he has to stay

detained. He's in custody right now. Is that true? Correct. So what happened was the government

after three or four months of this case and investigation, they never indicted. They actually

filed a complaint, which is quite unusual on a high profile case. Usually on a high profile case,

where you're going to do a press release, put it out there, all this information and all these

different things that are going on. You usually want to have an indictment in hand, but they had a

complaint. A complaint is usually done where they think there's a rush to get it done. You don't see

complaints where it's usually four months of investigation. So that was unusual. And now that the

complaint has been filed and he's being held no bond, now they're now seeking to get an indictment.

Why do you think that is? Was it the idea of they were concerned the suspects would leave or

something we can leak? Why would they rush to do that then? I think it was, I don't know. I think

that it wasn't smart. I just never seen it before. I've never seen in a high profile case getting

a complaint instead of getting an indictment. If I was to guess, I think it was because the individuals

that were involved were not cooperating with giving statements to the FBI. They gave statements

that night to the Dallas Police Department. But since that night, they have not given statements

to the FBI. So if I was to guess, I would say they didn't want to go in front of a grand jury

without any victim statements, current victim statements or current victim contact. And that was

my guess at the time. And since then Gucci came out with a song. So I don't know. Yeah.

That's the kind of stuff cooperating is. I want to ask you that. So I clearly have a lot of

I've asked you before we're going to tell you how is Poo Shrysty doing? How's he doing? He's holding

up. It's like any defendant, right? You know, there's ups and downs in cases. And you know this.

We've been kind of talking about different cases for a very long time. And we know there's going

to be high points in cases, low points in cases. So everyone deals with those things differently.

Poo is he's always have a positive attitude. I have a good conversation with him about the case,

a good conversation about how we move forward from there. So he's staying positive just like any

defendant should. It doesn't do you any good to get depressed or get angry about things. It's like,

you know, you got to stay focused on your case. I tell all my clients that stay focused on the case.

Make sure you're ready for war because that's basically what these cases are and just prepare

yourself for that. And that's what I want to get into. I want to get into the case. I want to

get into the alleged evidence that was put forward by the government and see your response to it.

So according to this app at David, I just want to set the stage here and try to understand

the relationship because according to it, the government, it claims that on January 10, 2026,

the alleged victims who are only identified by initials and include RD, which we have to assume

is Gucci main real name, Roger Davis, that they were allegedly robbed and kidnapped at gunpoint

at a music studio in Dallas, Texas. And there was apparently a scheduled meeting between RD and

Pusheisty, Lentral Williams, Jr. And apparently Pusheisty was reportedly signed to RD's record

label, 10, 17 records. They say this meeting was apparently about a contract dispute

that Williams had wanted out. I throw it to you, Bradford. First, what can you tell us about that?

What can you tell us about the nature of their relationship? You know, I didn't have a lot to do

with like how their relationship was or was not in business. I wasn't his musical lawyer or

entertainment lawyer. I know that they did have a contract together because during his first case,

Gucci was very involved in terms of what's going on. He was concerned for how things were going

in the case and how the result was going to be at the end of the day and what the result was going

to be. So I knew they had a contractual relationship. And I also do a lot of work for artists that are

signed to Atlantic records. And I know that both Poo and Gucci are signed to Atlantic records

ultimately. So how it works is usually an artist is signed to a label and then they create their

own label that the head label actually owns a piece of and then they go out and sign other

individuals. It's kind of like a pyramid except not illegal. But it's kind of like a pyramid

where at the top of the pyramid is the, you know, Atlantic records are Sony and then below that

is usually a really big artist like Gucci or Drake or someone like that. And then that artist

usually gets their own label to sign other artists. And that's kind of the relationship that

they had is my understanding. Is there going to be a denial from your client that there was

even a meeting scheduled for that day? Because according to authorities, they say all these

parties show up to this recording studio, read directly at approximately 343 PM, Williams Jr.,

Williams Sr., Wright, Johnson Waters, Rogers Gibson, Glover, McDaniel entered the east side of

the office building. They say according to this affidavit, there are parents stills from surveillance

footage that allegedly documents this and we'll get into this a little bit more. But the affidavit

also says there are photos of the alleged suspects purportedly leaving the building and getting

into these cars, believed to be connected to them, traveling northbound after this incident.

To me, if they have the footage or the supposed, is it just, I mean, the comings and goings,

it's going to be hard, I imagine, hard to deny that there was some sort of meeting that day,

right at the studio. So it just depends on what the evidence is going to produce. You know,

like a defendant always has the right to remain silent. I always wait to see what the evidence is

before I facilitate or think about a defense or what I have to hold the government to their burden,

right? So the government has the burden to prove the case. I don't have to prove anything.

Right. The government always has that burden. So once we get all of the discovery which we have not

gotten, I've seen some still photos and the still photos aren't great. There's no video from inside

the actual studio itself. There's some cell phone data and things of that nature that puts certain

individuals within a hundred yard or 500 yard radius. I don't know what their label is yet because

again, we didn't get that discovery. But it should put those individuals in the area and then these

two vehicles that leave that area. One of the vehicles is associated with Launt Trell's father

allegedly and one of the other vehicles is associated with some other individuals that they're

making claims against. So I won't know what the specific defense is until we see all the discovery.

Fair. So yeah, sitting here with you, you know, it could be they have a great picture of Pouschis

the walking inside the building and you can clearly see it's him, then it would be silly to say

it's not. But if they don't have that kind of evidence, if they can't produce the kind of

evidence that's needed to carry the burden, then that's something that needs to be explored.

So I don't know yet. Totally fair. So in other words, you're not confirming or denying whether

or not he was at the studio or whether or not there was a contract dispute or what the nature

of that that day was about, right? And it would be irresponsible and stupid of me to say,

hey, listen, we're not going to deny this. Start giving up things that I don't know whether or not

they can prove or not prove. And look, totally fair what you can and cannot say and what you

want to say or not say, totally fair. I'm just going to go through it with you. Before we go any

further, there's no secrets between us. No, no secrets. No secrets. You and I, there's no secrets.

It's like this. It's like this. Which by the way, I just before we go in more back into the

government's claims, you mentioned this alleged diss track, right? So there were reports that Gucci

Maine allegedly recorded this diss track against Pouschis. I believe it's called Crash dummy.

I'm going to read you some of the lyrics. Tell you the truth. We went out like a real crash dummy.

And after all that boy, you still signed to me. I walk in the room. You can feel the pressure

building blank. That me up there whole time. They plied in against me thoughts on that. Clients

thoughts on that. You know, what I was surprised at is what's not in the diss track. And what's not

in the diss track is any mention of a gun, any mention of allegedly a draka, which was used,

which is a shorter version of a long AP 47. No mention of those things. And let me tell you,

there's a lot of words that rhyme with gun and drako because they've been in every and every

rap from here to kingdom come when you have rappers that talk about, you know, these so-called

drill rappers that talk about shootings and things of that nature. So I was surprised that it didn't

have more detail in terms of like guns were used or things of that nature. I never have an opinion

on someone's record or song or diss track because I feel like an artist is going to say what an artist

says. And that's from the their point of view. And it's from what they feel occurred at any type

of situation or something that didn't occur that they feel might sell records. So I don't know.

So for me to say like, oh, I was worried about it, not worried about it. I just don't care. It

shouldn't really come into play. So you don't think it necessarily might be coming into evidence in

any way? No, I don't think the only time it would come into evidence is if Gucci main was to take

the stand and say, I don't recall what happened that night. I was on medication or I was drinking

and I was on medication. I'm not positive how everything went down or something of that nature.

Then the prosecutor might be able to use that as some sort of impeachment. But other than that,

it's not just coming in as evidence. If he doesn't, you know, if he says he shows up and he goes,

yeah, I remember it's kind of a little hazy, but I remember some things then it's not coming in

if he testifies the way the song plays out. Let me go through the main allegations from

this incident. And then we'll get a little bit more into this. So there is allegedly, according to

the government in argument, and they claim it ends up with Williams Jr. again, Poo Scheisty being

accused of taking out a black AK style pistol, pointing it at RD, presumably Gucci main,

demanding he signed the contract release paperwork, RD allegedly complied, signed it.

And then there is the claim that RD was not allowed to leave as he was held at gunpoint. So

there's allegations that right also allegedly recorded RD signing the paperwork and being forced

to say that he released Williams Jr. from the contract. And then afterwards, it's alleged that

Williams Jr. took RD's wedding ring and watch and earrings and cash. It was alleged that other

defense took out guns to and demanded property from other alleged victims. There was an allegation

that McDaniel threatened to shoot BP that MM was choked to the point that he nearly passed out

and embedded in the complaint or what appeared to be photos allegedly showing cuts or abrasions on

MM's neck and wrist. And there's also a claim that his wallet and watches a Louis Vuitton bag,

headphones, they were stolen. And then I'm just going to read this part for beta and then we'll

get into it. Quote, RD was pushed onto the couch in the control room, causing the victims to believe

they were going to be executed. Williams Jr. placed the barrel of a firearm to the back of BP's head

and ordered him and RD to leave the control room and the studio through the west entrance of the

office building, RD then instructed CW and TD to escort them to their vehicle. As the victims left,

MM turned to Williams Jr. and asked him if they were really taking his watches based on later recovered

surveillance video footage of the target suspects left the studio and the office building through the

east entrance at approximately 4.48 pm. So a bunch of questions here Brad, I'll first start with this.

If they're this alleged recording of RD signing the contract against his will, what should we

be thinking about that? So far I haven't seen the recording nor does anyone have a copy of the

recording as of now. I don't know if there ever will be a copy of that recording. There has been no

copy of the alleged contract that has been signed nor has one been provided during the bond hearing

and they have actually said they don't know if one either even exists. They suppose one exists.

That's that part of it. Then the interesting part about hey am I really having my watches stolen?

That's kind of a weird statement to be made between these individuals and then what I think also

is really important is the sloppiness of the complaint. At the beginning of the complaint if you

read it says this robbery occurred at approximately 4.50 pm at this address. Then later on in the

complaint it says they all left at 4.48 pm at this address. So even the sloppiness of the complaint

is quite shocking when it comes to someone who's getting charged with a life felony. That's just one

mistake that was made in that complaint. There's others that were made and contradictions that

happened during that complaint that were very unusual. But there's also another part where they say

that La Trelle Poo held this gun to somebody's head and said all these different things and then

there's another part of the complaint that says actually he told one guy, hey put your gun down.

Don't shoot this guy or something like that. So there's a lot of contradicting statements that

were made within the complaint not to mention how sloppy the complaint was put together. And during

the bond hearing I think very smartly they had the FBI agent that actually wrote that complaint.

She's only been an FBI agent for three years. They had her in the courtroom but they didn't want

to put her on the stand to be cross-examined. They put another FBI agent who was like a 16-year

FBI agent. They put her on the stand to testify as to what the other FBI agent wrote in her complaint.

The whole thing was quite unusual. And like I said, it's weird that they would do this without

an indictment and just a complaint. But I have my suspicions as to why.

Well, this goes back to something else you mentioned. It seems a lot of this is based on the

witness accounts, right? Not of what happened or allegedly happened in that studio. And you mentioned

something earlier I want to explore. You're saying these alleged victims told local law enforcement

what happened or allegedly happened, but they didn't speak with the FBI. So two questions about

that one, based as far as you know, is what's listed in the government's claims? Is that accurate

from the reports that were filed by local PD? And two, why wouldn't they speak to the FBI if that's true?

So the first part of that is I don't know because the reports that I got from that

evening from the Dallas PD are completely redacted, meaning there it looks like, you know,

it's a sea of black that is on these reports. So the reports from that evening don't give me

a lot of detail as to what exactly was said or who said it. That's the first portion. So I

can't tell you whether or not it's accurate to the complaint. I can tell you the complaint

is rather sloppy in terms of what each person said and where things took place.

But putting that aside, that's the first part of that. Why wouldn't they talk to the FBI? It could

be sometimes something happens and you feel some sort of way that night and then time goes by and

you start to consider my options and how this is going to go and that I have to be at kind of the

FBI's back in call, subpoenaed to come to Dallas, Texas, subpoenaed on phone calls and different

memorandums and different things that going forward. And you know, it's quite unusual. The hip-hop

rap world looks at snitching in different ways and sometimes people say everything is snitching.

There's one guy who's on, he's got a podcast. He thinks everything's snitching. You know, if you

plea, it's snitching. If you do this, it's snitching. So people are really divided as to like,

you know, these guys are real gangsters, but now on the other hand, they're snitching and then

other people are saying, well, you know, the guy's a businessman now. He's not a street guy. And,

you know, that's just the way, you know, you should do business a certain way. There's a lot going

on here, a lot of dynamics. So I don't know why they haven't spoken to the FBI in three or four months.

The FBI seems to think it was just a scheduling conflict, which I find extremely hard to believe.

You said that at the bottom, the bond here? Yeah, she said it. Yeah. We just couldn't get together

in the past four months. There's five different witnesses. None of them could even get on zoom.

They couldn't give you anything. Nope. They just were too busy. So like, you know, I just don't buy

that. Now, whether or not going forward, they're going to be cooperating in the level of cooperation

that I don't know. You know what I mean? And I don't depend on that on any case. I assume cases are

going forward based on the evidence that was presented at a bond hearing. And I assume that they're

telling me the truth that, you know, they're going to be cooperating. You know, the FBI says they're

going to be cooperating. So I can't take it as that they're lying to me. I prepare my case

as if they're telling me the truth, whether or not a trial that ends up being the case, it's usually

not. So I want to now go into a specific piece of alleged evidence about your client that was

as part of this filing. And it was reportedly used, you know, to support for the arrest. And so it

says the complaint claims that your client was wearing an ankle monitor because he was serving a

sentence, like you mentioned, the prior case, these federal charges, I believe, drug and weapons

charges. And he was sentenced to home detention. He had to wear an electronic monitoring device.

And they say that authorities were able to allegedly use the location data from that device

to seemingly track his apparent movements near the crime scene. And I believe they say that the

ankle monitor was used to track him and William senior to a staples. And the allegation was there

that they went to a staples early in the day to print off that agreement that print off the

contractual release paperwork that they say they were forcing our data later sign. And the

feds also claim that the surveillance video and the GPS data, they put them there. So talk to me

about the ankle monitor. Sure. First, let me just address the staples thing. Like I don't even

care if they're at staples. They're going to a recording studio. And normally my clients usually

print off the lyrics for different individuals. If you have five individuals that are going to be on

one record and they each have a section or a part, they'll usually print those things off. So I

really didn't care about the staples thing. The electronic monitor, again, people will tell me,

oh, we have this data. This is the data that we have. And then when I get it, it's typically not

what they represent. Now, I don't know. It could be exactly what they represent. And if it is,

then we'll deal with it. Then, you know, then we don't say a certain defense of, oh, well,

he wasn't there or he was in the area or whatever it is. We have to create the defense and create

a way to just make sure that they're held to their burden, the government. So it doesn't matter what

they say. It's matter what they have. So yes, was wearing it that? Was he wearing a monitor? Do you

know? Yes, he was wearing an electronic monitor. And if they have the data and the data is

accurate, then we deal with that. But I don't know if that's the case. You know, I had a murder case

that I got dismissed that was in Tampa where they're like, hey, this phone, it puts him right at

the scene at the time of the shooting. Then I get the data. It puts him within 350 yards of the scene

somewhere near the time of the shooting. So it's like, it's always some little twist on what they

say and what I get. There's usually a difference. Now, I don't know if that's the case here. It

might not be. So I have to, I have to see what the actual evidence is first. And then I'll deal with

it. Let's talk about the vehicle ID and cell phone record evidence. So the affidavit claims

that Wright's father owns a 2020 Dodge charger helicat with Tennessee plates. And authorities

allegedly used license plate readers to track the charger following another car Dodge Ram at 2.18

p.m. on January 10th. Then they claim that the Dodge Ram looks like the one on surveillance video

near the studio near the crime scene later that afternoon. They apparently use the license plate

readers to also link the charger traveling close to a white Buick enclave. And through rental

records, they determined that that enclave was rented by William senior. And the cell phone

records for Williams, Jr., again, your client and others and the telematics location data for the

cars as well as the GPS data from the electronic monitoring device authorities claim they're

tracking them. The journey from Memphis, Tennessee to Dallas, Texas that the electronic monitoring

device allegedly aligns with the records tracking to Winrose Tower where Williams, Jr. was allegedly

residing traveling to the alleged crime scene when they allegedly left the scene going to the

comfort in at one point. And by the way, with the comfort in authorities allegedly have rental

records from the rooms and surveillance footage allegedly showing them at this location and that some

of the defendants were wearing clothes that were very similar to what the suspects were allegedly

wearing at the studio based on the surveillance footage. So I know that's a lot Bradford,

but basically it's digital evidence, right? It's surveillance, it's rental records, it's cars,

GPS, talk to me about that. So long story short is if all of that is true,

the most that that does is put everyone at the scene, right? It still doesn't say if a robbery

occurred, doesn't say that a kidnapping occurred. In fact, the jurisdictional element of this

is really troublesome because they don't put in the dates of that the travel from Tennessee to Dallas.

Now, kidnapping is very specific. You have to travel in order to complete the crime that you

were accused of. These guys were there for a week or a week and a half recording songs and doing

all this stuff. So like the jurisdictional element, they don't even address where Poo actually lives

in Dallas, the alleged victim came to Dallas willingly, which again, that's an element of kidnapping,

that's not there. All these different things about jurisdiction at the bond hearing, they were like,

well, if they use the cell phone to record this signing, then that's the commerce clause. And it

affects interstate commerce. The problem with that is there's specific case law that the cell phone

would have to be used in furtherance of the kidnapping. So filming someone and then sending it

to Bob Smith and saying, hey, if you don't pay me a ransom, here's the video of your guy, that's

in furtherance of the crime. Filming someone allegedly signing a contract is not in furtherance of

the crime. So they're going to have a lot of problem with jurisdiction. I know they're scrambling

to try and make sure to shore that up with jurisdiction. But the basic is they found no gun.

So they can't say whether or not the gun was made in Texas. If the gun was made in Texas,

it doesn't affect interstate commerce. They found no ammo. If the ammo was made in Texas,

doesn't affect interstate commerce. The only phone that was used in any of this was this alleged

recording, which no one has. And they can't say that affected the actual kidnapping. So they have a

problem there. They have a problem going back and forth throughout this case with jurisdiction

in terms of proving that the phone or something in interstate commerce was used in furtherance

of the kidnapping. That's going to be a real problem for them, which they don't address.

And all these complaints, all these indictments, they're very heavy on what they have because

they want to be like, oh, we got them here. We got them here. We got them here. What they don't

have is they have no guns. They have no ammo. They have no contract. They have no video. They

have no video inside the studio. They have no other witnesses besides only the alleged victims.

There were two other witnesses in there. Those witnesses say we didn't hear anything. We didn't

see anything. No one told us anything. One of them is the owner of the studio. One of them I think

is an intern from the studio. And this is in a massive big studio. There's a couple different

recording studios. But these were the only guys recording there. So it wasn't like they were

checking on other studios to see how everyone's doing. There's only one one group there.

So it's unusual that they didn't hear anything or see anything. The whole thing is weird.

And like the fact that M.M. says to, you know, walks towards the door with everyone and says,

hey, are you guys really taking my watches? That doesn't sound like me that someone that was

almost going to get shot in the face then says, hey, by the way, you know, are you really taking

my watches? That sounds crazy to me. So I would counter that as a counter-argument. Yes,

counter it. So the reported injuries on M.M. couple that with the idea of what we mentioned.

If all that digital data is true, it might place them at the location. But this is the part that

we haven't talked about last part. I want to get your point on. Tell me. It's the social media

accounts. So authorities, what they did was they compared the descriptions of, let's say, Williams

Jr. from the accounts of the alleged victims to an Instagram account at Poo Shistie. So allegedly,

there you go, showing a match. This is who we described. This is what it is. But then they end

up doing that for others. So they say, will you see your right waters and how there are these

photos of them together online, how they match allegedly state IDs with the accounts too.

And for the Suspeth Rogers and Glover, they allegedly matched the surveillance footage with

social media posts of them allegedly possessing the things that were reportedly stolen like a Rolex

watch and appendent. They're very, very specific items. So the argument would be a very unlikely

that they would have the exact same thing. And so they're basically the argument is they're

flaunting it after this alleged kidnapping robbery. And also, the authorities looked at

surveillance footage, saw what the suspects were wearing, and matched it to the descriptions of

the clothes, the suspects were wearing on their social media accounts. So it's the social media

activity that authorities are using to tie in the identities of the suspects and what they

allegedly had in their possession after the kidnapping robbery. Sure. So one thing is, and I

thought this was very interesting. It looked like Gucci came out with the exact stuff that was

allegedly stolen saying, like, here's my chain and here's something else. I think that he actually

showed like some jewelry that was allegedly stolen and that it was still in his possession.

That's the first unusual part. The second unusual part of that is the watches and things of that

nature. All the government could say is it looked the same as the one that was taken. This watch looks

the same as the one that was taken. They can't say whether or not it is that watch. And in fact, on one

of them where they said, I think it was like a Rolex with a Jubilee band. I forgot the type of Rolex

that it was, but they can't say that it is that Rolex. And in fact, that individual who had that

watch has a receipt for purchasing that same Rolex. And in the next picture on his Instagram,

it shows the box, the papers, and the receipt for the purchase of that Rolex. So there's a lot of

things there that I think might be unusual. It doesn't have every single thing that was taken.

I think there was a Rolex and some jewelry that was displayed in some Instagram pictures.

And again, those are on Instagram pictures from Pouschiszi. Those are Instagram pictures from

other individuals that were allegedly involved. Well, let me tell you something. First of all,

thank you so much for coming on. Thank you for being a sport to break down the evidence with me.

You are an incredible, incredible lawyer. I just have to tell you. And I really appreciate you

taking the time to break this down with me. I really thought it was a fascinating discussion.

And we'll see. I mean, again, they are all innocent until proven guilty. This is the government's

version of events. This is the government's evidence. You're 100% right. They still have to

meet their burden. We're in the beginning stages of this. And we will say, but listen, Bradford,

you're the best. You're such a gem. Thank you so much for coming on to to really address all

this. I appreciate it. Thanks, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple

Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. You can also check us out on NBC's

Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my news nation show, Jesse Weber Live,

Monday through Friday, 11 PM Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.